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

[Papist]

I think I need a definition of what "being gay" is. Because if it is not sinful, then I have the wrong understanding. 

[franciscanheart]

I think I need a definition of what "being gay" is. Because if it is not sinful, then I have the wrong understanding.

To be homosexual is not sinful. Homosexual = Gay. If I say I'm gay, it means I'm a homosexual. To be a homosexual is not sinful. Understand?

[franciscanheart]

as for it being disordered, - the Catechism does say that homosexual desires are "intrinsically disordered", if I remember. (someone correct me if I'm misattributing the quote). It's talking about the desires btw. (I think the poster meant that too?)

Declaration on Certain Issues Concerning Sexual Ethics, 1975
[background=#ffff99]"Speaking of 'the sexual nature of man and the human faculty of procreation,' the Council noted that they 'wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life.' It then took particular care to expound the principles and criteria which concern human sexuality in marriage, and which are based upon the finality of the specific function of sexuality.

In this regard the Council declares that the moral goodness of the acts proper to conjugal life, acts which are ordered according to true human dignity, 'does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.'

These final words briefly sum up the Council's teaching - more fully expounded in an earlier part of the same Constitution - on the finality of the sexual act and on the principal criterion of its morality: it is respect for its finality that ensures the moral goodness of this act.

This same principle, which the Church holds from Divine Revelation and from her authentic interpretation of the natural law, is also the basis of her traditional doctrine, which states that the use of the sexual function has its true meaning and moral rectitude only in true marriage. ...

Their culpability will be judged with prudence. ... For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of."[/background]


Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
[background=#ffff99]The issue of homosexuality and the moral evaluation of homosexual acts have increasingly become a matter of public debate, even in Catholic circles. Since this debate often advances arguments and makes assertions inconsistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church, it is quite rightly a cause for concern to all engaged in the pastoral ministry, and this Congregation has judged it to be of sufficiently grave and widespread importance to address to the Bishops of the Catholic Church this Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.

Naturally, an exhaustive treatment of this complex issue cannot be attempted here, but we will focus our reflection within the distinctive context of the Catholic moral perspective. It is a perspective which finds support in the more secure findings of the natural sciences, which have their own legitimate and proper methodology and field of inquiry.

However, the Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our Father. The Church is thus in a position to learn from scientific discovery but also to transcend the horizons of science and to be confident that her more global vision does greater justice to the rich reality of the human person in his spiritual and physical dimensions, created by God and heir, by grace, to eternal life.

It is within this context, then, that it can be clearly seen that the phenomenon of homosexuality, complex as it is, and with its many consequences for society and ecclesial life, is a proper focus for the Church's pastoral care. It thus requires of her ministers attentive study, active concern and honest, theologically well-balanced counsel.

Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4). ...

The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.

To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.[/background]


 I post all of that for a few reasons, the most important to direct you (and anyone else who misunderstands) to the explanation of the meaning of the word disordered within the context of Catholic teaching. Disorder in this context is not the same as the description of schizophrenia as a mental disorder in the context of a psychiatric discussion.

Disordered is referring here to a break from God's natural order. He has ordered things in His creation in a certain way and when anyone -- straight or gay -- deviates from that path, it is considered to be disordered, or outside the order which God intended. To say something is disordered is to say it deviates from Natural Law, an order of things set forth by God. We are speaking in moral terminology here, not layman's terms.

The poster you are attempting to defend not only took something to the extreme right (into liberal la la land as if anyone who seeks to understand is some sort of crazed pseudo-Catholic who wants to change everything about Catholic doctrine or something), suggesting that homosexual desire is somehow equivalent or similar to the desire to rape children. First of all: as if. Second: what?

The person you are attempting defend specifically said homosexuality needs to be "treated", like those persons have leprosy or something. We don't have diabetes, we have an innate sexual inclination toward people of the same sex (gender is something else entirely; let's not get into it here). It's not something you're going to cure with insulin or radiation.

The medical (science) community has moved away from the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder. Call me a crazy liberal all you want, but I follow this line of thinking. Blame it on my own disordered desires all you want; doesn't change what is. Which brings me to another reason for posting the above. In opening the letter, it was plainly stated that the Church turns to those in the medical community who will know better and can better teach what really is in the world of biological study. That is not to say, however, that their findings in any way change the teaching of the Church.

None of us here -- scratch that -- I have not claimed that any biological findings will render Catholic teaching untrue or somehow ignorant of God's will for humanity. I am simply saying that homosexuality is not the same as schizophrenia, diabetes or the desire to rape children.

If you believe those things to be true, I believe you to be ignorant. The same goes for the poster to whom I initially responded.

I'm not mad at you, nor do I take Catholic teaching to be some kind of personal slight. People seeking discussion and clarification is not some kind of persecution. No one is harming you or saying you're incorrect. This is discussion, not martyrdom.

And to touch once more on the idea of disordered passions, I'll pick up where I left off with the Declaration on Certain Issues Concerning Sexual Ethics:
[background=#ffff99]"The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. It is said that psychology and sociology show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young. It is stated that there is real and serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self ('ipsation'), because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to the loving communion between persons of different sex which some hold is what is principally sought in the use of the sexual faculty.

This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church - in the course of a constant tradition - and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act.[19] The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes "the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love."[20] All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship. Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of 'impurity,' 'unchasteness' and other vices contrary to chastity and continence."[/background]

Here we talk about masturbation as disordered. It's not often (in my experience) Catholics use the word "disordered" in all the same places the Church does or that it applies. When we only whip out the "disordered" word (especially without clear context and instruction on contextual meaning), it serves to alienate and anger those whom you are trying to reach with (what I assume to be) love and compassion.

My personal impression is often that Catholics (well-meaning and otherwise) often throw around "disordered" as a defense of their drinking haterade. I'd love to see them do the same when they talk about their addictions to masturbation. But wait, masturbation is so NORMAL and affects so many PEOPLE it couldn't possible be DISORDERED. Not so, friends: it's deviates from the fulfillment of sex in the way God intended. Disordered.

as for homosexual people needing help - don't we all need help to avoid sin, whatever our weakness is? I think we wouldn't really help people with SSA if we didn't, as a Church, provide them with some sort of help in dealing with SSA :) to help them be celibate etc..since it could be difficult.. I don't think that's an insult. I need help too, to avoid my sins.

Perhaps it's not an insult, but the phrasing certainly lacks tact. Given the context of the comment and the rampant ignorance, however, I believe it insulting -- intended or not.

 

I see what you are saying Lina, but based on everything I've read or heard about Catholic teaching, it's a sin for us to put ourselves in an occasion of sin. There's a difference between us coming across them when we're not looking for them, and putting ourselves into situations where we know we may be tempted. If a person is just trying to fulfill their duties, let's say going to work, and they come across something that tempts them, - their intention had nothing to do with it. But if a person goes into a situation knowingly, from what I read, that is already a sin...... so I guess then it depends, if a certain situation is an occasion of sin, if the person knows it is, etc. Sometimes our only solution... is to give up something, even if we care a lot about it. I know it's hard. Regarding this particular couple - that's something God and them know about.

You cannot judge a person's soul or intent. If you ever find yourself in a situation which involves you in a relationship with another homosexual, I'm sure your spiritual director can help you to discern what is the best course of action. In the mean time, I would suggest you not make assumptions about anyone or anything.

[Papist]

To be homosexual is not sinful. Homosexual = Gay. If I say I'm gay, it means I'm a homosexual. To be a homosexual is not sinful. Understand?

Yes, having a sexual attraction to the same sex is not a sin, by itself.  I always understood that when one calls himself/herself a homosexual, this meant not only did they have a sexual attraction to the same sex*, but also that they engaged in homosexual relationships/lifestyle. So this is a wrong understanding? 

[franciscanheart]

Yes, having a sexual attraction to the same sex is not a sin, by itself.  I always understood that when one calls himself/herself a homosexual, this meant not only did they have a sexual attraction to the same sex*, but also that they engaged in homosexual relationships/lifestyle. So this is a wrong understanding?

Yes.

When someone identifies as gay (queer, lesbian, homosexual), they are simply telling you that they have an innate, intimate, sexual and emotional attraction to peoples of the same sex, the same way a heterosexual person has an innate, intimate, sexual and emotional attraction to peoples of the opposite sex.

[Papist]

Yes.

When someone identifies as gay (qwerty, lesbian, homosexual), they are simply telling you that they have an innate, intimate, sexual and emotional attraction to peoples of the same sex, the same way a heterosexual person has an innate, intimate, sexual and emotional attraction to peoples of the opposite sex.

If this is true, then that explains a lot of failure to communicate.

[franciscanheart]

If this is true, then that explains a lot of failure to communicate.

What proof will be satisfactory to you? Because I can tell you that all those men and women involved in Courage -- you know, that program of support and encouragement provided in Catholic Churches for homosexuals who want to live a celibate, chaste life -- will tell you they are gay. That's why they're there.

:wall: Edited May 23, 2013 by franciscanheart

[KnightofChrist]

I think I need a definition of what "being gay" is. Because if it is not sinful, then I have the wrong understanding. 

 

The terms can be confusing, does "being gay" imply that one just has same sex attraction and does not act upon or entertain the temptations? Or does it mean acting on or entertaining those temptations?

 

Why define someone by their temptations that they do not entertain or act upon? We don't call a man that is tempted to have relations with a woman that is not his wife an adulterer if he does not act or entertain that temptation. And I am sure all of us have been tempted by many sins, but I doubt we define ourselves by those temptations.

[franciscanheart]

The terms can be confusing, does "being gay" imply that one just has same sex attraction and does not act upon or entertain the temptations? Or does it mean acting on or entertaining those temptations?
 
Why define someone by their temptations that they do not entertain or act upon? We don't call a man that is tempted to have relations with a woman that is not his wife an adulterer if he does not act or entertain that temptation. And I am sure all of us have been tempted by many sins, but I doubt we define ourselves by those temptations.

:wall:

[franciscanheart]

The terms can be confusing, does "being gay" imply that one just has same sex attraction and does not act upon or entertain the temptations? Or does it mean acting on or entertaining those temptations?
 
Why define someone by their temptations that they do not entertain or act upon? We don't call a man that is tempted to have relations with a woman that is not his wife an adulterer if he does not act or entertain that temptation. And I am sure all of us have been tempted by many sins, but I doubt we define ourselves by those temptations.

 

 

ho·mo·sex·u·al  

/ˌhōməˈsekSHo͞oəl/

 

Adjective

(of a person) Sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.

 

Noun

A person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

And that's completely understandable. I respect you for that.

Just trying to understand here...

 

are you sure you understand what an occasion of sin is? 

 

it's a situation where we may be tempted... we shoudln't knowingly put ourselves in those.

Yes.

When someone identifies as gay (qwerty, lesbian, homosexual), they are simply telling you that they have an innate, intimate, sexual and emotional attraction to peoples of the same sex, the same way a heterosexual person has an innate, intimate, sexual and emotional attraction to peoples of the opposite sex.

the difference would be though that one is in accord with natural law and the other is not... they're not equal.

 

I've always called it SSA, and "gay" was meant for those who act on it.... I don't know.

[franciscanheart]

the difference would be though that one is in accord with natural law and the other is not... they're not equal.

 

I've always called it SSA, and "gay" was meant for those who act on it.... I don't know.

:wall:

 

I seriously might stroke out over here. The level of ignorance is life-threatening.

 

Drama aside, you're wrong.

 

SSA = Homosexuality = Gay.

 

If you can't understand that, you've no business preaching about this topic. Ignorance will only serve to further divide. God help us all if this is how the Catholic Church continues to speak to the world. (And please know that when I say Catholic Church in this instance, I mean the people who call themselves Catholic. The Church is extremely clear in its understanding and teaching; the same is clearly not true of Her faithful.)

 

Also: :wall:

[MarysLittleFlower]

FranciscanHeart,

 

I was actually talking about "disordered" according to the Church definition (dis-order, out of order), not the physical or psychological definition.

 

I'm not sure why you assume that I was talking about the heart or the condition of the two women that were being discussed - I brought up the point if being in such an arrangement could be an occasion of sin or not. I said that for me, it would be, if I were in that situation. I don't have SSA. But for example if I was constantly seeing a man that I was attracted to, but couldn't be with him because let's say he's married, - that would be an occasion of sin for me. So I was wondering, if it could be in that situation. I'm not saying how the particular two women experience this, I don't know them. But about the situation itself, for anyone.

[MarysLittleFlower]

:wall:

 

I seriously might stroke out over here. The level of ignorance is life-threatening.

 

Drama aside, you're wrong.

 

SSA = Homosexuality = Gay.

 

If you can't understand that, you've no business preaching about this topic. Ignorance will only serve to further divide. God help us all if this is how the Catholic Church continues to speak to the world. (And please know that when I say Catholic Church in this instance, I mean the people who call themselves Catholic. The Church is extremely clear in its understanding and teaching; the same is clearly not true of Her faithful.)

 

Also: :wall:

 

If I'm ignorant, please provide a quote from the Church showing that your interpretation is correct, otherwise it's just one opinion vs another. :) maybe I'm wrong in the terminology, but maybe that's because people use terminology in different ways.

Edited May 23, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Ice_nine]

attn gay people: you should not have any close relationships with people of the same sex, you might end up wanting to bang them. Also you shouldn't have close relationships with people of the opposite sex because they might want to bang you.

 

Sorriez. Near occasion of sin and all. Maybe it would work out for you if you find some hermaphrodites.