It was quite a number of years ago that I was sitting at a shopping mall when I struck up a casual conversation with two ladies holding hands. Besides being lesbians, they also added that they practice celibacy. That was something new to me, to see a combination of lesbianism and celibacy.
It was only recently that I found that lesbians practice celibacy because of their Catholicism. So can someone here explain—Is lesbianism excused in Catholicism if it uses celibacy?? Hopefully I can get some clarification.
May I recommend to you the documentary, The Third Way? It came out a number of years ago. In it, they interview individuals who have struggles with their same-sęx attractions and their Catholic Christian Faith.
It does a great job of explaining our view on this subject.
Another great resource is COURAGE.
Hope this helps : )
1 Like
It’s not the kind of body we are born with - but how we use it that’s important. A cripple can’t runa race, and a blind man can’t read the Bible. If two people love each other, let him who is perfect throw the first stone.
Two celebate lesbians who live in love and mutual respect are closer to God than the Catholic who has sex with his wife for entertainment .
Spiritual life is about living for the pleasure of God instead of living for the pleasure of our senses.
All the laws are guidelines…….except one……”Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart, with all thy soul and with all thy might.” Anyone who can do that is ahead of all of us.
Love is not about being a “good” robot. Love means having a feeling in the heart that says, “Oh my Lord, I can’t think of anything other than how to be pleasing to You, with every thought, word and deed.”
Anyone here living like that? Or are we busy making judgments on two clebate lesbians who are holding hands?
It’s never okay. All they are doing is trying to make excuses for sin.
The only real think I saw of being gay being bad these days is the sexual acts, as they can’t get married.
Church is changing, and that is good.
Love is Love, and the view people had about homosexual relationships is finaly getting closer to being real. Although it is not Ideal, I personaly see nothing bad at it. Isn’t someones choice, and they are not sining, they just love eachother, and that is beatifull, no matter the gender of them.
“Love is Love” is the most brilliant wizardry to get individuals to accept a push, I have witnessed in my lifetime. How can you argue against “love”? If you do, you lose the argument before you even begin. And it has worked (mostly on women and young people).
If the Catholic Christian Church continues down this synodal road, the Eastern Orthodox Church will grow and the Catholic Christina Church will become less relevant (because she sounds no different from the fallen world at that point), if she does not split over this issue like the “Divided” Methodist Church has.
Karl Marx was raised Lutheran and became an Atheist. The goal of Marxists is to destroy the family, so that your new family becomes the state. And government becomes your god. He desires to destroy fatherhood and he, himself, was a really bad Dad. He spent decades writing his book on economics while not providing for his own family. Two of his daughters committed suicide. He cheated on his Wife and had a child with another woman and then did not take care of that child.
The LGBTQA.i.+ push is part of the Marxist agenda. And any man who buys into it is either under a spell (and I don’t mean as in some supernatural curse, but rather deceived by the wizardry of the push).
There is a reason that in every show and movie now has to push this. And if you notice, usually the individual representing the push is the most saintly character in the show or movie. This is by design.
If you are discerning the Priesthood or Marriage, you need to be willing to protect your flock or children from such evil and propaganda. I am not saying that individuals with SSA are evil, but the movement (which is based on pride, envy, and coveting) is evil (as in an inversion of God’s design).
God creates what is good and evil corrupts it. Evil cannot create anything. It can only take what God has created and invert it.
“Two celebate lesbians who live in love and mutual respect”.
Contradiction. They are taking advantage of each-other’s vulnerabilities for their own escapism.
1 Like
I am not homosexually oriented. In other words, I am not writing this to defend homsexuality. However, what you say about two ladies who “live in love and mutual respect”, applies to any two people, homosexual, or heterosexual, who live together because of sexual atttraction.
Sex is about an individual wanting to satisfy his personal desires. It is called romance, or infatuation, but it simply a selfish drive for one’s personal satisfaction, disguised as “love”. Because as soon as one’s personal needs are not met, the love is gone…and there is divorce, end of the relationship.
Love has nothing to do with one’s personal desires. When you and I have a loving relationship based on the satisfaciton of our personal desires…that is not love. That is a business deal. Real love asks for nothing in return. In other words, love is “unconditional”. Conditional love is not love. Conditional love means, “As long as I get what I want from you…I love you. And if I don’t get what I want…later for you.”
In this way the whole world is engaged in conditional love…with our neighbors, with other countries, with our dogs and cats, and with our husbands and wifes, …gay or not gay.
Jesus says, “Where two or more are gathered in my name…I am there.” But when two or more are gathered in bed together for enjoying each other’s skin…Jesus is probably not there…whether they are gay or straight.
And if that is our definition of a good Catholic life (putting Jesus in the center of all our social interactions)…perhaps the two ladies who wish to live together, could be closer to Jesus than some men and women who are married in a Catholic church, by a priest, who may have pedophile propensities.
Social rules of conduct are guidelines. They are not the measure of how close we are to God. The man who was nailed on the cross beside Jesus was the worst of sinners…but Jesus told him that they would be together in heaven.
Not “social conduct”. It’s about immorality.
1 Like
I know that it may be used to justify bad things, but what I mean saying that is that it is better to love in a “trange” way, than not loving, or practicing bad, and not having any base.
I had onther debates before about homosexual relationship, and what I heard and concluded was that what is really wrong is the sin against the body. So it was wrong engage in sexual homosecual acts, but the relationship itself ist a problem. They love eachother, idependent of theys gender and sexual orientation, thats what i ment with love is love. My love when I love a woman, is the same as a woman loving another woman, or a man loving another man.
This type of relationship may not be the “usual” but it doesn’t make it weaker, or less significant. Of all the problems in everyone of us, this is one of the most important.
That is all that morality is about…social conduct. Being a good person is not the goal of religion. There are many atheists who are more moral than than some who are members of the church. And there are members of the Italian mafia (professional killers) who are members of the Catholic church.
A moral person is not closer to God than an immoral person. “Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not run after thy neighbor’s wife.” All of these moral principles are about social conduct.
These principles have their place in our cultivation of love of God. But they are not love of God.
The purpose of moral principles are to turn an animal-like person into a human being. These spiritual laws are written down for us because people act in these ways that are hurtful to others and hurtful to themselves.
People who break these moral laws cannot approach God very well, because their sinful hearts are too disturbed to be able to feel God’s omnipresence. Therefore these laws are prescribed as prerequisites to spiritual pursuit. It is like when a person has a fever, and is delerious, he is given a medicine to bring themedicine down to 98.6 F. People who are sinful…their hearts are too feverish to feel a living relationship with Jesus or with God. But by keeping these social values, or what we call moral principles, the fever of immoral material pursuit descreases, and in this way their real spiritual life, their real living relationship with God can begin…as a living experience…not simply an official membership of a church. This is the function of morality. It is prerequisite to a real spiritual life. This is why Jesus says, “It is not by good works alone that one can enter the kingdom of heaven.”
However, there is a strong tendency for people to think that one can go to heaven by being a good person. And to think that they are better than those who not “good” people. But this is not the teaching of Jesus who says, “Judge not that ye be not judged, for how so ever ye judge, so you also will be judged.” He also says, “Hate the sin; but not the sinner.” And,“Love you neighbor as yourself.” This means we have to cultivate the ability to see the spiritual beauty of every living being, and not see them in terms of thier material impurities. We have to learn to see each other in the way that Jesus sees us. He sees the naked truth of the impurities of our hearts…but he sees us in terms of our potential as children of God. But the first step is to become a moral human being, instead of an animal in the dress of a human being, by following harmonious social principles.
You’re mixing morality with moral…izing. Moralizing is showing an over-concern regarding other people’s behaviour, while being moral is rightly appropriated concern for one’s neighbour (and this is the second, while connected to, the first commandment) via one’s own conduct. Social conduct can be for reasons of pomposity and often tied to how one appears in public, where being moral reaches further into oneself and for the good of the other (and furthermore, an enlightened conscience | by reason of faith | guides our moral compass as a fundamental).
Social conduct, strictly in terms of SS-combinations, doesn’t really have much to do with the subject and those involved are not being moral because they are not evidently giving consideration as to the motivation behind their actions and consequently neither are they thinking of the negative effects it will have on themselves ('Love thy neighbour,…as thyself’) or on the other person.
“What is is immoral is from faith choosing a failed state of morality”.
Fair enough. I really like this nuance. I don’t pretend to completely know what you mean, while it is thought-provoking: “…one in the middle of the garden and one in midst the garden”.
"The Tree of life kept alive failed mortality not knowing true Tree og Knowledge of Good and Evil, from the spirit through the life.
What is the only unforgivable sin, Some ask?"
In other words, the Sacrament of Reconciliation (and the Sacraments).
“The New Promise Land is fulfilled through the fulfilled tree of Life from the fulfilled New Tree of Knowledge becoming from One Garden from One Fruit, One Tree from Faith throguhteh Tree of Life fulfilled through The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil for morality fulfilled in form the spirit through the life in One Body of Christ becoming again for all Creation in One Family.”
I think in that profoundly expressed final paragraph “morality” would be better replaced with ‘love’ as morals are lov…ing but with love being the premise.
[ "The Logical Formula from the Wondrous Mysteries allow all to see natures rationally created From the Father, failed from Faith becoming through the Mother immortalized from Baptism becoming into the Catholic Church fulfilling flesh nature becoming reborn in teh New Eve. The New Fruit of The Tree of Life is the Catholic Church, logically and necessary for Redemption, co-Redemption through the New Eve, Mary.
And “Salvation” is for Jesus Virgin Born in the New Adam from the Immaculate Conception in the New Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil through the Host for all becoming “In The Christ” united from the New Tree of Life through the New Tree of Knowledge in One Christ Body, through immortality from Holy Sprit Family Incorruption in The Christ for all mankind From Sacrifice through Penance becoming forgiven in both natures from the Faith of Abraham becoming again in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being." ]
These two paragraphs you added later. While I concur with some of it, you’re still trying to read God’s Mind with this “logical formula” theory with a Vulcan in place of God. When you could just begin with this: “…From the Wondrous Mysteries all are allowed to see…”.
1 Like
To say, again, as in another thread, St. Paul uses logic to mean an action which makes sense whereas you’ve turned the subject into a false idol.
I was going to hire a telescope to see if I could see you up there, somewhere, but then read this:
“Saint Paul did not understand the logic of today because perhaps he did not have my cell number.”
You shut away, somewhere - care to expand (no personal judgements)? Also, this: “Stephen Andrew is struck by the OMNiLogical Light through the OMNiLogical Exodus from the Holy Spirit”.
I don’t doubt you’ve been given light, but that you are misinterpreting one or two factors; overall, you write with insight of a mystical character to the faith and yet the repetitive logic-formula aspect presents (what could be temporary) hurdles.
Hi Morgan! I don’t understand your logic; I think you are making subtle distinctions. But the bottom line of religious life, as I understand it, is that, as Jesus teaches, we have to make a choice between God and mammon (sermon on the mount). Are we trying to find our satisfaction in the temporal, physical, flesh-oriented things of this world, or are we trying to find our fulfillment within the context of our eternal relationship with God? Using this distinction as a criterion for what is most appropriate, I am inclined to feel that two women who are abstaining from sexual relations, while living together in mutual trust and respect, are closer to God than a heterogenous couple who are engaging in sexual relations for the pleasure of the physical body.
Jesus did not keep a wife. Nor did his closest disciples. Nor did the saints of the church. Therefore I can only conclude that the pleasures of the flesh are in opposition to our relationship with God. Whether people are homosexual or heterosexual seems to be a less important consideration than whether people are looking for their pleasure and fulfillment in the satifaction of their senses (as the animals do) as opposed to looking for their fulfillment in their relationship with God.
Rejecting people for their sexual orientation is like rejecting people for their skin color, or nationality…when in fact God doesn’t evaluate us in terms of these physical designations, but more interms of the quality of our love for Him.
In any case, I think you are sincere in your convictions, and your desire to be pleasing to God, and I respect you for that.
Making personal judgements is not the same as affirming (objectively correct) knowledge of the faith.
Christ is the Second Person and humanity, God’s children.
Race is a natural occurrence, gender-related deviations is human choice.
I’ve already given response to the reality of an SS-combination from the perspective of the Catholic Church.
As for comparisons between different contextual frameworks, there are none. For the reason given in the previous sentence with the additional comment that at least the two people despite failing are married and not living in sin.
Points to consider:
Why would an SS couple care about what the Church understands?
How would you know of a married couple’s physical intentions towards each other because if you did know then they would presumably be making it known in public and if so it would be highly unlikely that they’d be practicing Catholics and therefore scandal in the public sense and morality within their own beliefs don’t figure in the conversation.
You don’t have to keep writing, “OMNilogically” - got the gist of what you think, already.
1 Like