Author Topic: Pope tells gay man that "God made you that way and loves you as you are"  (Read 2779 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Saxon

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Quote
Pope Francis reportedly told a gay man from Chile who was visiting the Vatican that God made him that way and loves him the way he is.

Juan Carlos Cruz, who was reportedly a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of a priest, reportedly spent days at the Vatican to talk about his experiences.

Cruz reportedly told El Pais, a Spanish newspaper, that the two had a conversation about his homosexuality and said he was told, “Juan Carlos, I don’t care about you being gay. God made you that way and loves you as you are and I don’t mind. The pope loves you as you are, you have to be happy with who you are.”

The Los Angeles Times reported that the Vatican did not confirm the pope’s comments given that it was a private conversation.

The pope has upheld Catholic teaching on homosexuality, reiterating the church's opposition to same-sex relationships.

Francis uttered his "Who am I to judge?" comment during his first airborne press conference in 2013, signaling a new era of acceptance and welcome for gays in the church. Francis followed up by meeting with gay and transgender faithful.

Fr. James Martin, the author of “Building a Bridge,” told The Times that Francis’ reported comments are a “big deal” because it is likely the first time the pope made a comment “about gay people being born that way.”

Martin told the paper that the pope made the reported comment in private and not on the record, which is a big difference.

Meanwhile, every active Chilean bishop offered to resign Friday over what Francis said was their “grave negligence” in investigating abuse and protecting children.

The bishops announced at the end of an emergency Vatican summit that all 31 active bishops in Rome had signed a document offering to resign.

Calls for mass resignations had mounted after details emerged of the contents of a 2,300-page Vatican report into the Chilean scandal leaked early Friday. Francis had cited the report in footnotes of a 10-page document that he handed over to each Chilean bishop at the start of the summit.

For years, sex abuse victims have blasted the Chilean hierarchy for discrediting their claims, protecting abusers and moving them around rather than reporting them to police and then handing out light sentences when church sanctions were imposed.

Francis, though, has also been implicated in the scandal and he took responsibility for his role as well.


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/05/21/pope-francis-reportedly-tells-gay-man-god-made-that-way-and-loves.html


More of Pope Francis deliberately treading the fine line between the teaching of hate the sin, not the sinner, and revealing his actual, personal convictions.

Offline Jackson02

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 526
  • St. Joseph of Petrograd pray to God for us!
  • Faith: Genuine Orthodox Church
  • Jurisdiction: Inquiring
To be fair, we all knew this was coming.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 12:55:26 PM by Jackson02 »
IC XC
NI KA

Offline Lepanto

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 426
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
To be fair, we all knew this was coming.
What was coming?
una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro et Antistite nostro et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,235
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
To be fair, we all knew this was coming.
What was coming?

Smug orthodox schadenfreude packaged as concern and outrage.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,235
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Also taking at face value reports of a private conversation published in a tabloid is generally a bad habit.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline Lepanto

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 426
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
To be fair, we all knew this was coming.
What was coming?

Smug orthodox schadenfreude packaged as concern and outrage.
Now I got it. All the good it will do to Orthodoxy in general when the Catholic church is coming apart.
A few of you will be surprised. Hard wakeup call.
una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro et Antistite nostro et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,982
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Dark Night of the Soul.
Smug orthodox schadenfreude packaged as concern and outrage.

Precisely.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

All hail and agree with AGABUS! the God of this website.

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Sethrak

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 319
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Well ~ the Sex Punk says ~ he said that ~ Let us hope he is being misquoted ```

Lord please have a word with this man ~ so he thinks more and talks less ~ see ~ if it be Your Will ~ that this large wayward branch of the Church ~ well ~ is less prideful and puffed up and boasting ~ some of what this pope does and says ~ reflects on Your Universal Church ~ and ~ upon You Lord ~ in the eyes of the less faithful ~ Please if it be Your Will ```


Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 980
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Denver
This is a man's recollection paraphrasing PP FI.  Yet, it's yet another opportunity for the world and its prince to make people think that the Pope said what they want him to say.

Regrettably, I doubt that PP FI is even in the position of correcting the man's account of their conversation, even if the Pope were inclined to make sure that the public record about him is accurate, which he isn't.  It's quite possible that the Pope talked to the man in confidence, either sacramental confession or pastoral counseling, so he's not free to comment on their conversation.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,031
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
A good question to ask is. Was he born that way? or did the experience with the said preist make him that way?

Offline Jackson02

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 526
  • St. Joseph of Petrograd pray to God for us!
  • Faith: Genuine Orthodox Church
  • Jurisdiction: Inquiring
A good question to ask is. Was he born that way? or did the experience with the said preist make him that way?
It’s usually the molestation that makes the victim gay.
IC XC
NI KA

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 778
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
A good question to ask is. Was he born that way? or did the experience with the said preist make him that way?
Nobody is born gay, it is called unnatural sin and the pleasure of the devil for a reason. Those who have united themselves with the devil, experience pleasure in defiling the image of God. That activity have demonism as its source. Therefor those who participate in such activities are cut off from God and united with darkness. You can be absolutely sure that if there is something disgusting  and evilly cunning that you have never thought of, they are already thinking it and wanting it, because their father is the devil who inspires them to do so.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 02:42:37 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,994
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
I expected Pope Francis to answer "LOL dude u toly goin to hell" or something in that line.
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

Anyhow when God was asked he said Eastern Orthodox is true Church and not Catholic Church. So come home and enjoy.

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,994
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
A good question to ask is. Was he born that way? or did the experience with the said preist make him that way?
It’s usually the molestation that makes the victim gay.
Sex abuse messes sexuality up a lot, specially in women (who overall have a more fluid sexuality than men), but also in men. Girls molested by men usually get averted by men in general, while boys molested by older men may do the exact opposite and be instead led to believe that a normal sexual experience would be somewhat similar to their trauma (this is a minority, but the chance of male victims becoming gay or bisexual is remarkably higher than non-victims).
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

Anyhow when God was asked he said Eastern Orthodox is true Church and not Catholic Church. So come home and enjoy.

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 778
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
What is revealed in this story sounds like horrorhell to me.

Offline Halik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Fulda
Quote
This is a man's recollection paraphrasing PP FI.  Yet, it's yet another opportunity for the world and its prince to make people think that the Pope said what they want him to say.

There a far too many people, who are paraphrasing the Pope (see the "hell or not"-discussion ...). Maybe the pontiff himself should be more careful in what he says (Psalm 141, 3).
“We adore You, O Christ, and we praise You, because by Your holy cross, You have redeemed the world."
(St. Francis of Assisi)

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,663
No, I don't believe that.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 08:46:57 AM by WPM »
Learn meditation.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,031
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Quote
This is a man's recollection paraphrasing PP FI.  Yet, it's yet another opportunity for the world and its prince to make people think that the Pope said what they want him to say.

There a far too many people, who are paraphrasing the Pope (see the "hell or not"-discussion ...). Maybe the pontiff himself should be more careful in what he says (Psalm 141, 3).
Where is the hell or not discussion?

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,663
Well ~ the Sex Punk says ~ he said that ~ Let us hope he is being misquoted ```

Lord please have a word with this man ~ so he thinks more and talks less ~ see ~ if it be Your Will ~ that this large wayward branch of the Church ~ well ~ is less prideful and puffed up and boasting ~ some of what this pope does and says ~ reflects on Your Universal Church ~ and ~ upon You Lord ~ in the eyes of the less faithful ~ Please if it be Your Will ```


Yes, the Orthodox Church . . . I agree.
Learn meditation.

Offline Halik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Fulda
Quote
Where is the hell or not discussion?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catastrophic-for-the-catholic-church-world-media-reacts-to-pope-franciss-de

The Pope has said something similar to Scalfari in 2015. If he is always mistaken by Scalfari, why does the pope give him still interviews? If it's true, than the pope holds a theological position similar to annihilation.
“We adore You, O Christ, and we praise You, because by Your holy cross, You have redeemed the world."
(St. Francis of Assisi)

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,474
  • Faith: Christian
Okay I'll admit this thread has got me intrigued. What did Pope Francis say now that's controversial? That we shouldn't give homosexuals lobotomies?
- Peter Jericho

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,031
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Quote
Where is the hell or not discussion?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catastrophic-for-the-catholic-church-world-media-reacts-to-pope-franciss-de

The Pope has said something similar to Scalfari in 2015. If he is always mistaken by Scalfari, why does the pope give him still interviews? If it's true, than the pope holds a theological position similar to annihilation.
Interesting indeed.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,151
Well, I was gonna stay out of this thread, but in light of recent comments, I guess I'll wade in. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what Pope Francis said. He said that God made people who they are and loves them as is. What specifically is wrong with this position? Where in the Gospels or the Epistles does one find any apostle or God Himself hating any part of creation? And while Young Earth Creationists (Yes, I'm referring here specifically to Vanhyo) here might flip their lids and crush their snowflakes over the fact that Pope Francis has dared to agree with the scientific consensus that biological factors have a major role in determining sexual orientation, such a position isn't even a point of doctrine in either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Let me repeat that, neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism have a doctrinal position on what determine's a person's sexual orientation. That question has largely been left to empirical studies and science.

So for me, whether this report is accurate or not really does not matter too much.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 10:55:41 AM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Halik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Fulda
Quote
He said that God made people who they are and loves them as is.

So God created homosexual feelings and behavior? Do I understand you right? Is this the orthodox position?
“We adore You, O Christ, and we praise You, because by Your holy cross, You have redeemed the world."
(St. Francis of Assisi)

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,151
Quote
He said that God made people who they are and loves them as is.

So God created homosexual feelings and behavior? Do I understand you right? Is this the orthodox position?

I'm not certain why you are linking two entirely separate questions with the conjunction "and" as though they are the same thing. I'll divide them. Does God create homosexual feelings? God creates everything, so absolutely yes. The question of behavior is another matter entirely. Behavior is a matter of personal agency and will. Creation has nothing to do with that.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 778
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Well, I was gonna stay out of this thread, but in light of recent comments, I guess I'll wade in. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what Pope Francis said. He said that God made people who they are and loves them as is. What specifically is wrong with this position? Where in the Gospels or the Epistles does one find any apostle or God Himself hating any part of creation? And while Young Earth Creationists (Yes, I'm referring here specifically to Vanhyo) here might flip their lids and crush their snowflakes over the fact that Pope Francis has dared to agree with the scientific consensus that biological factors have a major role in determining sexual orientation, such a position isn't even a point of doctrine in either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Let me repeat that, neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism have a doctrinal position on what determine's a person's sexual orientation. That question has largely been left to empirical studies and science.

So for me, whether this report is accurate or not really does not matter too much.

And when i say that people who believe in evolution become mad and insane they say i am the insane.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,341
that sentence should end "...but He loves you too much to leave you as you are."
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,151
Well, I was gonna stay out of this thread, but in light of recent comments, I guess I'll wade in. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what Pope Francis said. He said that God made people who they are and loves them as is. What specifically is wrong with this position? Where in the Gospels or the Epistles does one find any apostle or God Himself hating any part of creation? And while Young Earth Creationists (Yes, I'm referring here specifically to Vanhyo) here might flip their lids and crush their snowflakes over the fact that Pope Francis has dared to agree with the scientific consensus that biological factors have a major role in determining sexual orientation, such a position isn't even a point of doctrine in either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Let me repeat that, neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism have a doctrinal position on what determine's a person's sexual orientation. That question has largely been left to empirical studies and science.

So for me, whether this report is accurate or not really does not matter too much.

And when i say that people who believe in evolution become mad and insane they say i am the insane.

I'm actually far from insane. Rather what appears to me is the following. Pope Francis told this man in confidence these things. Okay, well then in such situations he will be operating in a mode primarily concerned with pastoral care. The concerns of pastoral care do not necessitate brow beating with doctrine, although it does not necessarily exclude it either. So while some here might feel better about themselves if Pope Francis just added, "Hey just don't go do gay things," the fact of the matter is that they don't know this man whom Pope Francis was speaking to. They don't know what his mental state was. They don't know what his spiritual state was. I find it rather telling that of the people who have posted here condemning this man or Pope Francis, none have considered the pastoral aspect, which the article is fairly up front about by indicating it was said in private. Furthermore, I find it telling that none of the posters so far have ever had the pastoral duties of a priest or bishop. You can firebrand all you want, you'll just drive a large number of people away. As it is said in Ecclesiastes 3:1, "There is a season and a time for every purpose under Heaven."
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 11:46:07 AM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Άλιεύς Ἰχθύων
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,010
  • Matthew 27:52-53
  • Faith: Like unto Neronov
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite, Chapelist ("Double-Crossers")
Why is pastoral care so often contrasted with doctrine, as though the two are fundamentally opposed? Are we so incapable of pastoral tact that the truth cannot be spoken in love, it must instead be discarded so that some pastoral duty is fulfilled?

I'm not convinced the words reported are exactly what the Pope said, so I'm not out to get him, but neither do I see the implicit rejection of Catholic doctrine in those words as particularly defensible.

If the intent is to be pastoral, the phrase in question could have been cut down to "God made you and loves you," and nothing of value would have been lost. Someone would still be up in arms, but less so.
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,151
Why is pastoral care so often contrasted with doctrine, as though the two are fundamentally opposed? Are we so incapable of pastoral tact that the truth cannot be spoken in love, it must instead be discarded so that some pastoral duty is fulfilled?

I'm not convinced the words reported are exactly what the Pope said, so I'm not out to get him, but neither do I see the implicit rejection of Catholic doctrine in those words as particularly defensible.

If the intent is to be pastoral, the phrase in question could have been cut down to "God made you and loves you," and nothing of value would have been lost. Someone would still be up in arms, but less so.

As I said before, "The concerns of pastoral care do not necessitate brow beating with doctrine, although it does not necessarily exclude it either." Whether or not Pope Francis decides to include it is entirely his discretion. And I think it is a mistake to simply say, "There is an implicit rejection here." I don't follow the logic. Where exactly is the implicit rejection? Is it because in a private conversation he decided that it would not be spiritually beneficial to say, "Don't have sex with another man" to someone who is a victim of not only child molestation, but also a member of a socially persecuted minority? The man didn't travel across the Atlantic to be told what he almost certainly already knows to be the Catholic position on sexual intercourse between members of the same sex. The man traveled across the Atlantic to have his grievances heard by Pope Francis in a personal conversation.

Furthermore, I'm quite amazed that people have no problem believing that God made the blind man blind on account of no sin as stated in John 9:4, but the minute any prelate essentially makes the same argument about homosexuals, there is a problem.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 778
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Quote
Furthermore, I'm quite amazed that people have no problem believing that God made the blind man blind on account of no sin as stated in John 9:4, but the minute any prelate essentially makes the same argument about homosexuals, there is a problem.
Being physically blind is no sin and doesn't lead to hell not only that but may benefit the person spiritually and make him a martyr.

unrepentant homosexuality sends a person to hell.

Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Άλιεύς Ἰχθύων
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,010
  • Matthew 27:52-53
  • Faith: Like unto Neronov
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite, Chapelist ("Double-Crossers")
As I said before, "The concerns of pastoral care do not necessitate brow beating with doctrine, although it does not necessarily exclude it either." Whether or not Pope Francis decides to include it is entirely his discretion. And I think it is a mistake to simply say, "There is an implicit rejection here." I don't follow the logic. Where exactly is the implicit rejection? Is it because in a private conversation he decided that it would not be spiritually beneficial to say, "Don't have sex with another man" to someone who is a victim of not only child molestation, but also a member of a socially persecuted minority? The man didn't travel across the Atlantic to be told what he almost certainly already knows to be the Catholic position on sexual intercourse between members of the same sex. The man traveled across the Atlantic to have his grievances heard by Pope Francis in a personal conversation.

My only point being that if there is something unsound in the Pope's words, as evidently some believe, is the pastoral care as it is justified? Or would his only other option then, as far as doctrine goes, be to brow beat the fellow?

Furthermore, I'm quite amazed that people have no problem believing that God made the blind man blind on account of no sin as stated in John 9:4, but the minute any prelate essentially makes the same argument about homosexuals, there is a problem.

That's only true if you think a man being born disordered is necessarily equivalent to God explicitly creating him to be disordered. Certainly, the Lord sustains a fallen world and consequently our assumption of a fallen nature is therefore permitted by Him to happen. However, to what degree are we going to claim that God set out to make us the way we are?
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,146
  • Saint John Maximovitch, pray for us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None
Furthermore, I'm quite amazed that people have no problem believing that God made the blind man blind on account of no sin as stated in John 9:4, but the minute any prelate essentially makes the same argument about homosexuals, there is a problem.

2 things:

1. There is a fundamental difference between passivity and actions.

It's one thing to struggle with gay inclinations, it's another to act on them. It may be perfectly natural to even unconsciously look at women in an objectifying manner as a straight person; it's a whole other matter to take that second look.

Being blind is something that isn't acted upon, unless you gouge your eyes out, which is sinful.

2. There is a clear difference between a state of rationality and state of irrationality.

People with schizophrenia who are self-deluded and end up murdering another individual from their delusion can't be granted anywhere near the same gravity of sin as someone who does it willingly with full rationality; homosexual people are not fully irrational beings who are incapable of decision making.

While I think it could be the case that someone who has been biologically modified to act the way they are may be a hindrance that lowers the gravity of sin, they are still fully aware of their activities and still have the capacity to act on it, which would make it at the very least adultery. That is assuming there is such a biological modification - to say that all gays are born that way is disingenuous, as I think a whole host of other factors can lead one to that conclusion, and if one's own actions lead them down that path, the gravity I think is far worse than mere adultery.

I don't find it compelling that people are naturally, biologically born with deviant behaviors like bestality or pedophilia - and in much the same way, even if biological hindrance were true, such deviant behaviors like homosexuality in at least some cases must arive from a long history of sin and sexual corruption, which makes the gravity of the sin far, far worse. It's an abomination in God's Eyes.

Likewise, in much the same way that murder by schizophrenics should not be seen as something as "normal" nor should we start a movement to legalize the murder, calling those who disagree "schizophobics," we shouldn't normalize sexual behavior that is clearly, biologically irregular.

Tell me, is the function of sexual reproduction mere pleasure by nature, especially when you have to buy artificial enhancers like contraception or lube in order to make it pleasurable and block out a natural function? As well as block out diseases which encourage natural monogomy, either by creation or evolution?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 02:44:22 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation."
-Saint Patrick's Breastplate

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,151
As I said before, "The concerns of pastoral care do not necessitate brow beating with doctrine, although it does not necessarily exclude it either." Whether or not Pope Francis decides to include it is entirely his discretion. And I think it is a mistake to simply say, "There is an implicit rejection here." I don't follow the logic. Where exactly is the implicit rejection? Is it because in a private conversation he decided that it would not be spiritually beneficial to say, "Don't have sex with another man" to someone who is a victim of not only child molestation, but also a member of a socially persecuted minority? The man didn't travel across the Atlantic to be told what he almost certainly already knows to be the Catholic position on sexual intercourse between members of the same sex. The man traveled across the Atlantic to have his grievances heard by Pope Francis in a personal conversation.

My only point being that if there is something unsound in the Pope's words, as evidently some believe, is the pastoral care as it is justified? Or would his only other option then, as far as doctrine goes, be to brow beat the fellow?

Yet, this was not said in a public capacity. It was said in a personal conversation. If it was public, I think you would have a point.

Furthermore, I'm quite amazed that people have no problem believing that God made the blind man blind on account of no sin as stated in John 9:4, but the minute any prelate essentially makes the same argument about homosexuals, there is a problem.

That's only true if you think a man being born disordered is necessarily equivalent to God explicitly creating him to be disordered. Certainly, the Lord sustains a fallen world and consequently our assumption of a fallen nature is therefore permitted by Him to happen. However, to what degree are we going to claim that God set out to make us the way we are?

It's certainly plausible, as scripture indicates. Saint Augustine of Hippo writes in his Tractates on the Gospel of St. John ( http://newadvent.org/fathers/1701044.htm ) that the blindness can be understood in two ways. At the spiritual level it represents humanity's fallen nature. At the literal level, however, it represents an affliction given by God so that God might be glorified. The exegeses of pseudo-Bede (Patrologia Latina 92: 0757A-0757D), Alcuin of York (PL 100: 0877C-0878A), and Saint Bruno of Segni (PL 165: 0527B-0528B) confirm this reading.

Quote
Furthermore, I'm quite amazed that people have no problem believing that God made the blind man blind on account of no sin as stated in John 9:4, but the minute any prelate essentially makes the same argument about homosexuals, there is a problem.
Being physically blind is no sin and doesn't lead to hell not only that but may benefit the person spiritually and make him a martyr.

unrepentant homosexuality sends a person to hell.

First, you've missed the point of the scripture. As the basic question of the apostles demonstrates, it was thought that deformity indicates a sin on the part of either the parent or the blind man himself. Christ indicated that it was neither, that there was a third option, insofar that the issue had nothing to do with sin on anyone's part. Rather it was for the glorification of God. I think you neglect the fact too that divine punishment often does, although not always, include the affliction of blindness, as is evidenced in both the Old Testament and in the countless vitae (lives) of the saints.

Second, you've said that even having homosexual inclinations or temptations is a sign of being in league with the devil. Such a rigid position is entirely untenable. It entirely ignores the fact that biology has a large role in determining sexual orientation.

Livetonoevil, I've already addressed some of the concerns you've raised in previous posts. I ask that you reread them, for I'll not repeat myself.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 02:46:34 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 901
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR-WR
Is being gay... attracted to the same sex (but not acting on it) a choice, and if it is not a choice can it be a sin?

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,994
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Why is pastoral care so often contrasted with doctrine, as though the two are fundamentally opposed? Are we so incapable of pastoral tact that the truth cannot be spoken in love, it must instead be discarded so that some pastoral duty is fulfilled?

I'm not convinced the words reported are exactly what the Pope said, so I'm not out to get him, but neither do I see the implicit rejection of Catholic doctrine in those words as particularly defensible.

If the intent is to be pastoral, the phrase in question could have been cut down to "God made you and loves you," and nothing of value would have been lost. Someone would still be up in arms, but less so.
+1
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

Anyhow when God was asked he said Eastern Orthodox is true Church and not Catholic Church. So come home and enjoy.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,146
  • Saint John Maximovitch, pray for us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None
but also a member of a socially persecuted minority?

The "socially persecuted minority" who are able to successfully shutdown Christian bakeries because they refuse gay marriage cakes, the "socially persecuted minority" who are able to ban books in California that teach people how to change their homosexual behavior, and who also forbid the parents of children from not teaching their kids about "normal" homosexual behavior? The "socially persecuted minority" who have threatened to kill a Pastor and burn down a Protestant church in Detroit over a "Bible workshop" that talks to teenagers struggling with their sexual identity? The "socially persecuted minority" that literally threatened to sue a small town in Missouri over the small city refusing a gay pride parade?

You know who are actually more persecuted than homosexual people? Gay people who actually decide to avoid homosexual behavior. Suddenly those people are the REAL problem, as they aren't conforming to their "normal" behavior, and they are relentlessly persecuted and socially isolated by anyone with a leftist leaning ideology.
"I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation."
-Saint Patrick's Breastplate

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,031
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Is being gay... attracted to the same sex (but not acting on it) a choice, and if it is not a choice can it be a sin?

There is really no such thing as being born gay imo. I believe the attraction develops over time in the development years of adolescents. Once the inclination sets in and the mind gravitates towards it. The churches response is to abstain.  If you abstain you are no less saved than anybody else.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,146
  • Saint John Maximovitch, pray for us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None
Livetonoevil, I've already addressed some of the concerns you've raised in previous posts. I ask that you reread them, for I'll not repeat myself.


Although you've posted

Quote
The question of behavior is another matter entirely. Behavior is a matter of personal agency and will. Creation has nothing to do with that.

Your post

Quote
Furthermore, I'm quite amazed that people have no problem believing that God made the blind man blind on account of no sin as stated in John 9:4, but the minute any prelate essentially makes the same argument about homosexuals, there is a problem.

immediately contradicts the former post, because the logic of the second post - which I was addressing - suggests that behavior and passivity are intertwined, which what I was picking apart.

My post also doesn't address creation and whether God created homosexual feelings, but rather the state of an individual as he exists versus his reactions to that state of existence.

Also, if you are referring to posts other than this thread as "previous posts," you should have no incentive to even bring it up in this thread, as you "sufficiently answered the question."
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 03:22:16 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation."
-Saint Patrick's Breastplate

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,146
  • Saint John Maximovitch, pray for us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None
Is being gay... attracted to the same sex (but not acting on it) a choice, and if it is not a choice can it be a sin?

There is really no such thing as being born gay imo. I believe the attraction develops over time in the development years of adolescents. Once the inclination sets in and the mind gravitates towards it. The churches response is to abstain.  If you abstain you are no less saved than anybody else.

Could someone who has been put in that position can succumb their free will to it and have the gravity of the sin removed to a certain degree?

Much like an alcoholic who is trying to quit drinking - certainly getting drunk's gravity can be mitigated by addiction, or perhaps obesity with an eating disorder?

I think if caused by certain environmental factors or even by one's own choices, homosexuality's gravity can be mitigated by one's own state of existence, correct?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 03:27:20 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation."
-Saint Patrick's Breastplate

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Άλιεύς Ἰχθύων
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,010
  • Matthew 27:52-53
  • Faith: Like unto Neronov
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite, Chapelist ("Double-Crossers")
As I said before, "The concerns of pastoral care do not necessitate brow beating with doctrine, although it does not necessarily exclude it either." Whether or not Pope Francis decides to include it is entirely his discretion. And I think it is a mistake to simply say, "There is an implicit rejection here." I don't follow the logic. Where exactly is the implicit rejection? Is it because in a private conversation he decided that it would not be spiritually beneficial to say, "Don't have sex with another man" to someone who is a victim of not only child molestation, but also a member of a socially persecuted minority? The man didn't travel across the Atlantic to be told what he almost certainly already knows to be the Catholic position on sexual intercourse between members of the same sex. The man traveled across the Atlantic to have his grievances heard by Pope Francis in a personal conversation.

My only point being that if there is something unsound in the Pope's words, as evidently some believe, is the pastoral care as it is justified? Or would his only other option then, as far as doctrine goes, be to brow beat the fellow?

Yet, this was not said in a public capacity. It was said in a personal conversation. If it was public, I think you would have a point.

As a personal conversation, I'm of the mind that it should likely never have been brought out into the open to begin with. However, as it has, why would there be any incongruity between the private and a hypothetical public pastoral response? Shouldn't they accord for the recipient's own sake?

Furthermore, I'm quite amazed that people have no problem believing that God made the blind man blind on account of no sin as stated in John 9:4, but the minute any prelate essentially makes the same argument about homosexuals, there is a problem.

That's only true if you think a man being born disordered is necessarily equivalent to God explicitly creating him to be disordered. Certainly, the Lord sustains a fallen world and consequently our assumption of a fallen nature is therefore permitted by Him to happen. However, to what degree are we going to claim that God set out to make us the way we are?

It's certainly plausible, as scripture indicates. Saint Augustine of Hippo writes in his Tractates on the Gospel of St. John ( http://newadvent.org/fathers/1701044.htm ) that the blindness can be understood in two ways. At the spiritual level it represents humanity's fallen nature. At the literal level, however, it represents an affliction given by God so that God might be glorified. The exegeses of pseudo-Bede (Patrologia Latina 92: 0757A-0757D), Alcuin of York (PL 100: 0877C-0878A), and Saint Bruno of Segni (PL 165: 0527B-0528B) confirm this reading.

I don't know how to find the other exegeses but Saint Augustine's doesn't seem to say much more on God's responsibility than what is already present in the Gospel. The issue then is that I interpret "but that the works of God should be made manifest in him" not to mean that God willed it to be so but rather that He permitted it to happen. That is to say, it was a product of the fall that the Lord incorporated into His own ministry. Let the reader decide.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 03:30:41 PM by Hawkeye »
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 778
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
First, you've missed the point of the scripture. As the basic question of the apostles demonstrates, it was thought that deformity indicates a sin on the part of either the parent or the blind man himself. Christ indicated that it was neither, that there was a third option, insofar that the issue had nothing to do with sin on anyone's part. Rather it was for the glorification of God. I think you neglect the fact too that divine punishment often does, although not always, include the affliction of blindness, as is evidenced in both the Old Testament and in the countless vitae (lives) of the saints.

Deformity not an act and most certainly not a sin, deformity may or may not be caused by sin (the reason could be any we are not aware of)

Your example have nothing to do with homosexuality. Acts of sodomy don't glorify God, on the contrary, such acts defile the image of God and mock the Creator.

Is being gay... attracted to the same sex (but not acting on it) a choice, and if it is not a choice can it be a sin?

Second, you've said that even having homosexual inclinations or temptations is a sign of being in league with the devil. Such a rigid position is entirely untenable. It entirely ignores the fact that biology has a large role in determining sexual orientation.
Where did i say that ? repelling the demonic attacks is a good thing, homosexual inclinations do not belong to the human nature, they are an attack from outside. Accepting these inclinations as your own and acting upon them is same as merging your natural will and energy with that of demonism.

« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 03:39:52 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Άλιεύς Ἰχθύων
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,010
  • Matthew 27:52-53
  • Faith: Like unto Neronov
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite, Chapelist ("Double-Crossers")
Is being gay... attracted to the same sex (but not acting on it) a choice, and if it is not a choice can it be a sin?

I don't understand why Christians find it so hard to accept that people just might be born gay; it seems to fit in pretty well with historic attitudes on the fall of human nature. Might some people be pushed by lived experiences towards particular views of their own sexual orientations that they might not otherwise of have had? Perhaps, but it's all expression of innate propensities, not all that different than certain root causes of alcoholism or various psychiatric disorders.

I don't believe that same-sex attraction is a choice (at the very least in the vast majority of cases) nor that it is a sin in and of itself.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 03:45:40 PM by Hawkeye »
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,151
but also a member of a socially persecuted minority?

The "socially persecuted minority" who are able to successfully shutdown Christian bakeries because they refuse gay marriage cakes, the "socially persecuted minority" who are able to ban books in California that teach people how to change their homosexual behavior, and who also forbid the parents of children from not teaching their kids about "normal" homosexual behavior? The "socially persecuted minority" who have threatened to kill a Pastor and burn down a Protestant church in Detroit over a "Bible workshop" that talks to teenagers struggling with their sexual identity? The "socially persecuted minority" that literally threatened to sue a small town in Missouri over the small city refusing a gay pride parade?

You know who are actually more persecuted than homosexual people? Gay people who actually decide to avoid homosexual behavior. Suddenly those people are the REAL problem, as they aren't conforming to their "normal" behavior, and they are relentlessly persecuted and socially isolated by anyone with a leftist leaning ideology.

None of what you have detailed here negates the fact that gays are a persecuted minority. Furthermore, might I add that you are giving examples from the United States, whereas the man in question is from Chile.

Livetonoevil, I've already addressed some of the concerns you've raised in previous posts. I ask that you reread them, for I'll not repeat myself.


Although you've posted

Quote
The question of behavior is another matter entirely. Behavior is a matter of personal agency and will. Creation has nothing to do with that.

Your post

Quote
Furthermore, I'm quite amazed that people have no problem believing that God made the blind man blind on account of no sin as stated in John 9:4, but the minute any prelate essentially makes the same argument about homosexuals, there is a problem.

immediately contradicts the former post, because the logic of the second post - which I was addressing - suggests that behavior and passivity are intertwined, which what I was picking apart.

My post also doesn't address creation and whether God created homosexual feelings, but rather the state of an individual as he exists versus his reactions to that state of existence.

Also, if you are referring to posts other than this thread as "previous posts," you should have no incentive to even bring it up in this thread, as you "sufficiently answered the question."

There is no contradiction. In fact, I'm not even certain what you are arguing about here concerning the distinction between passivity and behavior. It seems completely analogous to what I have already said with regards to the difference between being tempted or inclined towards something and actually enacting a certain behavior.

As I said before, "The concerns of pastoral care do not necessitate brow beating with doctrine, although it does not necessarily exclude it either." Whether or not Pope Francis decides to include it is entirely his discretion. And I think it is a mistake to simply say, "There is an implicit rejection here." I don't follow the logic. Where exactly is the implicit rejection? Is it because in a private conversation he decided that it would not be spiritually beneficial to say, "Don't have sex with another man" to someone who is a victim of not only child molestation, but also a member of a socially persecuted minority? The man didn't travel across the Atlantic to be told what he almost certainly already knows to be the Catholic position on sexual intercourse between members of the same sex. The man traveled across the Atlantic to have his grievances heard by Pope Francis in a personal conversation.

My only point being that if there is something unsound in the Pope's words, as evidently some believe, is the pastoral care as it is justified? Or would his only other option then, as far as doctrine goes, be to brow beat the fellow?

Yet, this was not said in a public capacity. It was said in a personal conversation. If it was public, I think you would have a point.

As a personal conversation, I'm of the mind that it should likely never have been brought out into the open to begin with. However, as it has, why would there be any incongruity between the private and a hypothetical public pastoral response? Shouldn't they accord for the recipient's own sake?

I agree that it should not have been made public. The public reception versus the private reception have two different audiences.

Furthermore, I'm quite amazed that people have no problem believing that God made the blind man blind on account of no sin as stated in John 9:4, but the minute any prelate essentially makes the same argument about homosexuals, there is a problem.

That's only true if you think a man being born disordered is necessarily equivalent to God explicitly creating him to be disordered. Certainly, the Lord sustains a fallen world and consequently our assumption of a fallen nature is therefore permitted by Him to happen. However, to what degree are we going to claim that God set out to make us the way we are?

It's certainly plausible, as scripture indicates. Saint Augustine of Hippo writes in his Tractates on the Gospel of St. John ( http://newadvent.org/fathers/1701044.htm ) that the blindness can be understood in two ways. At the spiritual level it represents humanity's fallen nature. At the literal level, however, it represents an affliction given by God so that God might be glorified. The exegeses of pseudo-Bede (Patrologia Latina 92: 0757A-0757D), Alcuin of York (PL 100: 0877C-0878A), and Saint Bruno of Segni (PL 165: 0527B-0528B) confirm this reading.

I don't know how to find the other exegeses but Saint Augustine's doesn't seem to say much more on God's responsibility than what is already present in the Gospel. The issue then is that I interpret "but that the works of God should be made manifest in him" not to mean that God willed it to be so but rather that He permitted it to happen. That is to say, it was a product of the fall that the Lord incorporated into His own ministry. Let the reader decide.

Fair enough. I'll link the commentaries below, although they remain in Latin.

Alcuin's commentary: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_0735-0804__Alcuinus__Opuscolum_06_Commentaria_In_Sancti_Joannis_Evangelium__MLT.pdf.html

pseudo-Bede's commentary: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_0627-0735__Beda_Venerabilis__In_Joannis_Evangelium_Expositio__MLT.pdf.html

St. Bruno of Segni's commentary: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_1107-1111__Bruno_Astensis_Montis_Casini_Abbas__Commentaria_In_Joannem__MLT.pdf.html

First, you've missed the point of the scripture. As the basic question of the apostles demonstrates, it was thought that deformity indicates a sin on the part of either the parent or the blind man himself. Christ indicated that it was neither, that there was a third option, insofar that the issue had nothing to do with sin on anyone's part. Rather it was for the glorification of God. I think you neglect the fact too that divine punishment often does, although not always, include the affliction of blindness, as is evidenced in both the Old Testament and in the countless vitae (lives) of the saints.

Deformity not an act and most certainly not a sin, deformity may or may not be caused by sin (the reason could be any we are not aware of)

Your example have nothing to do with homosexuality. Acts of sodomy don't glorify God, on the contrary, such acts defile the image of God and mock the Creator.

You've made a logical error. First, you've equated being homosexual with the act of sexual intercourse between two members of the same sex. This is simply not the case. Second, although blindness itself does not glorify God, it is the triumph over it that glorifies Him. The same principle applies to triumphing over sexual temptation.

Is being gay... attracted to the same sex (but not acting on it) a choice, and if it is not a choice can it be a sin?

Second, you've said that even having homosexual inclinations or temptations is a sign of being in league with the devil. Such a rigid position is entirely untenable. It entirely ignores the fact that biology has a large role in determining sexual orientation.
Where did i say that ? repelling the demonic attacks is a good thing, homosexual inclinations do not belong to the human nature, they are an attack from outside. Accepting these inclinations as your own and acting upon them is same as merging your natural will and energy with that of demonism.

What you've just said is tantamount to Pelagianism. You're denying that human nature has been damaged.

Is being gay... attracted to the same sex (but not acting on it) a choice, and if it is not a choice can it be a sin?

I don't understand why Christians find it so hard to accept that people just might be born gay; it seems to fit in pretty well with historic attitudes on the fall of human nature. Might some people be pushed by lived experiences towards particular views of their own sexual orientations that they might not otherwise of have had? Perhaps, but it's all expression of innate propensities, not all that different than certain root causes of alcoholism or various psychiatric disorders.

I don't believe that same-sex attraction is a choice (at the very least in the vast majority of cases) nor that it is a sin in and of itself.

This has been one of my major points all along, although I would like to add the caveat that medicalizing same-sex attractions has dangerous consequences. I think we should be more careful with our language. Alan Turing was murdered under the pretense of "treatment."
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 04:10:34 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,031
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Is being gay... attracted to the same sex (but not acting on it) a choice, and if it is not a choice can it be a sin?

There is really no such thing as being born gay imo. I believe the attraction develops over time in the development years of adolescents. Once the inclination sets in and the mind gravitates towards it. The churches response is to abstain.  If you abstain you are no less saved than anybody else.

Could someone who has been put in that position can succumb their free will to it and have the gravity of the sin removed to a certain degree?

Much like an alcoholic who is trying to quit drinking - certainly getting drunk's gravity can be mitigated by addiction, or perhaps obesity with an eating disorder?

I think if caused by certain environmental factors or even by one's own choices, homosexuality's gravity can be mitigated by one's own state of existence, correct?

As I stated. You can have those feelings as long as you dont act upon them. Ultimately though the aim is to mimic christ is his thoughts and actions. That is the nature state of our will. In that state one really doesn't want to sin.