Can Catholics Be Friends With A Sinner?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1910397' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:06 AM']What makes a homosexual couple passionately kissing worse than an unmarried single couple passionately kissing? If both couples are in a position where it is a sin, what makes one worse than the other?[/quote]

A violation of the sixth commandment with a priest has a malice that mere fornication does not have, namely, the malice of sacrilege. A married man passionately kissing a woman who is not his wife has an added malice that two unmarried persons passionately kissing does not have, namely, the malice of adultery. In a like manner, passionate kissing between two persons of the same sex has an added malice that an unmarried man and woman passionately kissing does not have, namely, the malice of a homosexual act.

Edited July 4, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Varg]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1910386' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:43 AM']I will give a hypothetical situation in which a devout Catholic being seen in public with an unmarried man and woman who are passionately kissing could give scandal.

*The onlookers know that the devout Catholic is a very conscientious Catholic who is extremely knowledgeable about Christian morality.
*The onlookers know that the couple is not married.
*The man and woman are kissing so passionately that it is clear to the onlookers that the kissing is a sin of grave matter.
*The devout Catholic seems to approve of the immodest kissing.[/quote]Doesn't men he/she (the Catholic) approves, it just mens he/she doesn't want to get involved in [i]someone else's[/i] business, which is completely understandable.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Varg' post='1910400' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:20 AM']Doesn't men he/she (the Catholic) approves, it just mens he/she doesn't want to get involved in [i]someone else's[/i] business, which is completely understandable.[/quote]

There is often an obligation of fraternal correction.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1910401' date='Jul 4 2009, 05:22 AM']There is often an obligation of fraternal correction.[/quote]
Fraternal correction doesn't mean bringing up the topic constantly, trying to constantly change someones opinion or arguing for the sake of arguing.

I don't think you really know what fraternal correction is.

[Varg]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1910401' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:22 AM']There is often an obligation of fraternal correction.[/quote]By that you mean stopping the lovers?

[Resurrexi]

I don't feel the need to explain to you what fraternal correction is.

There are plenty of Catholic websites and books that can explain it better than I. Do a search for "fraternal correction".

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1910402' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:26 AM']Fraternal correction doesn't mean bringing up the topic constantly, trying to constantly change someones opinion or arguing for the sake of arguing.

I don't think you really know what fraternal correction is.[/quote]

I know exactly what fraternal correction is. I just re-read the section about it in a moral theology book I have.

[Resurrexi]

By the way, Ora, there are many other ways in which it could appear that one is approving of the action of another.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1910399' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:18 AM']A violation of the sixth commandment with a priest has a malice that mere fornication does not have, namely, the malice of sacrilege. A married man passionately kissing a woman who is not his wife has an added malice that two unmarried persons passionately kissing does not have, namely, the malice of adultery. In a like manner, passionate kissing between two persons of the same sex has an added malice that an unmarried man and woman passionately kissing does not have, namely, the malice of a homosexual act.[/quote]

I could follow this as possibly logical (though the last line doesn't necessarily follow for me), but is this just your opinion or do you base this line of reason on any moral theology? If so could you post it? I think you could provide proof for sacrilege for the case of a priest because he is married to the Church etc. and I think you could do the same for the married man, because there is the wife to take into consideration.

But unless you have a moral theology reference for an added sacrilege for homosexual kissing I don't think I can agree because there isn't necessarily anyone else involved like there is in the case of the priest (the Church whom he is married to) and the married man (the wife he is married to).

[OraProMe]

It's just fraternal implies equality, respect and charity. I'm not trying to be offensive at all but from what I have seen your attempts at "fraternal correction" usually come off as a little condecending and "holier-than-thou".
Again, no offence intended. Just an observation.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Varg' post='1910400' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:20 AM']Doesn't men he/she (the Catholic) approves, it just mens he/she doesn't want to get involved in [i]someone else's[/i] business, which is completely understandable.[/quote]

I think I would agree with him that a Catholic sitting in the presence of a homosexual friend who is making out with his partner would certainly constitute scandal and an added near occasion of sin. Though I think no Catholic should be sitting in the near presence of any couple (straight, homosexual, married or otherwise) passionately kissing. Not to mention just plain awkward

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1910408' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:37 AM']It's just fraternal implies equality, respect and charity. I'm not trying to be offensive at all but from what I have seen your attempts at "fraternal correction" usually come off as a little condecending and "holier-than-thou".
Again, no offence intended. Just an observation.[/quote]

I think the ways one goes about "fraternal correction" vary from person to person. Some respond better to respectful reminders or whatever, kind dialogue type things. Others might find this to be sneaky and would appreciate a more direct "this is how it is" approach. I think it depends on the temperaments of the two friends involved.

In the example rex used I think it would be a cause for scandal for the Catholic to sit there and do nothing, but I don't think it necessarily effective for him to try to do anything about it right then and there. Best thing would be to just walk away for the time being and approach the subject with his gay friend later in whatever way his friend is most responsive to. But I don't think he should just sit there. Plus, and maybe this is just my prudish side showing, but I can't really imagine why anyone would want to sit there in that situation...

[OraProMe]

.....or why a couple would just start making out with their friends present. Pretty inconsiderate.

[Varg]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1910413' date='Jul 4 2009, 05:52 AM'].....or why a couple would just start making out with their friends present. Pretty inconsiderate.[/quote]Maybe they're drunk

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1910407' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:36 AM']But unless you have a moral theology reference for an added sacrilege for homosexual kissing I don't think I can agree because there isn't necessarily anyone else involved like there is in the case of the priest (the Church whom he is married to) and the married man (the wife he is married to).[/quote]

"The malice of sodomy consists in the perverted affection towards the wrong sex [. . .]" (Fr. Heribert Jone, [i]Moral Theology[/i], p. 151)

Though sodomy, strictly defined, is indeed a specific sexual act, the author in another place says, "To look at the semi-private parts of persons of the same sex is not wrong, unless it is done with sodomitical intentions." (Ibid., p. 156) This implies that immodest looks and touches can be sodomitical too.

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1910411' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:44 AM']Best thing would be to just walk away for the time being and approach the subject with his gay friend later in whatever way his friend is most responsive to. But I don't think he should just sit there.[/quote]

I definitely agree with this, but I think there may be some situations in which it is appropriate to remain if disapproval is clearly being shown.

Edited July 4, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1910409' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:39 AM']I think I would agree with him that a Catholic sitting in the presence of a homosexual friend who is making out with his partner would certainly constitute scandal and an added near occasion of sin. Though I think no Catholic should be sitting in the near presence of any couple (straight, homosexual, married or otherwise) passionately kissing. Not to mention just plain awkward [/quote]

This is somewhat off topic, but do you consider it appropriate for married couples to passionately kiss in public?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1910413' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:52 AM'].....or why a couple would just start making out with their friends present. Pretty inconsiderate.[/quote]

true, but whatever the case, the Catholic friend is best to just step out for a minute I think, and that goes not just for his gay friends, but any friend in any type of relationship.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Varg' post='1910416' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:54 AM']Maybe they're drunk[/quote]

yeah, and sometimes the moment just hits... Yes, the couple (of any status and orientation) has a responsibility not to display this level of intimacy in public, but that doesn't excuse the Catholic from his duty to escape the situation.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1910417' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:58 AM']"The malice of sodomy consists in the perverted affection towards the wrong sex [. . .]" (Fr. Heribert Jone, [i]Moral Theology[/i], p. 151)

Though sodomy, strictly defined, is indeed a specific sexual act, the author in another place says, "To look at the semi-private parts of persons of the same sex is not wrong, unless it is done with sodomitical intentions." (Ibid., p. 156)[/quote]

thanks, I need to look at my copy (I've got the same book), but I'm still not seeing him placing sinful intimacy of a homosexual couple at a higher level than that of sinful intimacy among a hetero couple. Sure he uses the word malice, but for what purpose in this context? Anyways, I'm probably just reading it wrong. peace

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1910417' date='Jul 4 2009, 04:58 AM']but I think there may be some situations in which it is appropriate to remain if disapproval is clearly being shown.[/quote]

possibly. Though I think we need to consider the Catholic's own soul, and not just the possibility of him causing scandal to others. Plus, how does one sit there and show clear disapproval? Perhaps holding a neon sign above the couple's head calling it what it is?!? haha, its late...