FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Catholics and homosexuality
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Quote:Of course I'm on your side. I feel badly I wasn't clear to some.

I know, I was just posting something silly. 
(03-07-2013, 07:10 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]But I know several posters on CAF and possibly here that would disagree with the former part saying SSA itself isn't a problem, it doesn't become a problem unless you act on it. I think on the other hand, SSA is THE problem that leads to the latter how else does someone become homosexual without the SSA first.

You probably have to use more precise language.  You say that SSA is a problem, but I think we can do better than that.  Let me start off by saying that I agree with pretty much everything Burdensome1 has posted so far, but I really can't tell if you and I are on the same page.

SSAs are obviously disordered and against nature.  The way I see it, a person who develops this disordered appetite either has to exert his will against it or find out why it developed in the first place and fix it (i.e. reparative therapy - although not foolproof, there have been lots of successful cases).  We know this is a problem of concupiscence.  SSA would not have existed before the Fall.

But the Church doesn't say that the mere existence of a disordered appetite is sinful in itself.  The alcoholic's craving for booze isn't sinful if he overcomes it.  The teenage guy's urge to commit self-abuse (which is also disordered and against nature, but on a different level) isn't sinful if he resists it and turns to prayer.  Instead, the person who resists any sort of temptation is building virtue.  I don't see why this couldn't be the case with someone who resists his SSA.

But I also think Mikemac is right in that this is one appetite that is probably best left as an internal struggle or brought up to one's confessor.  I would also hope that anyone with SSA is doing everything they can to reduce/eliminate these attractions.  But airing these thoughts to people with the same disordered appetites?  Holding hands?  Going to parades?  No, those sound like they should all be out of the question.
Pheo, the terminology I think you are looking for is that, unlike Martin Luther, Catholics do not believe that concupiscence is sin.  We think that sin must engage the will. 
(03-07-2013, 07:51 PM)Burdensome1 Wrote: [ -> ]Pheo, the terminology I think you are looking for is that, unlike Martin Luther, Catholics do not believe that concupiscence is sin.  We think that sin must engage the will. 

Yeah, that's probably a good tl;dr version. :LOL:
(03-07-2013, 07:51 PM)Burdensome1 Wrote: [ -> ]Pheo, the terminology I think you are looking for is that, unlike Martin Luther, Catholics do not believe that concupiscence is sin.  We think that sin must engage the will. 

Ok so would the will be engaged if a SSA person is attracted to someone (finds them physically/sexually attractive) and thinks about sexual things about that person? I would say yes. But what about a gay guy that says "oh john you look hot" or even thinks it is that consupiscence? Or does that lack the will to sin?

What about a married man that looks at another woman and thinks "you're hot" or an adult and a little boy/girl? My question is I guess when does it become sin, at what point of the thought does it become wrong? At what point does it become sinful desires/thoughts?

(03-07-2013, 08:03 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-07-2013, 07:51 PM)Burdensome1 Wrote: [ -> ]Pheo, the terminology I think you are looking for is that, unlike Martin Luther, Catholics do not believe that concupiscence is sin.  We think that sin must engage the will. 

Ok so would the will be engaged if a SSA person is attracted to someone (finds them physically/sexually attractive) and thinks about sexual things about that person? I would say yes. But what about a gay guy that says "oh john you look hot" or even thinks it is that consupiscence? Or does that lack the will to sin?

Anyone can have any number of types of temptations and sinful thoughts, but they only become sinful when they're consented to.  If we do consent, they're venial sins but they don't strictly have to be confessed (although confession of venial sins is recommended). 
So it's not sinful for an adult man to look at a child and think "your hot" just as a split second thought but if he thinks beyond that of doing things to the child that is sinful?-even venial sin?

I guess I just got some wrong ideas because to me if a man thinks that about a child even if it lasts a split second and isn't thought about again that's sinful and to think that about a child is beyond venial sin to me...but that's just me I guess.
I'm no great Thomist, but here's a relevant passage from the Summa:

"I answer that, Consent is the application of the appetitive movement to something that is already in the power of him who causes the application. Now the order of action is this: First there is the apprehension of the end; then the desire of the end; then the counsel about the means; then the desire of the means." (link)

So St Thomas describes four components of consent in his discussion of the will.  The "end" in most of the examples you gave is impurity.  Apprehension and desire of this end can happen almost instantaneously (and even involuntarily) so I don't think we can say sin lies in those aspects of the thoughts.  I believe sin occurs when we start to go further and think about how we would bring about the end and start to desire it.
(03-07-2013, 07:41 PM)Burdensome1 Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote: Having a group meet in a Church basement isn't "mixing the practice of the Catholic religion with" psychology anyway.

Yes it is.  It is a group support session on Church property conducted with the blessing of the Pastor and (normally) the Bishop.  Parse all you want, it's a Church function.  

Quote: The liturgy is the liturgy, catechism class is catechism class, and the occasional bingo or poker game or group meeting in the church basement is not the Catholic religion. Catholic bereavement groups, for example, aren't typically considered "modernist" or a mixing of "the Catholic religion with some modernist psychology.

Bereaved Catholics are not in danger of committing characteristic sins with other bereaved Catholics.  Bingo players don't tend to need other bingo players to conduct disordered sexual trysts.  Purpose, Vox, purpose.  What is the purpose of these gatherings?  Innocuous socializing or legitimate Catholic social functions.  Bringing all the homosexuals together isn't  a legitimate Catholic function because they are more safe when separated from the primary temptation.  If you put them in a position of temptation, guess what - not a Catholic purpose.  

I've agreed with a good portion of things that Burdensome has said in the thread. He's brusque but he's speaking truth and truth isn't very palatable. For too long Christians and Catholics have been Polyannas playing the "glad game."

I think these support groups for various problems have their place, more of a product of the times. But they wouldn't be needed to begin with if the Church properly tended its flock.
(03-07-2013, 07:19 PM)Ursus Wrote: [ -> ]Now another basic question. Why is social culture and worse, Christianity allowing for people to live a life of sin? why would we allow or even encourage a person to allowed to be defined as a homosexual and continue to live a life full of that sin?

Secular society even casts people as a monster, unChristian or a hateful person to call homosexuality a sin or a bad thing. It's as though we are forced to accept it or adopt it: It's a "right" or fundamental of human life and behavior. Dare anyone say a bad word about it. But it isn't wrong for us to say theft or murder is a bad thing.

I recently saw a meme on social media showing Christ speaking. The blurb basically said He never condemned it and even accepts it. additionally the idea was WE are the sinners for condemning it. And nothing specifically from the bible says it's wrong.

Now that we have to defend the literal word of God to fellow Christians and Catholics. I know they're taking an eisegesis Bible interpretation. But where are the best parts of the Bible to explain they're in error and Homosexuality IS a sin against Christ?

On Homosexuality;

In Genesis 19 Lot was willing to give his two daughters to the men of Sodom so they wouldn't abuse the two angels.
Genesis 19:7-8 "Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil. [8] I have two daughters who as yet have not known man: I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof."

There couldn't be 10 good men found in Sodom and Gomorrah so God destroyed them.

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 "If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them."

Romans 1: 26-27 "For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error."

1 Corinthians 6:10 "Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:10 "For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,"

There are other verses that imply it as well.

--------------

On Thought;

Philippians 4:8 "For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, whatsoever lovely, whatsoever of good fame, if there be any virtue, if any praise of discipline, think on these things."
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37