Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
John, a sincere and well-written post.
I would say this. If it's acceptable for heterosexual people to express their sexuality, why is it a "sin" (indeed a "deadly sin" the term Butker used) for homosexual people to do so? Why was my friend in law school, a devout Catholic himself who happened to be gay, made to feel unwelcome at his church? Did he deserve that? To me it's a disgrace he was deemed a "sinner" for the particular way he desired to express himself.
I for one would not presume to judge what is sinful and what is not, except in obvious instances where something is harmful to other people. And I take umbrage to the attempted softening and excusing of anti-gay attitudes -- not directed at you personally.
|
To be honest I have never fully understood why homosexuality is considered to be such a sin. Or rather - I know of reasons that make better logical than emotional sense to me.
I would note that there are differences between heterosexual & homosexual relations that are not minor. The first is something my dad talks about. My dad believes in natural law - that whether something is right or wrong depends on whether its results are good or bad: if you get a bad outcome it is because you have done something incorrectly. By this understanding the relationship between homosexuality and AIDS is an indication that homosexuality is incorrect/wrong - and because natural law is identified with divine law - God giving us rules so by following them we do not harm ourselves and others by breaking the natural law - something is a sin because it is incorrect/wrong. I don't find this argument totally persuasive, but I think it is a point.
Furthermore, as I wrote in a similar conversation, oddly enough a year ago almost to the day (May 25):
"There are two categories of things that are wrong.
"The first are actions that are inherently malicious and harmful to others: stealing, murder etc.
"The second class of wrong actions are acts that are right but are done in the wrong way - in ways contrary to their purpose which prevent the purpose from being achieved. In the traditional view, sex has the purpose of procreation. Being a practicing homosexual is inherently contrary to the purpose of having children, and is therefore wrong because it goes against the purpose of sex.
"Actions of the second class are always wrong, but are only morally culpable if the person is aware that it is wrong." [slightly edited]
In response to your question regarding your friend's experience: In the proper understanding of the Church's teaching the sin is in not in being gay, in naturally having desires of that kind, but in acting upon those desires. If your friend was a practicing homosexual, then he was by the Church's teaching living in sin, and so should not have been encouraged in that choice by his church. (Whether it was right that he was made to feel unwelcome depends on what that exactly entailed - whether what he underwent was along the lines of charitable admonition or of personal hatred.) If he, as a devout Catholic who happened to be gay, was not a practicing homosexual, he did not deserve to feel unwelcome at his church and his church was at fault.
A last point concerning your last paragraph: the idea of some things being sinful is not designed only to protect ourselves from hurting others, but also to protect ourselves from hurting ourselves. We should not presume to judge the souls of others - judge not lest you be judged - but it
is imperative that we judge what is or what is not sinful in general in order that we might know what we ought to do and not do.