And I addressed the matter of the Catechism above — it simply does not address everything that it could and should in regard to this matter. Catechisms may indeed be imperfect in such respects. I am sorry you regard so many comments here as “egotistic,” etc., but I did make some valid points.

“Would you call validly married heterosexuals who do practice those activities sodomites as well?” Yes, actually, to be fair. But normally they don’t advertise the fact, so they don’t qualify for *the topic of this post* — how to respond to people who publicly proclaim their homosexual relationships.

When you mentioned the fact that the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are relatively new, yes, I got cute. That is because your initial posts did not make your position clear. I still do not know what your point there was. It is true that those terms are recent, and they imply that these attractions are more central to one’s personality than they seem to be in a number of circumstances. (For instance, it is highly unlikely that Greek pederasts had any innate inclination to “homosexuality” — they gave into a societal norm that permitted sexual attraction to boys at the cusp of puberty.) But there certainly were terms for people who committed homosexual acts with some frequency, and hence probably had “strong, deep-seated” desires to do so. Those phrases — “tribad,” “sodomite, “lier with mankind,” “effeminate,” “unnatural,” “soft,” etc. — are all much more insulting than “homosexual” and “heterosexual.”

I’m sorry that you don’t feel you’ve been treated respectfully, but I really think we are trying. Perhaps it would help to point out that this conversation was never meant to be about people like you and James. I admit to being a bit confused about your overall position; based on what you said in your last post, it doesn’t sound like we have much to disagree about, but in your first two you seemed to be hedging towards the position the homosexual and heterosexual attractions (and acts) are equally natural. Perhaps I just didn’t understand you. Anyway, it doesn’t matter. If I had started a thread to discuss the experieces of people like you, you probably would have been justified in telling me that I was in no position to say anything about it. My sole intention, though, was to determine the appropriate response to people who are aggressively seeking public endorsement for their homosexual coupling. Our answer to that question really shouldn’t affect you at all, given the sort of lifestyle you lead.

I see that you took offense at the use of the term “sodomite”, but perhaps you don’t understand the way the term is being used. I never made any assumptions about your lifestyle before, but I see clearly from your last post that you are not a sodomite. Sodomites are people who engage in homosexual acts (i.e. sodomy). In the CCC, the term “homosexuals” is used to describe such people, and people like yourself would be described, not as homosexuals, but as “persons with deep-seated homosexual attractions.” They are trying to be sensitive, but I think it’s a very unfortunate way of wording things. First of all, it is cumbersome, since the latter expression is so long. Secondly, it tends to breed confusion and to blur moral lines, since the language makes it very natural to lump together under one heading persons who engage in homosexual acts, and chaste persons who merely have some homosexual feelings. But these are not in the least morally equivalent, and such equivocation is particularly unfair and injurious to people like yourself, who cannot help your feelings but who have remained chaste. It would be much better to preserve separate terms for these groups, and I think the best way is to use the term “homosexual” to refer to people who are simply attracted to those of the same sex, and “sodomite” to refer to those who succumb to this temptation. The latter is certainly an ugly word, but that is appropriate, since it is a greviously sinful thing. The former is less morally charged, which is also proper, since there is nothing sinful per se in being tempted; some of the great saints have been beset by particularly fierce temptations to lust.

Perhaps part of the trouble here revolves around the question of identification. You may be assuming that I, because I use the word “sodomite”, am inclined to associate whole groups of people primarily with their sexual sins, and to think them inferior (in your words, “heterodox, pitiful and perverted”) on that basis. I assure you, I don’t want that at all, and I try as much as possible to avoid thinking, or even knowing, about other people’s private sins. I only use pejorative labels (murderer, liar, hypocrite, adulterer, or sodomite) in circumstances in which the sin is of direct relevance to the discussion at hand.

Perhaps I could make a helpful comparison to the term “fornicator.” I believe fornication to be a serious sin, and a goodly percentage of the people I know (including some I love and respect very much) have been guilty of it at some time in their lives. When this fact becomes known to me, do I then place all such persons in a separate mental bracket (“the fornicators”), refer to them henceforth with a new title, and treat them with contempt? No, of course I don’t. That would be uncharitable, not to mention absurd. Most of the time people’s sexual activities are simply not my concern, so I just try not to think about them at all. But occasionally, someone actually involved in a premarital sexual relationship might ask my advice (this has happened occasionally), or, if the fornicator is a close friend or relative, I might sometimes feel it appropriate for me to say something to them. In the course of that conversation, I would not hesitate to use the word “fornication” in a gentle but unambiguous way. It’s an ugly word, but only because it describes an ugly thing, and there’s no point in beating around the bush about ain being sin. Outside explicit discussion of the relevant actions, I would never use the word “fornicator” to refer to any actual living person, and I don’t think about people that way, either.

My wish is to have the same approach to the word “sodomite.” Unless homosexual acts are actually relevant to the conversation, I never use that term in talking or thinking about people. But if I do have good reason for referring to this particular sort of sin, I will call a spade a spade. What’s the point in making up a new word for it? Any word we generate will come to have pejorative connotations merely in light of the actions it describes.

The problem is complicated, of course, by the fact that many homosexuals wish to identify themselves publicly with their sexual behaviors. But that is their wish, not mine. I would never choose to build anyone’s identity primarily around either a) their sins and temptations, or b) their sexual proclivities.

Also: you seem to be assuming that I have never had personal friends or close connections who are in a position similar to yours. That is not the case. I don’t want to elaborate on other people’s personal stories, but I have found, among people I know in positions like yours, that they simply do not want their homosexual attractions to be seen as a large or defining part of their personality. They would rather their friends just didn’t think about it too much. So I don’t. I would not think of them as “my gay friend X”, but just as “my friend X.” That seems to me to be much the best way.

If one can’t reference any terms or opinions older than the CCC without being disrespectful, I hardly see how any worthwhile discussion can take place.

For the record: I’m a middle aged, conservative, traditional, single gay male who, like James, is also chaste. I go to confession approximately quarterly and recieve communion regularly. (I simply couldn’t live without Him.) I tell you this only so you’ll realize that there are many more of us than you know.

For your information, I accept the teaching authority of the true Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. I accept Natural law and I realize that gay people today are their own worst enemy as far as attempting to gain respect from the society at large. Too, I realize and admit that there is indeed a “gay agenda”, regardless of what gay groups claim to the contrary. I don’t have a gay themed bumper sticker on my car, I don’t read gay literature, I’ve never attended a gay pride parade or a gay film festival and I never will.

In an effort to “change’ my sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, I’ve gone through a psychiatrist, a psychologist, an evangelical “Change Therapy” group, (Elutheros – Orlando, FL) as well as a psycho-therapy organization, The Aesthetic Realism Foundation –NYC. No one I know was more positively disposed or determined to “change” than me. None of it worked, (including a great deal of deep prayer to Jesus Christ literally begging him to “change me”) and I’m honest enough to admit that.

By the way, it’s 2007. Get your heads out of the 18th century and stop calling people sodomites. The term “sodomite” is as disrespectful to homosexual people as “heretic” is to our Protestant brothers and sisters.

In case you don’t know, not all non-chaste homosexual persons even practice those sorts of sexual activities. What would you call them? Would you call validly married heterosexuals who do practice those activities sodomites as well? The Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn’t use that word and neither should you. It’s clearly disrespectful and uncharitable.

James, I commend your commitment to chastity and recourse to the Sacraments.

However, traditional Catholic theology does indeed cite sodomy *in se* as a worse sin than adultery insofar as it is unnatural. I suppose that *circumstances* could make a given act of homosexual “intercourse” less grave than a given act of adultery. But your apparent contention that homosexual and heterosexual sexual sins are equivalent is not in synch with traditional Catholic moral theology.

I mentioned pornography and self-abuse as sexual vices that plague heterosexuals as well as homosexuals and result in debilitating addictions to mortal sin. Absolutely we will be judged by the standards with which we are judged. But compassion for the sinner can indeed coincide with revulsion at the sin, as Romans I indicates (there, St. Paul points out that some of his congregants had engaged in homosexual practices). The conversation here had to do with the propagation of an immoral lifestyle as moral and the incipient persecution of those who disagree.

I’ve written quite a bit on this thread. Please explain, more clearly: where is the hypocrisy in what I’ve said?

I don’t have any fascination with gay sex. I don’t know where that’s coming from at all. In two years of writing for this blog, this is the first post I’ve ever written on this topic, and I think I made my prudential motivations quite clear. Actually, I have no wish at all to think about the private activities of sodomites, but the point of the thread is to discuss how to respond to the public ramifications of homosexuality, of which there are many these days.

It’s not difficult to grasp the concept of people being “born gay.” It’s just that, in my experience, not all homosexuals describe themselves that way. Many admit openly that their homosexual attractions have been encouraged and increased by various contingent circumstances (in short, that they choose to be gay) and that they have at times been attracted to members of the opposite sex. I say many; I did not say all. But for those many, public sanction of homosexuality will obviously encourage them in unchaste lifestyles that they would otherwise be likely to avoid.

I don’t in the least doubt that many people feel that they were born gay. I have no reason to distrust the testimony of people like yourself; however, I still maintain that it is an unnatural expression of human sexuality. This has nothing to do with soap boxes or high-handedness. It is the teaching of the Church, and, as I said, falls out naturally from the general understanding of sexual ethics to which I subscribe. Even if you were, in a sense, born with such an inclination, it wouldn’t prove that there’s anything natural about it. We were all born with the marks of original sin, and they manifest themselves in all of us in slightly different ways. Often these tendencies seem innate to us, but they still are not “natural” in the Catholic sense of that term. The fact that animals occasionally show homosexual tendencies also proves nothing. It is interesting to speculate as to whether animals can demonstrate “fallenness” or not, and if so, how. But it’s perfectly obvious that animals often display sexual behaviors that we take to be unnatural for humans. Female spiders eat their males after mating. Animals very often abandon their mates after one union, never to see them again, and in many animal species it is quite normal for a male to mate with a whole series of females all in the course of a day or a week. Also, animals have been known to use inanimate objects for sexual pleasure (which, according to Catholic moral teachings, is wrong for us to do). Need I go on? In some cases animal behaviors might be taken to be “fallen” in some sense; in other cases we might suppose that their telos is different from ours and that it is thus appropriate for them to behave in ways that are unacceptable for humans. But either way, we can’t use animal behavior as any kind of proof of what is natural for human beings. And anyhow, homoeroticism in animals is quite rare. Certainly it’s the exception and not the rule.

This is not about casting stones. I commend you for your chaste lifestyle. Temptations to the sin of sodomy are not themselves sinful; if you refuse to succumb to them, I’m sure you will be rewarded with graces. Even for homosexuals who are not chaste, I’ve already said that their private activities are none of my business, provided they don’t ask my approval (either explicitly or implicitly.) And I’ve agreed that, in order to avoid hypocrisy, I must consider myself bound by the laws of chastity also… which I do. It isn’t reasonable to hold the members of this Society accountable for the sins of Idaho senators.

But, if you accept the Church’s position on homosexuality, you cannot be blind to the fact that this position is under assault in our society as a whole. Increasingly heavy pressure is being put on us to abandon the Church’s teaching on this point. We have to determine the most appropriate way to respond. That isn’t being hypocritical. It’s being a conscientious Catholic.

For the record: I do cover my head at Mass.

“Provided they are not intimately connected to me or under my authority, and provided they keep their actions very private and do not beg public sanction for them, I for one am quite happy to leave sodomites alone. We are not supposed to speculate idly about the sins of others, which in most cases are no concern of ours.”

Amen!

“As it is, I don’t have your private email address, but I would be willing to remove all related posts from the thread if you asked me to do so. I do not think the Doctor or Tobias Petrus would mind.”

Absolutely I would remove them. It might have been better for me just to have left the reply to Clara. And sorry again for bringing up the fact about St. Pius V, which though true does not seem to have been a helpful comment. I would remove that, too, if you, Giacomo, or you, Clara, wish.

Trust me, some heterosexuals as well have to make deep sacrifices in order to live in accordance with the Church’s teachings on sexuality. Pornography, self-abuse, and promiscuity are all serious temptations, each of which can carry with it severe burdens of shame, self-hatred, and frustration, at times despairing. They too stunt and blunt natural human maturity and relationships. Each of us has a cross. Yet social approval would only exacerbate these vices. Same goes for sodomy and lesbianism.

I have to note, Giacomo, that there are some inconsistencies in the accusations you levy against me (and others) in your original post. You first charge us with neglecting the “emotional and human” elements of the question. But then, in almost the next breath, you insist that we (at least, those of us who are heterosexuals) could not possibly understand this aspect. Didn’t it occur to you that I largely agree with the latter claim, and that this explains why I did not presume to discuss it? But your conclusion – that heterosexuals should not venture into this subject at all – does not follow.

As I see it, you might have meant two things by this. You might have meant, first of all, that we heterosexuals can say nothing about the morality or immorality, or the naturalness or unnaturalness, of actions and temptations that we do not understand experientially. Or, secondly, you might have meant that, for those of us who are not inclined towards sodomy, it would be most fitting to have compassion for those who do suffer this temptation, and, in effect, to mind our own business.

A Catholic cannot under any circumstances affirm the first of these positions. Experience is not the only way of knowing about morality. In fact, it isn’t always a very good way, since sinful actions deform the soul and distort our perceptions of what is really good. Tobias Petrus already pointed out to you that, taken to its logical conclusions, your position would mandate complete solipsism. Your own analogy to describing the color blue for the blind only serves to underline this point. None of us, after all, can really know how anybody else feels, and if this prevented us from evaluating others’ actions, every word of praise or blame ever uttered (unless directed towards oneself) would be the unjustified opinion of an unqualified judge. But that is clearly silly. Surely you yourself would be willing to classify a large number of actions as categorically ‘wrong’, including some, I expect, to which you yourself have never been seriously tempted. (Murder? Rape? Pedophilia? Injustice towards the weak?)

The truth is that we can sometimes approach moral questions intellectually, and we can also, if we are faithful Catholics, consult the teachings of the Church. After doing so, no faithful Catholic can seriously doubt whether sodomy is wrong. The same source you cited (the CCC) also states, as I’m sure you are aware, that sodomy is gravely sinful. Your intuitions may tell you otherwise, but being a Catholic requires that we affirm the clear teachings of the Magisterium above our own intuitions. But even beyond that, if we adopt a Catholic understanding of human sexuality and its meaning in human life, we will ourselves come to see (intellectually, not experientially) that sodomy cannot be a natural expression of it. Homosexuality is not fruitful, even theoretically or potentially, and God intended that erotic love should be fruitful. (Those inclined to object that some heterosexual love is also unfruitful – because the couple is barren, or elderly, or simply because the woman is not at the right time in her cycle – must study further what the Church means when she deems an act ‘potentially’ or ‘naturally’ fruitful. Even when particular circumstances are not conducive to it, heterosexual love is the kind of thing that does lead to the bringing forth of new life. Sodomy can never do this, under any circumstances.)

Also, heterosexual love embraces the complimentarity of the male and the female, which God intended should be mutually supportive of one another. In a Catholic understanding, this complimentarity goes deeper than the arbitrary constructs of any particular society; it is a part of the fabric of the universe, as woven by God himself. This is why heterosexual attraction can be deemed ‘natural’, and St. Thomas tells us that it existed even before the fall. Homoeroticism is a perversion of this good and natural tendency, and we can understand this intellectually without needing to experience it. My husband, though he did not go into all these explanations in his comment, does understand them and could explain them if asked. He is not being “intellectually lazy” when he classifies homoerotic attractions as temptations to sin. He is being Catholic.

So much for the first interpretation of your suggestion. If you intended the second – that we should have compassion for homosexuals, and mind our own business as much as possible – I more or less agree with you. Certainly we ought to have compassion on those afflicted with temptations; as St. Paul reminds us, we ourselves may be the next to experience it. But, as TP has already explained, compassion does not always imply approval, and sometimes requires the reverse. As for minding our own business, I’m in favor of that as well, insofar as it is possible. Provided they are not intimately connected to me or under my authority, and provided they keep their actions very private and do not beg public sanction for them, I for one am quite happy to leave sodomites alone. We are not supposed to speculate idly about the sins of others, which in most cases are no concern of ours. (Obviously the situation changes somewhat when the people in question are under our authority, when they are criminals and we are employed by the justice system, etc.)

But in our present society, homosexuals are aggressively lobbying for greater acceptance, both legal and social. Minding our own business is not always possible in a world in which we receive invitations to gay weddings and meet people at parties who openly introduce “my partner X” with the clear expectation that we will have no problem with this. It is especially not possible when the law may actually put pressure on us to cement the relationships of homosexuals as legitimate (for example, by helping to place children in their homes.) There is no way to be neutral in such cases. You must either support the normalization of homosexuality, or you must fight against it; the homosexual community has in effect demanded a nationwide referendum on their lifestyle, and regardless of our qualifications, we must take a position of some kind. As Catholics, the moral status of sodomy is pretty clear, but specific questions about what we should say or do in this or that situation are often rather difficult. So sometimes it’s good to talk about them. Actually, viewed in the right light, you should be appreciative of a thread like this one. I do want to be both just and compassionate towards people with temptations to homoeroticism. But it’s necessary to do this without compromising my Catholic beliefs or furthering destructive social trends. Hence this discussion of social niceties.

One final word, on deep-seatedness and the suffering of homosexuals. First of all, I’m firmly convinced that the suffering of which you speak is greatly intensified by the permissiveness of our society. Every sin becomes much harder to overcome when it has been entrenched in our lifestyle. In my original post I referenced people who are ushered, in adolescence, into “support” groups, that teach them to identify their homoerotic feelings as central to their identity, and to think of other homosexuals as their natural community. This is a grave, grave scandal. Adolescents are notoriously confused, both about sex and about their own identities. Many of these people, given proper guidance, would probably find that their homoerotic feelings faded in time and were replaced by the kind of natural, heterosexual attractions that would allow them to marry and raise a family without any regrets at all. But if they are flattered and taught to take pride in the disordered attraction, it will be very difficult for them to dislodge it later in life. Other people in homosexual relationships have told me that they “don’t differentiate much between men and women” and that they are “simply attracted to beautiful people.” For this group, the prohibition against sodomy doesn’t seem like a particularly terrible burden. Yes, they will have to resist some possible attractions, but doesn’t everybody have to do this at some time or another? Once they are actually in a longstanding homosexual relationship, however, it obviously gets much harder.

The bottom line is that we are not always reliable judges of which aspects of our “identity” (as we understand it) are really true to our original created nature. All our lives we have suffered the effects of the fall, and hence we are disordered in ways we ourselves do not always understand. The idea that we are each the greatest authority on ourselves is a thoroughly modern one. Have you heard of the inscription on the Greek Oracle at Delphi, which warned all comers to “Know Thyself”? The ancients understood that this was one of the most difficult of life’s tasks. We Catholics should recognize it too, and trust the Church.

Even if you think all that rather pie-in-the-sky, you can surely see that the consequences of allowing each person to be the authority concerning his own sexuality, are rather repugnant. People have been known to feel erotic attractions to, among other things, corpses, children, and beasts. Must all these sexual perversions be sanctioned if the individuals in question insist that they are strong and “deep-seated”? Or shall we recognize instead that this is one of the areas in which we least understand ourselves, and perhaps the part of our lives in which we are most in need of pastoral guidance?

I am truly sorry for the sufferings of homosexual people, which in many cases are surely acute. I think it would be a nice thing if the Church were to do more in some cases to assist celibate homosexuals in finding a direction in life – for example, by issuing more pastoral documents discussing particular ways in which celibate people with strong homosexual inclinations might contribute to the life of the Church. And of course, it’s also appropriate to try to help them overcome this temptation in whatever way seems most prudent. However, as with all suffering, theirs will be removed only in God’s time, and until then must be borne as patiently as possible. You should never be so presumptuous to assume that your pains are greater than anyone else’s – after all (in an argument after your own line), how would you know? There are many different sorts of trials in this world. As baptized and confirmed Catholics, we have promised to give God absolutely everything – everything we have, and everything that we are, including our own “identities” as we understand them. “For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?”

When homosexuals can see their sufferings in this light, instead of agitating to have their disordered desires respected and approved, then they may truly have that sense of inclusion that they so obviously desire – inclusion in the ranks of saints and martyrs throughout history who have been willing to pay any price for inclusion in the Kingdom of Heaven.

I’m sorry this conversation has had to go on in public. If you had emailed me privately I would have been happy to carry it on in that way. As it is, I don’t have your private email address, but I would be willing to remove all related posts from the thread if you asked me to do so. I do not think the Doctor or Tobias Petrus would mind.

Whoops, what I wrote makes it sound as though heterosexuals have no interest in rewarding heterosexual relationships. What I meant was that heterosexuals traditionally have not shown interest in developing the capacity for “rewarding” *homosexual* relationships.

“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

And who are “they”? People who have deepseated homosexual tendencies. God provides all people sufficient grace to overcome their temptations. In other words, everyone who willingly, intentionally commits a sin of sodomy is giving in. Those are the people who were punishable under the law — those who transgressed the commandment willingly.

Yes, I think we should return to public criminal prosecution and punishment of the *sin* of sodomy. Not the punishment of the *tendency*, or of the *temptation*, which is a spiritual trial. Look, there are people who have very, very strong lusts for women. Shouldn’t these guys be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity? Yes. And when those same lustful perverts give into those passions and commit the sin and crime of rape, they should be severely punished. Sodomy is like rape in this respect. Help in the form of support for the one tempted, and help in the form of punishment (which can be medicinal) for the one who transgresses.

By the way, strong social censures against homosexual behavior *are* a form of compassion for the effeminate and the homosexual — they prevent these people from giving into shameful activities, and limit the spread of such unnatural tendencies.

So the Catechism is not stating the entire truth. Mercy for the person grappling with temptation, yes, but also punishment for the transgressor and shame for those who try to propagate perversion as normalcy. That is true of any other form of sexual vice. (And yes, I am aware of St. Mary Magdalen, whom Our Lord spared from stoning. But this cannot be a universal precedent for the abandonment of all criminal sanctions against vice.)

“Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. ”

Yet another imperfection in the Catechism — it does not define what discrimination qualifies as just and what as unjust! Of course unjust discrimination is wrong, by definition. But there *are* just forms of discrimination here, such as the Church’s official ban on admitting people with deep-seated homosexual tendencies into the priesthood. I fully support keeping gays out of the military — the former total ban should replace “don’t ask, don’t tell.” I also think we should restrict the influence of effeminate men and masculine women as role models for impressionable youths. That is just discrimination, since it is to help children grow up with proper understanding of male and female roles.

“Now, hopefully, I don’t have to explain to any civilized person in the 21st century why burning homosexuals at the stake is not exactly accepting them with “respect, compassion and sensitivity” or how doing so is not exactly avoiding “unjust discrimination”.”

There, I just explained to you how this practice was not necessarily inconsistent with *true* “respect, compassion and sensitivity” for *those in temptation*. In fact, as the people who got caught were given the opportunity of the Last Rites, they were receiving “respect, compassion and sensitivity” too. Nor was it necessarily “unjust discrimination.” We lock up rapists, don’t we? And rapists have pretty deep-seated tendencies that constitute trials for them! And murderers, too, no matter how deep-seated their tendencies were and how much they struggled with their urges. Wife-beaters have deep-seated rage they need to cope with, yet wife-beating is a crime. So there are all sorts of deep-seated moral vices and temptations that, once translated into action, are immediately punished socially and criminally.

Look, I just cite St. Pius V as historical precedent for past punishments. I am not advocating a return to that. I am sorry that I provoked you with that example — that alone might have cost you any esteem you might otherwise have placed in my arguments. But criminal laws against sodomy (the *act*, not the tendency), those I advocate.

“In addition, the jury is still out as to exactly why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed (I suggest you research this, you may be surprised.)”

No, the jury is not out. The Church has always interpreted those passages as referring to the act of homosexual intercourse. I don’t care what modernists write in order to rationalize unnatural lusts.

“the word homosexual wasn’t even known during biblical times. People didn’t have any concept as to what a homosexual person was and the words heterosexual and homosexual didn’t even exist.”

What, do you mean the modern *English* words “homosexual” and “heterosexual”? Well, of course speakers of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek didn’t have them. They did have words for “liers with mankind” and for “unnatural use.” There were words for “real men” and for “effeminate guys.” Personally, I prefer to use the word sodomy, which refers explicitly to the sinful act, not the temptation or tendency thereto.

As to your criticism of Dr. Asinorum, heterosexuality is normal and natural. Homosexuality is not. Many studies show that homosexuals are not nearly as “deep-seated” in their attractions as heterosexuals are in theirs. Willing homosexuals have been known to develop the capacity for rewarding heterosexual relationships. Heterosexuals traditionally have shown no such interest. Homosexuality, no matter how deep-seated, still conflicts with the natural (and hence innate) law.

Your advise about growing up and sucking it up as well as your ball game analogies are exactly what I mean by heterosexuals being “acutely unprepared and unqualified to discuss this matter.” If you doubt that, try explaining or describing the color blue in a summer sky to someone who was born sightless. You may very well know what blue looks and feels like to you, but your description of it simply will not translate to the blind person.

Thank you for conceding that the emotional aspect of this sort of temptation can be wrenching; but, would you refer to your identification as a heterosexual person “a sort of temptation”? I hardly think so. Rather, it goes right to the heart of you as a person; who you are and what you feel about the world around you. And therein lies the rub. People relegating homosexual’s deep seated, emotional attractions to those of the same gender as simply just another temptation just doesn’t cut it unless you want to be intellectually lazy for the sake of convenience.

Re: TobiasPetrus

As Catholic Christians, are we supposed to be somehow proud that “Our own country and all Christian Europe at one time punished Sodomy as Saint Augustine suggested”? Or that “Pope St. Pius V, of blessed memory, ordered that sodomites be burnt at the stake?” Let me quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church – PP#2358: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

Now, hopefully, I don’t have to explain to any civilized person in the 21st century why burning homosexuals at the stake is not exactly accepting them with “respect, compassion and sensitivity” or how doing so is not exactly avoiding “unjust discrimination”. In addition, the jury is still out as to exactly why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed (I suggest you research this, you may be surprised.) and the word homosexual wasn’t even known during biblical times. People didn’t have any concept as to what a homosexual person was and the words heterosexual and homosexual didn’t even exist.

A good observation. There are certain sins or behaviors in regard to which we would have no hesitation about invoking the “shun” principle – perhaps those who are publicly known to get their jollies from torturing kittens, or some such thing. I can imagine people doing things which are awful and yet not illegal or something or, at any rate, far worse than many illegal things, and we wouldn’t hesitate about shunning them because we’d be so disgusted. Why not in the case of this sin of which Discipulus has already pointed out the heinousness which St. Thomas attributes to it?

I guess it’s easy to forget sometimes, out of sight, out of mind. I imagine that we would avoid, simply through distaste, flamboyant homosexuals. We often aren’t horrified by the sinner because he’s not sinning in front of us; if we had the misfortune to witness the deed, we’d have a harder time.

So maybe the suggestion on the table is that we should rethink our comfort level; we don’t mind hanging out with know homosexuals, as long as they’re not too upfront. Maybe we shouldn’t be comfortable with even that. But if we weren’t, where do we draw the line?

Tobias Petrus, I was going by what Clara laid out: “Here we have sinners who like to identify themselves in very significant and visible ways with a grevious sin.” With that distinction I have no trouble in shunning the first even if it means losing my job, in the second the boys would not play with a kid with two moms. (JSP agrees) Before the Council, it was common for Catholic kids to stick to Catholic friends. And as they got older, dating protestants was taboo. That’s what my father told me anyway. Scenario three is an easy one, “Aunt Betsy’s not getting an invitation. Even if Betsy were my mother, I see no obligation to invite her to the party or even wedding. I agree pretty much with Clara excepting the part about the bouncer. Actually, I wouldn’t have or need a bouncer but would do it discreetly myself—discreetly if they allowed it to remain so.

I disagree JSP with the social examples you give. And you say, “As Catholics we don’t shun…unless children enter the equation.” I think there are a lot more reasons why we can and should shun. Uncle Bob’s homosexual friend does not “deserve” a happy birthday card. (Just maybe a pink bubbly balloon o gram…Just kidding.) I agree children should not be put in that situation because it could have many adverse affects. And yet adults too, can be affected: one being that the sin loses its natural revulsion. The media is constantly trying to do just that. It’s in your face all the time and it has to be manfully resisted.

I don’t totally blacklist and actually have had many conversations with them but only on the issue. Let one be sincere in trying to lead a regular life and I’ll help in whatever way I can. I won’t discuss it with those who show no sign of good will. I think Our Lord had some strong advice about that. In this discussion on making prudential calls, I am not accusing anyone of sin.

First, I think it’s silly and insulting to imply that our debating these prudential matters of associating, and to what degree, with public sinners is equal in someway with reprobate “catholic” parents taking their daughter to an abortion clinic.

All you did in your post was launch into some caricatured diatribe about the pre-conciliar society – not addressing any of the issues raised.

Yes, I’m sure that prior to 1963 kids really did have to walk 3 miles to school uphill both ways too, but can we stick to the issues? The issues of prudence? Of competing or conflicting virtues?

How about the Fourth Commandment? What obligations under the Fourth Commandment do we have toward parents who’ve fallen into lives of open sin? Is it really as simple as you suggest – shun?

How about the selected passage from the Catholic encyclopedia — which was written based on the writings of the Fathers and Doctors. Five reasons were given for licitly associating with the excommunicated! The run-of-the-mill homosexual or divorced-and-remarried-Catholic is not excommunicated even – so if there are 5 reasons why we could not only licitly, but might in fact be obligated morally to, associate with the excommunicated, shouldn’t this give you some pause before you open your mouth?