homosexuality vs. other sexual sins

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Oct 11 2005, 10:07 PM']The judment about condoms is aesthetic rather than moral.
[right][snapback]754561[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
condoms prevent the touching of genitals and therefore are an impediment to unity in sex.

[Socrates]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Oct 11 2005, 08:08 PM']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.
[right][snapback]754562[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is traditional Church teaching (though not in a formal, ex-cathedra sense). It is not something I came up with on my own.

Sex between any man and woman is "natural," though not necessarily moral. It is the natural human act of procreation between a man and woman.
Homosexual acts are not natural, as these acts themselves are wrong, and are not naturally ordered towards life and procreation.
This is why they have always traditionally been referrred to as "unnatural vice."

Fornication and adultery are immoral and sinful, but not unnatural, in the sense that homosexuality is.

It is currently politically correct to minimize the evil of homosexuality, and try to make it as no worse than any other sexual sin, but this is not what Christians have traditionally beleived for 2000 years.

And while this is somewhat off-topic, the vast majority of animals do not mate for life and are quite promiscuous. Just look at dogs, cats, cattle, etc. Fornication is acting like animals (the birds and the bees), not living up to our supernatural end as human beings. Homosexuality is regarded as a sin against nature itself.

[photosynthesis]

there are animal species in which homosexuality occurs. however, the default is always heterosexual because of the natural desire to reproduce... so in the end it's still unnatural.

[infinitelord1]

not to offend anyone here.......but honestly i cant stand to see people assuming that god will show mercy to anyone who is homosexual (based on the circumstances). In any case, homosexuality is wrong. I think most of us would agree that the environment played a very large role in someones choice to lead such a life style. Its very unfortunate. Even though there are probably a few gays out there who believe in god........the sin is a very very serious one since it causes the majority (i believe) of gays to not believe in god because of the way they feel. First of all we all know that homosexuality is a mortal sin. Some believe that god will show mercy on them for being gay. I know this because this what my mom believes. She likes to think that she is simply just a child of god......and that even though the bible says its wrong.........god will show mercy on her. Lets apply this same logic to another mortal sin such as murder. Do you think that god will show mercy on a murderer who continues to murder if he simply just believes that he is a child of god? I dont think so. Was a murderer born a murderer? No. Im sure murderers had corrupt child hoods just as most homosexuals. Different people handle things differently. Unfortunately some choose to respond in ways that are evil or unnatural. The bible says that these people are not worthy of the kingdom of heaven........for those who say its ok and god will grant mercy on these people.......i dont agree entirely. Hopefully this mercy is a trip to purgatory. But certainly not to the kingdom of heaven. And i think its a sin to aim for purgatory. So.......i dont know what else to say.

[photosynthesis]

I know a lot of homosexuals like that who say, "There's nothing wrong with what I'm doing and God is merciful anyway." And it's silly because if there's no sin, there's no need for mercy. It is a sin and these people need to repent and get help with their problem.

God's mercy has no limit. It is unfathomable, and He will have mercy on whom He has mercy.

[img]http://students.goucher.edu/cmcnamar/vilna150.jpg[/img]

[ofpheritup]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Oct 11 2005, 08:18 PM']condoms prevent the touching of genitals and therefore are an impediment to unity in sex.
[right][snapback]754569[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


DUH ?

Not Duh to you Photo but DUH to the ones who know better
and are pretending they don't. It is sad how some people delude themselves and then get angry when they are not supported in
their beliefs.

Good job, P.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Oct 11 2005, 08:18 PM']condoms prevent the touching of genitals and therefore are an impediment to unity in sex.
[right][snapback]754569[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is not ( if you will pardon the word) main thrust of the argument agianst contraception as destructive of the unitive aspect.

A total gift of self results in unity.
Feritility is part of that complete breakfast.
Feritility is therefor always apart of unity.

To have a unitive sexual contact, the whole self, including one's fertility must be given to the other spouse, in a premenant, free, fruitful, total, faithful way.

[Didacus]

The single, most mortal sin related to homosexuality in this day and age is the perversion of the young.

I for one would not be willing to say the homosexual act in itself is anything more than a venial sin.

HOWEVER:

to subject your lifestyle to it.
to argue and force people to accept it as normal
to force its approval into laws on a national level

to go out of your way to 'educate' the young into accepting this form of sex nad perhaps even to 'try it out'

NOW THAT is mortal sin.

I rad the french version of the bible, in the french version, Jesus actually says he hates those who corrupts the young! Though I think this is (or might be) a 'bad translation since Jesus (or God) cannot hate, I believe it is significant. when I gfind the passage I'll attach it to my post. (I'm just not too skilled in my 'quick referencing' just yet.)

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Oct 13 2005, 10:50 AM']This is not ( if you will pardon the word) main thrust of the argument agianst contraception as destructive of the unitive aspect.

A total gift of self results in unity.
Feritility is part of that complete breakfast.
Feritility is therefor always apart of unity.

To have a unitive sexual contact, the whole self, including one's fertility must be given to the other spouse, in a premenant, free, fruitful, total, faithful way.
[right][snapback]756993[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
well, of course condoms are also bad because they prevent the gift of one's fertility, if you look at it on that level as well... but not even being willing to fully touch your partner for fear of getting a "disease" or "pregnancy" is also not full self-donation.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Oct 13 2005, 11:21 AM']I for one would not be willing to say the homosexual act in itself is anything more than a venial sin.
[right][snapback]757003[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
that's not what the Church teaches.

The Church teaches that the act is inherently wrong, and a mortal sin.

[Didacus]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Oct 13 2005, 01:29 PM']that's not what the Church teaches.

The Church teaches that the act is inherently wrong, and a mortal sin.
[right][snapback]757226[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

thank you for the correction, that is actually a sentence that did not come out right from my end.

I have a hard time though, consolidating the fact that it is a mortal sin. Sins of the flesh, any sin of the flesh, I have a hard time being convinced of the mortality therein. Don't get me wrong, I will not dispute nor even debate the church's teachings, I only say that i have some research in soul searching to do if you will, before I can 'see the full light'. give me a minute or two (maybe a week, a year?), I'll get there. Meanwhile I have to honest.

And I stand by the fact that I believe the sin of the homosexual act is a midget compared to actually teaching the sin as right towards the masses.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Oct 13 2005, 03:06 PM']And I stand by the fact that I believe the sin of the homosexual act is a midget compared to actually teaching the sin as right towards the masses.
[right][snapback]757267[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Both would be considered grave offenses.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Oct 13 2005, 02:06 PM']thank you for the correction, that is actually a sentence that did not come out right from my end.

I have a hard time though, consolidating the fact that it is a mortal sin.  Sins of the flesh, any sin of the flesh, I have a hard time being convinced of the mortality therein.  Don't get me wrong, I will not dispute nor even debate the church's teachings, I only say that i have some research in soul searching to do if you will, before I can 'see the full light'.  give me a minute or two (maybe a week, a year?), I'll get there.  Meanwhile I have to honest.

And I stand by the fact that I believe the sin of the homosexual act is a midget compared to actually teaching the sin as right towards the masses.
[right][snapback]757267[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Church clearly teaches that homosexual acts, as well as all sins of the flesh (fornication, adultery, masturbation, contraception, etc.) are mortal sins.

We must accept the Church's moral teaching, even when it is hard for us to understand. As Catholics we must follow the Church's teaching, rather than decide for ourselves what is and isn't serious sin. Otherwise, morality ends up becoming entirely subjective, based on one's own personal judgments of what "feels" right or wrong.
It can become quite easy to justify or explain away anything, and we are left with the modern mess of moral subjectivism.

With our fallen human nature, sins of the flesh do not seem like a "big deal" to most of us - this is why we need the Church's teaching. Rejection of the Church's teachings on sexual matters is often the first step that turns people away from orthodoxy on other matters.

Our Lady of Fatima said that more souls are in hell for sins of the flesh than any other sins. This is not to say that they are the worst, but they are always mortal when done with full consent of the will, and are the easiest path to lead people away from God.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Oct 13 2005, 11:21 AM']
I for one would not be willing to say the homosexual act in itself is anything more than a venial sin.
[right][snapback]757003[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Scriptures and the Church disagree with you.

If two [unmarried to each other] heterosexual people have sex and that is a mortal sin, how could you think that homosex would only be a venial sin?

[Didacus]

hey hey, take it easy people... geesh, one bad sentence and i have the militia after me!

i admit it is a mortal sin, but I have trouble understanding to that extent.

I DO NOT CONTRADICT CHURCH TEACHING, nor wish to debate church teachings either. What I said (hence the opening statement 'I for one,") was said in the psirit of my own limited understanding of church teachings and not in a manner intended to criticize the teaching itself.

How many times have I said I was not a saint? Trying, but not. Trying to understand, but don't always suceed. Want to be saved, but can't do it on my own?

i whole heartidily agree, and have said many times myself with Socrates' statement : "We must accept the Church's moral teaching, even when it is hard for us to understand. As Catholics we must follow the Church's teaching, rather than decide for ourselves what is and isn't serious sin. "

Though I did not use those precise words.

Cut me some slack here gents and ladies, just a little...