A reader writes:
I have been discerning a vocation to the priesthood. Though I’m in college, my home-diocesan vocations director has indicated that the diocese would accept me into the seminary as a candidate for priesthood if I were to apply now (or, presumably, when I’ve graduated). He knows that I experience same-sex attractions; that for about three years I have had a deep and varyingly consuming obsession with a particular male; that my homosexuality has been related to (if not causal of or resulting from, or both) a weak masculine identity and other affective problems; that I am speaking regularly to a NARTH psychiatrist to overcome these problems; etc. But the vocations director has explicitly assured me that the same-sex attraction does not present an impediment to my entering the seminary with a view to being ordained (all else going well).
I understand that even my life-long, exclusive attraction to the priesthood is neither sufficient nor necessary to demonstrate that I do have a vocation. I know that I have no right to be ordained, that the Church must discern with me and make the ultimate decision in the person of the bishop and his assistants, etc. But I am concerned here that the vocations director would be allowing me to do something which the Church universal, traditionally and also most recently in the Instruction issued last year by the Congregation for Catholic Education, has prohibited. The Instruction prohibits the ordination or admission to the seminary of those who (1) practice homosexuality, (2) present deep-seated (or, in what I consider a closer translation of the Italian, deeply rooted) homosexual tendencies, or (3) support the ‘gay’ culture.
Never having been in a sexual relationship with anyone, I don’t meet the first condition. Nor do I meet the third. My question, then, is how precisely to interpret the second condition, and how to differentiate it from the "transitory" tendencies which the Instruction indicates might not disqualify a man, provided he has been chaste for three years before ordination to the diaconate. Because I personally believe that same-sex attraction is in most cases the result of developmental problems, I consider most if not all homosexual tendencies to be in principle transitory (that is, not insuperable). And I’m still quite young; that leaves time for change, natural or induced. But I am also a realist and recognize that my tendencies, which do reveal some degree of affective immaturity and sometimes manifest themselves in difficulties in dealing with men and women (or in asserting myself healthily, or in leading, etc.), may not in fact ever go away because of contingent factors. They are rooted in childhood and early adolescent difficulties that are not easily overcome.
Even if my diocese grants official approval, if the Church has expressed a will that people in my condition not be ordained, I take this alone as sufficient to show that God has not called me. I do not want to take advantage of my diocese’s laxity in this regard if it is indeed illicit laxity, and I consider it my responsibility to discern whether I’m fit to present myself to the diocese. But do I in fact meet the second condition of the Instruction? Or if you do not have sufficient information to determine this in my case, can you explain precisely what you take the second condition to mean? I have read a wide variety of opinions, some of which would exclude me and others not.
I have to say that I have nothing but admiration for the clear-eyed, level-headed way in which the reader is approaching this situation. He is displaying a great deal of personal integrity, and I think he deserves the applause of everyone for the way in which he is conducting himself in this.
In addressing the question, I would suggest several points:
1) Individuals can try to shoulder too much of the burden of discernment. The question of whether the reader’s degree of same-sex attraction would be sufficient to prevent his admission to seminary is not exclusively his own to discern. In principle what the Church would want him to do is present the facts to the relevant officials and then they would have the primary burden of determining whether the degree of SSA is sufficient to meet the criteria in the document that the Holy See issued. In other words, in the ideal, he should be open and honest and submit to their judgment.
2) That being said, it is clear that there are individuals who have tried to minimize the import of the document and to interpret its second clause in manifestly inaccurate ways that would have the effect of gutting its meaning. Thus seminarians in some areas are not in the ideal situation and have some duty to use their own judment in determining whether or not their SSA meets the criteria described in the document.
3) The document itself also does not elaborate its criteria in great detail. As a result, there is some ambiguity in interpreting its meaning. Just what degree of SSA is needed for it to be "deep-seated" (or "deeply-rooted")? This is not altogether clear, and the resulting ambiguity is presumably something that the Holy See intends, so that the issue can be more thoroughly worked out in practice. Perhaps in the future the Holy See will publish more detailed guidance on the subject, but in the meantime there is at least some liberty of interpretation that local officials have in applying the document. It isn’t as if the Holy See said that any SSA–even light and momentary–bars one from the priesthood. The document speaks (see below) of some candidates for the priesthood having overcome a transitory problem with homosexual tendencies, but if one has ever had these, it is likely that they will continue to manifest at least occasionally and in a minor way later in life. How strong that manifestation would have to be to bar a candidate from ordination is something that the Holy See has not yet told us and thus the determination falls to local officials.
4) It therefore seems to me that the reader should seek to make the best determination he can based both on the judgment of local officials and his own understanding. He should not submit uncritically to the judgment of officials if they are unambiguously ignoring the meaning of the document, but neither should he presume to judge what the document requires exclusively according to his own judgment, for the Church has not charged him with that task. He should seek to make the best determination he can through an appraisal of the situation that seeks to incorporate both deference to local officials with his own judgment serving as a back-up if they are manifestly misinterpreting the document.
5) To apply the document to the reader’s own situation, it would be useful to review what it actually says:
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture".
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem – for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.
The contrast that the document presents between "deep-seated tendencies" and "tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem" that is capable of being "clearly overcome" would seem to refer to a contrast between tendencies that are strong and enduring and those that, while they may be strong for a time, are eventually mitigated and thus overcome.
It would be a mistake to read the tendencies as having to be so strong that they actually drive the person to homosexual behavior. That is clearly not required (a) because the word "tendencies" is being used and that word does not imply outward action based on the tendencies, (b) because the commission of homosexual acts is listed as a separate criterion (albeit an ongoing commission), and (c) because the Holy See did not say "tendencies so strong that they lead the individual to commit homosexual acts."
It also would be a mistake to read the the document as saying that once the tendencies have been overcome that the individual never experiences SSA again in his life. Any time one has had a particular sexual temptation for any period of time, human nature is such that this temptation is likely to recur at some point, even if it is just a mild and momentary desire.
Putting these pieces together, it seems to me that the Holy See would find acceptable a candidate who had a period of strong homosexual desires, whether or not they led him to have homosexual sex, who then is able to overcome these to the point that, even if they do not go away entirely, they markedly diminish and remain at their diminished level for a period of years.
In this regard, the document mentions them needing to be overcome for a period of at least three years prior to ordination to the diaconate. That clause seems to be included primarily to cover those who are already in seminary, but it (or a significiant portion of it, like two years) might serve as a useful guide in determining whether one is ready for admission to seminary.
6) As to what the overcoming of the temptations might involve, I can only conjecture here, because the Holy See has not given us criteria on this point, but I would conecture that the temptations have not yet been overcome if one or more of the following conditions obtain:
* An individual finds himself spending a significant amount of time fantasizing about homosexual acts.
* An individual finds himself spending a significant amount of time having romantic but non-sexual fantasies about members of the same sex.
* An individual regularly commits autoerotic acts that have homosexual fantasy content.
In suggesting these criteria, I am not talking about temporary slips but about ongoing, regular patterns of behavior.
7) In applying all of this directly to the case of the reader, it strikes me that at least at one time the reader has had a strong tendency (I’d not the apparently long-standing crush on another individual), but it is not clear to me whether this level of temptation still applies. It may well have moderated or begun to moderate.
There also is the fact that he is seeing a NARTH counsellor and the fact that he is still very young (I have removed his actual age in keeping with my policy of omitting personally identifying information from posts). All of these are positive signs, and I would encourage him to bide his time and see what happens with his SSA. It may mitigate to the point and remain mitigated long enough that the document would not prevent him from persuing a vocation to the priesthood.
If I may also offer one bit of advice from personal experience: When I was in college I once had an enormous crush on a young woman and the crush finally abated when I realized what a jerk she actually was. I’m not suggesting that the reader foster ill-will toward the individual to whom he is attracted, but trying to form a clear-eyed appraisal of the individual, including his faults, may serve to dispel some of the romantic aura that surrounds him.
As always, I would encourage my readers to keep the gentleman who wrote in prayer, as well as all who are in similar conditions. May they handle matters as oustandingly as this gentleman is.
20
Jimmy,
I would have to say that you have provided an excellent run of an answer. I spent two years in minor seminary before I got married to my wife and started a family. I too wish to aplaud the maturity that this person you are talking to is demonstrating. I wish everyone was this mature within 30 days after they arrived at seminary, their second year.
As to deep-rooted tendencies. Personally, just due to the fact that it is listed with supporting the homosexual culture. My understanding of a tendency is that it would be something that someone automatically does. Some type of an act that is routine to a person more than something one struggles with. If it was part of a person’s “cultural” action to greet a man with a hug and a kiss on the mouth instead of using a manly hug or just a handshake.
As far as this person’s dealing with SSA that is something hard to addrss without knowing his age. For me their would be lots of difference with someone that is younger (pubesence to mid-20’s) rather than someone who is older developmentally and has been expressing SSA through their early 30’s. The longer and later the expressing of SSA, the less chance their is to properly place into context the urgings of sexuality or hyper-sexuality. The other thing that this young man might consider going to is a Sexxaholic Anonymous meeting. Be weary when you walk in but if it is a good group of people, it could be very helpful.
Under the Mercy,
Matthew S.
This young man’s frank discussion brought tears to my eyes! My prayers are with him. I pray that he becomes a priest–what a great confessor he would make!
Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons whom I listed below as a good source is scheduled to be on the Drew Mariani program on Relevant Radio today with one of the topics to be discussed – a new report on homosexuality!:
http://216.235.201.127/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=275&srcid=211
In regards to adolescent crushes, I would add that they can actually be *exacerbated* by the unattainability of the person who is the object of the crush. The very fact that this person is forever beyond one’s reach can make them even more a subject of romantic fantasizing. Psychologists are divided as to whether it’s a process of the person’s unattainability making it feel safer to fantasize about them by removing the risk of rejection, or whether their unattainability makes them more of a prize if only they *could* be won.
A couple of very helpful articles by another great therapist but could not remember his name earlier: Dr. Joseph Nicolosi
http://www.ldolphin.org/narth2.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/repair.html
I think another thing that the writer has to be keenly aware of is that there are many in the seminaries, not even just students, who also experience SSA. It may be worth considering whether one’s own struggle with SSA might be affected by being in an environment where SSA is sometimes even tolerated as long as it is kept quiet. I know one seminarian who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and is now an Orthodox priest. He was dead serious when he said that the reason why he converted was that he was “tired of being asked out by bishops”. I would advise to be a little cautious about the potential environment you’re going into. You will not be the only person struggling with SSA, and some of the others may not be trying as hard to keep it in check. I wish you well and pray that the Lord stands beside you in your struggle.
Perhaps if the SSA is not sufficiently remitted by the time this reader graduates college he could still take seminary or theology courses somewhere, while he continues his struggle. Then if he succeeds he can transfer into a real seminary program. Just a thought.
I agree with Jimmy’s analysis.
I do believe that the reader may very well have a future vocation, but on a purely practical level, (1) The crush on the other male should be abated for a significant period of time, and (2) Seminary IS NOT the place to go to overcome SSA.
Since the reader is young, I suggest he not apply to seminary for a while. Perhaps, in the meantime, he can work on the SSA/maturity issues through counseling and further social interaction. In addition, he can work to develop his spiritual life through prayer and spiritual direction.
You need to do a lot of research and preparation for seminary. You need to know the culture of the seminary and you need to be familiar with the people who run it. The suffragan bishop who used to run our diocese’s seminary went on record as supporting the ordination of women. His “reprimand” by our late former bishop was to remove him from his post at the seminary, but then he was given a Bible study show on diocesan TV. The last time I watched it, he had a professor from the state university argue the incontrovertible truth of evolution and the big bang.
So you have to be prepared for these kinds of things, unfortunately, in the Church today in North America. Be strong, pray incessantly, and keep your eyes and ears open.
Priest or not. This young man sounds like a damn good Catholic.
Amen, Kris.
A great and relevant post. Your responses, Jimmy, are the perfect use of the intellect. Good show.
May the Lord bless this young man in whatever he does.
The young man seems intelligent and indeed a good Catholic.
The analysis of Jimmy Akin is good but too theoretical.
If one has SSA I would not recommend him for the Catholic priesthood. The Catholic priesthood has way to many homosexuals, and the seminary and current American priest culture would be an occasion of sin with this young man.
The homosexuals (active) need to be weeded out of the priesthood.
the seminary and current American priest culture would be an occasion of sin with this young man
You think it’s any safer outside the seminary and priesthood?
I think it is safer outside seminary, because the broader culture is far more heterosexual, the Catholic Church subculture is more homosexual–sad but true
The internet changes all that.
Out of love for the Christ, the Eternal High Priest, and for the Priesthood He instituted, don’t risk tainting it. When you get through your temptations, then consider it again. What onefeels is not always the best indicator in all cases for vocation. Heck, if you let hormones and disordered passions even if they are hetersexual run crazy, not even then should you become a priest. Priests are supposed to be the best of the local Church. And right now might be the dark nights of your life. Offer it up.
I agree in the abstract that the priesthood has too many homosexuals, but that does not automatically mean that this young man is not called to the priesthood. He needs to focus on discerning his own personal vocation and deeling with his SSA.
Though I know nothing about this man beyond what is posted here, it sounds like he may really have a true vocation, he just needs to deel with this situation first. If it is God’s will that he be a priest, God will give him the grace to overcome this impediment. Perhaps he will be all the more holy and chaste a priest for this struggle early in life.
When you get through your temptations, then consider it again
When is anyone through with temptations? The day you die.
Yes I know, I mean the big danger of falling into them. As you get older, temptationss change or your old ones get worst. Especially sins of the flesh. But if you can not get over those inclinations than out of love and humility you will not enter the Priesthood, at least not at the momment. Sins of the flesh, whether hs or not, cannot be in the Priesthood. Unless you are sure and your superiors (I wouldn’t consult an american seminary because they would ordain the anti-christ, maybe foreign priest here who is holy.) are certain you are spiritually strong enough to combat the temptations.
Some Day,
I may be misreading “Da Rulz” Jimmy has instituted for his blog, but Rule 20, as he posted at the bottom of his reply, states, “When Jimmy is answering a pastoral question (i.e., for a person asking about an actual that they or someone they know is involved in, as opposed to a hypothetical situation) that can be phrased in the form “Is it morally licit to do X?”, do not contradict Jimmy in the comments box. People asking pastoral questions on moral subjects often feel very disoriented and confused if they get a debate rather than an answer on a sensitive question about a situation they, a friend, or a family member is involved in. ”
I respectfully suggest that your first post, worded in the form of a reply to the young man struggling with SSA, comes perilously close to breaking Rule 20.
Ditto, vitae. I’m getting a bit tired of the armchair pastoralists here.
Plus, Some Day is just being an idiot. American seminaries would all ordain the Anti-Christ? Ah, wow.
Not dealing with this specific pastoral question–But one of the reasons for the crisis in the Church is the takeover by homosexuals in the priesthood. I realize there are good people with so called SSA, but putting them into an American seminary and that environment is very bad
Re-reading this fellow’s letter, I am still deeply impressed. His first and foremost goal is to do the will of God– everything else, including his own personal preferences and desires, is secondary. If the majority of our Catholic young people in this country were similarly focused, our vocational “crisis” would largely be solved, heterodox seminary doorkeepers notwithstanding…
Let us pray that if this young man enters the priesthood and does have a “slip up”, and unlike normal heterosexual “slip ups”, he does not do so with young males which seems to be the tendency of homosexual males and especially priests
Especially priests? I thought it was just Republican congressmen.
This brother in Christ has my sincere prayers. Obedience like this is the path to sainthood.
I am also a young Catholic who has had SSA in the past — but to females. I would just like to tell the letter writer that the Lord has mostly taken away that tendency. I am now married to a wonderful Catholic man and have three beautiful children.
I am mildly tempted to dwell in memories from time to time (about once a year.) I just pray for strength to ignore them.
It can be overcome, especially while young. God bless you, and I encourage you to seek out Courage (www.couragerc.net), the Catholic apostolate for those trying to overcome SSA.
SSA attraction is a disorder that disqualifies a person from the priesthood. The church has taught this for 2,000 years. The priesthood is a sacrament were certain disorders automatically disqualify men. Epilepsy is an example as well as SSA. A man with SSA tendencies can be a devout Catholic lay person, but cannot be another Christ in the priesthood.
Did you even bother to read what Jimmy posted?
Hey, Pope Rafael, read “DA RULZ”! Especially #s 1 and 20.
Rafael
Good post
One would think with close to $1B in pedophila monies, 3 bankrupt dioceses with NY, Boston and LA soon to come up for settlements-the church would just say NO to any candidate with homosexual tendencies as John XXIII in his 1961 instructions clearly stated but was ignored after the council in order to obtain the “liberal” and “open minded” priest the church then desired
John, You should read “DA RULZ”, too.
Father,
I’m a former seminarian and I stopped after 3rd year of Theology. I’m a Togolese but I studied in Ghana and I can speak english and french. I would to serve as a priest in ytour diocese. Could you help me please?
Mob number 00233242743412
Thanks
I am struck by, aside from being active in gay culture, how reasonable this recent document is if you substitute “homosexual tendencies” with “sexual lust” or some such other term. Men who are called to the priesthood are called to be chaste and I would hope that all men entering seminary would have overcome all lustful tendencies and have reached emotional sexual maturity.
And, if it is not in too much violation of rule 20, I would encourage an organization like Courage over NARTH. NARTH spreads vicious inaccuracies about homosexuality. Unlike Courage, NARTH attempts to repair SSA and replace it with OSA, rather than help the individual live chastely with SSA. It is a big difference.
There have already been 3 comments on this post cautioning certain people about Rule 20 violations. Yet we still have people violating Rule 20. It is located on the left-hand column, under the heading “PERMAPOSTS”, specifically the post titled “DA RULZ”.
Bill
I read rule 20-and I can only guess I did not phrase my post correct-would never challenge you or Mr Akin
My apologies
Michael,
there is a difference between SSA and and OSA. Any level of SSA is disordered. OSA is normal, only when it becomes lust does it become disordered. Placing men in an environment where they are in close contact with other men, when they have a problem with SSA is inherently a near occasion of sin that would not be a problem for a normal man. A further problem is that the concept of being a father is foreign to a person with SSA, making it difficult for the sufferer to relate properly with his congregation. This is the reasoning put forward by the Vatican.
Placing men in an environment where they are in close contact with other men, when they have a problem with SSA is inherently a near occasion of sin
According to posters on this blog, simply sitting in church is a near occasion of sin for many with OSA or SSA.
A further problem is that the concept of being a father is foreign to a person with SSA, making it difficult for the sufferer to relate properly with his congregation.
The concept of being a father is no more foreign to a person with SSA than to anyone else who is a priest.
Anon,
According to posters on this blog, simply sitting in church is a near occasion of sin for many with OSA or SSA.
Who said this?
The concept of being a father is no more foreign to a person with SSA than to anyone else who is a priest.
Not true, the idea of being a father doesn’t require the experience of being a father. Being a man who is emotionally mature and healthy in his gender and sexual identity will make one able to understand the concept of fatherhood. At least that’s what the Holy See says about it, and I agree. Don’t you?
Plus, Some Day is just being an idiot. American seminaries would all ordain the Anti-Christ? Ah, wow.
Ok maybe I worded it like an idiot, but the message is the same. I have numerous time seen cases in which a seminarian has denied th Divinity of Our Lord, the issue been brought before the bishop by PRIESTS of his own diocese and he says what can we do about it , we’ll have no new priests in years. Instances where priests themselves have said that being a priest is easy, that when he looked for a CAREER that is easy and requires little work, he found the Priesthood.
Garanteed job, pay, vacation, freebees and oh, having a “female friend”is no problem is ok as long as no one finds out. Not to mention “male friends.”. Sorry, but that will result in very bad things. One of them being that the Eucharist will not be confected as a result of the denial of Christ’s Divinity, ergo no belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And so on and so on. Uh, maybe not The Anti-Christ, but people who are not other Christs in the world but anti-christ in all respects.
And not to mention the things they are learning in a seminary here in the US. I am not a seminarian yet, nor am I even in University, yet what I have been taught and read leaves the seminarians look like remidial students. And that is not becuase of my great studies, but rather the lack of it on their part. They leave expert econamists rather that saintly priests.
No offense Some Day, but the seminarians I know are more like medieval students, not remedial students – as in, incredibly competent philosophers in the spirit of Aquinas and theologians with a depth of understanding from the writings of Benedict XVI all the way back to the Fathers of the Church and beyond – not to mention the Bible itself! Plus, they can find words they don’t know how to spell in dictionaries!
Your view of the Church is just as biased as those who see a pedophile priest and see the entire Church as being that priest. You apparently are seeing one situation in one diocese, which, sad as it is, is NOT the “norm” in the United States. There are many, many, solid and good seminaries in our country, and the one that I know the best is also the largest college seminiary – chock full of manly men who are zealous mission-minded Catholics. In fact, I would not hesitate to suggest that the reader who wrote Jimmy should look into the possibility of requesting to go to this seminary to discern his vocation further, BECAUSE of its truly “Theology of the Body” understanding of the all-male priesthood. The seminary in question? St. John Vianney College Seminary, on the University of St. Thomas campus in St. Paul Minnesota (the seminary that was proud to stand up for Ben Kessler, when even the university itself was upset with his bold statements at last year’s commencement speech). Check them out on the web at http://www.vianney.net and send this info on to all the young men you know who are discerning the priesthood, particularly those who might be struggling to discern in a diocese with the problems like Some Day has become clouded over by.
God bless all of you, particularly the reader who submitted this to Jimmy – may our Lord show you clearly the path He desires you to travel upon!! And if it is indeed the priesthood, may His Spirit give you all the grace and strength you need to fulfill His holy will! Our Lady, Queen of the Clergy, Queen of Confessors, pray for him!
By the way, see this reprint of a great article written on SJV seminary recently (by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune of all places!) – http://www.vianney.net/content.asp?id=221
Ok, my last point – I just came across this, and it was just too coincidental to pass up… read this. 🙂 Ok, I’m through, good night!!
I know the errors of some or even the majority do not represent the Church. But you cannot deny the crisis the Church is in today. Read the profesies of Our Lady of La Sallete. See what was said by Our Lady, in a CHURCH APPROVED APPARITION. See what she said of the priests of today. And what will happen to them. I know there are good priests out there and some good bishops too. Even here in the US. I know many Orders that have plenty of vocations. Look at this site:
http://www.heralds.ca
or
http://www.arautos.org.br/defaultb.asp
Tell me those aren’t saintly vocations.
And they have over 300 seminarians under 18 in just one of the seminaries in Brazil.
That is an example of the True Church.
And a good part of problems in the seminary is that they start too old. They need to start in High School. And since the American bishops didn’t like it, well there goes the numbers and quality of the vocations.
Ergo…
Interestingly, the Diocese of Sioux Falls has 12 of their seminarians studying and discerning at the St John Vianney College Seminary in St Paul. I would guess that you could guess what Father Mason thinks about our SJV!
Twelve? That is such a wonderful number. They are trying to stick to the original numbers of apostles I guess. I feel sorry for the VAST numbers they must reject to keep it at twelve.
Meo Deus.
the idea of being a father doesn’t require the experience of being a father. Being a man who is emotionally mature and healthy in his gender and sexual identity will make one able to understand the concept of fatherhood.
Exactly, as demonstrated by innumerable gay men who are successful priests or biological fathers.
You misunderstood anon.
I would call you a fruit but I don’t know you.
Now back to seriousness, that statement is to be interpreted as “you don’t need to be a father yet to know how it should be done.”
Not be an abominable person and your ok.
I am not a father, yet I know the way father should be, because it is in the moral ideas and insticts of a decent, Catholic male.
And the innumerable gay men are successfully, as you said, leading from the pulpit to Hell and their children as well. Yes, evil is good at what it does.
Gay people are not abominable persons. May the Spirit of Christ drive that message home to you Some Day.
as demonstrated by innumerable gay men who are successful priests or biological fathers.
Not to mention, the innumerable gay men and women who are also wonderful adoptive parents, foster parents, mentors, volunteers and more.
Are you a homosexual?
Homosexuality is a sin.
And so is being a normal person and being lustful.
So you cannot be a good person and be a hs.
Because a good person does not go about sinning in such a grave manner. It is even against nature for that to happen. So please, making statements without backing them up and of that nature make you sould A)stupid B)soft C)wierd to say the least.
Homosexuality is a sin. And so is being a normal person and being lustful. So you cannot be a good person and be a hs.
Just as “normal” people can be good persons, so can gay people be good persons. And just as “normal” people can misbehave, so can gay people misbehave. Gay people are not bad because they experience same sex sexual attraction, as it is not a sin to experience same sex sexual attraction. So you can be a homosexual, i.e. a person who primarily experiences same sex sexual attraction, and be a good person.
Some Day, please read some of Jimmy’s previous posts on homosexuality (you can get them via the links on the left sidebar). I think you might learn a bit about differentiating homosexual orientation from homosexual acts (if you do know the difference, it doesn’t come through in your most recent post), as well as how to be charitable in discussing these issues. By charitable, I don’t mean you have to agree with everything that is said, but I do think Jimmy has outlined rules for civility on his blog (see Da Rulz, Rule #1). And if you accuse others of not backing up their statements, be prepared to back up your own (e.g., “so you cannot be a good person and be a homosexual”). Thank God for the sacrament of penance, for those of us who occasionally do sin in “grave manners…”
I know that posters on this blog have cut you slack in the past for being young and perhaps a bit impetuous in what you say, and also that I believe English may not be your first language, but zeal and charity need not be mutually exclusive…
Homosexuals do not include those tempted by it.
Only those who fall in it. A saint is not a lustful person because he is tempted by sins of the flesh, but is a saint in dening them
And I cracking on the ones who are “gay and proud”
not the ones tempted by it. And this anon has not backed up statements issues by him/her with moral documents.
And I simply won’t back down from a proud person taunting with sinful ideas on a Catholic blog.
FWIW, I don’t think the anonymous poster was taunting anyone. Also FWIW, I don’t think all statements can be backed up with “moral documents.” As Jimmy has noted in previous posts, discussion on this issue can sometimes devolve into less-than-civil discourse because definitions are not stated clearly. For example, I thought you were using the term “homosexual” to include those with same-sex attraction; evidently, you were not so using the term. Similarly, the anonymous poster may be using the term “gay” in a way that you assume means “gay and proud,” but that person may not mean that; he or she may mean someone with same-sex attraction. But like I said, that’s just my two-cents’ worth…
Homosexuals do not include those tempted by it. Only those who fall in it.
The English language may be your weakness Some Day. In English, a homosexual is a homosexual person, and a homosexual person is a person who primarily experiences same sex sexual attraction. One can be a homosexual person and not engage in forbidden acts, just as one can be a heterosexual person and not engage in forbidden acts.
A saint is not a lustful person because he is tempted by sins of the flesh, but is a saint in dening them.
One can be a homosexual person and not be controlled by lust every bit as much as one can be a heterosexual person and not be controlled by lust. A homosexual person can be a saint.
And I cracking on the ones who are “gay and proud”
A person can be “gay and proud” and be quite chaste. What many gay people mean when they speak of pride is that they are not going to allow society to shame them for being gay, for having a sexual orientation they do not choose. Some take pride further than that, to say they will not be shamed for engaging in homosexual acts. The Church itself warns against generalizations in judging individual cases, and circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance.
And this anon has not backed up statements issues by him/her with moral documents.
Is compassion for others not written on your heart? Why not look there first. If you can’t find it there, ask God.
I simply won’t back down from a proud person taunting with sinful ideas on a Catholic blog.
Neither will the hounds of Hell back down. Maybe you should consider a change of heart, if God permits.
For hating evil I’ll go to Hell?
If I am worthy of Hell I garantee you it won’t be for that. In the English language, there is many ways to look at the same word. Let us use it in moral terms and not in square terms. Saints are not homosexuals, saints may be tempted to homosexuality, but will never fall in them.
To be plagued by temptations is not a sin. To indulge in them, even by fantasies is a sin.
“Gay and Proud”is a sin because you are proud of a defective inclination. And you praise it as well. A hs tendencial person is called to the same thing as a normal lustful person, vigilance and prayer,and sometimes in greater degree because hs is contrary even to natural insticts, therefore requires greater action against it.
Please, I am not incompationate. A person like the one who asked Mr.Jimmy this question seems to be a good person. He has a defect and combats it.
Not embraces it and nurtures it. That is the Catholic attitude, and I will gladly help a brother in Christ who fights this battle. Now a person who is hs, and sins openly, freely and proudly, I wish for their conversion, but if not, I will consider them enemies of God and worthy of polemics, to a greater or lesser degree.
In the English language, there is many ways to look at the same word… “Gay and Proud”is a sin because you are proud of a defective inclination.
Just as you said, there are many ways to look at words. You have an uncompassionate, uncharitable view of the phrase “gay and proud.” As I have explained to you, it is neither a sin for someone to be “gay” nor is it a sin for a person to be “proud”, i.e. not be ashamed, of his/her sexual orientation. It can be a sin, however, for you to try to make them feel ashamed of it.
Seemingly, it disturbs you to hear the phrase “gay and proud.” Perhaps you should hear it more often, until the charity buried within you can come in touch with it.
Saints are not homosexuals, saints may be tempted to homosexuality, but will never fall in them.
There is no rule that says a saint can only be heterosexual. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, as a sexual orientation, is not simply something you’re tempted to “fall” into. As a sexual orientation, it’s a part of you. It is more than just about evil temptations, more than just forbidden sex acts. It’s a way of appreciation as well.
As I have explained to you, it is neither a sin for someone to be “gay” nor is it a sin for a person to be “proud”, i.e. not be ashamed, of his/her sexual orientation.
Except that one must differentiate between just the recognition in one’s self of a homosexual orientation or inclination and the personal acceptance of the label, “gay”. Two different personal realities. The experienced therapists who offer their assistance to those of the former do so BECAUSE he recognizes the distance between the two realities and desires to distance himself from the latter definition of persons, knowing all that that entails for his spiritual, physical and psychological welfare. When one wishes to spin around those realities one is hiding from the truth of the dangers involved and thus doing himself grave harm while covering it over with accusations against those who bravely face them. One then gives into the sin involved and the other fights the good fight … just as in any other serious inclination that may exist in others of our fellow men.
See, anontoo got it.
“Gay and proud”never refers to those who combat the inclinations, but to those who give in and announce it.
I think the Church made a booboo when it accepted the use of the terms homosexual and heterosexual. I know they’re convenient labels, but they’re ontologically inaccurate from a Catholic point of view.
one must differentiate between just the recognition in one’s self of a homosexual orientation or inclination and the personal acceptance of the label, “gay”.
According to the dictionary of the English language, the word “gay”, aside from meaning merry, bright and lively, means homosexual. When used as a noun, it means a homosexual, a homosexual person. Therefore, the word “gay” and “homosexual” are synonymous. If you are gay, it means you have a same sex sexual orientation, that you are a homosexual person. The Church itself, in its own choice of words, speaks of “homosexual persons,” i.e. gays, gay persons.
If you’re attempting to suggest that by accepting the label “gay” you’re denying the possibility that you may someday not be gay, that is ludicrous. It’s as silly as saying if you accept that you’re happy, you’re denying you might not always be happy. Most people who accept that they are gay today know that it could change, just as the Church knows that for many people being gay is NOT simply a trial. Indeed, for many if not most gay people, they had accepted that they were straight, and later discovered that they were not. They know firsthand the very possibility of change, and that acceptance of being straight or gay or whatever does not mean that it’s necessarily fixed and final.
Accepting that you are gay today does not require that one ignore the possibility that one might not always be so, nor the possibility that one may continue to be gay for the rest of one’s natural life. Accepting that one is gay does not preclude the possibility for change, and therefore it does not rule out the avenue of therapy for those who may seek it in the hope of change.
One then gives into the sin involved and the other fights the good fight
That is utter hogwash. Accepting that you are gay no more means you’re going to engage in sin than accepting you’re heterosexual means you’re going to engage in sin. It’s simply nonsense to believe that.
“Gay and proud”never refers to those who combat the inclinations, but to those who give in and announce it.
Gay pride is the refusal to give in to false shame. It is not shameful to be gay, to experience a same sex sexual orientation. Refusing to give in to false shame does NOT mean one does not combat sin. To the contrary, gay pride refuses to submit to the ignorance that you seek to impose. It is NOT necessary to fight the orientation itself in order to combat sin. The orientation is not sinful. Acceptance of a homosexual orientation does not necessitate acceptance of sin, any more than acceptance of heterosexuality necessitates acceptance of sin.
I think the Church made a booboo when it accepted the use of the terms homosexual and heterosexual. I know they’re convenient labels, but they’re ontologically inaccurate from a Catholic point of view.
Labels are like price tags. They can change, and even be removed. They are conceptual tools for understanding, steps along the path, and not the destination. The use of labels for teaching purposes is appropriate.
Accepting that you are gay no more means you’re going to engage in sin than accepting you’re heterosexual means you’re going to engage in sin.
Homosexuality is objective disordered, heterosexuality is ordered. This disorder orients the victim towards sinful behaviour. There is something wrong with being sexually attracted to members of the same sex, there is nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex unless it goes to the level of a sin against chastity. Homosexual feelings should not be fostered, they are not healthy. Heterosexual feelings should be fostered (not to the extent of lust), they are healthy.
If you don’t understand the common meaning of “gay pride” – go to a “gay pride” parade… tell me there’s nothing sinful going on.
Homosexuality is objective disordered
In the words of the Church, “A distinction must be made between a tendency that can be innate and acts of homosexuality that ‘are intrinsically disordered’ and contrary to Natural Law.”
heterosexuality is ordered
Not true. Heterosexual masturbation is disordered. Indeed, many heterosexual acts can be disordered. It’s selfishness that makes sex disordered.
This disorder orients the victim towards sinful behaviour.
A homosexual orientation no more orients a person toward sinful behavior than does a heterosexual orientation. There are many people with a homosexual orientation who are no more inclined to sin than yourself or anyone else.
There is something wrong with being sexually attracted to members of the same sex
It is not morally wrong to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex. The attraction is not chosen, and there is or can be more, much more, that surrounds and extends from such attraction than simply genital sex acts. Therefore, to simply lump all that homosexuality relates to into a box labeled “wrong” is wrong.
Homosexual feelings should not be fostered, they are not healthy.
Nonsense. In the words of the Church, “when human sexuality is not regarded as a great value given by the Creator, the renunciation of it for the sake of the kingdom of heaven loses its meaning.” Human sexuality, whether it be heterosexuality or homosexuality, is more than simply genital sex acts. Again, to quote the Church, “According to contemporary scientific research, the human person is so profoundly affected by sexuality that it must be considered as one of the factors which give to each individual’s life the principal traits that distinguish it.”
To quote the USCCB’s Bishops’ Committee on Marriage and Family’s statement on homosexuality, prepared in cooperation with the Bishops’ Doctrine Committee and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Like all gifts from God, the power and freedom of sexuality can be channeled toward good or evil.” Sexual feelings, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can be channeled toward good or evil. Homosexual feelings can be a tremendous driving force toward good, and are thus healthy. And homosexual feelings, like heterosexual feelings, can also drive a person to sin.
Heterosexual feelings should be fostered (not to the extent of lust), they are healthy.
Heterosexual lust, fornication, rape, masturbation, adultery, etc. are all products of heterosexual feelings.
If you don’t understand the common meaning of “gay pride” – go to a “gay pride” parade… tell me there’s nothing sinful going on.
I understand fully well your limited mindset. It’s quite common. It’s akin to thinking Christmas is what you see on TV, or that independence is what you see at an Independence Day parade, or that Christianity is what you find on CBN. It’s a juvenile understanding. If you can’t see beyond your own limited perspective, that’s your limitation.
Therefore, the word “gay” and “homosexual” are synonymous.
Even the dictionary notes that one is contained in the other but certainly not synonymous … especially when describing the actual difference within the culture. All gays certainly include the homosexual inclination but also involve the whole lifestyle in action. But not all homosexuals would describe themselves as gay – as in real time within the culture – which would prove them correct. The reality of the actual living out is what we are discussing here. And your spinning of Church teachings does nothing more than evolve into your own personal church but does not imply or describe the Church’s understanding in any manner of Truth. And, sad to say, that is what so often gets distorted – the Truth – when one wishes to rationalize behavior that simply is against the natural/moral order … in any addiction that results in an incomplete and twisted activity . Every other disorder within the sexual realm that was cited above has within itself its own rationale for not correcting once one has given into it. And the more the sin is indulged in, the more it latches on to the physical/chemical reactions and the greater is the tendency to justify it – even while at least unconsciously recognizing that one is abusing one’s own health – mentally, spiritually, psychologically and physically.
All gays certainly include the homosexual inclination but also involve the whole lifestyle in action. But not all homosexuals would describe themselves as gay
There are many homosexuals who openly participate in “gay pride” who would choose words other than “gay” to describe themselves. That doesn’t mean they’re not gay or that they’re not celebrating gay pride. They’re celebrating it.
And I laugh when people refer to “the culture” and “the whole lifestyle”, as if there’s one culture or lifestyle which defines all of gay. Gay people engage in a wide variety of lifestyles, as do heterosexuals.
The reality of the actual living out is what we are discussing here.
Yes, so why limit reality to your narrow perspective?
And your spinning of Church teachings does nothing more than evolve into your own personal church but does not imply or describe the Church’s understanding in any manner of Truth.
That’s your spin on the matter, but it’s not the Truth.
the more the sin is indulged in, the more it latches on to the physical/chemical reactions and the greater is the tendency to justify it – even while at least unconsciously recognizing that one is abusing one’s own health – mentally, spiritually, psychologically and physically.
Isn’t that wonderful? How very frustrating that must be, yet ultimately, it’s all part of God’s plan. As the Bible teaches, “The creation is subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” There are many examples of people who’ve been saved after years, decades of abuse. What a great teacher! What an experience of self-discovery!
God has bound all men over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them all. The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. To his own master a man stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
They’re celebrating it.
And the definition of that “it” makes all the difference. Many with homosexual inclinations are not “celebrating” and to force them into your own bigger cultural closet leaves out their own private rights to differ from such promotion. It’s kind of like exaggerating any population for the sake of salesmanship of a particular ideology. They’ve done that with the Church scandal in order to outwardly attempt to discredit all of the priesthood and destroy the Body of Christ. Again, the Truth gets lost for the people of good will. When the Truth is distorted it can only create a culture of death, not life.
There are many examples of people who’ve been saved after years, decades of abuse.
So then we agree! Self abuse is included one would naturally assume. Then, in order for such saving grace to continue to work one must keep one’s self from those now recognized occasions of sin. On the one hand reading your selections one would believe that you look to that available saving grace … but perhaps without the action of personal responsibility of involvement of the free will? One must act as well, through prayer and other means of staying on the narrow road if that “help is on the way” is ever to arrive for him personally. Gay pride parades, etc. don’t offer such an environment – but rather they serve to promote the continuation of such abuse as somehow a kind of good. Just as the word “gay” has been twisted, so too the word “pride” … IF such scenes are meant to depict the dignity of each’s humanity … or is that dignity to be discarded in order for the new definition of “pride” to work?!! You seem to imply by your personal selections that it is God’s will for man to sin. God never wills that man sin but, if he does, to humbly come to ask for the grace of forgiveness with a disposition of working against the sin in the future. That is what makes heaven rejoice. What good is that Mercy you mention if it is never accepted??!!
This young man made me realize that some of the greatest saints are unknown on earth, who struggle heroically and quietly against evil.
He should remember that this isn’t just about him, though, and whether he can resist temptations at seminary. It isn’t fair to the other seminarians, that he would be trying to resist his attraction to them..
“Homosexual feelings can be a tremendous driving force toward good”
For intstance…?
Homosexual feelings are feelings of sexual attraction to members of the same sex. This is intrinsically disordered, just as feelings of sexual attraction to children are intrinsically disordered. Should one be proud of being sexually attracted to children? Should one celebrate that sexual “orientation”?
Let me put it this way, so I will not be accused of hypocrisy; I sometimes have feelings of sexual attraction to women who are not my wife. It is my moral duty to suppress these feelings as much as possible, to avoid (as far as practical) occasions where I might be tempted, and it is certainly my duty to make certain that I never, ever act on these feelings.
It would be wrong for me even to allow the appearance that I was acting on these feelings.
With God’s grace, more and more, I have found this possible.
Heterosexual feelings should be fostered (not to the extent of lust), they are healthy.
Heterosexual lust, fornication, rape, masturbation, adultery, etc. are all products of heterosexual feelings.
It is clear that Matt was not refering to temptations to lust, fornication, etc. with that sentence. He was refering to attraction to people of the opposite sex. You should not suppress attraction to your spouce, but rather strive to keep it alive. Likewise us single people should not try to repress our attraction to certain people. That attraction is there to make future marriage possible. If I were to squelch any feelings for a girl I like I will definitely never get married (not that I personally likely will but that is another matter).
Heterosexual feelings thus can be quite healthy. Homosexual feelings on the other hand are disordered and can not be positive.
That is also the reason why quoting the Church on the value of human sexuality does not work in defending homosexuality. Human sexuality is properly heterosexual. When it has become homosexual, or pediophylic or beastialic (I probably just made up those two words) it has become disordered. To what degree it may retain some positive psycological function I don’t know, but the specific orientation is a problem, which should be corrected if possible.
ps. It would be nice if some of you could pray for me a little. I’m in the difficult situation of feeling more and more for one of my best frieds and I’m afraid it is going to get weird.
J.R. Stoodley,
You are in my prayers. St. Francis of Assisi pray for us!
“Sanctify yourself and you will sanctify society.”-St. Francis
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Thanks Inocencio. I hope you are doing well. Havn’t seen you around here for a while.
Oh, just to be 100% clear, I am male and the friend in question is female.
Steve T., you know who you are, if you happen across this I bet you will know who I’m talking about but I FORBID you to tell her or anyone.
Do seminarians ever share rooms? That could be another complication for this guy, even if he does get his homosexual inclinations pretty much under control.
ps. Steve, keep Jared away from her. I’m not being jealous here. You don’t know the half of what he has tried to do. “Sketchy” is the understatement of the century.
Many with homosexual inclinations are not “celebrating”
Yes, many are still living in the shame of ignorance, suffering with the false belief that their sexuality is sinful.
to force them into your own bigger cultural closet leaves out their own private rights to differ from such promotion.
I don’t force anyone into any closet. If you enjoy stereotyping people into boxes, then that’s your game.
On the one hand reading your selections one would believe that you look to that available saving grace … but perhaps without the action of personal responsibility of involvement of the free will?
Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” But not everyone knows or agrees what that means, and they won’t know until God opens their minds. As Paul says, “It does not, therefore, depend upon a person’s will or effort, but upon God’s mercy.” Those who understand, understand. Those who do not, do not. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls.
Gay pride parades, etc. don’t offer such an environment – but rather they serve to promote the continuation of such abuse as somehow a kind of good.
God is everywhere. God can be found, revealed in any and every environment. Gay pride parades are an excellent environment for it. I never fail to find God there.
Just as the word “gay” has been twisted, so too the word “pride” … IF such scenes are meant to depict the dignity of each’s humanity
One of the common meanings for the word “pride” is “a reasonable or justifiable self-respect.” It is reasonable for a person to respect his/her sexual orientation, even if you don’t like it or understand it. The word pride is also an antonym for the false shame that many experience.
Yes, you can go to various gay pride parades and likely see some rather unusual sights. Some take it to extremes while many do not. That’s diversity on display. It’s a festivity, much like another common celebration before Lent.
You seem to imply by your personal selections that it is God’s will for man to sin.
Is that what you think I’ve said? Man’s salvation is in God’s hands. He has mercy upon whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills. Has God not the right to make one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one? Or to reveal the purpose of any vessel however, whenever He so desires?
That is what makes heaven rejoice.
The Father celebrates with the fatted calf for the son who returns home after squandering his inheritance in sin.
What good is that Mercy you mention if it is never accepted??!!
What good is it to a person upon whom it hasn’t (yet) been bestowed? No one can come to God unless God draws him. “It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain.”
Homosexual feelings are feelings of sexual attraction to members of the same sex. This is intrinsically disordered
The disorder is in the misunderstanding, the misapplication. As such, even heterosexuality can be disordered, even sexuality between husband and wife. However, when the driving force of sexuality is directed towards unity, a search for understanding, for God, it is a good. Even hitting your head against a brick wall can be seen as a good in the sense that it offers direction.
Should one be proud of being sexually attracted to children? Should one celebrate that sexual “orientation”?
Sexual attraction of any and every kind is a force, a power. It is how that power is used that determines whether it’s for good or for evil. It is false to believe that sexual attraction for children can only serve evil. Sexual attraction is not a servant. It is a force, a power. When that power is directed back to its source, it’s a return ticket to God.
It is my moral duty to suppress these feelings… to make certain that I never, ever act on these feelings.
It’s my moral duty fully engage them as fuel for the return trip to God. As such, they are not to be suppressed, except to the extent that one has misunderstood their purpose.
That is it. You are very close if not already in mortal sin ANON!
Gay pride parades are a great place to find God!
That is blasphemy!
And you say its a great place like you have participated. It is almost assumable that you are in sin because you have made it a public statement and are persistant in not only believing but advocating it.
Please if you disagree with the Church and the Laws instituted by God, then don’t write in a blog were everyone is a Catholic and believes and follows God’s law.
As such, they are not to be suppressed, except to the extent that one has misunderstood their purpose.
Uh, let me suggest, charitably of course, that you have most definitely misunderstood their purpose.
Gay pride parades are a great place to find God! That is blasphemy!
Do you deny God is everywhere? Do you think He’s hiding?
And you say its a great place like you have participated. It is almost assumable that you are in sin because you have made it a public statement and are persistant in not only believing but advocating it.
I parade with Jesus, hand in hand, in tender embrace, with no shame whatsoever.
Please if you disagree with the Church and the Laws instituted by God, then don’t write in a blog were everyone is a Catholic and believes and follows God’s law
Who opposes God’s law? He commands me to love homosexuals.
Uh, let me suggest, charitably of course, that you have most definitely misunderstood their purpose.
There is but one purpose, to serve, to love God, to love neighbor as oneself. I work to turn everything to that purpose, even that which you detest.
I detest sin and even the sinful attitudes and vice within myself.
I don’t detest a person who is faithfuly fighting the disorderly passions within him.
Now what is the difference between “gay pride”and I am not ashamed that I have defects like everyone else? That “gay pride” does not want to get rid of vice but to normalize it, and the fighting sinner wants to defeat his own defects, not give in.
Now what is the difference between “gay pride”and I am not ashamed that I have defects like everyone else?
Gays are alienated, segregated, abused, labeled as “disordered”, defective, ill and other derogatory terms which do not reflect their true glory as human beings. This happens at the hands of their family, church, peers, society at large in numbers which exceed those for heterosexuals. They resort to “pride” as an antidote to the shame heaped upon them and the abuse, which the members of the Church have participated in under the color of the Church, to include the coverup and failure to address the issue of child molestations.
That “gay pride” does not want to get rid of vice but to normalize it, and the fighting sinner wants to defeat his own defects, not give in.
Many gays are simply sick of being picked upon. You act as if gays have some special duty which heterosexuals are exempt from. What gays do is no more disordered or sinful than what billions of heterosexuals do everyday and which doesn’t get a tenth the zing. Many gays are trying to get their lives in order, make something out of a stressful, confusing mess that’s been dumped upon them. You have a very large chance to choose a wife and get married. They do not. You can publicly express yourself with someone of the opposite sex in ways that if they did the same nonsinful thing, you would be disgusted. You want them to live in the cage that you built for them, and by so doing, you disrespect them as human beings.
Don’t do that, suffer, so what if you have to live alone in perpetual virginity with no partner to care for you in sickness and bad times, so what if we vote down every option which provides societal support for your well-being, you’re a freak and if you’re not going to become heterosexual, too bad for you. Get out of my sight… That’s the message many of them hear, and to drown it out, they have a parade or whatever.
Pipe, your 6:33 post confirmed what I had sorted out, that words like “gay” and “pride” are chosen to counteract “shamed based” feelings.
There are several inconsistencies in your logic, but it’s too late here to address most of them. The biggest one is “no one else suffers like I/we do.”
The biggest one is “no one else suffers like I/we do.”
Those are your words, not mine, a projection of your bias upon what was written. At no time did I say or suggest that “no one else” suffers in similar ways or as much. I referred to two general groups, homosexuals and heterosexuals. For your reference…
Reports of parental maltreatment during childhood in a United States population-based survey of homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual adults.
Child Abuse Neglect, Nov. 2002
Department of Epidemiology, UCLA School of Public Health
OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to determine the nature and prevalence of childhood maltreatment experiences among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults and to compare findings to those obtained from similar heterosexual adults.
METHOD: Data from the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS), which measured both childhood experiences with parental emotional and physical maltreatment and adult sexual orientation, were used to compare childhood maltreatment experiences of 2,917 heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual individuals, age 25-74 years, separately by gender.
RESULTS: Homosexual/bisexual men reported higher rates than heterosexual men of childhood emotional and any physical maltreatment (including major physical maltreatment) by their mother/maternal guardian and major physical maltreatment by their father/paternal guardian. In contrast, homosexual/bisexual women, as compared to heterosexual women, reported higher rates of major physical maltreatment by both their mother/maternal guardian and their father/ paternal guardian. Differences among individuals with differing sexual orientations were most pronounced for the more extreme forms of physical maltreatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Adult minority sexual orientation is a risk indicator for positive histories of experiencing parental maltreatment during childhood. While the reasons for this are beyond the scope of the current study, previous research suggests that childhood individual differences, including possibly gender atypicality, may be a causal factor.
=============================================
Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States.
American Journal of Public Health, Nov. 2001
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles
OBJECTIVES: Recent studies suggest that lesbians and gay men are at higher risk for stress-sensitive psychiatric disorders than are heterosexual persons. We examined the possible role of perceived discrimination in generating that risk.
METHODS: The National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States, a nationally representative sample of adults aged 25 to 74 years, surveyed individuals self-identifying as homosexual or bisexual (n = 73) or heterosexual (n = 2844) about their lifetime and day-to-day experiences with discrimination. Also assessed were 1-year prevalence of depressive, anxiety, and substance dependence disorders; current psychologic distress; and self-rated mental health.
RESULTS: Homosexual and bisexual individuals more frequently than heterosexual persons reported both lifetime and day-to-day experiences with discrimination. Approximately 42% attributed this to their sexual orientation, in whole or part. Perceived discrimination was positively associated with both harmful effects on quality of life and indicators of psychiatric morbidity in the total sample. Controlling for differences in discrimination experiences attenuated observed associations between psychiatric morbidity and sexual orientation.
CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of discrimination may underlie recent observations of greater psychiatric morbidity risk among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.
=======================
Parental physical abuse and sexual orientation in males.
Archives Sexual Behavior, June 1989
Sociology Department, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb
Gay males were found to have been more abused during adolescence. Abuse was related to a history of childhood femininity, to having poor relationships with fathers, and to having engaged in gay sex during adolescence. A history of childhood femininity and engaging in gay sex may provoke parental abuse.
Is it abuse to give a sound punishment when a child is out of line?
Esspecially when they aren’t “straight”?
Pun intended.
Anon, I would bet that all this would be more or less equally true of adolescent alcoholics, petty thieves or those with what they call “anger management” issues. The difference is that nobody has yet suggested that these maladjustments should be celebrated and encouraged.
Some sins cause more social problems for the sinner than others. It’s rough, but that’s the way it is. I don’t see how denying the sinfulness of the sin helps that.
I missed this bit earlier;
“It is false to believe that sexual attraction for children can only serve evil…”
Just so we’re clear, there, Anon.
We have nothing further to discuss. All your God talk is a cover to justify your own sin.
You are so sick that you can’t see how sick you are. God help you.
Is it abuse to give a sound punishment when a child is out of line? Esspecially when they aren’t “straight”?
The article reported on instances of abuse. I would not assume a reasonable punishment to constitute abuse.
I would bet that all this would be more or less equally true of adolescent alcoholics, petty thieves or those with what they call “anger management” issues.
The subject is the difference between two groups differentiated by non-chosen basic attributes, specifically sexual orientation. Petty thievery and anger management deal with conscious choices, while alcoholism is a disease.
We have nothing further to discuss. All your God talk is a cover to justify your own sin.
Are you jumping to conclusions again? I’m not advocating abusing children or saying that it’s not a sin. I’m differentiating between temporary passing thoughts that simply flitter in someone’s daydreaming mind without any resulting action from actual destructive behavior. Yes, such thoughts can be troublesome, and there are people who experience bizarre thoughts from time to time, and some seek to handle those thoughts by turning to God for help, and that can be a good part of a program. That is what I’m saying. Nothing sinister.
“It is false to believe that sexual attraction for children can only serve evil…”
“You are so sick that you can’t see how sick you are.”
I believe the correct word is not “sick”, but “evil”, Tim.
” Petty thievery and anger management deal with conscious choices, while alcoholism is a disease.”
That is really a very simplistic view. All of the above behaviors, along with homosexuality, may involve elements of non-chosen basic attributes, as well as environment and personal choice. The fact that there may be a “non-chosen” element to each of these doesn’t mean that any of them ought to be accepted, let alone celebrated.
“I’m not advocating abusing children or saying that it’s not a sin. I’m differentiating between temporary passing thoughts that simply flitter in someone’s daydreaming mind without any resulting action from actual destructive behavior.”
Those thoughts, whether they are acted on or not, if they are given conscious assent and are indulged, are sinful IN THEMSELVES. Indulging such thoughts IS destructive behavior.
“Yes, such thoughts can be troublesome”
They should be. The point isn’t whether the thinker finds the thoughts troubling or uncomfortable, the point is the thoughts are evil. Period. If you remain well adjusted and heppy while indulging impure sexual thoughts (be it sexual attraction to children or same sex attraction, or adultery, fornication), you still sin gravely. I expect Satan prefers well-adjusted sinners, untroubled by conscience.
“and there are people who experience bizarre thoughts from time to time, and some seek to handle those thoughts by turning to God for help,”
And some don’t. The thoughts are still evil in themselves and not to be encouraged by society.
“that can be a good part of a program. That is what I’m saying. Nothing sinister.”
Okay, but you understand that this is what I have been saying all along about homosexual thoughts? They should be avoided, suppressed.
Sexual attraction to those of the same sex is no more normal or beneficial than sexual attraction to children.
Pipe, dismissing my comment as a variation of “that’s just your perception” (aka projection and bias)is simply yet another way that you invalidate what others say.
This is how your post came across: You have a chance to get married. They do not. You get to publicly express yourself. They do not. You disrespect them.
Perhaps what I picked up on is the major Victim tone of that post. Poor victims just trying to deal with the “stressful, confusing mess that’s been dumped upon them.”
Feeling dumped on is a huge Victim statement. So is your entire last paragraph.
That’s what I picked up on. Nor is is “just my perception.” You might want to consider how your statements come across to other and stop blaming others for not understanding.
Pipe,
Christ did not die on the Cross so that it would be ok to persist in sin. You have a distorted notion of love, and I pray that you will come to accept Christ’s love for you.
Those thoughts, whether they are acted on or not, if they are given conscious assent and are indulged, are sinful IN THEMSELVES.
You not only contradict yourself but your statement is in error nonetheless. “If they are given conscious assent and are indulged”, that is itself a form of acting upon them. Furthermore, the “they… in themselves” refers to thoughts which have not been acted upon in any way, but you want to color them as sinful. You are confused. A sin a morally bad act.
It is not Church teaching that it’s sinful to consciously recognize one’s sexual orientation. It is not Church teaching that it’s sinful to act upon that conscious recognition in good ways, and there are many good ways that one can act upon them. That is what I’ve been pointing out, and all your efforts to color what I’ve been saying in a dark light is but your own indulgence in a flight of fantasy.
>>the point is the thoughts are evil.<< That may be your point, but my point is that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him. Throughout history God has turned evil into good for His children, and that is what I'm pointing out. You can argue with me until you're blue in the face, but you'd just be indulging in a flight of dark fantasy. >>but you understand that this is what I have been saying all along about homosexual thoughts? They should be avoided, suppressed.<< Your view is limited. Imperfection is perfected through God, love, God's love (redundancy watchers: pardon the redundancy). I say allow God to perfect what is imperfect, surrender to Him, allow Him to perfect you in His love. When Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil, was Jesus trying to avoid temptation? There Jesus stood His ground, shielded in the armor of God. When the devil had finished tempting, the devil left. God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. When you're tempted, He will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it. dismissing my comment as a variation of “that’s just your perception” (aka projection and bias)is simply yet another way that you invalidate what others say.
Your feeling of invalidation comes from your holding to a limited view. If you would see what I am saying from my view, you would not feel invalidated.
Perhaps what I picked up on is the major Victim tone of that post… That’s what I picked up on. Nor is is “just my perception.”
In that, we both share the same perception. However, it is also the perception accorded in the Church’s teaching when it goes so far as to make the special statement, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Do you imagine the Church simply threw that statement in randomly?
You might want to consider how your statements come across to other and stop blaming others for not understanding.
Have you done that? Was it not your choice to place your own colorful perception in quotes? Did you not realize how that could be seen as an attempt to stuff your own perception into someone else’s mouth?
My response to you was, “Those are your words, not mine, a projection of your bias upon what was written.” Was my response not true? Is it blaming you to help you see what you did? If by blame, you mean to hold responsible, should we not hold you responsible for what you did?
Christ did not die on the Cross so that it would be ok to persist in sin. You have a distorted notion of love
You have a distorted notion of what I’ve been saying.
Pipe,
You have a distorted notion of what I’ve been saying.
No, I have to say, you’re coming through, loud and clear.
I,
The Church says that Homosexuality, not only behavior but Homosexuality ITSELF, is a grave disorder of the passions.
There is no alternative way of interpreting that.
The Church says that Homosexuality, not only behavior but Homosexuality ITSELF, is a grave disorder of the passions.
That’s actually what you say the Church says, but nonetheless, I agree it’s substantially inline with Church teaching, though not completely. To be clear, though you speak of homosexuality as if it’s apart from behavior, the Church defines: “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex,” and “Homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality.” Putting them together, we get: Homosexuality refers to those acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. By that, homosexuality refers to disordered procreative behavior. If you’re seeking to expand the word “homosexuality” beyond that, you’re contradicting Church teaching.
Perhaps what you’re referring to in regard to that which is not a behavior is the inclination toward homosexuality, and to you help you out on that, the Church teaches that the homosexual inclination is an “objective disorder.”
Is someone saying the Church says otherwise?
Pipe, there is a difference between saying that you invalidate what others say, even that you invalidated what I said, and “feeling invalidated.” I do see what you are saying and I don’t feel invalidated.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Skipping down to the related considering how you come across, your response was a great example “the best defense is a good offense.” I put “just your perception” in quotes because that’s what I’ve distilled variatons of that response down to.
You are very adept with words and it’s apparent that you’ve done a lot of book learning. And yet, you’ve missed crucial points in an intellectual sense.
Which brings me to the victim perception. I do wish that when people quote statements that they would give a source. So that others do not have to Google search, it’s from the 2003 statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at:
Since I obviously still haven’t figured out how to do urls, here’s the shorthand one:
http://tinyurl.com/imqm
Anyway, back to the discussion. Interesting that you picked out certain sentences to support a particular point, but miss the overall point of the CDF statement.
When I started this post, I was going to say that feeling vicitimized is a sign of “room to grow” on the Christian journey.
Christ didn’t die so that people could feel victimized. He suffered and died, he willingly suffered and died to free people from feeling victimized. None of the saints talk about feeling dumped on or victimized.
Despite the numerous posts on this thread, it’s been difficult to have a discussion with you. Your response to nearly all the comments to you is that the other poster is wrong. And yes, I have noted that others have said that you’re wrong. But you sound as if you think you’re the only one who correctly understands Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
I’m sure there’s more that could be said, but I have a full day of errands ahead of me.
Okay, Pipe –
“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex,”
This makes no mention of genital sex, it says “relations”.
Kissing, hand holding, sleeping with, or otherwise acting out homosexual inclinations, *genitally or not*, are objectively disordered acts, because they flow from objectively disordered passions.
In addition they cause scandal, which is sinful in itself.
Or are you saying it would be okay for me to kiss, hold hands, sleep with a woman other than my wife, as long as we don’t go “all the way”?
You’re attempts to present your views as being somehow in line with Church teaching are disingenuous at best.
“It is not Church teaching that it’s sinful to act upon that conscious recognition in good ways”
The ONLY good way to respond to homosexual temptations is to resist them.
-My two cents worth:
“Abstain from ALL APPEARANCE of evil”- I thes. 5:22.
“you speak of homosexuality as if it’s apart from behavior”
YOU speak of homosexuality as if it’s apart from sex.
If Sexuality is only behavior, and is not an act of the will, Then no one who suffers from the disorder and is tempted to lust after persons of his own sex can resist acting upon his impulses. But every last rational Human has Free Will and can resist doing anything he has control over. Sexual behavior is something man has control over (or I would probably have become a father many times over), and therefore the argument is false.
correction: I meant to say
“CAN’T resist acting upon his impulses.”
Another thought.
If people who suffer from homosexual inclinations expose themselves to temptations by trying to find supposedly non-sexual ways of acting out their inclinations, they are guilty of grave sin.
David B: Quite right. This is why, in the Act of Contrition, we “firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin.” Indeed, the Baltimore Catechism speaks quite highly of avoiding such temptation: “The most effective means of overcoming temptation are prayer, mortification, frequent Confession and Holy Communion, and avoiding idleness and the near occasion of sin.”
I do see what you are saying… I put “just your perception” in quotes because that’s what I’ve distilled variatons of that response down to.
Mary Kay, if you see what I’m saying as I see it, you’ll understand that the quote you refer to is NOT the one I refer to. And as such, you didn’t see what I was saying, no matter how much you might insist you do.
Your response to nearly all the comments to you is that the other poster is wrong.
Well, if you’d get it right just once, you might have a start.
I do wish that when people quote statements that they would give a source. So that others do not have to Google search, it’s from the 2003 statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
No Google search is needed by anyone who knows their Catechism. The quoted statement comes directly from #2358.
Which brings me to the victim perception… Interesting that you picked out certain sentences to support a particular point, but miss the overall point of the CDF statement.
You presume wrong, once again. Let me quote from the CDF document you reference and let it explain it to you: “Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts AND unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.” I’m reminding of the latter, and am fully aware of the former.
Christ didn’t die so that people could feel victimized. He suffered and died, he willingly suffered and died to free people from feeling victimized. None of the saints talk about feeling dumped on or victimized.
Wrong again. According to Webster’s, willingly or not, even Jesus was a victim, as are the many martyred saints, as are murdered, oppressed and/or mistreated homosexuals:
Main Entry: victim
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin victima; perhaps akin to Old High German wIh holy
1 : a living being sacrificed to a deity or in the performance of a religious rite
2 : one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent : as a (1) : one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions [a victim of cancer] [a victim of the auto crash] [a murder victim] (2) : one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment [a frequent victim of political attacks] b : one that is tricked or duped [a con man’s victim]
This makes no mention of genital sex, it says “relations”. Kissing, hand holding, sleeping with, or otherwise acting out homosexual inclinations, *genitally or not*, are objectively disordered acts, because they flow from objectively disordered passions.
David B, your interpretation is contrary to Persona Humana, which defines homosexual relations as non-procreative genital acts, stating: “Homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality.” It’s also contrary to the Catechism #2357 where homosexuality is defined and where it is stated of homosexual acts that, “They close the sexual act to the gift of life.” It is speaking of non-procreative genital acts, not holding hands. Millions of homosexuals hold hands in compassion for one another without the slightest desire for disordered sex or indeed sex of any kind. Their holding hands isn’t closing any sexual act, if for no other reason there is no sexual act in progress. To make it clear how silly your notion is, they hold hands in Church for God’s sake!
In addition they cause scandal, which is sinful in itself.
Again, they hold hands in Church for God’s sake, and yet you want to say that causes scandal. Your claim is silly if not perverse.
You’re attempts to present your views as being somehow in line with Church teaching are disingenuous at best.
At best, your opinion is not the Truth.
YOU speak of homosexuality as if it’s apart from sex.
I do not speak of homosexuality as if it’s apart from genital sex acts when I’m referring specifically to the Church’s definition of homosexuality as posted. But I may also use the words homosexual and homosexuality in keeping with the broader meaning afforded by the English language.
If Sexuality is only behavior
In the Church’s definition as posted, it is only behavior, specifically non-reproductive genital sex acts. In the broader sense afforded by the English language, it’s not simply behavior.
Sexual behavior is something man has control over (or I would probably have become a father many times over), and therefore the argument is false.
The only argument you’ve disproven is your own, the one you’ve IMAGINED me to be making. I have made no such argument.
If people who suffer from homosexual inclinations expose themselves to temptations by trying to find supposedly non-sexual ways of acting out their inclinations, they are guilty of grave sin.
I’m not suggesting anyone deliberately expose him/herself to temptation apart from God’s will. But just as Jesus was led by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil, you cannot validly judge that someone has sinned just because you see that he’s stepped into a pit of temptation, a whorehouse, pride parade or whatever it is you fear. In faith, in love, in the Spirit, I walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, fearing no evil whatsoever, turning evil to good.
Thy grace to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin.
In His grace, I am never near an occasion of sin, no matter how close it may seem to be. In His grace, walking with Him, I fear not.
Pipe, thanks for proving my point and for doing it so completely.
You’re always welcome to be proven wrong. Consider it a blessing.
In His grace, I am never near an occasion of sin, no matter how close it may seem to be. In His grace, walking with Him, I fear not.
Make the case for this new theology which you propose: That in the state of grace, one is never near an occasion of sin (i.e. temptation).
Avoid making the case that you can overcome temptation with God’s help, in doing so. Because that’s a different case, and not what you said.
omg, I nearly spewed water on my keyboard.
Pipe, perhaps you missed that I said “thanks for proving my point”
In other words, thank you for showing just how difficult it is to have a two way discussion
with you.
Thank you for illustrating my point that your response to everyone is that they’re wrong (five times to me, I didn’t look at the others, in that last post plus the snide comment of “well, if you’d get it right just once).
Thank you for demonstrating that you sound as if you think you’re the only one who correctly understands Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
“No Google search is needed by those who know their Catechism…” Actually, this is a “two for one.” Instead of admitting that you had not sourced the quote, you sneer at others for supposedly not knowing the Catechism.
Your response about victims is a straw man. That is, you did not respond to what I said.
The topper of all was this morning’s post, which would be side-splittingly funny in its pomposity, except that I think you were being serious.
At this point, I leave you in God’s hands. I will continue to keep you in my prayers.
Pipe, I see you avoised (again) answering my question. Is it okay for me to engage in all this “non-genital” activity with a woman who is not my wife? Holding hands, kissing…?
If I see two men kissing, should I then just assume they are busy doing God’s work?
It seems obvious that your vice is more important to you than your faith, and that you will engage in any sort of mental gumnastics in order to justify yourself.
“In His grace, I am never near an occasion of sin, no matter how close it may seem to be.”
This is so obviously and inherently false as to seemingly require no response (but since you apparently believe it, I suppose it does). If this were so, no baptized individual would ever sin, especially not mortally. Yet, we know that it happens all of the time. Again, after a good confession, we are awash in God’s Grace, and yet, in that VERY Sacrament, the Church tells us that we must actively avoid the near occasion of sin.
At one point, many of the most vicious and hardened sinners walked in His Sanctifying Grace, only to be drawn in by sin, first by the near occasion (from which, once again, we are duty-bound to flee) and then by actual sin. So, not only is the statement in question false theology, it’s not even logical.
Many gays are simply sick of being picked upon.
We all of us have our crosses to bear.
That a certain course of action entails suffering for certain people is not an argument against it.
Instead of admitting that you had not sourced the quote
Dear princess, you were handed the quote as a gift, only to complain you weren’t given the source. As always, dear princess, if you’re ever in need, you only have to ask. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
you sneer at others for supposedly not knowing the Catechism.
It was yet another a gift for the dear princess, a fact: No Google search was needed by those who know their Catechism. But like before, the ever dissatisfied princess complains.
Your response about victims… you did not respond to what I said.
I did respond to what you said, dear princess. I told you you were wrong again, and gave you a clue to work from, the definition of victim. If you would, dear princess, open up your Bible and turn to the many places where Jesus, St. Paul and others speak of being victims, i.e. of being “injured, destroyed, or sacrificed”, “tricked or duped” or “subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment.” Here are just a few of their victim statements:
“I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.” (2 Cor 11:23-28)
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” (Acts 9:6)
And then we have the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, 1986: “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the objects of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation”.
The topper of all was this morning’s post, which would be side-splittingly funny in its pomposity, except that I think you were being serious.
Your mistake is in thinking this morning’s post is pompous. It is very sincere, as statements go: You’re always welcome to be proven wrong. You only have to humble yourself, dear princess, to see it.
Is it okay for me to engage in all this “non-genital” activity with a woman who is not my wife? Holding hands, kissing…?
Tim J, what is “all this”? Are you saying you don’t kiss or hold anyone’s hands but your wife’s?
If I see two men kissing, should I then just assume they are busy doing God’s work?
Why not assume yourself to be wrong and go from there.
It seems obvious that your vice is more important to you than your faith, and that you will engage in any sort of mental gumnastics in order to justify yourself.
How things “seem” to you is but appearances. I don’t give it the slightest credence.
This is so obviously and inherently false as to seemingly require no response.
Jared, dear warrior, it’s your starkly limited interpretation of what was written that is false. I wasn’t speaking about anyone else, nor did I intend that it be read apart from faith.
“Tim J, what is ‘all this’? Are you saying you don’t kiss or hold anyone’s hands but your wife’s?”
I wonder if that means “yes” or “no”?
I,
if Jared’s comment was “starkly limited” by extrapolating from you to the general population, please, if you would, explain to us how you manage to be “never near an occasion of sin, no matter how close it may seem to be. In His grace, walking with Him, I fear not.” If this statement applies only to you, then please tell us, dear teacher, how we poor mortals can do the same?
“I”,
If you think that these are all only our “opinions”and stand apart from facts…
then are you crazy?!
No one here believes in these things you say because we like to consider ourselves ( and I hope we are right) Catholics ENTIRELY faithful to Church teachings.
You aren’t going to pervert anyone here and we can’t seem to convert you. So I will resign to the most effective method of breaking hard heads and hearts: pray
I wonder if that means “yes” or “no”?
As one wonders what “all this” means.
explain to us how you manage to be “never near an occasion of sin, no matter how close it may seem to be. If this statement applies only to you, then please tell us, dear teacher, how we poor mortals can do the same?
Again, what you heard is but your own perception. Why not let Jesus be the Teacher, and listen to Him and not yourself.
There was a man who was driving through an intersection when another car was crossing the intersection from the other direction. They came very close but did not collide. Was that a near accident? Or was it no accident at all.
“”Tim J, what is ‘all this’? Are you saying you don’t kiss or hold anyone’s hands but your wife’s?”
Pipe, you sure seem willing to walk a long way around to avoid giving a straight answer to a question.
By your “logic”, why should I avoid holding hands or kissing (or whatever) with ANY woman I choose? After all, I have these FEELINGS, and it’s not FAIR that I should be expected to deny myself.
Forget the details about which women…it doesn’t matter. Any woman I want, at any time… kissing, embracing, whatever non-genital activity we can dream up. Yes or no? Moral or not? Why?
Next, you can explain why it is a good idea for alcoholics to hang around in bars, and why those with sexual temptations ought to specially seek out strip clubs. After all, God will protect them from sin, right? Fear not, and all that.
Sorry, that was me.
“Next, you can explain…”
No, he can’t. He has proven (and proven and proven!) that he can’t explain anything.
I,
If you’re going to keep telling us we are misinterpreting what you say, then please at least point out to us how we are erring. This time, I won’t try to hear anything but what you yourself mean. So please explain to us your comment, “In His grace, I am never near an occasion of sin, no matter how close it may seem to be. In His grace, walking with Him, I fear not.”
Also, lest I once again misinterpret, am I to equate your words with those of Our Lord? I know, as you tell me, that I should rely on Him and not on myself, but then why should I listen to what you say, either? Either (a) you are posting here just to pass the time and don’t want us to listen to you or (b) you are implying that your words are equivalent to those of Jesus, and that by listening to you we are listening to Him…
“I”,
You are a ( no “charitable word available)person.
You probably are excommunitcated somehow.
I will even be rash to say you are in mortal sin because the persistance of your errors and the attempt to impose them on other souls.
God have mercy on us all…
“I will even be rash to say you are in mortal sin…”
Yes, that would be rash, as God did not give you the equipment to know the state of another’s soul.
why should I avoid holding hands or kissing (or whatever) with ANY woman I choose?… Any woman I want, at any time… kissing, embracing, whatever non-genital activity we can dream up. Yes or no? Moral or not? Why?
No one can make decisions for you. Until you deny yourself, you must decide for yourself.
Next, you can explain why it is a good idea for alcoholics to hang around in bars, and why those with sexual temptations ought to specially seek out strip clubs. After all, God will protect them from sin, right?
In 12-step programs, the notion that the person is in control is surrendered. God’s control and protection is accepted. To quote, “We asked His protection and care with complete abandon.” Recovered persons are protected by God, and in surrendering their will to God, the issue of hanging around bars or strip clubs is thereby up to Him.
God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it — and no less so if it be His will that you’re standing in a bar or strip club, or holding hands with a pretty lady who’s not your wife.
He has proven (and proven and proven!) that he can’t explain anything.
It’s like pointing (and pointing and pointing!) to the moon, and all you keep seeing is my hand.
So please explain to us your comment, “In His grace, I am never near an occasion of sin
You’re welcome to reread the Parable of the Near Accident.
Either (a) you are posting here just to pass the time and don’t want us to listen to you or (b) you are implying that your words are equivalent to those of Jesus, and that by listening to you we are listening to Him
You’re still listening to yourself if you believe your dichotomy to be the Truth.
You are a ( no “charitable word available)person.
Bless you Some Day.
Dear Rabbi Pipe, my interpretation of your (false) words was meant to be applied to only Catholics, as it appeared to me that you intended them to be taken. Now that I see that this statement applies only to yourself, dear impervious one, I wonder which of your other statements apply only to yourself, dear mighty one. I now can only guess that ALL of your statements apply only to yourself (though I then wonder, dear invincibly-graced one, why you had bothered posting them here for all of us weak-willed members of the proletariat to read). It is now clear that your statements have no bearing on how the rest of the human race should comport itself and the rest of us can go back to doing what we’ve always been commanded by Christ and His Church: flee temptation, pray to not enter it to begin with and for deliverance from it when it confronts us, avoid the near occasion of sin, etc.
There was a man who was driving through an intersection where he A)didn’t need to be B)was warned by numerous signs that it was covered in spike strips and tar and other debris and C)where others would follow him if they saw him go there.
Another car was following this man’s car into the intersection from the same direction. This second man couldn’t understand the language in which the signs were printed.
The first man’s car avoided the spikes but couldn’t avoid the tar and debris; this car came away still drivable, but quite dirty and scratched up.
The second man was not so lucky and his car was immediately and severely damaged to the point of being undrivable. Down to his rims, his car scraped to a halt. The locals, a species of arachnoid super-mutants from Pluto–far more ancient than mankind and angered at their planet’s recent demotion by Terran scientists– immediately descended upon this second car, devouring its occupant and carrying off his vehicle to parts unknown so as to fashion more spike-strips.
Was that a near accident to the first car? Or was it no accident at all but a needless and deliberately, arrogantly foolish venture into hostile territory.
Cardinal Pipe: I meant to add that the super-mutant arachnoids from Pluto were designing the new spike strips so as to ensure the entrapment of the first car. The super-mutant arachnoids from Pluto understood that, being that the man escaped the spikes the first time, he’d be back and would probably be even more careless the next time ’round.
There was a man who was driving through an intersection where he A)didn’t need to be
… according to whom? Herein lies the beginning of your fantasy, your indulgence.
Was that a near accident to the first car? Or was it no accident at all but a needless and deliberately, arrogantly foolish venture into hostile territory.
It’s your fantasy. You fabricated it. You decide.
Hmm, I don’t see anything about grace taking away occasions of sin here. And I see the opposite of treating passions as no big deal. It doesn’t say, “Just get some grace and you won’t be tempted by passions.” On the contrary, it exhorts active resistance:
Whoever wants to REMAIN FAITHFUL must already be faithful–yet the CCC acknowledges temptations for these folks. The CCC does not remotely suggest that temptation and occasions of sin vanish.
If I’ve got a weakness, I am to engage in battle against it. But the CCC isn’t talking about a passive resistance wherein you just tolerate the weakness, willingly stay in situations that would provoke it, and make compromises with it. Here we see a prescription for an active and proactive battle against it, with actual ascetic practices geared toward that very weakness. No coddling or compromising with it.
If temptation is guaranteed not to exist for people in a state of grace, why write all of this? Why doesn’t it just say, “Go to Church and it’ll all go away and you won’t be near occasions of sin anymore”? How does anybody sin after they were once in a state of grace, if temptation wouldn’t have been there?
Mmm hmm.
Pope Pipe: Your fantasy seems to include a man who easily and repeatedly passes through a danger zone without culpability or damage or even a resulting aversion to said danger zone. I rather think my tale of arachnoid super-mutants from Pluto is far more realistic.
Oh and to answer the question of “…according to whom?” … Seems to me that Jesus Himself is telling us that we don’t need to be in certain overtly provocative situations (e.g.–a man kissing another man, etc. … are you telling me that someone NEEDS to do that stuff?) when he tells us that it would be better to pluck out one’s eye or cut off one’s hand or foot (I know you know the chapter and verse of that paraphrase) rather than to sin. He seems to be speaking hyperbolically here but the point is that we should do ALL in our power to avoid even the near occasion of sin. Christ Himself advises a scorched Earth policy when confronting one’s own temptations.
So, yeah, often times with any sin, you don’t need to be there. That’s the “near occasion” the Church teaches us to avoid.
So much better for a man to sell his car, rather than be devoured automobile and all by the super-mutant arachnoids from Pluto. Or at least to buy a frikkin’ map and avoid their part of town. Heck, those Plutonian guys make it a point of coming to look for you anyway. No sense at all in seeking them out.
It doesn’t say, “Just get some grace and you won’t be tempted by passions.”
Nor did I say that.
Whoever wants to REMAIN FAITHFUL must already be faithful–yet the CCC acknowledges temptations for these folks
Likewise, you’ll find I acknowledge Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted, that recovered persons can be tempted, all examples of faithful persons being tempted.
If temptation is guaranteed not to exist for people in a state of grace
Who said that? I did not.
If I’ve got a weakness, I am to engage in battle against it… Here we see a prescription for an active and proactive battle against it, with actual ascetic practices geared toward that very weakness.
Your battle is to butt out of the battle. Ascetic practices are self-denying practices, to include fostering humble distrust of “your” powers to battle and to butt out of the battle. The prescription you’ve been given is for knocking yourself off, as in denying yourself, so that there’s no (or less) “you” to be tempted, no “you” engaged in any battle, and no “you” who thinks yourself powerful enough to handle temptation. You are not defeating temptation, or necessarily leaving any room or building, but fleeing to God.
Temptation comes and goes, and when you are led by the Spirit, you go where the Spirit takes you, and that may be, as with Jesus, into the desert to be tempted. Temptation provides an opportunity for good, for practice of virtue and self-mastery. It can also trip you up. Avoiding temptation is much like avoiding deep water. That’s great, until one day you find yourself in it, with inadequate skills to stay afloat. Some may read this as recommending you practice resisting greater and greater temptations. It is not, but if that is His will for you, then that is His will for you.
Your fantasy seems to include a man who easily and repeatedly passes through a danger zone without culpability or damage or even a resulting aversion to said danger zone.
The example of the near accident applies to anyone and everyone without exception. Its application to near occasions of sin applies to anyone/everyone who is and remains obedient to God while tempted.
I rather think my tale of arachnoid super-mutants from Pluto is far more realistic.
Your story of a man who was “where he didn’t need to be” applies only to people who are not led by the Spirit. If the man were following the Spirit, in obedience to God, he’d be where he needs to be.
Which “fantasy” will be applicable to you when you are tempted? Will you be found to be faithful, or will you be found to be disobedient.
He seems to be speaking hyperbolically here but the point is that we should do ALL in our power to avoid even the near occasion of sin.
He is saying if your hand causes you to sin, better to chop it off. But if your hand does not cause you to sin, i.e. if you remain obedient to God, you are free to touch.
So, yeah, often times with any sin, you don’t need to be there. That’s the “near occasion” the Church teaches us to avoid.
Who is there when you deny yourself? God is there. God is everywhere. When you abide in God, you can be anywhere too, as He is, with no need to run out of the room when the naked lady walks in. It may be though that God calls you out of the room.
Of course, if you find yourself unable to abide in God in the face of temptation, you might think about leaving the room on your own — or ask Him for the strength to remain. Ask and you will receive, if you believe in Him. He is faithful to you and will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you can bear.
If you are faithful to Him, you will be wherever you need to be — and that may or may not mean you’ll be in the room with the naked lady.
So much better for a man to sell his car, rather than be devoured automobile and all by the super-mutant arachnoids from Pluto. Or at least to buy a frikkin’ map and avoid their part of town. Heck, those Plutonian guys make it a point of coming to look for you anyway. No sense at all in seeking them out.
With God’s grace, I let God decide where I am to be. If He wills I sell my car, I do. If He wills I take the dangerous route, I do. I choose nothing on my own. God knows where I am to be, and I am here.
Self-mastery is a LONG AND EXACTING WORK. ONE CAN NEVER CONSIDER IT ACQUIRED ONCE AND FOR ALL. IT PRESUPPOSES RENEWED EFFORT AT ALL STAGES OF LIFE.
Yes indeed. With self-mastery comes knowing when to go and when one need not go. If you are arrogant, believing yourself to be faithful rather than simply being faithful in denial of yourself, you will likely find yourself tempted and failing. It’s a reminder, indeed that you are here is a reminder, that there’s always more work to do, to know yourself. Glory to God in His wisdom.
You did say, “In His grace, I am never near an occasion of sin, no matter how close it may seem to be. In His grace, walking with Him, I fear not.”
You’ve proposed on this site the possibility of homosexuals not removing themselves from the near occasion of sin even though it’s not a life or limb matter and there’s no need for them to be in this near occasion of sin. You say it’s possible to cohabitate, kiss, hold hands, etc., and resist temptation to rub genitals without fail and hide behind grace as your reasoning/excuse for defying Church instruction in these matters.
Ascetic practices are not just a matter of fleeing to God; they are proactive practices in the virtues.
While it is true that God will never give you a cross that you cannot bear, it’s also true that you can deliberately give yourself a cross that God didn’t intend you to have and expects you to deliver yourself from. You advocate deliberately putting one’s self into a playing-with-fire situation when there is no life or limb or God-directed imperative to do so.
You do not subject yourself to unnecessary temptation in order to justify “opportunities for growth” and then claim that God put you in this position, when God’s very mouthpiece says otherwise.
Let’s recall CCC 2239: … “”Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint.”
Heterosexuals and homosexuals struggling with chastity alike, need to internalize and believe in their hearts that disorder is disorder, and not make compromises with the weakness as you suggest. “Mere external constraint” (see above) is what you are suggesting in your solution, and that goes against Church teaching. You’re saying, one can just make a compromise, and live with the person they’re infatuated with, kiss, hug, hold hands, and just exercise mere external constraint by not having genital contact. The Catholic Church says, remove yourself from unnecessary instances of temptation, and that’s not what you are preaching here at all.
“The example of the near accident applies to anyone and everyone without exception. Its application to near occasions of sin applies to anyone/everyone who is and remains obedient to God while tempted.”
Oh, see, I was confused, as you said your statement about never being near an occasion of sin was only about you.
One of the main problems with this line of thought, Pipe, is that you seem to be claiming a perfect knowledge of God’s Will. The other problem is that you seem to be claiming that it is God’s Will that a person tread so close to the “line” that separates sin from non-sin. Does God truly wish for any given individual to be making out with another individual who is not his spouse, so long as they don’t cross into genital zones?
Re: the naked lady … I’d like to make a friendly suggestion to you: read GK Chesterton’s account of St. Thomas Aquinas’s fight with the temptations brought on by the prostitute his father and brothers put in his room with him. Seems a lot closer to the methods of battling temptation put forth by Karen et al (not to mention the Catechism itself) than your methods.
Pipe –
As you have failed to answer any of my direct questions, I will assume it is because you have no answer to give (except for the continued “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” nonsense. I claim victory in the name of the King of all Londinium!
Look, I have no special gripe with homosexuals. As vices go, it’s very run-of-the-mill… the banality of evil, and all that. We’re all sinners.
But I do have a problem with this bizarre idea that this particular vice should now be wedged into the “virtue” column. What will we be asked to esteem as virtuous next? Bestiality? Sex with children? Don’t kid yourself, NAMBLA is hot on the heels of this movement to re-define marriage. They would like very much to see childhhod re-defined along with it. They just LOVE children so much, you see.
I am against any *unjust* discrimination against anyone, as the Church teaches. If the writers of the CCC had wanted to be consistent, they might have indicated that unjust discrimination against *anyone* struggling with sin is unfounded and sinful in itself. I think they mentioned it specially in the section you cited mainly to innoculate the text from empty accusations of mere gay-bashing.
But there is such a thing as just discrimination.
F’rinstance – Say I am responsible for running an office, where I hire phone sales people. A guy comes in for an interview, and is very up front about admitting that he has had a drinking problem in the past, got several DUIs, went through rehab, and has been clean and sober for several years. I check his work recoed and find that he has indeed been a responsible and productive employee, and hire him. If he does begin to abuse alcohol again, it will likely only result in him missing work, showing up hungover, or whatever.
Now, if I were superintendent of schools, and were looking for bus drivers to take my little charges to and fro, hither and yon, and this same man applied for the position, I would not touch him with a ten-foot cattle prod. It would be highly irresponsible to place such a man in that position, and so discrimination against him in this case is perfectly justified. Even more so if he actally showed up for the interview half-plastered.
Now (stay with me, here), let’s say we’re back in the little phone sales office and a guy comes in for an interview. He is well-mannered and intelligent, as well as having a great work record. He is obviously homosexual, casually mentions his partner, Bruce, and tells me that he needs the extra income because his career as a female impersonator in local nightclubs is not as successful as he had hoped. I hire him for his phone sales skills. If he allows his vice to interfere with his work (say, strikes up an office love affair) then the consequences are manageable (incidentally, this would be true for heterosexuals, as well).
Now, imagine that the same man comes in to interview for a position as a day-care worker, a counselor at a Boy Scout camp, or for the seminary. Once again – it ain’t happening on MY watch! These would be areas in which I would be totally justified in discriminating.
In both the case of the alcoholic who would like to drive a bus, and the gay man who would like to work at a Boy Scout camp, I have to consider what the consequences would be if their vice should spill over into their work. The alcoholic could wreck the bus and literally cost lives. The gay man might use his position to molest boys – boys I have been placed in charge of. In both cases I have to ask myself, would the parents of these kids want me to hire this man?
Pipe, you are trying to make the case that ANY discrimination involving homosexuals is unjustified, which is clearly not the case. You also seem to class vocal disagreement with your views as being another form of discrimination.
Gay marriage is the Equal Rights Amendment of our day. It ain’t gonna happen. Bans against gay marriage are being upheld in the courts… even in California! Its proponents will fade away at some point. They may find a few states where they can pretend to be married, and the government will play along, but when they travel they will find that most people do not care to encourage their delusion.
You’ve proposed on this site the possibility of homosexuals not removing themselves from the near occasion of sin even though it’s not a life or limb matter and there’s no need for them to be in this near occasion of sin
No, I have not, but who are you to say there’s no need for someone to be wherever they are? You are not the judge of what is needed or necessary.
You say it’s possible to cohabitate, kiss, hold hands, etc., and resist temptation to rub genitals without fail and hide behind grace as your reasoning/excuse for defying Church instruction in these matters.
You did well for the first few words, and then you fell into the pit of your own perceptions. I’ve not been speaking about “hiding” behind grace, and there is also no Church instruction that blindly prohibits cohabitation, kissing, holding hands, etc. Furthermore, it’s not only a possibility that homosexuals can love one another, cohabitate, kiss, hold hands, etc. and not sin or even be tempted — it’s a reality.
You advocate deliberately putting one’s self into a playing-with-fire situation when there is no life or limb or God-directed imperative to do so.
No, I do not. You have misspoken.
You do not subject yourself to unnecessary temptation in order to justify “opportunities for growth” and then claim that God put you in this position, when God’s very mouthpiece says otherwise.
I have not said anyone should, nor have I spoken the words you’ve put in quotes, nor have I made whatever claims you are referring to. And again, you are not the judge of what is necessary.
not make compromises with the weakness as you suggest.
But I don’t suggest that. You have again misspoken.
“Mere external constraint” (see above) is what you are suggesting in your solution, and that goes against Church teaching.
That is not what I’m saying, but what you are saying.
You’re saying, one can just make a compromise, and live with the person they’re infatuated with, kiss, hug, hold hands, and just exercise mere external constraint by not having genital contact.
You want to pretend to be the authority on what I’m saying? I’m not advocating any arbitrary willy nilly compromise or exercise of mere external constraint or speaking of foolish sexual infatuation. You’ve colored all the statements with your own agenda. Go back and think purely.
One of the main problems with this line of thought, Pipe, is that you seem to be claiming a perfect knowledge of God’s Will.
I cannot substantiate any knowledge to be my own.
The other problem is that you seem to be claiming that it is God’s Will that a person tread so close to the “line” that separates sin from non-sin. Does God truly wish for any given individual to be making out with another individual who is not his spouse, so long as they don’t cross into genital zones?
I understand your concern. God can certainly push the envelope as far as He wishes, and if one is superbly faithful to God, one would abide in His wishes. However, I would not expect such to be the normal case. Prior questions have related to holding hands, hugging, a kiss, maybe standing in a strip club, but not involving intense interpersonal physical activity of a deeply intimate nature.
the temptations brought on by the prostitute his father and brothers put in his room with him.
I’ve not been advocating anyone take it upon themselves to taunt temptation.
As you have failed to answer any of my direct questions, I will assume it is because you have no answer to give
Tim, assume what you will, but your questions have been properly answered.
imagine that the same man comes in to interview for a position as a day-care worker, a counselor at a Boy Scout camp, or for the seminary. Once again – it ain’t happening on MY watch! These would be areas in which I would be totally justified in discriminating.
Well, Tim, there are many experts who will tell you that it’s not valid to believe that being homosexual makes one any more likely to molest children than being heterosexual. And indeed, in many instances, you may be precluded by law from discriminating on that basis.
I,
“‘This makes no mention of genital sex, it says “relations”. Kissing, hand holding, sleeping with, or otherwise acting out homosexual inclinations, *genitally or not*, are objectively disordered acts, because they flow from objectively disordered passions.’
David B, your interpretation is contrary to Persona Humana, ”
That is not my ‘interpretation.’ I never posted that.
Furthermore, it’s not only a possibility that homosexuals can love one another, cohabitate, kiss, hold hands, etc. and not sin or even be tempted — it’s a reality.
The reality is that you have made God into an image you like.
We are made in the image and likeness of God; male and female. The two become one flesh as Christ and the Church.
Homosexuals acting as you describe go against their very nature as Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium make very clear.
You may now write a long flowery post about how misunderstood you perceive youself to be.
You are in my prayers.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
The reality is that you have made God into an image you like… Homosexuals acting as you describe go against their very nature as Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium make very clear.
No, Innocencio, the reality is you’ve twisted what was written into an image you don’t like. If you read the actual words that were written, there’s no mention of anything sexual going on, nothing against anything holy whatsoever. For all you know, they’re 87-year old persons living in a nursing home, bedridden in a double occupancy room with heart monitors blinking. But all you can think about is sex, sex, sex. And you call yourself Innocencio?
I,
You say we should act according to God’s will for us. But just what the heck do you mean when you reply, “I cannot substantiate any knowledge to be my own” when someone suggests (and rightly so, I believe) that you come across as knowing what God’s will is, not only for you, but also for others (“temptation comes and goes, and when you are led by the Spirit, you go where the Spirit takes you, and that may be, as with Jesus, into the desert to be tempted”). For us Joe-in-the-pews Catholic type, could you please explain this pseudo-mystic stuff so that we no longer persist in our misunderstanding of you? All of us on this board seem to be doing so…
And you call yourself Innocencio?
No, my parents named me Inocencio after my father and grandfather. Just as I named my son Inocencio.
But all you can think about is sex, sex, sex.
A rather silly comment coming from someone who defends homosexual behavior.
You remain in my prayers.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I,
you took my words out of context. here’s what I said:
If Sexuality is only behavior, and is not an act of the will, Then no one who suffers from the disorder and is tempted to lust after persons of his own sex can resist acting upon his impulses.
Notice I didn’t say sexuality was not behavioral, but that behavior is controlled by the will.
Form your posts, one gets the idea that you seem to think that a person who has disordered sexual desires and indulges them without actually having sexual relations is not committing a sin. But if sexual sin can’t be committed in the mind, then why did Jesus say it is sinful to lust after a woman? Surely you wouldn’t say that homosexuals who kiss, etc. are motivated by some non-sexual desire, will you?
There’s a false dichotomy of homosexual/heterosexual being offered here. I also saw a man say that he got married after going to a seminary for two years (heterosexual, sexor, somehow in a high place in a Christian institution). Sex is for procreation, and all other sex, whether it be homo or hetero, is *recreational*. It is wrong to look at the flesh of anyone and find titilation in it, regardless of age or gender. Perhaps it is just in our oversexed society that we’ve forgotten the necessity of celibacy. The key for this young man isn’t changing into a hetero or “normal” person, but sublimate his sex desires into something more constructive. We have to have better things to do than to seek recreation with others’ flesh. We have to have a higher cause than that. Though most people may chose to live as animals any of us can choose to realize our spiritual destiny. Just my two cents, thanks.
“Sex is for procreation, and all other sex, whether it be homo or hetero, is *recreational*.”
The Church disagrees, and teaches that sexual intercourse between husband and wife is unitive as well as life-giving, as is the love between Christ and His Church.
Right, bill, but I do see Mr. Tao’s point. There is one setting – and only one – wherein sex is natural, normal, legitimate and realizes its full potential – and that is within a lifelong marriage with the intent to have kids.
Now, each individual instance of the “act of marriage” does not have to have the intention of procreation in order to be legitimate, but this is the overall context of the couple’s conjugal life.
Any sex act that falls outside this boundary is illegitimate – contraceptive sex (even within marriage), masturbation, unmarried sex (fornication or adultery), homosexual sex, sex with beasties… it’s all centered only on individual, momentary sexual pleasure and becomes sinful and destructive outside the context (procreative marriage) that God created for it.
This is NOT AT ALL to say that infertile couples are outside God’s will when they have relations! The thing is that the marriage include the sincere desire for and openness to children.
However, Mr. Tao, the Bible gives very clear indication that some of these illegitimate sex acts are worse than others. Homosexual acts and beastiality are indicated to be especially offensive in God’s eyes… abominations.
These things – by their very nature – reflect not just a momentary weakness of will, or careless, self-centered disregard for God’s natural law, but a clear, conscious and active rejection of these things.
We might have some understanding for an ignorant pagan who does not understand why he should not have 5 wives, or should not just take a new lover whenever the mood strikes. But there seems to be built in to homosexuality, pedophilia and beastiality (among other things) a kind of determined rebellion against the natural order. A seeming delight in the wickedness of it. A wanton despoilment.
So, in that sense, I don’t think we could roll all illegitimate sex acts together and erase all distinctions.
This is one of the attitudes I often see in people (I was once one) who attempt to adhere to Church or Biblical moral teachings but still be as gay-friendly as possible. The idea that all sex outside of marriage is wrong is emphasized so that homosexuals are not singled out. Ultimately that is not right because sodomy is worse than fornication.
I would not think about becoming a priest, for any reason, whether it be sexual or any other type of issue, without first reading the biographies(or better yet, the autobiographies), of 10 famous Catholic Saints, first.
The saints are models for all of us, but especially those who are seeking to be leaders in the Church. And we really need these role models, for they provide wisdom and solutions for a great variety of circumstances that we might one day find ourselves in, no matter what our vocation is.
Where to start…Which Saints should be read first?
I think the Conessions of St. Augustine should be somewhere near first. It reveals his deep desire and search for truth in His life. Also, he wasn’t afraid of discussing his great search for the truth, nor was he ashamed to confess all of his weaknesses, errors and sins, and even doing so, openly and publicly. His love for God, and truth in life, was beyond all other worldly considerations and concerns.
However, I first read the Life of St. Francis, which is what brought me ‘back’ to the Catholic Faith. So, for me personally, this also should be on top of a ‘priority’ spiritual reading list.
St. Philip Neri is a good one because he is so joyful, and is a great role model for Christian freedom of expression, as compared to a ‘Jansenist’ type of ‘ridgid’ Catholic spirituality, which teaches us to be somewhat like ‘spiritual paraplegics’ and devoid of spontaneoity and a ‘welcoming’, loving nature.
The “Lives of the Desert Fathers” provides countless examples of how to avoid vanity in this life, and to reach a more profound level of true spirituality. Countless little sayings and examples can provide some wisdom for handling even the most difficult circumstances that we might face in our relationships with others.
The ‘Lives of the Early Christian Martyrs’ helps us to not fear death, but rather, to follow the Lord with a ‘burning’ love and zeal, and to be very steadfast in our faith to the very end.
St. Jean Brebeuf, a more modern martyr and missionary to the Huron and Iriquois Indians, for example, was preaching to a large group of Indians waiting in line to be tortured to death by their tribal enemies. But since he himself was beinig tortured, with his tongue already having been cut out, and almost all parts of his body scorched with red hot axe blades..encouraged them with his throat only…grunting to them not to fear such tortures but to eagarly accept the kingdom of Christ …and that they would soon be in Heaven!!
What kind of example can this teach us?? It is even like the preaching of Jesus to the good theif on the cross. “I tell you, soon you will be with me in Paradise!” Now, if hope can be given to wild indians, and murderous criminals…can’t mercy and hope be given to us also?? This is the type of thing we learn by reading the lives of the Saints!
St. Alphonsis Liguori teaches us, by his writing style, how much zeal and love of God is possible in this life. Every page of his writings and books are FILLED with divine love and honor for both Jesus and Mary!
Solitary preachers and missionaries, like St. Louis de Montfort and St. Anthony Claret, teach us not to wait for the companionship of others to begin our work for the Lord. And Jesus didn’t wait either, when he was 12 years old he gave us the example to serve ‘Our Father’ first..even if it means doing it without the aid or inspiration of others.
Sometimes we need to accept the fact that we might indeed be lonely in our apostolic endeavors. Nevertheless, we should do what God wants us to do, whether others follow, and accompany us ..or not! These 2 saints are perfect examples of this.
St. John Bosco is great for teaching us to be flexible with others in this world, and to know how to be holy in every circumstance. He is a real ‘modern’ saint, who lived during the industrial revolution. He didn’t care to found an order of monks, but said he wanted his religious habit to be “OVERALLS”! Yes …very suitable to his ‘Industrial Revolution’ times! He also teaches us, with examples like this, that truly spiritual men and saints can have a ‘sense of humor’, and be ‘witty’. However, he used his ‘wit’ to bring souls, especially rough, homeless youth, to the love and knowledge of the Lord..and help make them into real saints!
St. Francis of Assisi, also, was solitary at first, and even his father scorned and rejected him! His father renounced him before the bishop and his fellow neigbors in Assisi, and demanded he return everything that had been given to him by his family. Obviously being punctured in sorrowness of heart for such a rejection…by a father that should have really loved him…he stripped even his very clothes infront of the whole town, and gave them back to his father, being left completely destitue and naked before all! In this he chose to follow Jesus first, even if it meant complete rejection from everybody who formerly loved him, total shame and humility before all, and total poverty, being left with not even a penny …nor even a pocket to put it in!
Only because of the Bishop’s help was he able to have clothes on that day, and he accepted some poor rags in great thanks to God!
Later, he converted and accepted 3 robbers and murderer’s into both his friendship and Order. He didn’t turn imperfect persons away, even as so many Orders and religious communiities frequently do today. Heck, his very Order of Friars Minor even turned me away when I was young and zealous, and dreaming to follow the life and example of St. Francis– do to his influence in converting me back to the Catholic Faith. But then again, I guess being totally devoted to St. Francis wasn’t a sufficient reason to be admitted to his Order. After reading about the murderers, that he lovingly accepted…I thought that I must be at least as good, or worthy, as they were..but I must have been mistaken.
However…all of these robbers became famous for their true conversion..and even extreme devotion and piety! This shows us all that everyone can be saved and become holy! Also, not to judge ANYONE.. as unworthy of the Lord’s friendship!
So, first, read some lives of the Saints, for guidence and inspiration. They can give great examples on how to deal with lifes countless difficulties and burdens. They can teach, as they did myself, how to be resigned and even happy when family, friends, and even religious groups reject your friendship, companionship and love.
So, as the Lord says, “..seek first the kingdom of God and everything else will come after”! So too, the wisdom from the lives and examples of the Saints will be found to help in all types of difficulties, whether they be in a priestly vocation, or in any other vocation …in our quest to love and serve the Lord.
All for the praise and love of Christ! Amen.
Nice to see you around the combox again, J.R..
Seems like maybe you were on hiatus for a while, or something.