Pope says "homosexuality incompatible with priesthood'
#11
There is a huge difference between feeling attraction and lusting.  It's true that experiencing an attraction can lead to lust, but it doesn't necessarily do so.  Entertaining attraction, and allowing your thoughts to develop into lustful fantasies is sinful irregardless of whether the fantasies are homoerotic or hetero-erotic.
Reply
#12
(12-03-2010, 11:06 AM)miss_fluffy Wrote: There is a huge difference between feeling attraction and lusting.  It's true that experiencing an attraction can lead to lust, but it doesn't necessarily do so.  Entertaining attraction, and allowing your thoughts to develop into lustful fantasies is sinful irregardless of whether the fantasies are homoerotic or hetero-erotic.

You are assuming this "attraction" is natural or a disordered natural attraction. Is bestiality also a result of a natural attraction?
Reply
#13
(12-03-2010, 12:36 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(12-03-2010, 11:06 AM)miss_fluffy Wrote: There is a huge difference between feeling attraction and lusting.  It's true that experiencing an attraction can lead to lust, but it doesn't necessarily do so.  Entertaining attraction, and allowing your thoughts to develop into lustful fantasies is sinful irregardless of whether the fantasies are homoerotic or hetero-erotic.

You are assuming this "attraction" is natural or a disordered natural attraction. Is bestiality also a result of a natural attraction?

No.  I'm stating that lusting in a heterosexual sense is mortally sinful as well.  We can certainly classify sins greater or lesser, but mortal sin is mortal sin.  Don't tell me what I'm assuming.  You are the one that keeps interjecting with your natural vs. unnatural argument even when it's completely irrelevant to the current context.  I happen to agree with you.  Things like homosexuality and yes, bestiality are against the natural order of things.

I disagree with your tactics in these debates.  Those individuals who have attached their identity to the term homosexuality, often experience their identity as a natural phenomenon.  They don't understand the terms natural, and unnatural, in the same way that Church catechisms use those words.  They suffer from complex emotional, social, and intellectual malformations that are difficult for anyone to grasp, including themselves, and including those who study human psychology as a science.  Your blunt, judgemental statements regarding homosexuality fail to explain anything relevant for someone who identifies with homosexuality.  The only persons who will be led to agree with you, are those who already agree with you.  If you are going to engage the opposition, you must humble yourself before them, and learn how they understand language.  Or you can just continue to show off how smart you are, and never win anyone over.
Reply
#14
(12-03-2010, 01:04 PM)miss_fluffy Wrote:
(12-03-2010, 12:36 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(12-03-2010, 11:06 AM)miss_fluffy Wrote: There is a huge difference between feeling attraction and lusting.  It's true that experiencing an attraction can lead to lust, but it doesn't necessarily do so.  Entertaining attraction, and allowing your thoughts to develop into lustful fantasies is sinful irregardless of whether the fantasies are homoerotic or hetero-erotic.

You are assuming this "attraction" is natural or a disordered natural attraction. Is bestiality also a result of a natural attraction?

No.  I'm stating that lusting in a heterosexual sense is mortally sinful as well.  We can certainly classify sins greater or lesser, but mortal sin is mortal sin.  Don't tell me what I'm assuming.  You are the one that keeps interjecting with your natural vs. unnatural argument even when it's completely irrelevant to the current context.  I happen to agree with you.  Things like homosexuality and yes, bestiality are against the natural order of things.

I disagree with your tactics in these debates.  Those individuals who have attached their identity to the term homosexuality, often experience their identity as a natural phenomenon.  They don't understand the terms natural, and unnatural, in the same way that Church catechisms use those words.  They suffer from complex emotional, social, and intellectual malformations that are difficult for anyone to grasp, including themselves, and including those who study human psychology as a science.  Your blunt, judgemental statements regarding homosexuality fail to explain anything relevant for someone who identifies with homosexuality.  The only persons who will be led to agree with you, are those who already agree with you.  If you are going to engage the opposition, you must humble yourself before them, and learn how they understand language.  Or you can just continue to show off how smart you are, and never win anyone over.

The fact that somebody has deceived themselves into thinking they have a natural inclination to homosexual behavior does not make it so. A false natural inclination is not a natural inclination. Nowhere have I said I was on a mission to explain anything to a person who styles himself a homosexual. I am more concerned with a Catholic prelate failing to clearly present Catholic dogma.

So "de-fluff" all you want, Miss Fluffy.
Reply
#15
(12-03-2010, 01:20 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: The fact that somebody has deceived themselves into thinking they have a natural inclination to homosexual behavior does not make it so. A false natural inclination is not a natural inclination. Nowhere have I said I was on a mission to explain anything to a person who styles himself a homosexual. I am more concerned with a Catholic prelate failing to clearly present Catholic dogma.

Ah, I understand where you're coming from better now.  Thank you for clarifying.
Reply
#16
(12-03-2010, 01:26 PM)miss_fluffy Wrote:
(12-03-2010, 01:20 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: The fact that somebody has deceived themselves into thinking they have a natural inclination to homosexual behavior does not make it so. A false natural inclination is not a natural inclination. Nowhere have I said I was on a mission to explain anything to a person who styles himself a homosexual. I am more concerned with a Catholic prelate failing to clearly present Catholic dogma.

Ah, I understand where you're coming from better now.  Thank you for clarifying.

You're quite welcome.
Reply
#17
(12-02-2010, 08:19 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(12-01-2010, 06:01 PM)Nic Wrote: That's the problem - we have millions of "Catholics" who think like you!  But the real problem is the spirit of Vatican II - and Vatican II itself, for it is the great root cause of this crisis.  This free-thinking, rationalistic hippy-Catholicism that thinks its O.K for homos to be priests as long as they don't go and engage in gay sex is ridiculous.  What about what Scripture and Tradition state on the very FACT that homosexuality is a grave sin - not just the act, but the disordered state of lusting for one of the same sex, which is against the Natural Law!?  O, that's right, according to you and the millions of "Catholics" like you, the Church began in 1965 with the close of Vatican II.  That's when you got your new doctrines and your new Protestant worship service, thus the True Religion was infiltrated in her human element (the official structure of the Church) with a false religion that worships man over God - and popes since Paul VI have presided over both of these religions simultaneously - until we got a mix of them both with a bastardized "neo-Catholicism."  What we need is for the false religion to be separated from the true religion - therefore ending the confusion because everyone claiming "Catholicism" would then be forced to pick a side.

Well, your emotional rant has demonstrated that you don't understand homosexuality.

It makes no sense to state "homosexuality is a grave sin" - and, of course, the Church has never taught such a thing.  All homosexual acts are gravely sinful, and, as always, intentionally dwelling on impure thoughts (which would include any homosexual acts) is also sinful.

So, these *acts* are sinful, but the state of experiencing homosexual attraction couldn't possibly be sinful since it is not an act of the will.

The reason that men with homosexual inclinations are barred from the priesthood is practical: it's just a bad idea to have such men as priests.  Because they're around men all the time in seminary.  And because they're around young men later - and men with homosexual inclination are far more likely to abuse minors then heterosexuals.  While Totterman is off-base in suggesting that men suffering from same-sex attraction should not be barred from the priesthood, calling him not Catholic is obviously unwarranted, as are all your totally unfounded assumptions about him.

The way you described it, even having homosexual attraction is an act of the will and thus sinful, which is something that anyone who knows anything about the subject knows isn't true.

Until I met some of the "trads" here I had never come across people with such a glaring misunderstanding of the nature of homosexual attraction (and what the Church teaches about it).

1 Corinthians 6:9-11, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

Proverbs 15:26
Evil thoughts are an abomination to the Lord

St. Matthew 15:19 
For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies.

St. Mark 7:21 
For from within out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

Reply
#18
(12-02-2010, 12:27 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
quotidianum Wrote:And I would like to remind the second poster that "lusting after" even some one of the OPPOSITE sex is a grave sin, as well.

A disordered natural attraction is not comparable to an unnatural one. I think you are implying that homosexuality is natural for some people, which is wrong.

I think that you meant to say  that "an ordered natural attraction (meaning heterosexuality) is not comparable to an unnatural one (meaning homosexuality)," meaning that you are saying that heterosexual lusting is not comparable to homosexual lusting.  Please correct me if this not accurate, but your sentence seems to have contained that typo.

In response: No, I'm not implying anything.  I'm not good that implying, anyway.  I'm saying that lusting is a problem and a grave sin, whether it is directed at the same sex or the opposite sex, and I am pointing out that lusting after people is a grave sin that is bad in itself, but even more so is the gateway to many, many more grave sins, including homosexuality.  As far as this goes, we know through testimony and empirical evidence (and I know by having seen it) that lusting after the same sex can very quickly lead to participation in pornography (especially today with the internet), which then can very quickly can lead to participation in homosexual pornography, even in people who are "heterosexual."  I have seen this happen many, many times.  I have seen people who are not homosexual slowly find themselves involved in homosexual lusting after having been introduced to it through pornography, and the gateway to pornography itself was their original heterosexual lusting. 

I don't know what causes homosexuality any more than I know what causes schizophrenia, but I know that if people dance with devils, they are fixin' to get burned.  Many people who are now under various (medically-termed) mental illnesses might actually be possessed, and we know this also from Scripture.  I personally think that there are many demons waiting the corners to leap onto people who give them half the chance, and one of the absolute easiest and most available springboards for those demons is when people start dappling with lust and pornography.  Homosexuality is a very complex disorder which many facets.  I certainly recognize that many people get into homosexual or "bi-sexual" behaviour through what the poster to whom I was responding apparently forgot to mention---that is, through lusting after the opposite sex, too.  The problem is the lusting, and this is what I am reiterating.

I don't buy the "lesser evil" idea: these are grave sins, and I'm not sympathetic to the idea that a man lusting after a woman is 'less of a mortal sin' than a man lusting after a man.  They are both mortal sins that tear people from the embrace of God and that will send them both to hell.  There can be no encouragement of either.  And again, in my personal experience, there are a lot of people that view homosexuals as very, very different that themselves (as heterosexuals).  Yet, I have seen heterosexuals dive right into homosexual behaviour after having had a taste through---guess what?---their heterosexual lusting.  It is actually ironic when I say this to some traditionalists, because they will say, "Oh, no, I'm straight, and that could never happen to me!"  Yet, simultaneously, they will say that "there is absolutely no way that God made homosexuals, and they must have become that way somehow, because God does not make unnatural disorders like homosexuality and then burden His people with feelings that are instrinsically evil."  Of course, I agree with this---and therefore, de facto, people must realize that something is happening to these people to make them walk into the realm of homosexuality, and, to repeat myself, I am saying that at least one cause of this is lusting in the first place.  (BTW, I single out traditionalists because, unfortunately, many mainstream Catholics seem to have taken up the idea that homosexuality is, in fact, a "natural" thing, so talking to them about this is usually a fruitless endeavour.) 

All the sins of flesh share this trait, it seems to me: something "natural", like the sexual urge, is removed from its proper context and metamorphosed into something else.  Don't drink alcohol every night, and you won't become an alcoholic (disorder).  Don't lust, and you won't be in danger of falling into homosexuality (disorder), or infidelity  That is my point.
Reply
#19
I think homosexuality in most cases is a cerebral problem. I see it as being born an hermaphrodite, but not on your genitals, on your brain. People who have characteristics (in the way their brain works) that belong to the opposite sex.

In a way, the sexual aspects of the issue are the less interesting ones. This would be the case of the typical effeminate sissy homosexuals who prefered to play with dolls when he was a little boy and never felt attracted to women while growing up.

I see it as an inborn attraction to unnatural abominable behaviour. And that fact that it may be caused by biology does not mean it is good or acceptable, being born blind is "natural" but not good, the same about being born without hands, with a terminal disease or an hermaphrodite.

Homosexuality can also be a learned behaviour, like lots of men who learn to become homosexuals in Prison, or among ancient Greeks who engaged in pederasty with young teenagers.

If only because they feel those temptations, homosexuals are evil, even if they remain virgins and chaste and try to not indulge with their mind in their sick fantasies, then we have nothing to say to them, they might as well have fun while they are alive if they are burning in hell nevertheless.

Reply
#20
(12-03-2010, 07:00 PM)justlurking Wrote: I think homosexuality in most cases is a cerebral problem. I see it as being born an hermaphrodite, but not on your genitals, on your brain. People who have characteristics (in the way their brain works) that belong to the opposite sex.

In a way, the sexual aspects of the issue are the less interesting ones. This would be the case of the typical effeminate sissy homosexuals who prefered to play with dolls when he was a little boy and never felt attracted to women while growing up.

I see it as an inborn attraction to unnatural abominable behaviour. And that fact that it may be caused by biology does not mean it is good or acceptable, being born blind is "natural" but not good, the same about being born without hands, with a terminal disease or an hermaphrodite.

Homosexuality can also be a learned behaviour, like lots of men who learn to become homosexuals in Prison, or among ancient Greeks who engaged in pederasty with young teenagers.

If only because they feel those temptations, homosexuals are evil, even if they remain virgins and chaste and try to not indulge with their mind in their sick fantasies, then we have nothing to say to them, they might as well have fun while they are alive if they are burning in hell nevertheless.

The most powerful evidence suggest the orientation's causes are mostly environmental.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)