Ave!

[Sojourner]

[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1843459' date='Apr 22 2009, 10:18 AM']You can't just say "How do you know it doesn't harm anyone?" Theres no proof its harming anyone so it isn't.

I could say the exact same thing about heterosexual marriages.
Sorry, but to say "it may harm someone. I don't know who, where or why but it MAY" is just stupid.[/quote]
Actually that's not true. There IS proof that practicing homosexual behaviors is associated with many harms, physical, emotional, and mental. Here is one link (of many you could find) from the [url="http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=690"]Gay Lesbian Medical Association. [/url]

Gay men are at a substantially higher risk than heterosexual men for:
* Sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and HPV. The latter results in a far higher rate of anal cancers in gay men.
* Substance abuse, including alcohol, drugs, and tobacco usage.
* Mental illnesses, including depression and anxiety as well as eating disorders.

On the topic of conscience formation, I would recommend a small volume written by our Pope, titled "On Conscience." You can buy it on Amazon.

[tinytherese]

Yet another welcome to phatmass. Now I know that I am far from being an expert about what you are going through and I can't imagine all that you are going through, but I have done some research on the topic. I'm really just a novice when it comes to this kind of stuff. I'd like to do more studying on the subject, particularly in regards to Theology of the Body, which I would totally recommend for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. I'm not a scholar of TOB but I know that it has a lot of great things to teach us in regards to living out our sexuality as God truly wants us to. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdb36VxMu2M"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdb36VxMu2M[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFw1VjuQvDI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFw1VjuQvDI[/url] [url="http://www.christopherwest.org/"]http://www.christopherwest.org/[/url]



I imagine that some of the church scholars on here can give you in depth answers and really explain to you (and the rest of us for that matter) more about the bible and its context and more adequate translations of the originial biblical languages that may shed more light on the topic, and they can also explain church authority better too.

I know that the paper that I wrote about homosexuality is not a perfect one but it does touch on some of what you may not know in regards to the affects of living out the lifestyle. Living out a homosexual lifestyle doesn't hurt anyone? The research I've found begs to differ. This is not a condemnation of you at all. I don't know you and I don't know your heart or soul. God certainly does have the final say on the matter but He hasn't been silent as to what He says regarding the issue of living out a homosexual lifestyle. He works through the church and sacred scripture to tell us what He truly desires of us. As Christ said, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18).








Love Instead of Hatred and Fear

Over the past two decades or so, the gay pride movement is gaining more and more recognition. We see rainbow bumper stickers and ribbons and comedy television series such as “Will and Grace” about homosexual men. People are pushing for tolerance and acceptance, yet if anyone objects to the lifestyle they are automatically labeled as homophobic and suspected for prejudices and even hate crimes against homosexuals. Is this an accurate picture? Are they really just bigots who are afraid and narrow? Real “homophobes” stand for love instead of hatred and fear.

First of all, one must take a look at the possible causes for homosexuality. Some may claim that it is genetic, but so far, scientists are unable to find the gene. “Dr. Dean Hamer (who coined the phrase “gay gene”) said, ‘We have not found the gene- which we don’t think exists- for sexual orientation’ ” (“What causes homosexuality?”). For the sake of argument, let us say that people are born this way. Even if one is biologically prone to a certain behavior, does this determine what is morally acceptable? For example, evidence shows that some people are genetically more prone to alcoholism. Certainly, this would not justify their behavior (“What causes homosexuality?”).

Some psychologists have proposed other reasons for homosexuality. One is that the person was sexually abused by a member of the opposite sex, even a parent (“What causes homosexuality?”). Homosexuality becomes their sanctuary so that they can escape the pain of abuse (“What causes homosexuality?”). “Also, a child who was sexually abused by a member of the same sex can become confused about his or her sexual orientation” (“What causes homosexuality?”). A second possible reason for homosexuality is that a parent of the opposite-sex became too absorbed in the life of the child. A mother and son may rely solely on each other for needs that should be met elsewhere, and this can contribute to gender identity confusion in the son (“What causes homosexuality?”).
A third possible reason is that the same- sex parent is either physically or emotionally absent. For example, a boy in this position may feel inferior and rejected by his peers when it comes to athletic activities with the other boys, causing him the inability to relate to his own sex (“What causes homosexuality?”). He then seeks a young man to identify with, and this desire to identify with one who is particularly masculine may be confused with the onset of homosexuality. Then if he acts on this and begins to explore the orientation, he may come to believe that he is homosexual. The attraction may have been there merely because the other young man possessed a level of masculinity that he admired and feared that he lacked (“What causes homosexuality?”). During adolescence one is in the midst of one’s identity search and many things are explored. One may feel confused in the midst of one’s identity search, so one is more susceptible to starting the gay lifestyle (“What causes homosexuality?”).

Many argue that homosexuality is natural, but first one must properly define what natural means. In the modern era, some define what is natural by whatever they feel. In a nutshell they believe that “If it feels good, do it” (“How can people say that homosexuality isn’t natural?”). The problem is that one could justify all kinds of unsafe and even immoral actions with this reasoning. For example, if I feel like robbing a bank would it be morally acceptable to do it? It’s natural for me to feel that way when I am low on money is it not? Obviously, such an action would be unethical. Let us take a look at what is called natural law, meaning when things are gathered together the way that they are designed to. One example of natural law is that a plant cannot survive without sun, because darkness does not help it grow and therefore stay alive (“How can people say that homosexuality isn’t natural?”). Now, let us move on to the way that people were designed. “First of all, consider that a man’s body really doesn’t make sense without a woman’s body. The same goes for her. The two complement each other. For example, the sperm and the egg serve no purpose in isolation from each other. Yet, everyone on the planet is here because of the union of the two” (“How can people say that homosexuality isn’t natural?”). Children can never result from gay sex.

Health issues reveal that homosexuality is not the way that our bodies were made. For gay men, because sperm are meant to inhibit the immune system their odds of developing anal infections are increased. They are more likely to contract HIV, anal cancer (from HPV,) hepatitis, throat gonorrhea, and ten times as likely as heterosexuals to get syphilis. Many of them also suffer from what is called “gay bowel syndrome” (“How can people say that homosexuality isn’t natural?”). Lesbians are especially at risk because most have slept with other males beforehand, some of whom were bisexual, and they typically have more sexual partners than heterosexual women. They are at a much higher risk for sexually transmitted diseases such as bacterial vaginosis, hepatitis C, and HIV than heterosexual women (“How can people say that homosexuality isn’t natural?”). From this research how can we say that our bodies were made for homosexuality or even bisexuality?

Should gay couples adopt children? Plenty of heterosexual parents are not always fit to raise children properly, so why not let homosexuals adopt them? They may be even better parents. Before one gives a gay couple a form, I would like to ask a question of my own: Do we want what is best for children? I highly doubt that anyone replied no, and of course this is true. Now, here are some facts that one must consider.

Sociological studies agree that children are at risk when a mother or father is absent. Their likelihood of falling into criminal behavior, substance abuse, and psychological problems are increased (“What’s wrong with gay couples adopting kids?”). Both a mother and a father are irreplaceable to an individual. The children of gay parents have the natural desire for them both, but have difficulty expressing this because they may feel ungrateful or guilty for admitting it. Rosie O’Donnell adopted a son, and when he was six, stated that he wanted a daddy. Her reply was, “If you were to have a daddy, you wouldn’t have me as a mommy because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy. This is the way mommy got born.” He answered that he would just keep her. She made her son feel that by wanting a dad that he was rejecting her (“What’s wrong with gay couples adopting kids?”). Children will also not have a healthy understanding of motherhood and fatherhood. New York Times Magazine once did a story on two girls who were raised by a lesbian couple. One of them admitted that, “I cannot understand or relate to men because I am so immersed in gay culture and unfamiliar with what it is to have a straight relationship” (“What’s wrong with gay couples adopting kids?”). This does not sound like a healthy situation for a child to be in.
According to research studies gay men and women have much higher rates of suicide, alcoholism, and depression than heterosexual men and women. Many respond that this is because of prejudice and bigotry; however, in locations where homosexuality is more widely accepted the numbers are even higher. The notion that such problems are caused by society’s condemnation of them is clearly refuted (Pinto 223). International Journal of Epidemiology released findings that, “The life expectancy of homosexual men is 38 years, and only 2% of homosexual men live past the age of 65” (“What’s wrong with gay couples adopting kids?”).

This does not apply to everyone, but homosexuals are often in unstable and promiscuous relationships. Studies on homosexuality have found that homosexuals sleep with many partners, even hundreds. Premarital sex is tied to higher divorce rates, so these studies reveal a troubling trend when one speaks about the possibility of adopting children (“What’s wrong with gay couples adopting kids?”). Research has also done research on “exclusive” relationships:

A study of 156 homosexual men (who were in relationships lasting
between 1 and 37 years) discovered that none of the men who were in
relationships longer than five years had been faithful to each other. Out of
all 156 couples, only seven were monogamous, and the steady couples
were most likely to engage in the most “unsafe” sexual acts. Yet another
researcher found that the average cohabitating homosexual relationship
lasts less than three years. (“What’s wrong with gay couples adopting kids?”)

As one can see, the homosexual lifestyle is an unhealthy environment to raise a child in. The life is not even healthy for homosexuals.

Now let us look at the Christian faith perspective, particularly the Catholic one. Homosexuality in itself is not a sin unless one either acts upon the desires or encourages them by deliberately indulging in fantasies about those of the same sex (“Homosexuality”). Scripture specifically mentions opposition to the lifestyle. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are taken in by Lot. Some men in Sodom demand that the guests be handed over for homosexual intercourse, but Lot refuses. The town is soon consumed by fire, “because of the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord” (Gen. 19:13). Homosexual activists may reject the claim by arguing that the lack of hospitality brought about God’s wrath (“Homosexuality”). True, the inhospitality did help to bring about the town’s destruction but so did the homosexual acts. “Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah ‘acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust.’ Ezekiel says that Sodom committed ‘abominal things’ (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin” (“Homosexuality”).

Another example of condemning homosexuality is also found in the Bible. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22). Many homosexual activists argue that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can now be dismissed because there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time such as circumcising male babies and completely abstaining from pork that are no longer binding. Indeed, the ceremonial requirements are no longer binding; however the moral requirements are because they are eternal and apply to all times and cultures (“Homosexuality”). If this moral requirement was no longer binding, then why does Paul in the New Testament speak out against it as well (Rom. 1:26-28, 32, 1 Cor. 6:9-10)?
Some ask why if two people of the same sex love each other and are willing to stay faithful for life cannot get married. Marriage definitely needs both love and faithfulness, but these are not the only ingredients. First of all, one must consider these simple, but often overlooked facts. God made both marriage and sex and created them according to His own design; therefore they are good and holy (“If two people of the same sex really love each other?”). A valid marriage must be free, total, faithful, and designed to give life, yet gay couples cannot give life because they cannot have children together (“If two people of the same sex really love each other?”) . When a man and woman have sex, they say their wedding vows with their bodies, because in intercourse they physically say, “I give my whole self to you” (Pinto 212). Not only is this why sex outside of marriage is a lie, but these vows could never be said in a homosexual “marriage.” In scripture we find that, “a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body” (Gen. 2:24). Two people of the same sex obviously cannot become one body in intercourse, for they were not designed to give themselves completely to each other because God did not make them that way.

A popular argument today is that, “this is the way God made me.” Though this may appear to be a reasonable conclusion to some, when taken at a closer look the claim falls flat. God does not make anyone like this, but permits them to have the orientation. This, however, does not mean that God created them that way or wants them to engage in homosexual acts. For example, God permits people to have physical or even mental disorders, but certainly no one believes that they are good in themselves (Pinto 224). He allows sin and other bad things to happen for a time in order to bring an even greater good from them that we may or may not be aware of or understand at the time (Rom. 5: 20-21). These are used to help us grow in holiness, but again are not good in themselves (2 Cor 12:9; Mt 5: 3-6; Pinto 225). If we all decided to act on harmful impulses using the “God made me this way so I can act this way logic” then anything, no matter how corrupt, could be justified (Rom 6; 1 Pt 5: 8-9; Pinto 225).

Does God accept homosexuals? Yes, but perhaps not in the sense that one may think. “God is love, so in that sense He ‘accepts’ everybody. But He does not accept everything a person does (1 Jn 4:8). The real question is, Will we accept God? Will we accept His love for us, even if that means giving up whatever sinful lifestyle we have chosen (Mt 5:1-12, 6:19-21)” (Pinto 227)? Blessed Mother Teresa called homosexuals “friends of Jesus” but still called them to conversion. She once said, “Jesus loves you always, even when you don’t feel worthy. When not accepted by others, even by yourself sometimes, He is the one who always accepts you. Only believe, you are precious to Him. Bring all you are suffering to His feet, only open your heart to be loved by Him as you are. He will do the rest” (“Considering that a third of all teen suicides are gays”).

What is a homosexual to do when they resolve to follow the Lord? Before Benedict XVI became pope, he wrote a response to the issue. “Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in the virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption” (Letter To The Bishops). He continues, saying that this acceptance, no, embrace of The Cross is not a meaningless effort of self-denial, but a denial of self in the service to the will of God who brings life from death and empowers those who trust in Him to practice virtue instead of vice. According to the Catechism, “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” (2347). Through embracing one’s cross, prayer, the sacraments, and the virtue of chastity one can overcome such desires. Those who wish to seek further help in discovering heterosexuality are recommended to seek Dr. Nicolosi’s Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in Los Angeles, Fr. John Harvey’s ministry, or couragerc.net. They have had excellent results (Pinto 227; “Homosexuality”).

Homosexual activists may argue that we are judging them, or even go as far as to say that we are justifying prejudice, even hate-crimes, but they are misunderstood. We hate the sin but not the sinner (Pinto 224). Jesus Himself said, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone” (Jn 8:7). We simply call them to repentance with authentic humility (Lk 24:15-17). Hate crimes and all acts of bigotry are clearly condemned:
It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law (Ratzinger).

Everyone is called to treat homosexuals with dignity and respect. There is absolutely no excuse for harassment, prejudice, or hate crimes.
We are called to lead homosexuals on the road to truth and joy by loving them. Nothing evangelizes better than love. Jesus said, “As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:34-35). We love them by respecting them, and being kind to them, and showing them compassion. Each individual yearns for love, and homosexuals, like everyone else, are in search of fulfilling love that will last, because no one is complete without it. Let us freely give it to them.

What is true love? True love desires what is best for the other person, no matter what the personal cost, and these facts reveal that the homosexual lifestyle is not what is best for them or society (“If two people of the same sex love each other?”). “Homophobes” are merely fearful for their homosexual brothers and sisters, not of them. Real “homophobes” stand for love instead of hatred and fear.









Works Cited
Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. The Holy See. Rome: Libreria Editrice
Vaticana, 1997.
“Considering that a third of all teen suicides are gays, why can’t people just accept them
for who they are?” Pureloveclub.com. Electric Pulp. 2007. 14 November 2007.
<http://www.pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=239>.
“Homosexuality.” Catholic.com. 10 Aug. 2004. 14 Nov. 2007 <http://catholic.com/
library/Homosexuality.asp>.
“How can people say that homosexuality isn’t natural?” Pureloveclub.com. Electric Pulp.
2007. 14 November 2007. <http://www.pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id
=7&entryid=249>.
“If two people of the same sex really love each other and are willing to stay faithful for
life, why can’t they get married?” Pureloveclub.com. Electric Pulp. 2007. 14
November 2007. <http:www.pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid
=254>.
The New American Bible. Ed. Hartman, Canada: World Bible Inc., 1987.
Pinto, Matthew J. Did Adam & Eve Have Belly Buttons? 2003. West Chester: Ascension
Press, 1998.
Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. Letter To The Bishops of the Catholic Church On The
Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Letter, Congregation of The
Doctrine of The Faith. 1 Oct. 1986. Vatican.va. 15 Nov. 2007 <http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_
cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html>.
“What causes homosexuality? If it’s genetic, is it okay to be gay if you’re born that
way?” Pureloveclub.com. Electric Pulp. 2007. 29 November 2007. <http://pure
loveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=74>.
“What’s wrong with gay couples adopting kids?” Pureloveclub.com. Electric Pulp.2007.
16 November 2007. <http://pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=
254>.




I also thought I'd post something that I previously wrote on my blog.



Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Getting the Records Straight About Who God is and What He Desires

A while back one of my friends brought up the topic of God. She admitted that she was having difficulty understanding Him as well as the concept of sin. My college roommate Gertrude and I discussed this with her but I felt that I hadn't given her adequate responses, especially since I am introverted and better explain myself in writing. The following is the email that I sent her.



I wanted to add some further things for you to think about from our conversation earlier about God. These things can certainly be confusing, yet you brought up interesting thoughts.

Let's get the records straight, God is not a cold, power-hungry, sadistic, and hateful God that wants to make us all miserable. Pope Benedict the sixteenth wrote an encyclical (a special letter that the pope writes to the whole world) called "God is love." Everything that He does for us is done out of love. The laws that He has given us are really for our own benefit. He is all-knowing, so He sees everything that can harm us physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. Remember that we call Him "Our Father" like in the prayer that Jesus gave us. If someone were to add up all of the love that every father from the first father to the last one that exists it would all fail in comparison to the love that Our Heavenly Father has for us.

God had no need to create us and to give us such the world that we live in at that, but He did. He didn't have to give us mercy, prophets, or even a promise of a savior (Jesus,) but He did. He didn't have to fulfill His promise of sending us a savior, but He did. He didn't have to agree to His only begotten son's horrific death to make up for our sins so that we could have the ability to be with Him for all eternity in heaven, but He did. He doesn't have to give us unconditional love, but He does.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him" (John 3:16-17). He didn't come to declare that we are going to hell, but to call us to change. Just like what Gertrude said about the story of the woman caught in adultery, we are not to judge but notice what Our Lord also said. Once the people that wanted to put her to death before because of her very serious sin had left, amazed at the fact that Our Lord had not condemned her and had turned the tables on them by saying that the sinless one among them should cast the first stone (which none of them could do,) He said to the woman, "Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more" (John 8:11). He didn't tell her to go and continue to live the same destructive lifestyle that she had been living, but lovingly called her to turn away from her sin. He tells us the same now and always, for as I quoted from the bible earlier, that He came so that we might be saved through Him, instead of continuing to live in the darkness of sin apart from the light (John 3:17-21).

We are given two options in this life, to love and serve God or to not love and serve God. If we chose to love and serve Him then we must keep His commands, not out of fear, slavery, or obligation but out of love for Him. Why do we do this? Why is it that we must love Him by obeying Him? Because when you love someone, it's not enough to just say that you love them. You need to prove it, so that they know that you really do care. Just talking is cheap, but our actions convey that we mean what we say. Jesus Himself said, "As the Father has loves me, so I also love you. Remain in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and remain in his love...You are my friends if you do what I command you" (John 15: 9-10, 14).

He doesn't force us, guilt trip us, or pressure us into doing anything. He certainly does want us to chose to love and serve Him, but He gives us the gift of freewill, which proves His love for us. For if He were to make us love and serve Him, then we would not love Him, but would be His slaves. He even loves us enough to allow us to go to hell. (Doesn't that sound ironic? But it's true. ) Because of the gift of free-will, He will not make us love or serve Him. It hurts Him very much (and that's putting it VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY EXTREMELY LIGHTLY) when we in the end choose to reject Him, for no one loves us more than Him.

Grant it we don't always understand why He allows certain things to happen, but He is so far above anything that even the greatest scholar of Him could even dream to understand. Essentially, the terrible and painful consequences of sin and suffering in general help us to grow as people, conquering ourselves, even drawing us closer to God during these times, for we come to completely depend on Him during the hard times (or at least we are meant to.) We are inclined to weakeness and sin but with God we can do anything.

Venial sins are smaller sins commited that weaken our relationship with God but mortal sins are much more serious than that that involve grave sins. Grave sins are things like murder, incest, rape, adultery, practicing homosexuality, slander, libel, intentionally skipping mass when we are capable of making it, etc. These are very grave sins, but in and of themselves are not mortal sins. In order for a sin to be mortal it must not only be a grave sin, but also be done with full knowledge of the sinfulness of these grave sins, and also be done under one's own free will. When a catholic has in fact committed a grave sin then they must not receive Our Lord in communion until they have gone to confession, for consuming Our Lord with such a great stain on one's soul is described as "murdering the Lord."

Jesus wants us to turn away from our sin and to be reconciled to Him, notice how I say reconciled to Him. When we sin we hurt Our Lord and through the gift of confession we are reconciled in our relationship to Him. It's just like in a song that I've heard at mass before. "Come back to me with all your heart. Don't let fear keep us apart. ...Long have I waited for your coming home to me and living deeply our new life." Our Lord is merciful and forgives us when we are sorry for the hurt that we have caused Him and is always awaiting for our return to Him. In this one spiritual devotion called "Divine Mercy" we look at the Divine Mercy picture of Our Lord and say "Jesus I trust in You." www.divinemercyshrine.com/sitebuilder/images/mercy_1_-868x1040.jpg

God bless.
Posted by Rose Petal of St. Therese at 10:09 PM 0 comments

[url="http://childofourlady.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=12"]http://childofourlady.blogspot.com/search?...;max-results=12[/url]

[rkwright]

Welcome Jake... I hope you stick around, I know it may feel like you're getting hammered here with questions - but I hope you take it well. Everyone here means well even though they may disagree with you. Just remember that.

And yes the posts come fast! You're phatmass addiction has begun!

I'm only going to touch on one point because there are very many good posts in this thread already. You mentioned that homosexual acts should not be compared to sins like adultery, ect. because homosexual acts don't hurt anyone - they are consensual.

I don't want to really get into whether they do or do not hurt anyone, but my point is rather that sin is not limited to things that hurt other people. Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself - but he also said that the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart mind and soul.

Loving God means loving His commandments. The Church has determined that sex outside of marriage violates God's commandments - no matter if its heterosexual or homosexual. I understand you have a tough time that you may not ever be able to engage in sex the way you want to. But all of us struggle with this unless we are married. I'm not married yet, and I am called to the same chastity that you are at this point.

Thats the real argument here. Theres no sex outside of marriage regardless of your orientation.

Now if you can disprove that... send a memo to me and my fiance! j\k!

Edited April 22, 2009 by rkwright

[MissyP89]

Just wanted to say hey, welcome, and do stick around! Things can get pretty heated here at times, especially on issues like this. If you need a break, come chill in the Lame Board, it's safe there.

God bless! As was said before, I have no idea how I would react in your shoes.

[MissyP89]

Double post. Wee!

Edited April 22, 2009 by MissyP89

[prose]

Although you are correct that having an affair hurts spouses and families, I think you are missing the ultimate point of the comparison.

Both homosexual intercourse and heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage is sinful. Homosexuals can not get married.

Are you implying that heterosexuals could also have sex before or outside of marriage without any sin incurred?

[missionseeker]

[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1843439' date='Apr 22 2009, 09:42 AM']haha thankyou lilred for the courage links.
But I am quite happy being an active homosexual and a practicing Catholic .
Hilde, I am refering to the Church's teaching that conscience is the ultimate authority.
And to contradict it is wrong.

Cardinal Newman once said "I would gladly drink to the pope, but first to conscience and then the pope".

I said it before and I will say it again. God is Love, nothing that comes from God is evil. Nothing. God is the source of all goodness. And a love between two people, regardless of gender, is not evil. I simply do not believe God would condemn me for acting on feelings he gave me.[/quote]

Hey, it's intriguing to me that you used that quote. I am taking a course on Cardinal Newman's theology and we just finished reading [url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html"]Letter to The Duke Norfolk: Conscience (section V ) (link) [/url]

In it, he isn't really talking about individuals forming their conscience and deciding whether the Church is right. There was a common thinking (particularly in England) that Catholics could in no way be good citizens because their loyalties were already bound to another sovereign (namely the pope) AND that they must do whatever the pope told them. This led to thinking that the pope could call a war on a country and Catholics in that country would join a Catholic army and overturn the government. This was not very long after the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was declared so non-Catholics thought that Catholics thought that everything that came out of the mouth of the pope was basically coming out of the mouth of God. (which, as I am sure you know, infallibility only applies to matters of morals and doctrine in statements made ex cathedra, of which there are very few) Basically the argument that Newman is refuting is that Catholic cannot make decisions free from the pope if the pope is... let's say reminiscent of the Renaissance. lol

He also says in it that:
[b]I say, then, that the Supreme Being is of a certain character, which, expressed in human language, we call ethical. He has the attributes of justice, truth, wisdom, sanctity, benevolence and mercy, as eternal characteristics in His nature, the very Law of His being, identical with Himself; and next, when He became Creator, He implanted this Law, which is Himself, in the intelligence of all His rational creatures. The Divine Law, then, is the rule of ethical truth, the standard of right and wrong, a sovereign, irreversible, absolute authority in the presence of men and Angels. "The eternal law," says St. Augustine, "is the Divine Reason or Will of God, commanding {247} the observance, forbidding the disturbance, of the natural order of things." "The natural law," says St. Thomas, "is an impression of the Divine Light in us, a participation of the eternal law in the rational creature." (Gousset, Theol. Moral., t. i. pp. 24, &c.) This law, as apprehended in the minds of individual men, is called "conscience;" and though it may suffer refraction in passing into the intellectual medium of each, it is not therefore so affected as to lose its character of being the Divine Law, but still has, as such, the prerogative of commanding obedience. "The Divine Law," says Cardinal Gousset, "is the supreme rule of actions; our thoughts, desires, words, acts, all that man is, is subject to the domain of the law of God; and this law is the rule of our conduct by means of our conscience. Hence it is never lawful to go against our conscience; as the fourth Lateran Council says, 'Quidquid fit contra conscientiam, ædificat ad gehennam.'"[/b]

(bolding just to keep it clear from what I say and what I have quoted)

The conscience is the law of God which is objective and unchanging and THAT is why we cannot go against our conscience.

He would never understand conscience as something that is or can possibly be out of sync with what the Church teaches. In all of the works that we've read he has made it quite clear that God has revealed Himself to us and trusted His Church to humans who He KNOWS will screw things up [i]if left to their own devices.[/i] Therefore, He provides a governing body over the Church (namely the papacy) and somehow provides for protection of the Church against the misinterpretation of His Divine Law. (Not the pope himself, the Church). Therefore what the Church teaches is what God reveals as His Will and His Law IS INDEED His Law. And it follows that one's conscience which is the implanting of God's Law on individual souls should be formed according to the teachings of the Church.

You should know that in it he also calls conscience "the aboriginal Vicar of Chist" It's an important phrase because Vicar of Christ is the title of the pope.
Here are some other sections from that that say what he is really saying:
[b]This, at least, is how I read the doctrine of Protestants as well as of Catholics. The rule and measure of duty is not utility, nor expedience, nor the happiness of the greatest number, nor State convenience, nor fitness, order, and the pulchrum. Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ, a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its {249} blessings and anathemas, and, even though the eternal priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have a sway.

Words such as these are idle empty verbiage to the great world of philosophy now. All through my day there has been a resolute warfare, I had almost said conspiracy against the rights of conscience, as I have described it. Literature and science have been embodied in great institutions in order to put it down. Noble buildings have been reared as fortresses against that spiritual, invisible influence which is too subtle for science and too profound for literature. Chairs in Universities have been made the seats of an antagonist tradition. Public writers, day after day, have indoctrinated the minds of innumerable readers with theories subversive of its claims. As in Roman times, and in the middle age, its supremacy was assailed by the arm of physical force, so now the intellect is put in operation to sap the foundations of a power which the sword could not destroy. We are told that conscience is but a twist in primitive and untutored man; that its dictate is an imagination; that the very notion of guiltiness, which that dictate enforces, is simply irrational, for how can there possibly be freedom of will, how can there be consequent responsibility, in that infinite eternal network of cause and effect, in which we helplessly lie? and what retribution have we to fear, when we have had no real choice to do good or evil?

So much for philosophers; now let us see what is the notion of conscience in this day in the popular mind. {250} There, no more than in the intellectual world, does "conscience" retain the old, true, Catholic meaning of the word. There too the idea, the presence of a Moral Governor is far away from the use of it, frequent and emphatic as that use of it is. When men advocate the rights of conscience, they in no sense mean the rights of the Creator, nor the duty to Him, in thought and deed, of the creature; but the right of thinking, speaking, writing, and acting, according to their judgment or their humour, without any thought of God at all. They do not even pretend to go by any moral rule, but they demand, what they think is an Englishman's prerogative, for each to be his own master in all things, and to profess what he pleases, asking no one's leave, and accounting priest or preacher, speaker or writer, unutterably impertinent, who dares to say a word against his going to perdition, if he like it, in his own way. [i][u]Conscience has rights because it has duties[/u]; but in this age, with a large portion of the public, it is the very right and freedom of conscience to dispense with conscience, to ignore a Lawgiver and Judge, to be independent of unseen obligations. It becomes a licence to take up any or no religion, to take up this or that and let it go again, to go to church, to go to chapel, to boast of being above all religions and to be an impartial critic of each of them. Conscience is a stern monitor, but in this century it has been superseded by a counterfeit, which the eighteen centuries prior to it never heard of, and could not have mistaken for it, if they had. It is the right of self-will[/i].


...But, of course, I have to say again, lest I should be misunderstood, that when I speak of Conscience, I mean conscience truly so called. When it has the right of opposing the supreme, though not infallible Authority of the Pope, it must be something more than that miserable counterfeit which, as I have said above, now goes by the name.[/b]



[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1843447' date='Apr 22 2009, 10:00 AM']Comparisons like this really get to me. Its the same with the one made to adultery.

Killing your brother, stealing from someone and cheating on your spouse all cause pain and suffering to others.

They contradict the commandment to love thy neighbour.

Being in a loving relationship with someone of the same sex doesn't harm anyone. So any comparison (which sorry, you WERE making, despite your edit) is trivial.


I'm sorry, I hate sounding mean or horrible, its just comparisons like this carry no substance at all.[/quote]

Sin effects every member of the Church. No matter what the sin is. Sometimes we could never understand how. We will see it when God choose to reveal it to us. I s'pose an example would maybe be masturbation? If no one else knows, then how is someone who does so hurting others? Well... as members of one Body, when one member is not functioning rightly the whole body takes a hit. Kind of like a toothache. It's one tiny little thing but it can make you start to really be unable to focus or you get headaches and everything and it effects your whole body.

And just to echo what J[i][/i]aime said, YOU are not disordered. Kind of like the human is designed to have eyes that see, but someone who is blind is not un-human. Everyone struggles with intrinsically disordered things, some harder than others. This does not make US disordered, or less loveable to God.

God bless! (And thanks for letting me go on about Newman. It will help with my final next week! )

[BG45]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1843481' date='Apr 22 2009, 01:06 PM']Just wanted to say hey, welcome, and do stick around! Things can get pretty heated here at times, especially on issues like this. If you need a break, come chill in the Lame Board, it's safe there.

God bless! As was said before, I have no idea how I would react in your shoes.[/quote]

Seconded on all of that! The Lame Board really is sort of the Switzerland of Phatmass.

[Theoketos]

Practicing homosexual acts is as evil as practicing any other adulterous act. To do so with out repenting is damning. To further flaunt God's law by receiving the Eucharist is worse.

The Church teaches you this out of love for your soul. May you repent and find God's peace.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1843449' date='Apr 22 2009, 12:05 PM']Firstly the position that you must always follow a good conscience even if it contradicts the magisterium, however a good conscience doesn't contradict the Church is really a round-about argument. It empties the entire idea of free will or primacy of conscience of any meaning.

1) I must follow my conscience under pain of sin
2) I must conform my conscience to things that in good conscience I can't conform to without disobeying my conscience.

It doesn't work.
Also, I do not define myself by my sexual orientation. It is a very small part of me, but a part of me none the less.

Infact, the most defining thing about me is my faith.[/quote]

Hello,

You must follow your conscience to the point that it is properly informed. If your conscience is ill formed, you owe it to yourself and to your own dignity as a child of God to submit yourself to the will of God and correct your own conscience. That is Church teaching. Catholics are called to follow all Catholic doctrine, faith and morals, because as was mentioned, it is infallible. It comes from God who revealed himself to man and gave us the Deposit of Faith which the Church defends. Christ gave us the Church through the Holy Spirit to lead us to all truth. Acting out on homosexual desires is a sin, just as acting out on the desire to masturbate or look at pornography is a sin. It is a cross you bear, not who you are. It is self destructive and contrary to both divine and natural law. It is a sin because it takes a greater good, the sacrament and covenant of matrimony, and uses it for a lesser purpose (following our fleshly desires). Scripture, tradition, natural law, and divine law are all unequivocally clear.

[Dave]

[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1843449' date='Apr 22 2009, 12:05 PM']Firstly the position that you must always follow a good conscience even if it contradicts the magisterium, however a good conscience doesn't contradict the Church is really a round-about argument. It empties the entire idea of free will or primacy of conscience of any meaning.

1) I must follow my conscience under pain of sin
2) I must conform my conscience to things that in good conscience I can't conform to without disobeying my conscience.

It doesn't work.
Also, I do not define myself by my sexual orientation. It is a very small part of me, but a part of me none the less.

Infact, the most defining thing about me is my faith.[/quote]

Welcome to Phatmass, Jake!

I think you've misunderstood what Brother Adam was trying to say. We must follow a CORRECT conscience, that is, one that is based on the teachings of Christ and His Church. A correct conscience cannot go against Church teaching at all. As for what Vatican II said about conscience, it said we have to follow it even when "honestly mistaken." "Honestly," however, is the key word here. Suppose someone, through no fault of his own, was completely unaware that the Church taught a particular action was morally OK (he mistakenly thought it was bad). So he avoids it. To deliberately do the action in question would be sinful for that person because, even though he objectively isn't doing anything wrong, he subjectively intends to offend God. But as for a person who KNOWS what the Church teaches but then decides that said teaching is wrong, his conscience is mistaken, but not HONESTLY mistaken. It could even be said that that person's conscience is dead.

You know what the Church teaches, so I'm sorry, but you can't very well claim to be acting in good conscience. In fact, if your conscience isn't dead, it would seem to be in intensive care, so to speak. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but committing a sin, rationalizing it, not confessing it, and receiving Holy Communion sacrilegiously are all sure-fire steps to killing one's conscience.

Another thing -- you say the most defining thing about you is your faith. Surely you'd agree that we're called not just to keep the Catholic faith but to SPREAD it. While Christianity and the world are very much opposed to each other, the world nevertheless expects Christians to have moral standards which are FAR HIGHER than everybody else. So if a Christian openly and unrepentantly commits grave sins, one or both of these things will happen:

1. More impressionable people will see the Christian's conduct, wrongly think it's morally acceptable, and perhaps do it themselves, thus endangering their souls.

2. Non-believers and folks weak in their faith will be like, "He's doing such-and-such? I thought he was a Christian!" And then they won't take you seriously as a Christian anymore, which may drive them even further away from Christ and His Church. That's a huge reason given by so many people -- Catholics and Protestants alike -- who don't go to church: They think churches are full of hypocrites! It's faulty reasoning, I know, but that's how they feel.

[Dave]

[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1843447' date='Apr 22 2009, 12:00 PM']Being in a loving relationship with someone of the same sex doesn't harm anyone. So any comparison (which sorry, you WERE making, despite your edit) is trivial.[/quote]

If it's an illicit loving relationship (be it adultery, homosexual, fornication, pedophilia, etc.), then yes it does harm people. It harms your soul and the other person's soul.

[kenrockthefirst]

Hi, it looks like my [post="1843444"]previous post[/post] on this subject got passed over in the flurry of responses, so let me posit my question again:

[quote]Based on the logic of your position, as I see it, two homosexuals in a sexual relationship cannot partake in either the unitive or procreative components of the sex act, since they cannot participate in a sacramental marriage and, physiologically, cannot reproduce. What's left, then, is an animal act. Are you saying that it's OK for homosexuals to engage in sexual activity that represents physical gratification at the most elemental level - which is somehow a "free pass" since they can't get married nor reproduce - but that heterosexuals outside of a marriage relationship don't have that option?[/quote]

[Seven77]

Welcome Jake!

I want to say something to you from a slightly different angle.

The Church is a loving Mother who wants the good of her children. We cannot know about faith or morals better than her.

Try giving the assent of faith… even if you don’t understand it. You understand and comprehend the mystery of the Trinity? Nobody does in this life. May I suggest to you that the teaching of the Church in this regard is a mystery? Yet… we do know something about the Trinity because it has been revealed to us.

Jesus teachings on the Eucharist caused many to leave him because they didn’t understand how it could be. His disciples although they didn’t fully understand or comprehend did not leave him. It was a great faith they had. And later Jesus did reveal to them something of the mystery. Their faith was rewarded. You will, I have no doubt, have your faith rewarded and will come to know something about the mystery you struggle with. But it requires patience.

This is very important because sometimes the devil disguises himself as an angel of light. He is very tricky and often gets us to fall into pride. Giving assent of faith even when you don’t understand it is an act of utter humility. Humility is the virtue that unlocks and explains all of the rest.

I know that this is a hard saying. In this life nothing is easy. It’s about carrying the cross with Jesus. But you know what? I know that you can persevere to the end.

Just trust Jesus. Trust him to the point of ‘foolishness’. And please trust his Church? He did establish it himself… out of his pierced side. He won’t steer you wrong… And neither will she. She cannot. You will see and you will be happy.

== Jesus said in John's Gospel "if you love me you will keep my commandments" and he also, in another place, said to his Church "he who hears you, hears me" ===

[Lilllabettt]

You know what? I have gay friends. I have a lot of respect for them. I have zero respect for what you've posted here. Zero.

There are people who don't understand the Church's teaching, but they live it, even though it costs them much, because they trust the Church.

There are people who don't understand the Church's teaching, and feel they cannot live it, for whatever reason. But they respect the Church's rights enough to refrain from Holy Communion.

Every time you receive the Eucharist you are LYING. By receiving Communion you are telling everyone around you "I submit and believe everything the Church teaches," but the reality is, you don't. It's a lie. My Father is a Protestant; if he received Communion, it would make him a liar. Which is why he doesn't do it.

The flippancy with which you say all of what you do is frankly a slap in the face to the multitude of men and women, through out the ages, who have heroically submitted themselves to the Church. As if their blood and sweat and tears was a pointless, unnecessary waste.