Catholics: Can homosexual sex acts really be commited in "invincible ignorance" ?

[urban-hermit]

This question was inspired by a turn in the conversation in this thread:

Catholics only: Do you hate homosexual sex acts (as we are obliged to) ?

I do not use homosexual sex acts as an example to single them out as the worst possible sin, as I know that they are not so.

I use them as an example of a gravely wrong act which we know is always and invariable the wrong choice ("intrinsically disordered") and a choice against God, and really a choice for a form of idolatry of personal pleasure and the body, even if it is not discerned as such by the person committing the homosexual sex act.

The link above starts with a post (by a fine person I am sure, JReducation, whose good intentions I am not calling into question) which gives voice to a common belief about homosexuals and a "primacy of conscience" which I do not think exists in the way he articulates it.

So I am asking whether or not homosexual sex acts can in fact really be committed in "invincible ignorance", and if so how would that actually happen and what would be the consequences.

[Ron Conte]

Usually, invincible ignorance concerning morality is a matter of degree. It is very unlikely that a person would have sufficient ignorance so that such an objectively mortal sin would not be at least an actual venial sin. Each person has the guidance of the natural law and of reason. And most persons know that at least some other persons consider such acts to be gravely immoral. So it is unlikely that any adult with full use of his mental faculties could have invincible ignorance to such an extent as to reduce culpability to nothing.

People who reject entirely the search for moral truth, and who abandon themselves to any kind of serious sin, are culpable to the extent of an actual mortal sin, even if they did not know that these acts were gravely immoral, if they, with full knowledge and deliberation, have turned away from seeking to know moral truth at all.

[Steadfast love]

Like the OP said, there's nothing special about homosexual sins in this regard. A mortal sin is only mortal when all three conditions are met (grave matter, knowledge and consent). I have no difficulty in believing that a person could genuinely lack any of the three, including in this case a genuine ignorance of the grave immorality of homosexual acts.

For a specific example, I presume that child sex slaves have their conciences so horribly malformed that their sins are imputed on the abusers until well past the age of reason.

[markomalley]

Homosexual sex acts are a violation of the natural law. I can't see how one could commit a homosexual sex act in "invincible ignorance" any more than murder (also a violation of the natural law) could be committed in "invincible ignorance."

(Now I could see that they could be committed without full consent of the will, but that wasn't the question in this case...)

[SpiritMeadow]

I would assume that most people in this country and especially all homosexuals are well aware of the disdain they are held in by a portion of our country. And I think its well known that that portion believes their activities are sinful. So no I don't believe such "acts" can be done with ignorance. That being said, and assuming nearly everyone agrees, I then wonder why every homosexual who comes here seems to be immediately informed by 5-10 posters that their sexual lives are sinful. They of course state they love the sinner, so I question why they need to make this statement that the lifestyle is sinful which only hurts and insults.

[markomalley]

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow

That being said, and assuming nearly everyone agrees, I then wonder why every homosexual who comes here seems to be immediately informed by 5-10 posters that their sexual lives are sinful. They of course state they love the sinner, so I question why they need to make this statement that the lifestyle is sinful which only hurts and insults.

What would you suggest then?

(Seriously)

Today's society, at least the "enlightened" portion of it, has come up with ample rationalization to convince the homosexual that he/she is perfectly normal and that the one who holds heterosexuality as the biological norm is disordered.

(Note: this is not a contradiction with my earlier post. This convincing falls to the "full consent of the will" component, vice the knowledge that the act itself is gravely evil).

People, in love, need to state without compromise that sin is sin. No matter what that sin is. Because if nobody has the chutzpah to state that sin is sin, the sinner will continue in his delusion.

[deb1]

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow

I would assume that most people in this country and especially all homosexuals are well aware of the disdain they are held in by a portion of our country. And I think its well known that that portion believes their activities are sinful. So no I don't believe such "acts" can be done with ignorance. That being said, and assuming nearly everyone agrees, I then wonder why every homosexual who comes here seems to be immediately informed by 5-10 posters that their sexual lives are sinful. They of course state they love the sinner, so I question why they need to make this statement that the lifestyle is sinful which only hurts and insults.

I grew up in a fundamentalist atmosphere. I knew many people who thought that having any homosexual desire at all was a sin. The assumption was that if you were really 'saved', Christ would cure you of your affliction. That is why you see some Christians argue so passionately that SSA is a chosen attraction.

The Catholic response is much more compassionate because it acknowledges that a person can have an attraction to the same sex and still be a Christian. Hearing that the sin is acting on the attraction, not having the attraction itself, is comforting to many people.

Acting on a homosexual impulse is sinful, just as is adultery committed by a straight man. Should we not tell the adultering husband that if he continues to have an affair that he is sinning? If we should inform such a man that he needs to be faithful to his wife, then why can't a person with SSA be told that acting on their impulses is a sin?

Back to the original question. I think that it is impossible to answer because we can't get into another person's heart and understand what they understand. Admittedly, it seems to me that most people must understand on some basic level that certain sexual acts are wrong, but perhaps matters like an abusive childhood would play some part in their understanding.

[catharina]

Originally Posted by urban-hermit

This question was inspired by a turn in the conversation in this thread:

Catholics only: Do you hate homosexual sex acts (as we are obliged to) ?

I do not use homosexual sex acts as an example to single them out as the worst possible sin, as I know that they are not so.

I use them as an example of a gravely wrong act which we know is always and invariable the wrong choice ("intrinsically disordered") and a choice against God, and really a choice for a form of idolatry of personal pleasure and the body, even if it is not discerned as such by the person committing the homosexual sex act.

The link above starts with a post (by a fine person I am sure, JReducation, whose good intentions I am not calling into question) which gives voice to a common belief about homosexuals and a "primacy of conscience" which I do not think exists in the way he articulates it.

So I am asking whether or not homosexual sex acts can in fact really be committed in "invincible ignorance", and if so how would that actually happen and what would be the consequences.

I answered Yes. Since nearly any sin can be committed through invincible ignorance, why wouldn't that dictate apply to the sins of homosexual activity too? You didn't specify "Can a Catholic commit such a sin in invincible ignorance?" but even in that regard I have to suppose the possibility exists. If a Catholic has been exposed to erroneous, lifelong teachings, say in a mission area, or has been subjected to abuse by an authority within the Church, then I have to imagine that invincible ignorance might apply. In any event, these days, children are being legally raised in households by homosexual "couples" and it's a near certainity that the frame of reference of some of these children will test high on the scale of such invincible ignorance.

[tvdxer]

Originally Posted by markomalley

Homosexual sex acts are a violation of the natural law. I can't see how one could commit a homosexual sex act in "invincible ignorance" any more than murder (also a violation of the natural law) could be committed in "invincible ignorance."

(Now I could see that they could be committed without full consent of the will, but that wasn't the question in this case...)

Masturbation is also a violation of the natural law, yet few are aware that it is a mortal sin or gravely immoral.

As for homosexuality, I think that there are many raised in liberal environments who see nothing wrong with homosexual acts, but rather something wrong with those who oppose them.

[SpiritMeadow]

Originally Posted by markomalley

What would you suggest then?

(Seriously)

Today's society, at least the "enlightened" portion of it, has come up with ample rationalization to convince the homosexual that he/she is perfectly normal and that the one who holds heterosexuality as the biological norm is disordered.

(Note: this is not a contradiction with my earlier post. This convincing falls to the "full consent of the will" component, vice the knowledge that the act itself is gravely evil).

People, in love, need to state without compromise that sin is sin. No matter what that sin is. Because if nobody has the chutzpah to state that sin is sin, the sinner will continue in his delusion.

I don't think you need do a thing. As I said, I doubt any homosexual person in this country is unaware of what the Catholic church teaches or believes. I don't think they buy love the sinner hate the sin any more than I do. I believe people in a certain "self-righteous superiority" actually enjoy telling others that their behavior is sinful, because it makes them feel good to do so. I don't believe in this type of evangelization which seems to me to be akin to what you get from fundamentalists (you're going to hell if you don't stop that). Cleaning up the language isn't a solution.;

When and if a homosexual person, who truly admires your LIFESTYLE, asks for advice, then give it lovingly and honestly. But I see no need to state the obvious to them. I think they already know. This is my personal belief of course. I was always taught as a Catholic we were better than that.

Saying all that, I do understand the purpose of this site. It is a reaction to just that kind of fundamentalist rhetoric except it has been aimed at Catholics (we are a cult and the whore of Babylon). However, I do not agree with return tactics that make us look as cold and meanspirited as they look, and that kind of prostylitizing (sp) does that IMO.

[SpiritMeadow]

Originally Posted by deb1

I grew up in a fundamentalist atmosphere. I knew many people who thought that having any homosexual desire at all was a sin. The assumption was that if you were really 'saved', Christ would cure you of your affliction. That is why you see some Christians argue so passionately that SSA is a chosen attraction.

The Catholic response is much more compassionate because it acknowledges that a person can have an attraction to the same sex and still be a Christian. Hearing that the sin is acting on the attraction, not having the attraction itself, is comforting to many people.

I recognize this and do appreciate the difference. I just think the message is out there. I don't believe in unsolicited proselytizing.

Acting on a homosexual impulse is sinful, just as is adultery committed by a straight man. Should we not tell the adultering husband that if he continues to have an affair that he is sinning? If we should inform such a man that he needs to be faithful to his wife, then why can't a person with SSA be told that acting on their impulses is a sin?

Sure,if you can find an adult male or female who doesn't know that already by all means if they ask, tell them. My same answer regarding the gay person. (Do you really think that adulterous spouses don't know what they are doing is wrong?)

Back to the original question. I think that it is impossible to answer because we can't get into another person's heart and understand what they understand. Admittedly, it seems to me that most people must understand on some basic level that certain sexual acts are wrong, but perhaps matters like an abusive childhood would play some part in their understanding.

Your statement is correct. Would you view anothers spending habits as outrageous and then decide its your place to tell them that? Or their eating habits? Usually in society we wait until are advice is asked. It keeps society civil. Obviously the degree of relationship impacts this greatly. One can take more liberties depending on how strong the relationship is.

[dranzal]

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow

I would assume that most people in this country and especially all homosexuals are well aware of the disdain they are held in by a portion of our country. And I think its well known that that portion believes their activities are sinful. So no I don't believe such "acts" can be done with ignorance. That being said, and assuming nearly everyone agrees, I then wonder why every homosexual who comes here seems to be immediately informed by 5-10 posters that their sexual lives are sinful. They of course state they love the sinner, so I question why they need to make this statement that the lifestyle is sinful which only hurts and insults.

I had to answer this one. If a sinful lifestyle is exposed to us, then we become vulnerable to sin simply by not taking action. Remember, Christ wants us to act, so if we don't point out a sin and nobody else does either, then we might in fact be held partly responsible for that person's future sins. So we need to assess what we can from what the person posted--do they already know, or might they still be ignorant--and act accordingly.

[drafdog]

Since the Hebrew word used in Leviticus with respect homogenital acts means "ritually unclean" rather than "sinful," I don't know what this discussion is all about. Looks like a tempest in a tea cup to me.

Matthew

[deb1]

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow

Your statement is correct. Would you view anothers spending habits as outrageous and then decide its your place to tell them that? Or their eating habits? Usually in society we wait until are advice is asked. It keeps society civil. Obviously the degree of relationship impacts this greatly. One can take more liberties depending on how strong the relationship is.

Typically I don't go around telling anyone that they are sinning unasked. If someone asked my opinion though I would tell them what the Church teaches. Hopefully, I would be compassionate with my answer and come off humble not judgemental.

I have homosexual family members who I've never had any religious discussion with at all. It just has never come up in the short time that I see them. I do pray for them often though.

[deb1]

Originally Posted by drafdog

Since the Hebrew word used in Leviticus with respect homogenital acts means "ritually unclean" rather than "sinful," I don't know what this discussion is all about. Looks like a tempest in a tea cup to me.

Matthew

The New Testament says that homosexuality is a sin also.