Since We've Been Talking About Lgbtq Stuff A Lot Lately...

[Little Flower]

To be fair, that's quite true on both sides of the table. There are plenty here who relate gays to child rapists and won't choose to say it any other way. We might all have some learning to do.

 

whoa... I was comparing the attraction for other people of the same sex (disordered) to the attraction to children (disordered). Not the people. And gay people who don't act on their attractions are certainly not comparable to child rapists. You are twisting my words.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Srsly? :wall:

It was said at least twice, so it was probably a pretty intentional connection. :rolleyes:

 

Perhaps it was a misunderstanding on my part. I really like this smiley, btw.   :wall:

 

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

Edited May 24, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Little Flower]

I won't try to understand why some here are so hateful, willfully ignorant, and conceited. I hope that whatever pains you -- whatever it is you are trying to make right with your attitudes -- heals fully and completely by the grace of God who created you. I pray one day your hearts and minds will be open in such a manner that you can love as Christ loves; that you will know and believe and act in a manner according to such knowledge and belief that people who are homosexual / gay / SSA do not choose to be, cannot escape it, and need not deny it. I pray that you will have a softening of heart, that you will understand what pain and hate you spread when you choose willful ignorance over imperfect understanding.

By the grace of God I hope none of you has to experience anything close to being homosexual. But if, by chance you do, I hope you receive love and compassion you refuse to give. Maybe then you will understand that although it not be defining in the way of good vs evil, holy vs unholy, faithful vs not, it is a unique, nuanced burden that no one inexperienced in it can understand. I hope that the experience will open your eyes to your bigotry and hate, and that you will choose Love instead.

 

I think a lot of people here might agree that that is the attitude you have been portraying. You have been rather less than charitable to a lot of people in this thread. It doesn't help to convert people to your point of view when you come across like that.

 

I don't think anyone here is bigoted or hating on gays. I do think that a lot of people feel strongly about the sin of gay sex, but not hating on gays personally! I think you are confusing hatred for the sin with hatred for the sinner. And I doubt any of us think that it is a sin simply to have same sex attractions.

 

The act is against nature, against the Natural Law, there's no need for official statements directly condemning the practice. The anus is not the natural vas for the male sexual organ, nor was it created for intercourse with the male organ, it was made for removing waste or defecating. A man and wife cannot break the unitive significance nor the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act. The act of sodomy would be either a break in the unitive significance or the procreative significance of the marriage act.

As for official and authoritative statements...
 
 
This is the source for all quotes below: http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marital-foreplay.htm
 

Thanks this is good! You phrased that all really well :)

[CatholicsAreKewl]

The anus is not the natural vas for the male sexual organ, nor was it created for intercourse with the male organ, it was made for removing waste or defecating. 

Really? Lol, what's ur take on the sinfulness of a prostate massage? This isn't exclusively a homosexual act. 

 

Going by this logic, the hand also wasn't made for sexual stimulation... but that doesn't mean it can't be used. 

Edited May 24, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Era Might]

What about ear nibbling? Is that acceptable?

[Aloysius]

The Church's Tradition describes sodomitic acts, whether perfect or imperfect, as sins that cry to heaven for vengeance, because such acts are a direct attack upon God, the author of creation. Moreover, the Biblical and Apostolical Tradition does not say that sodomitic acts are less graves when a person consents to them. Consenting to sin does not excuse the behavior; instead, it increases the culpability for the sin committed.

Homosexual sex is gravely sinful whether it's consensual or not, absolutely, but rape/forced sodomy is definitely a worse sin than consensual homosexual sex.  some mortal sins are worse than others, yes, they are all equally capable of destroying grace and sending you to hell, but that doesn't mean we can't evaluate the different degrees of evil... it seems pretty self evident to me that rape/forced sodomy is much more evil than consensual homosexual sex,

 

I suppose it'd be interesting to go through tradition to see exactly how the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance are described, the number 4 and the listing of them I suspect is going to be Western/Roman, but I don't know quite where the idea of that number came from except that it's basically inspired by the scriptures descriptions of Sodom and Gomorrah, Cain and Abel, and Israel's slavery in Egypt... but all the other sins described as crying to heaven for vengeance are referring to the need for God's wrath to come down from heaven to earth to correct an injustice.  it seems totally crazy to describe homosexual sex as crying to heaven for vengeance that way, I'd need much more convincing of why exactly that is?  why would homosexual sex call to heaven for vengeance for being an attack on God, but other sins are not?  for example: not honoring the sabbath or using the Lord's name in vain are grave sins that are much more clearly seen for their motives as identifiable attacks on God, but they don't "call to heaven for vengeance". not all grave mortal sins are described as calling to heaven for vengeance, and it seems to me the only common thread behind labeling a sin something that calls to heaven for vengeance is when the sin is such a monstrously grave injustice on earth.  to me, that easily describes willful murder, defrauding the poor, depriving laborers of their wages, and forced sodomy.  it doesn't really describe consensual homosexual sex, the idea that consensual homosexual sex would cry to heaven for vengeance on earth quite simply defies logic. 

Edited May 24, 2013 by Aloysius

[Little Flower]

Really? Lol, what's ur take on the sinfulness of a prostate massage? This isn't exclusively a homosexual act. 

 

Going by this logic, the hand also wasn't made for sexual stimulation... but that doesn't mean it can't be used. 

 

I might be totally wrong here, but I think you misunderstood what he meant. What I understood him to be saying was that it is wrong whether it is a homo or heterosexual act.

 

Of course I might be misunderstanding everyone... :blush:

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

I'm confused as to how this thread got hijacked to the topic of homosexual sex........

[HisChildForever]

I'm confused as to how this thread got hijacked to the topic of homosexual sex........

 

Phatmass is all about the gay sex these days. There's like a zillion topics on it.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I'm confused as to how this thread got hijacked to the topic of homosexual sex........

 

Hey, I'm the one saying it's not exclusively homosexual! But for real, does no one want to humor my question? Is prostate stimulation sinful? I really don't want to start a full topic about this...

Edited May 25, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[HisChildForever]

Hey, I'm the one saying it's not exclusively homosexual! But for real, does no one want to humor my question? Is prostate stimulation sinful? I really don't want to start a full topic about this...

 

Do you mean for a medical exam or a married couple in the bedroom?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Do you mean for a medical exam or a married couple in the bedroom?

 

Not a medical exam. Well, unless the couple is really creative... 

[Apotheoun]

Homosexual sex is gravely sinful whether it's consensual or not, absolutely, but rape/forced sodomy is definitely a worse sin than consensual homosexual sex.  some mortal sins are worse than others, yes, they are all equally capable of destroying grace and sending you to hell, but that doesn't mean we can't evaluate the different degrees of evil... it seems pretty self evident to me that rape/forced sodomy is much more evil than consensual homosexual sex,

 

I suppose it'd be interesting to go through tradition to see exactly how the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance are described, the number 4 and the listing of them I suspect is going to be Western/Roman, but I don't know quite where the idea of that number came from except that it's basically inspired by the scriptures descriptions of Sodom and Gomorrah, Cain and Abel, and Israel's slavery in Egypt... but all the other sins described as crying to heaven for vengeance are referring to the need for God's wrath to come down from heaven to earth to correct an injustice.  it seems totally crazy to describe homosexual sex as crying to heaven for vengeance that way, I'd need much more convincing of why exactly that is?  why would homosexual sex call to heaven for vengeance for being an attack on God, but other sins are not?  for example: not honoring the sabbath or using the Lord's name in vain are grave sins that are much more clearly seen for their motives as identifiable attacks on God, but they don't "call to heaven for vengeance". not all grave mortal sins are described as calling to heaven for vengeance, and it seems to me the only common thread behind labeling a sin something that calls to heaven for vengeance is when the sin is such a monstrously grave injustice on earth.  to me, that easily describes willful murder, defrauding the poor, depriving laborers of their wages, and forced sodomy.  it doesn't really describe consensual homosexual sex, the idea that consensual homosexual sex would cry to heaven for vengeance on earth quite simply defies logic. 

Al, your interpretation of the text is not traditional, and it is homosexual sex (i.e., perfect sodomy) that is in itself - according to Church Tradition - a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. Now if you believe your novel interpretation is supported in the writings of the Church Fathers, then by all means post the supporting information. Sodomy - in Catholic and Orthodox tradition - is gravely sinful, and is described as a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance because it is contrary to nature. Consent does not alter that fact (i.e., the unnatural aspect of the act), and as I said above it is precisely because the act of sodomy (and in particular sodomia perfecta) is contrary to nature that it is held by the Holy Fathers to be an attack against God.  

 

Personally I do not know why you are so opposed to the Church's Tradition no this matter. Perhaps you have bought into the modernist attempts to re-interpret the biblical pericope on Sodom and Gomorrah. Whether that is the case of not, it matters very little that it may seem "totally crazy" to you that homosexual sex is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance, but for the Church - i.e., for the Holy Fathers and the later Western Scholastic saints - it is clearly just that, a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. You may wish to ignore the Apostolic and Patristic Tradition, but I will never be able to go along with you in that modernist approach.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Postscript: I have never seen the act of sodomy - as a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance - described in any Church prayer book, or in any theological manual, or in the writings of the Church Fathers as "forced sodomy," but simply as sodomy. Consent or th lack thereof has never had an impact on the Church's teaching that sodomy - as an act that is contrary to nature - is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. In fact, it is precisely because sodomy is an act that is opposed to nature that makes it an attack upon the Creator of man according to the Church's Tradition.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Apotheoun

[KnightofChrist]

I saw the four sins referenced earlier... personally, I consider the sodomy that is one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance to be forceful sodomy (and, by extension, any rape) (such as that practiced in Sodom, which is the story which establishes Sodomy as a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance). Homosexual sex in and of itself is sinful, but it's loony to suggest that it cries out for vengeance when both people engaging in it are doing so willingly; while the unnatural act is a sin against each other and themselves, they are not particularly wronging someone in a way that would call for vengeance.

Homosexual sex is gravely sinful whether it's consensual or not, absolutely, but rape/forced sodomy is definitely a worse sin than consensual homosexual sex.  some mortal sins are worse than others, yes, they are all equally capable of destroying grace and sending you to hell, but that doesn't mean we can't evaluate the different degrees of evil... it seems pretty self evident to me that rape/forced sodomy is much more evil than consensual homosexual sex, I suppose it'd be interesting to go through tradition to see exactly how the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance are described, the number 4 and the listing of them I suspect is going to be Western/Roman, but I don't know quite where the idea of that number came from except that it's basically inspired by the scriptures descriptions of Sodom and Gomorrah, Cain and Abel, and Israel's slavery in Egypt... but all the other sins described as crying to heaven for vengeance are referring to the need for God's wrath to come down from heaven to earth to correct an injustice.  it seems totally crazy to describe homosexual sex as crying to heaven for vengeance that way, I'd need much more convincing of why exactly that is?  why would homosexual sex call to heaven for vengeance for being an attack on God, but other sins are not?  for example: not honoring the sabbath or using the Lord's name in vain are grave sins that are much more clearly seen for their motives as identifiable attacks on God, but they don't "call to heaven for vengeance". not all grave mortal sins are described as calling to heaven for vengeance, and it seems to me the only common thread behind labeling a sin something that calls to heaven for vengeance is when the sin is such a monstrously grave injustice on earth.  to me, that easily describes willful murder, defrauding the poor, depriving laborers of their wages, and forced sodomy.  it doesn't really describe consensual homosexual sex, the idea that consensual homosexual sex would cry to heaven for vengeance on earth quite simply defies logic.

  

they are sins which cry to heaven for vengeance.  suicide is a sin, but it doesn't cry to heaven for vengeance; and nor does consensual homosexuality.  it'd be loony to suggest that it does because then you have to identify what that vengeance is directed at and you get loony tunes out there suggesting that hurricane Katrina was punishment for homosexuality and all sorts of nutty things that deserve no respect.  I'm not calling you loony, but I do think that it's loony to talk about consensual homosexuality as crying to heaven for vengeance the same way defrauding the poor, murdering, or withholding wages from laborers does.  those things really call to heaven for vengeance on earth, as rape does, but there's no comparison with consensual homosexuality which does not cry to heaven for vengeance on earth.  it's more sensible to look at the story of Sodom and understand it was destroyed not just for homosexuality, that there was clearly forceful rape going on and that this is much better understood as the thing that could bring down God's vengeance on earth.  IMO, anyway.

The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner. - CCC 1867

The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous. - Gen 18:20

For we will destroy this place, because their cry is grown loud before the Lord, who hath sent us to destroy them. - Gen 19:13

What I believe the above passages from the CCC and Genesis show is that your interpretation of "cry" is incorrect, that is it is narrow and limited because...


1) There are cries for help and sorrow but there are also cries of wrath and rebellion, God hears both. The cries of Sodom were the latter form as the passages from Genesis clearly show.

2) The way I understand the traditional catechetical teaching is that both the sins and those oppressed cry up to heaven. I still believe that in some manner nature cries up to heaven when the sins of Sodom which are against nature are committed. Similar to, but on the other end of the spectrum, how all of creation praises the glory of God and if man should not then the rocks would cry out. This doesn't mean that nature would cry out in an actual sense, but what it does mean is that the wickedness of the sin of Sodom nor the glory of God can be hidden away but known and undeniable.

3) The sin of the Sodomites does not seem limited to sodomy whether or not it is in the form of rape. The sin of Sodom was multiplied and exceedingly grievous. After all if memory serves the mod of Sodomites did not only wish to rape Lots visitors but murder them should they refuse. If not I'm sure murder was big there. Isa. 1:10-17 even suggest that sin of Sodom includes the other two of the four that cry to heaven. Sodomy is not the only sin of Sodom. I believe it would include rape as well just to be clear.

I'm not sure why the four have been singled out, I'm not sure that just because a sin may belong to one of the four that it would mean that sin is always going worse than a sin that may not be among the four. I have heard it taught that at times blasphemy is worse than murder, but it is not directly named among the four. Though it too could be another sin of Sodom since it was so great.

I understand that you are stating your humble opinion, but I have never heard the distinction from the Old testament Prophets, Church Fathers or the Saints that you are making from rape sodomy and consensual sodomy. Every time I have read things by them on this subject they do not make this distinction, and do not appear to have any such knowledge that one exist. Would you care to offer such a source from them?