homosexuality vs. other sexual sins

[photosynthesis]

OK, so this question was sparked by the thread about banning homosexuals in the priesthood, but I didn't want to go off topic so I'll just start one here.

I will start out by making a few assumptions, based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

- Homosexuality is a sin. We all ought to know that by now.
- Homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered."
- Homosexuality goes against natural law.
- Homosexual acts "do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity."

By saying that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, that means that by its very nature it is abnormal, unnatural and against God's plan. There is nothing a person can do to make homosexuality less depraved.

Heterosexuality IS intrinsically normal, healthy and in line with natural law. However, there are many lustful ways in which people express their attraction to the opposite sex.

Another assumption I will make is that some sins are more evil than others, hence the distinction between mortal and venial sins. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is different than stealing cars for parts so that you can finance your crack addiction.

Having made these assumptions, do you think homosexuality is more evil than other sexual sins, including (but not limited to), extramarital sex, marital infidelity, contraception, remarriage, masturbation and sexual abuse?

[jezic]

i would not start this thread ......

[jasJis]

In order of seriousness (in my uneducated and biased but philosophical opinion)

LEAST
masturbation
re-marriage
pre-marital sex
extra-marital sex

contraception
homosexuality
marital infedelity
sexual abuse
WORST

Of couse there are extenuating circumstances and situations that will change the gravity of things. In some instances, masturbation can move to VERY Serious, depending on motives, issues, etc. Re-marriage can go move up depending on the circumstances of the original mariage. Marital Infedility and Sexual Abuse are both very, very serious and it would be difficult for homosexuality to be worse, but homosexuality can be as bad as Marital Infedelity depending on promiscuity, etc.

[thessalonian]

It's like asking is shooting someone worse than killing them with an axe. Both are bad news. But I think the answer to your question is yes. Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed when homosexuality became rampant.

[jezic]

don't forget the greeks and the romans as well. Both fell after homosexuality became common.

[jasJis]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Oct 11 2005, 04:55 PM']It's like asking is shooting someone worse than killing them with an axe.  Both are bad news.  But I think the answer to your question is yes.  Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed when  homosexuality became rampant.
[right][snapback]754354[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't think their destruction was mainly about homosexuality, but about debasement of self and each other which included homosexuality as a symptom, as was incest, rape, etc.

Edited October 11, 2005 by jasJis

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='jezic' date='Oct 11 2005, 06:42 PM']i would not start this thread ......
[right][snapback]754326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
uh oh!

[Norseman82]

Someone on the board once said "Hell is hot no matter who you sleep with to get there".

[Socrates]

This thread will probably spark all sorts of nastiness, but . . .

The issue over homosexuals in the priesthood is this:
Homosexual attraction is intrinsically disordered (as Photosynthesis pointed out). This is a reason against homosexuals in the priesthood.
Heterosexual attraction (in the sense of being sexually/romantically attracted to the opposite sex) is not intrinsically disordered.
However, it can be acted upon in disordered (lustful) ways.

Homosexual acts have traditionally been regarded as more serious than heterosexual sins (fornication, adultery) because they are contrary not only to chastity, but also to nature.

However, all acts of unchastity are mortally sinful if done freely and willingly.

Condemning homosexuality in no way implies condoning other sins of the flesh. In fact, it is the easy acceptance in society of (hetero) sexual immorality which has led to the current acceptance of homosexuality by society.

[Aloysius]

as an english-traditionalist, I find the word "homosexuality" to be an absurd oxymoron and "heterosexuality" to be redundant. sexuality is by its very definition the mixing of two sexes. the label the mixing of two men as any type of sexuality would be like calling a glass of water a mixture of water and water.

[ofpheritup]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 11 2005, 06:58 PM']as an english-traditionalist, I find the word "homosexuality" to be an absurd oxymoron and "heterosexuality" to be redundant.  sexuality is by its very definition the mixing of two sexes.  the label the mixing of two men as any type of sexuality would be like calling a glass of water a mixture of water and water.
[right][snapback]754480[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[God Conquers]

hmmm... interesting.

I'd order things differently than jas, although I respect how he has done so (seeing as how I think he's awesome).

I think we all agree on what is "normal" in terms of sex. Girl plus boy equals unity and babies (maybe).

Taking this I'd say that those objkectively sinful activities which maintain some semblence of sexual normality are the ones which would be the least heinous.

Therefore, fornication, remarriage and contraception (not condoms) would be the least. Then comes adultery.

Then the rest in no real particular order, seeing as they're all pretty messed up. I'd probably agree with jas in saying that sexual abuse for me is the worst.

*condom use, in my opinion, pretty much means a switch from intercourse to masturbation

Also, it's pretty odd to be "putting sins in order". They're all really bad. All of these I'd consider mortal sins... so I guess it would be a matter of "how much temporal punishment is meted out for these various bad boys."

Throwing out God's grace is throwing out God's grace...

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 11 2005, 08:58 PM']as an english-traditionalist, I find the word "homosexuality" to be an absurd oxymoron and "heterosexuality" to be redundant.  sexuality is by its very definition the mixing of two sexes.  the label the mixing of two men as any type of sexuality would be like calling a glass of water a mixture of water and water.
[right][snapback]754480[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
so what would you call it?

[Socrates]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Oct 11 2005, 07:47 PM']hmmm... interesting.

I'd order things differently than jas, although I respect how he has done so (seeing as how I think he's awesome).

I think we all agree on what is "normal" in terms of sex. Girl plus boy equals unity and babies (maybe).

Taking this I'd say that those objkectively sinful activities which maintain some semblence of sexual normality are the ones which would be the least heinous.

Therefore, fornication, remarriage and contraception (not condoms) would be the least. Then comes adultery.

Then the rest in no real particular order, seeing as they're all pretty messed up. I'd probably agree with jas in saying that sexual abuse for me is the worst.

*condom use, in my opinion, pretty much means a switch from intercourse to masturbation

Also, it's pretty odd to be "putting sins in order". They're all really bad. All of these I'd consider mortal sins... so I guess it would be a matter of "how much temporal punishment is meted out for these various bad boys."

Throwing out God's grace is throwing out God's grace...
[right][snapback]754535[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Many factors go into play in judging individual guilt, but all deliberate sexual sins are mortal matter.

And I wouldn't say other forms of contraception are any morally less wrong than condom use. In fact, those chermical contraceptions which can also act as abortifacients are objectively more evil.
The intent remains then same whatever method is used. The judment about condoms is aesthetic rather than moral.

(Bottom line - they're all bad!)

[jasJis]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Oct 11 2005, 06:52 PM']This thread will probably spark all sorts of nastiness, but . . .

The issue over homosexuals in the priesthood is this:
Homosexual attraction is intrinsically disordered (as Photosynthesis pointed out).  This is a reason against homosexuals in the priesthood.
Heterosexual attraction (in the sense of being sexually/romantically attracted to the opposite sex) is not intrinsically disordered.
However, it can be acted upon in disordered (lustful) ways.

Homosexual acts have traditionally been regarded as more serious than heterosexual sins (fornication, adultery) because they are contrary not only to chastity, but also to nature.

However, all acts of unchastity are mortally sinful if done freely and willingly. 

Condemning homosexuality in no way implies condoning other sins of the flesh.  In fact, it is the easy acceptance in society of (hetero) sexual immorality which has led to the current acceptance of homosexuality by society.
[right][snapback]754469[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]This makes me think. Hmmm. Got to ponder on this. I do disagree on the idea that adultry is a little more 'natural'. Not all animals mate with many. Many animals mate for life. There are natural reasons for this, such as concentrating abilities and the couple already proving it's survivability. To me, on a philosophical level, human adultry is as bad and against our spiritual nature as homosexuality. Both are very destructive to the family unit wich is a foundation of human society.