Differentiation between homosexual "person" and homosexual "action"?

Question

I recently posted a question in the religion and spirituality section about ministries for gay and lesbian Catholics. I received some helpful responses, but also some which reflect a misunderstanding of my question. So here's my new question: If a person is homosexual, but remains celibate, how is that a problem...even for people who believe that homosexual actions are sinful? I don't understand why after stating that I am not sexually active, I still get responses that say things like "God is not happy with you." I'd like some serious answers here. I'd like to know how, in any way, it would be logical to state that a person not acting on a sexual attraction could possibly be sinning. For the record, I know that I am not in a state of sin...and in fact I am following exactly what the Catholic Church teaches...but I would like to know how those who disagree with me justify their belief on this, because it just doesn't make sense to me.

Ok, let me clarify FURTHER. I know the difference between homosexual people (being one myself) and homosexual attraction. What I'm asking is, why do SOME people still think that there is no distinction?

Answer 1

Sex with someone of the same gender is the sin. As long as a homosexual person is not engaging in sex - is celebate - then there is no problem with the Church.

Ask those who attack you if they have ever had sex without being married - if they say yes, then they are guilty of adultery and fornication.

As to people justifying their beliefs. . . I have noticed that anyone can justify anything, given time. Follow what the RCC is teaching, read your Bible and the CCC and you will do well.

Pace e bene.

Answer 2

I'm not exactly up on what the Catholic Church teaches being a Baptist and all but i think this question is only one symptom of a deeper problem with the church as a whole. If we read the bible for what it says, then the practice of homosexuality is wrong. Also, in the sermon on the mount Jesus established a totally new way of looking at morality. Actions are wrong still wrong, but thoughts about actions are wrong too. A person who gets angry at his his brother is guilty of murder, a person who looks at woman lustfully is guilty of adultery, etc. The heart of this problem in this situation isn't that whether homosexuality or homosexual thoughts are sinful or not. The heart of this problem is the thinking in the church that homosexuality is somehow more sinful than other sins. God doesn't see big sins or little sins. He only sees sin and he abhors it. The church as a whole must rid itself of this holier than thou attitude that is so pervasive among it's members. We need to realize that everyone sins and just because someone is a christian doesn't mean that they stop sinning. I've been a christian almost all my life and i still sin, particularly in the lust department. It's something that i struggle with. Many in the church wonder why those outside the church often see us as hypocrites and this is the reason why. It's because we point out the sin of others but don't want to face the sin in our own lives. The church as a whole needs to shift it's focus from condemning individual sins to what the remedy for all of these sins is: the atonement of Christ.

Answer 3

AND YOU NEVER WILL!! Those people are nothing but a bunch of homophobes who are way too shallow in their thinking to ever be able to comprehend that homosexuality is NOT a sin because it IS genetic, or at least physical in nature having to do with a complex make-up of genes, chromosomes, and hormones. We all know how absolutely BIZZARE a woman who is on hormone medication can act if she suddenly stops taking it! It is sort of the same principle with homosexuality, except you are born with it. You don't act crazy, you're just sexually mixed up.

Answer 4

Well, Henri Nouwen is a good example. He was a celibate, homosexual Catholic who wrote some very important books that are read by Evangelicals and Catholics alike. Most do not know of this struggle he had. But he is a very influentual Christian, similar to C.S. Lewis.

Answer 5

A man named Quentin Crisp wrote a book on that subject, called "The naked civil servant". He was a man who had lifelong homosexual urges but rarely acted upon them.
That's the key. It's the same with any other carnal desire, like a married man lusting after other women.
Sin is sin. It makes people feel superior to pick out the one they don't do, and make it sound way worse than their own.

Answer 6

Homosexual sex thoughts or physical sex with a person of the same sex is a sin. If a person is celibate then he has no sexual orientation. I not sure how a person can know weather he or she is homosexual
without some sort of sexual arousal.

Answer 7

Your thought is exactly why I don't have a problem with gay priests. They are celibate, so what does it matter what type of sex they are denying themselves? Paul said that men should live alone and serve the Lord, but for those who could not, they should marry. The highest calling is celibacy and the act of celibacy is the same whether the sex from which one abstains is homo- or heterosexual.

Answer 8

I totally agree with you. In this present age sin is not counted when it is only in your mind. (I've heard different of other ages) people just have sinful minds, I mean it is sinful to cheat, but I am sure that most people have sinful lusting after other than their spouses. I am happy that you are following strictly and not succumbing to the urges of your senses. you are much less sinful than most straight people. I have homosexual friends who also practice celibacy strictly, and I guess that is the thing to do in that situation.

Answer 9

Why worry? Go out and find someone to love and spend your life with. Tell all the rest to kiss your homosexual bottom which would be a homosexual act!

Answer 10

in order to added demonize homosexuals... it really is a protection mechanism in the experience that they can demonize yet another team of their minds then convince themselves that they are oh so diverse from the demonized (or undesirable ) team they should be the righteous (or solid) team through default... traditionally speaking demonization has been used to create gaps between communities to substantiate that one team to sense justified in suppressing and/or eliminating yet another team... a superior celebration of this theory is the Nazi's and the Jews... The Nazi's did not initiate off putting Jews in concentration camps and killing them they began through demonizing them... Jews are grimy, Jews are liars, Jews are thieves, Jews are evil, Jews are <>... After human beings believed that Jews were a majority of those undesirable issues the hollow develop into waiting at which period it grew to develop right into a probability to suppress and finally get rid of the gang... were there Jews that in good structure the profile of being grimy, mendacity, thieving, evil etc.? sure in each team there are undesirable apples.. besides the indisputable fact that the profile develop into not an precise description of a backyard type Jew... there are dissimilar different historic and present day examples to boot... contained in the U.S. and different places blacks were demonized making the prepare of slavery extra palpable to the slave vendors and others of their communities.... In Rwanda the Hutu's demonized the Tutsi's making the mass murders and tried genocide extra palpable to the Hutu lots... The list is going on and on... Demonization is a useful device to create an ecosystem of shock, hate and/or thoughts of superiority in a unmarried team through portraying yet another team as inferior.... once the hollow is there movements that could want to seem preposterous and unthinkable without the hollow seem logical, righteous and mandatory...