I'm Not Gay Are You?

[MarysLittleFlower]

The Cross teaches us to love and love is always connected to truth, which can cause us suffering, and so can the sacrifice involved in it. One of the effects of the fall was that heavenly love that we were meant to have became something so close to the passions. The Cross shows us the greatest love that is not based on feeling but on a selfless choice.. 

Edited November 25, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Spem in alium]

14 hours ago, Josh said:

Does she believe in God?

I don't know. She's a baptised Catholic, though.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

14 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

The simplest thought, like the concept of the number one, has an elaborate logical underpinning. - Carl Sagan

I didn't say it was black and white nor did I say it was easy. A simple thought can also be highly complex and difficult but that doesn't mean it isn't true. We choose who we love and we can control our passions or choose to act upon them. That's a simple truth even though it is highly complex. I also know this from personal experience. But I wish to avoid discussing our personal lives. Because your someone I care about and your feelings matter to me. Since we aren't going to agree it is likely that if I reply in disagreement to something so personal I would risk hurting your feelings and I do not wish to do that. God Bless.

 

 

Thanks K of C for your very respectful response. It's difficult when someone has learned from their experience something that is very different from what you have learned.

Life is full of so many things I can't fully understand that I have to trust that someday (probably not until after death) God will make things clear for me.

[Norseman82]

I have heard one theory (recounted by Theology of the Body speaker Vicki Thorn, RN) that because there may be cells left in the womb after a miscarriage or abortion, people who think they are gay may actually be yearning for that older same-sex sibling that was never born.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Norseman82

[marigold]

12 minutes ago, Norseman82 said:

I have heard one theory (recounted by Theology of the Body speaker Vicki Thorn, RN) that because there may be cells left in the womb after a miscarriage or abortion, people who think they are gay may actually be yearning for that older same-sex sibling that was never born.

Oh, please.

[Credo in Deum]

Oh, thank you. 

[marigold]

Oh, you're welcome.

[Credo in Deum]

 

[Papist]

Yes. I am very happy. And I was born that way.

[Cam42]

Interesting conversation.  What does the Church teach about homosexuality?  Firstly, we need to understand this:  "Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament." (CCC #2360)

Next we can move to this:  " Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC #2357)

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." (CCC #2359)

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." (#2358)

And that, friends is the key.  Regardless of the genesis of the disorder, we must HELP those who are homosexual (suffer from SSA) to live a chaste life.  We do it in a disinterested way and we help them to understand their state in life.  They have choices.  First, to marry.  If that is not possible, to remain single.  It doesn't really matter how they have come to think the way they do....whether it is thinking that it is genetic, or whether they think that it is psychological.  For that matter, it doesn't really matter what we think either.  We are called to help them live a chaste life and to help them with the virtue of self-mastery.

In short, we need to love our brothers and sisters.  Gay or not.  But, love doesn't mean condone.  Love doesn't mean enable.  Love means to empower them to do God's will.  And that is to live a chaste life, either as a married person or a single person.  If we follow what the Church teaches, we cannot go wrong.

[marigold]

I am glad you included that last little paragraph, Cam. Perhaps Roman Catholics will disagree with me, but I don't believe it's my Christian duty to help anyone do anything. I do believe it is my Christian duty to love - everyone, at every cost. The two are not actually the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive, either, but it is my experience that sometimes (perhaps even most of the time) we believe that if we are trying to help people to realise certain things or do certain things, then that in itself is what Christ means when he tells us to love people. I'm not convinced that is the case.

[Benedictus]

10 hours ago, marigold said:

I am glad you included that last little paragraph, Cam. Perhaps Roman Catholics will disagree with me, but I don't believe it's my Christian duty to help anyone do anything. I do believe it is my Christian duty to love - everyone, at every cost. The two are not actually the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive, either, but it is my experience that sometimes (perhaps even most of the time) we believe that if we are trying to help people to realise certain things or do certain things, then that in itself is what Christ means when he tells us to love people. I'm not convinced that is the case.

I agree with this. I think there's lots to be said for simply being, in one manner or another, and that can be powerful. Knowing when to simply listen, keep silent, pray and give space to people is important. Love them, be open. But if people don't ask for help, advice, opinion, or a lecture then it's probably not wise to start doing it. Seems to me that sometimes folk act because it's what they feel they have to do, not necessarily what the person/situation needs. With that sort of approach it seems unlikely it will bring a good dynamic.

[Socrates]

11 hours ago, marigold said:

I am glad you included that last little paragraph, Cam. Perhaps Roman Catholics will disagree with me, but I don't believe it's my Christian duty to help anyone do anything. I do believe it is my Christian duty to love - everyone, at every cost. The two are not actually the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive, either, but it is my experience that sometimes (perhaps even most of the time) we believe that if we are trying to help people to realise certain things or do certain things, then that in itself is what Christ means when he tells us to love people. I'm not convinced that is the case.

If you know people who are going hungry or thirsty, or in need of shelter, etc., and you are in a position to give them food or water, etc., but choose not to help them, would you be doing your Christian duty?  Would it be enough to simply "love" them, while doing nothing further to help them?

Obviously, Christ tells us it is our duty to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, etc.  Love always translates into action, and it is clear that Christ wants us to help our brothers and sisters in need.  Love is more than just warm feelings toward others.

I don't know about Eastern Orthodox teaching, but the Church teaches that the good of the soul is greater than the good of the body, and the ultimate good we do for others is to help them get to heaven.  

That's why in addition to the Seven Corporal Works of Mercy (feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, etc.), we are also commanded the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy, which include admonishing the sinner and instructing the ignorant.

That doesn't mean that we should run around screaming at homosexuals about the wickedness of their behavior, but it does mean that if we are in a position to do so, we should gently and in charity do what we can to teach them the truth and help them turn from sin.  I don't think acting as if we are perfectly fine with their behavior is really true charity in that regard.

[marigold]

18 hours ago, marigold said:

I am glad you included that last little paragraph, Cam. Perhaps Roman Catholics will disagree with me, but I don't believe it's my Christian duty to help anyone do anything. I do believe it is my Christian duty to love - everyone, at every cost. The two are not actually the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive, either, but it is my experience that sometimes (perhaps even most of the time) we believe that if we are trying to help people to realise certain things or do certain things, then that in itself is what Christ means when he tells us to love people. I'm not convinced that is the case.

 

7 hours ago, Socrates said:

If you know people who are going hungry or thirsty, or in need of shelter, etc., and you are in a position to give them food or water, etc., but choose not to help them, would you be doing your Christian duty?  Would it be enough to simply "love" them, while doing nothing further to help them?

Obviously, Christ tells us it is our duty to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, etc.  Love always translates into action, and it is clear that Christ wants us to help our brothers and sisters in need.  Love is more than just warm feelings toward others.

I don't know about Eastern Orthodox teaching, but the Church teaches that the good of the soul is greater than the good of the body, and the ultimate good we do for others is to help them get to heaven.  

That's why in addition to the Seven Corporal Works of Mercy (feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, etc.), we are also commanded the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy, which include admonishing the sinner and instructing the ignorant.

That doesn't mean that we should run around screaming at homosexuals about the wickedness of their behavior, but it does mean that if we are in a position to do so, we should gently and in charity do what we can to teach them the truth and help them turn from sin.  I don't think acting as if we are perfectly fine with their behavior is really true charity in that regard.

Thank you for your thoughts, Socrates. I highlighted a couple of things in my earlier post that might not have been as emphasised as I meant them to be.

I don't know about greater goods or official categorisations of works - that goes over my head a bit, sorry - but if I knew people who were going hungry, etc., and chose not to help them, then I would be failing in my Christian duty. And I agree that admonition and instruction ought to be included in that. But I'm saying that we confuse the latter for love itself. I think your comments about 'simply "love" them' and warm feelings are revealing; - there is this thought that love itself must not be enough, if love is just fuzzy stuff. But when I see how saints love people... To love people as Christ loves us, that's not fuzzy! That doesn't let us get away with anything! It's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. I can't explain it well, but this undercurrent of a separation between loving as feelings and instruction as duty - it goes very deep and can be quite sneaky.

[Papist]

It is not either/or, but rather both/and.  Instructing the ignorant and admonish the sinner IS love. For what does one gain from instructing the ignorant or admonishing the sinner? In fact, I believe it takes much courage to do so. That said, one ought not do it with spit and vinegar, but with love and compassion.  I had this exact conversation with my sister some years ago.  She thought the Bishops were being mean towards gays regarding gay marriage and living out homosexuality.  I say the Bishops are the only ones that are acting out of love. For they are concerned about their eternal destiny rather than worldly happiness.