My Position on Homosexuality

I know its long, but I am very passionate about this issue and I believe it deserves attention. I posted it in a new thread so I wouldn’t take the other threads of course:

What seems to be constantly stated within these forums is the idea that I, as a homosexual, should be willing to sacrifice sexual relations with men, for this, in the long run, is nothing but a fleshly, sinful and irrelevant desire. Again, it has been stated that homosexuals and heterosexuals are both equally tempted with lust, and therefore, the homosexual has no reason to complain that his hardships are more than the heterosexual.
This first of all implies that all a homosexual desires is sex, and secondly, that sexual relations are the bedrock and sole purpose of a homosexual relationship. While this may be true in the case of some, if not many, it is ignorant to blanket this across all homosexual relations. I have stated before that I believe sex to be the physical expression of a spiritual and emotional bond, in short, sex combines the body, the mind and the spirit into a single physical act that extends into each of these planes. Sex is an act of love, as you would all agree, so when two people are joined in this act of love, it becomes, if you will, an act of worship to God, who is Love itself.
But these forums paint a rather different portrayal of the sexual act. Sex here is painted as nothing more than a carnal desire, and perhaps, the easiest method in which we can earn our seat in hellfire. Discard sex, I am told, for it is a sacrifice you should be willing to make for the approval of the sexless male God, who gives us this beautiful desire, but yet denies many of us of its fulfillment, who gives us this desire, but defames it as nothing more than ‘something of the flesh’, unworthy of further consideration.
I ask those of you here who are married: Is your marriage to your wife or husband nothing more than a strong, exclusive friendship with the occasional role through the sheets? I doubt most of you would choose to describe it this way, for in marriage there seems to exist a bond or unity between the couple that extends beyond a physically gratifying friendship. Some people would not hesitate to call their spouse ‘their soul mate’. You see the Church not only winces at the notion of homosexual sex, but it winces at the idea that two people of the same sex can feel for one another as the opposite sex can, that they can interact in the customs and ways that define heterosexual romance. So your argument is flawed my friends in saying that God asks only to deny me of sex, for he denies me the companionship and love of a partner that I can commit my entire life to, of which sex is an essential element. So you see, your God denies me very thing that we see praised in every love story, that we hear cried out in every love song, that we see echoed in art, that we hear exposed by poetry and literature. Can you not see that this idea of love, of finding that ‘special someone’, of completion in a relationship (that, yes, includes sexual interaction) is, quite possibly, the dominant theme within our society? So this relationship which we seek is then, a very emanation of our humanity, of our divine purpose.
So when I am told that my sexual desires are no more than those of a heterosexual, I would agree. Yet it, in your eyes, it is a desire that I can never act upon, while the desire of the heterosexual has already received the Divine Consent. So not only am I called to struggle with this lust, but I am called to remain forever incomplete, unlike the heterosexual, who always knows that he can one day fulfill these desires in the context of a loving relationship.

Now I will not assert that all will be unhappy living a life without sex, without finding a life long partner. I know some here on this site are exploring chastity and have found true happiness in it. I however, will not find true happiness in such a state, though I do not possess the ignorance to apply my situation to all of humankind.

Another issue I have is the constant assertion that homosexuality is somehow curable, that perhaps there is no homosexuality, and that it has arisen out of me due to some kind of psychological issue. Looking back on it now, I was always different. I was a typical child in the sense, playing and laughing, crying and approaching the world with vivid imagination. But as far back as I can remember, perhaps my very first encounter with the notion of gender roles, I always perceived myself not fit into them. As a young child, perhaps being four or five, I would assert that “God made a mistake when he made me, he should have made me a girl.” I would imitate the female characters on television and role play them in games. Yet my life didn’t lack masculine influence. My parents have always had a strong marriage, I had a brother, and my dad’s best friend (my godfather) was always around. I can remember my weekend ritual with my father; cartoons, races, wrestling. I joined soccer, I joined hockey.
Yet when I entered kindergarten, and I still felt not suited in the male role, there was a conflict. I was now further in the realm of gender roles, where I had to fit in, or be an outcast. This is where the begining of my moderate social defficency came into play. I tried to interact with the males, yet they didn’t seem to like me. I still interacted with the girls, but in a limited way for I knew I was not one of them. I retracted, became introverted and somewhat unsocial. After a few years, I found some male friends and life moved on, though again, I was different and I sensed it. I remained with some close male friends until the end of elementary school, where they dicapated and I found my self to really have no friends in school at all. Again, I was caught between the gender roles. In grade ten, I awakened to a strong sexual pull towards males, and found friendship with females. Now eighteen, and after accepting my sexuality, I am much more confident, happy and alive!
If my lack of masculinity is somehow in my mind, and not genetic, then wouldn’t I be cured of my sexuality if I just joined some sports, found some guy friends and drank beer? I suspect not. No, this attraction is here to stay, but I don’t think I would have it otherwise, for the rest of my personality is tied up into it. So yes, I probably could never change a tire if my life depended on it, nor do I really enjoy sports. But I have an incredibly creative, analytical and artistic side instead. (Not to force these traits into gender roles either) The human being is not a series of separate aspects, rather many interdependent and fused aspects. If I could change my sexuality, I feel that who I am would also change. I also feel that if I could change my sexuality, I would have long ago, before I was comfortable with it. I pleaded God every night to do so, but he did not.
Our society is too narrowly defined. We love to place everything in roles, in the comfortable and stable boxes of solid definition. Yet when someone does not fit into our constricted lines, our roles, our notions of what should be, they are cast out, rejected and abused. Is this how the Christian should respond to the homosexual? By upholding the social barriers that have oppressed them for millennia?

A major issue that I have with Christianity is the lack of a practical element in many of its rules and positions. The Christian God has put in place a rather large set of rules that are to be followed for no other reason than the fact that he has established them. If two people who love another, regardless of sex, wish to commit their lives to one another, what then is that God? Without their relationship, they remain unhappy, but together, they become complete. Is not the true immoral action forcing them apart? Denying them happiness? Though some here assert that happiness can not be found in the homosexual lifestyle, it is at the height of ignorance to apply this to every other person.

Yes, it is obvious that the male and female union is the natural order. But again, we are human beings, who bring forth the divine spark of love into our existence, which overpowers natural limitations. Human beings were not meant to fly, and yet we have airplanes. If you want to argue for the survival of the fittest, then yes homosexuality is a deficiency and dangerous to the human race. Yet we are human beings and we have surpassed many of the crude realities of the natural world. Children born with downessyndrome would not endure the ‘survival of the fittest’, yet our humanity calls us to accept them, to embrace them…to love them. Their sway from the norms of nature do not offend or threaten us. The same with physical disabilities and a wide range of other examples.

The Church, in my opinion, has a seriously distorted perspective on sex. It acts as though sex is some kind of barrier to our relationship with God, that the farther we are from sex, the more holy and pure we are. This is evident in the abstinence of priests, the Church’s position on the “ever virginity of Mary” and the outrage at the suggestion that Jesus himself may have had intercourse. What is it about sex that the Church is so afraid of?

The ideal put forth is abstinence, and it stems from a distorted notion of a ‘divine social hierarchy’. God stands at the top, as a sexless male with no female counter part. The Church, in imitation of its Father (for its mother is non-existent) creates male servants (priests) who, as well, must refrain from relations with women. The Pope, the ‘closest man to God’ is also called to flee from the sexual world, mimicking his sexless father.

Does it occur to you why the word virgin is a synonym for purity? Because we have been given the message that sex stains, obstructs and dirties. Sex is allowed, but under strict conditions, and never to those who wish to stand closest to God.

This, to me, is the true violation of natural law, that our very human desire to engage in sex, as echoed in nature, has become shamed by the church.

Lastly, the Church uses scripture to defend its position on homosexuality….perhaps the most frustrating of all. Has the Church still to learn the lesson of infallibility? When we project the errors of humanity into the unquestionable realm of the divine, disaster always results. The Church maintained its ‘perfection’ for centuries, leading to some of the most terrible crimes in history, from the inquisition, to imperialism to witch trials, the persecution of scientists and other faiths. It was only in 1993 that the Vatican acknowledged that Galileo was wrongfully put to trial and imprisoned.

Yet the Church continues its crimes of infallibility, this time with the scriptures, exerting its words with the same power of ex-cathedra and perfection that trails close behind its atrocities of ages past.

  • Again, I’m sorry that its so long. It’s about 3 pages on Word…I hope you took the time to read it all before you tell me that I am wrong. Thanks.

Of course the Church intereprets her scriptures. The only frustrating thing is the answer, not the method.

Remembering that God is transcendant, all of our reasoning and desires to bend truth to our liking can not build a path to Him. It is God alone that builds the path to us and only in that path is there truth.

Since God has revealed that homosexual relations are sinful and unnatural all other opinions are irrelevant.

Looking back on it now, I was always different. I was a typical child in the sense, playing and laughing, crying and approaching the world with vivid imagination. But as far back as I can remember, perhaps my very first encounter with the notion of gender roles, I always perceived myself not fit into them. As a young child, perhaps being four or five, I would assert that “God made a mistake when he made me, he should have made me a girl.” I would imitate the female characters on television and role play them in games.

And you believe this is NOT psychological? It sounds very psychological. And the very fact that you identify a “masculine deficiency” instead of just an alternate sexual orientation (as the gay-rights groups claim) shows a poor gender-self-image of yourself. No, it would NOT be cured by just getting some male friends (though that can help) or playing sports or drinking beer. Because its not about external actions. Its about an INTERNAL self-identification with ones own gender. If a man is artistic and creative, thats wonderful. But he must be emotionally confident and whole with his gender.

As for the issues you discuss, sex is not dirty. But all desires are imperfections save the glory of God and salvation of souls.

The whole thing about Catholic spirituality, if you look into the writings of the great mystics, is that one must detatch from all attatchments, passions, desires, and feelings…and must be able to give oneself totally to God with no attatchment to anything else if they will be perfect.

The feeling or emotion of “love” in marriage is much less important than the CHOICE of commitment. You may feel nothing towards a person, but if you choose to enter into the marriage covenant than that is fine. “affection” or “infatuation” or “romantic love” is a feeling one can induce through various drugs. It is nothing more than some neurons firing in the brain. What is more important is not the feeling, but the act of the Will towards the good of another. Attraction shouldn’t matter in marriage, its about commitment.

Can you not see that this idea of love, of finding that ‘special someone’, of completion in a relationship (that, yes, includes sexual interaction) is, quite possibly, the dominant theme within our society? So this relationship which we seek is then, a very emanation of our humanity, of our divine purpose.

Yes, it is the dominant theme in our society. And that is unfortunate but understandable. Our biology and psychology dictate a strong sexual drive. And as fallen humans, such concupiscence can be quite a struggle.

You are making too much of a distinction between “lust” and “love” in the romantic sense of infatuation etc. Both are mere feelings. Both are just electro-chemical firings in the brain. Neither is really all that meaningful for anyone. What is more important in sex and marriage is choice and commitment.

Romantic love is just an emotion. A passion. There is nothing necessarily spiritual about it. It is a physical reaction in our material bodies. Its nice if it goes along with marriage, but it doesnt have to.

Gnosis,

I read through what you had to say.

Although I disagree with many of your claims, I want to commend you on reaching out and honestly seeking answers and, hopefully, the truth.

There are a few things you said that I want to disagree with. I will try to quote you fairly, and in context, and then respond.

You said:

“I believe sex to be the physical expression of a spiritual and emotional bond, in short, sex combines the body, the mind and the spirit into a single physical act that extends into each of these planes. Sex is an act of love, as you would all agree, so when two people are joined in this act of love, it becomes, if you will, an act of worship to God, who is Love itself.”

I respond:

It depends. Sex is an act. Animals have sex. Prostitutes have sex with their clients. There are lots of examples of sex that do not remotely reflect your broad and all-inclusive definition of sex given here. Sex can embody all the wonderful qualities you describe, but only in the context of Christian marriage, and sometimes, not even then. This isn’t because sex is dirty or evil (as you seem to think the Church teaches). It is because we have a fallen nature. Due to original sin, it becomes easy to seek created goods, like sexual pleasure, outside of ways that are healthy and moral. Homosexual acts are unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral. However, homosexuals aren’t the only human beings prone to abusing this gift from God and using it in a perverted way. Heterosexuals have, throughout history, abused this gift in many ways as well. I needn’t go into detail. I merely express this point to show you that I’m not just picking on homosexuals.

Your sentiments seem to equate unnatural acts between two persons of the same sex with the sacramental union of a man and his wife. There is absolutely no comparison. It is very wrong to think the two are comparable. The fact that people can (and do) think that way shows how darkened the intellect can become through attachment to sin.

continued…

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about marital sexual union, and then homosexual acts:

1603 "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."87 The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, 88 some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."89

1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.90 Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator’s eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.’"91

1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone."92 The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.93 "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."94 The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been “in the beginning”: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."95

1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."152

continued …

and conversely

  1. “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, [Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.] tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’[CDF, Persona humana 8.] 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.”

You later say:

“Yes, it is obvious that the male and female union is the natural order. But again, we are human beings, who bring forth the divine spark of love into our existence, which overpowers natural limitations. Human beings were not meant to fly, and yet we have airplanes.”

I answer:

This is an interesting line of reasoning. Is it true that “human beings were not meant to fly”? Is flying inherently evil? Is it a sin? Or do you only mean that we don’t have wings, or powers like Superman? I doubt you mean the former. In which case, your line of reasoning fails in its premise. Your conclusion, then also fails. Flying isn’t immoral in itself. Neither is sex. The morality of flying, sex, or any other action depends on three things (together): the nature of the act itself, the circumstances under which the action is done, and the intentions of the one performing the act

Allow me to quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

  1. "A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving). [Cf. Mt 6:24.] "

  2. “The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.”

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”). The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.), which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Finally, you speak a great deal about your perceptions of Church teaching on sexual morality. I do not agree with your perception of the Church’s view of human sexuality.

I strongly recommend that you reexamine actual Church teaching. Use the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a resource. I also recommend: Good News About Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teaching: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1569552142/qid=1124616738/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/002-0908531-8618428?v=glance&s=books

I think the overriding message in your post suggests a deep longing for intimate connection with others. This is not wrong, or unnatural. Good, close, chaste friendships, and the love of family members can help fill this desire.

I do not mean to negate the cross of homosexually oriented persons. However, it should be understood that everyone has a cross to carry. We all suffer in this life. We all experience loneliness and long for connection with others.

Many heterosexual persons would love to be married, but for various reasons, nobody wants to marry them. What a cross!

Sometimes married people fall out of love with their spouses. Sometimes they even fall in love (or experience infatuations) with people other than their spouse. They are called by Christ to deny their feelings, however strong, and be faithful to their spouse until death.

Read the sections in the Catechism devoted to chastity. I encourage you to see the vocation to chastity as something to which all persons are called, regardless of their state in life.

I quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church one last time:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible; for most of them it is 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.

2359 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.

I close by saying:

Remember, Christ doesn’t promise us a life free of trial and suffering. I have heard it said that if you find it easy to be a Christian, you are doing something wrong! There is truth to that.

God Bless You!

(Sorry for the length, but good questions on difficult moral issues can’t be answered without taking the time to properly explain terms and the reasoning behind Church teaching.)

[quote=batteddy]And you believe this is NOT psychological? It sounds very psychological. And the very fact that you identify a “masculine deficiency” instead of just an alternate sexual orientation (as the gay-rights groups claim) shows a poor gender-self-image of yourself. No, it would NOT be cured by just getting some male friends (though that can help) or playing sports or drinking beer. Because its not about external actions. Its about an INTERNAL self-identification with ones own gender. If a man is artistic and creative, thats wonderful. But he must be emotionally confident and whole with his gender.

As for the issues you discuss, sex is not dirty. But all desires are imperfections save the glory of God and salvation of souls.

The whole thing about Catholic spirituality, if you look into the writings of the great mystics, is that one must detatch from all attatchments, passions, desires, and feelings…and must be able to give oneself totally to God with no attatchment to anything else if they will be perfect.

The feeling or emotion of “love” in marriage is much less important than the CHOICE of commitment. You may feel nothing towards a person, but if you choose to enter into the marriage covenant than that is fine. “affection” or “infatuation” or “romantic love” is a feeling one can induce through various drugs. It is nothing more than some neurons firing in the brain. What is more important is not the feeling, but the act of the Will towards the good of another. Attraction shouldn’t matter in marriage, its about commitment.

Yes, it is the dominant theme in our society. And that is unfortunate but understandable. Our biology and psychology dictate a strong sexual drive. And as fallen humans, such concupiscence can be quite a struggle.

You are making too much of a distinction between “lust” and “love” in the romantic sense of infatuation etc. Both are mere feelings. Both are just electro-chemical firings in the brain. Neither is really all that meaningful for anyone. What is more important in sex and marriage is choice and commitment.

Romantic love is just an emotion. A passion. There is nothing necessarily spiritual about it. It is a physical reaction in our material bodies. Its nice if it goes along with marriage, but it doesnt have to.
[/quote]

I think that you need to be careful about what you are saying about emotions. Although the commitment and the willing of the good of another are what real love is, and that the emotional feeling that we get when we are ‘in love’ is not love, we still need to remeber that emotions were created by God and are still good and still part of the full human person. They simply need to be brought in line with reason.

[quote=Michael T.]Finally, you speak a great deal about your perceptions of Church teaching on sexual morality. I do not agree with your perception of the Church’s view of human sexuality.

I strongly recommend that you reexamine actual Church teaching. Use the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a resource. I also recommend: Good News About Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teaching: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1569552142/qid=1124616738/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/002-0908531-8618428?v=glance&s=books

I think the overriding message in your post suggests a deep longing for intimate connection with others. This is not wrong, or unnatural. Good, close, chaste friendships, and the love of family members can help fill this desire.

I do not mean to negate the cross of homosexually oriented persons. However, it should be understood that everyone has a cross to carry. We all suffer in this life. We all experience loneliness and long for connection with others.

Many heterosexual persons would love to be married, but for various reasons, nobody wants to marry them. What a cross!

Sometimes married people fall out of love with their spouses. Sometimes they even fall in love (or experience infatuations) with people other than their spouse. They are called by Christ to deny their feelings, however strong, and be faithful to their spouse until death.

Read the sections in the Catechism devoted to chastity. I encourage you to see the vocation to chastity as something to which all persons are called, regardless of their state in life.

I quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church one last time:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible; for most of them it is 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.

2359 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.

I close by saying:

Remember, Christ doesn’t promise us a life free of trial and suffering. I have heard it said that if you find it easy to be a Christian, you are doing something wrong! There is truth to that.

God Bless You!

(Sorry for the length, but good questions on difficult moral issues can’t be answered without taking the time to properly explain terms and the reasoning behind Church teaching.)
[/quote]

Absolutely, Christianity without the cross is not Christianity at all. We are all called to make sacrifices. Some are called even to sacrifice their lives for Christ as in the cases of the martyrs.

Yes, as the catechism says, passions and emotions are morally neutral.

They can be irrational and tempting, or they can coincide with reason and be a source of encouragement towards some good. But they are just feelings in the end.

But the mystics warn us against getting too attatched, passionate, or seeking consoling feelings too much in our spirituality.

Before the Fall, emotions would have coincided perfectly with the Free Will and Right Reason…now we must be very careful with them.

I hope and pray that no person discerning the sin of homosexuality is wrongly impressed by your rattling posts.

You, Gnosis have obviously spent a great deal of time reading about Catholicism ( but you have not heard a word ) and have meticuously taken and distorted and fashioned God’s Law into what you desire and believe. What do you call your religion anyway? And now that you have stated your position…what next? Are you satisified? Many people are thankful and satisfied with Catholicism. You are not. Now what? Has your post changed my mind? No.

There is you and the Catholic Church. Come along now and get out of yourself (your selfish, self-willed ways)…leave your old ways and follow God.

Here is a special song called Welcome by Karl Kohlhase

5 MB link to song
Read link to lyrics

Come along Gnosis…God loves you and welcomes you :blessyou:

Gnosis,

You are correct in what you find as your definition of sex and sexuality. You are correct to say that it is the full expression of love by the whole the human person. However, what you miss and fail to see is that for things to be used morally or rightly they must be used in accord with their nature. Sex between two persons of the same sex is not in accord with the nature of sex which is both procreative and unitive.

There is another problem with yoru reasoning and that is that you assume that homosexuality (Same Sex Attraction) is intrinsic to the human person in some way and that it is a natural state. However, again, because of the above paragraph sex between two persons who are of the same gender is not in accord with the nature of sex and sexuality then it follows that Same Sex Attraction is not in a accord with the nature of humanity and is therefore disordered to the Good. Thus, the responsible person before God, would try to root out all disorder in his life as we all should be striving to do and in this case the disorder is the Same Sex Attraction.

I think you in your youth (I believe you said 18 y/o) are sadly uninformed about relationships. There is no one who will give you the fulfillment that a relationship with God will give you. All human relationship fall short. I sorely wish I had a better understanding of the nature of human relationships when I was young. I would have spent way more time “finding” God than looking for “love” with another human being. Maybe living chastely is your opportunity to truly “find” God and to know His love. One thing that youth often forgets is that many of their thought have already been had by others and it still doesn’t change what is ultimately right. You can continue to deceive yourself and believe that you have “true” knowledge about how things should be or you can look the truth in the eye and quit fighting against it.

If you came here hoping to change people’s mind, I’m afraid you’re barking up the wrong tree.

Last time I checked I have never heard of anyone dying from chastity. I’ve heard of a lot of people dying from having immoral sex.

Its intersting how most people here have assumed that I am confused about my spirituality, or that I don’t know God.

Though I am not Catholic nor Christian, I tell you, in this last year I have never been closer to God in my life. I have truly found a spirituality that quenches my thirst for God. So please don’t assume that, because I am a homosexual, I am somehow distant from God and confused about my positions on the divine.

[quote=Gnosis]Its intersting how most people here have assumed that I am confused about my spirituality, or that I don’t know God.

Though I am not Catholic nor Christian, I tell you, in this last year I have never been closer to God in my life. I have truly found a spirituality that quenches my thirst for God. So please don’t assume that, because I am a homosexual, I am somehow distant from God and confused about my positions on the divine.
[/quote]

Gnosis, I don’t think you will find much of a following here on Catholic Answers Forums. What next? You have stated your position…what now?

**John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. **

Hi Gnosis,

Last week our pastor had this to say: *God loves everyone of us, saints and sinners alike. *

Remember this always no matter what other people may say to you about your sexuality. You are a child of God, my dear!

Many blessings,

NightRider

You seem like a very articulate and introspective young man. However, since you are only18, you have alot of maturing and experiencing of the world ahead of you. Your description of your earliest experiences just about confirm that you had some sort gender identity problem that could have been addressed and resolved early on but apparently it wasn’t and now you think that you were “born” homosexual. The psycho-sexual environmental factors are a huge determinant to same-sexual attraction and your descriptions are almost a textbook example of that. I urge you to read the work of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi for more insight into your disorder. Your suppositions about the Catholic church thinking that sex is a bad thing couldn’t be further from the truth. The writings of John Paul II in his discourses from the Theology of the Body lectures will confirm what I say. Sex between a man and a woman in a sacramental marriage is itself sacramental and mirrors in a mysterious way the selfless love and complete donation to each Other of the Persons of the Trinity - what could be more beautiful and transcendant than that? Please read the book The Good News about Marriage and Sex by Chris West for a more thorough explanation about my comments. I will pray for you.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.