"Hate the Sin" Hypocrisy

[FlaviusAetius]

Of course Catholics think that homosexual people need to take efforts to avoid following their temptations, possibly with the aid of the community. Why wouldn't we think that since we think that homosexual acts of intercourse are intrinsically and gravely immoral?

The addiction analogy was brought up to show you that one can help another overcome temptations towards evil without hating that person. But you missed that completely because you seem incapable of believing that Catholics can love homosexuals or that they can truly believe that homosexual acts are really evil.

Like I said, you aren't even trying to see things from the Catholic perspective, so of course you aren't going to understand it. No one can force you to see things when you insist on taping your eyes shut.

I suppose it just troubles me to be faithful to something that requires some to give up nearly everything while others must give up far less.

Surely you'd agree that their a huge sacrificial difference between a heterosexual and homosexual? Like I have stated, the former can have romance, express their sexuality and create a stable family, the latter must live in complete isolation of those things.

I struggle accepting a world view that must view some as inherently sinful who need to live in unnatural chastity.

I mean would you be happy with a hypothetical god that told you to abandon your spouse, children and to marry the same sex in order to please it?

 

[Sweet Tooth]

I suppose it just troubles me to be faithful to something that requires some to give up nearly everything while others must give up far less.

Surely you'd agree that their a huge sacrificial difference between a heterosexual and homosexual? Like I have stated, the former can have romance, express their sexuality and create a stable family, the latter must live in complete isolation of those things.

I struggle accepting a world view that must view some as inherently sinful who need to live in unnatural chastity.

I mean would you be happy with a hypothetical god that told you to abandon your spouse, children and to marry the same sex in order to please it?

I believe a Pope (JPII?) said that homosexuals can live together but that it would need to be an abstinent relationship. Even with marriage being open to heterosexuals, sex can only occur under a marriage and needs to be open to procreation. Then there is that monkey wrench that is civil divorce where the state dissolves your marriage but the Church still sees your marriage as bonding, in which case both parties aren't allowed to remarry and have sexual relationships with other people.

Honestly, I think there is a big chunk of such people in our pews.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I suppose it just troubles me to be faithful to something that requires some to give up nearly everything while others must give up far less.

Surely you'd agree that their a huge sacrificial difference between a heterosexual and homosexual? Like I have stated, the former can have romance, express their sexuality and create a stable family, the latter must live in complete isolation of those things.

I struggle accepting a world view that must view some as inherently sinful who need to live in unnatural chastity.

I mean would you be happy with a hypothetical god that told you to abandon your spouse, children and to marry the same sex in order to please it?

...Something that Catholic priests do voluntarily. Yet for others it's just too much to ask?

I think it boils down to our priorities.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Yes there is a difference and yes I accept that someone can be concerned for helping an addict while hating their addiction.

Of course that doesn't change that when Christians do this scenario with gays you're replacing normal human desires for romantic love, family, and happiness with an abnormal demand for total chastity, loneliness and suffering for the sake of a deity that hates how you're sexuality is naturally inclined.

Again, you don't see anything wrong with comparing a crack addict to a gay couple? Because from what it looks like, it seems both need to be rehabilitated IYO.

In any case, I think you understand that it is indeed possible to love the sinner and hate the sin.

...You just disagree on what is or isn't sin. But thats off topic.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Cancer is analogous to sin. So when someone has cancer we should love the person but hate the cancer.

 

[quatona]

Christ offered forgiveness to the adulterous woman. But what did he say afterwards? "Go and sin no more"

Did he add some "...or else..."?

 

[Genersis]

Cancer is analogous to sin. So when someone has cancer we should love the person but hate the cancer.

Not really.
Cancer isn't a fundamental part of someones psychology It's something everyone agrees is a terrible medical condition to be fought against. Often bought about by no fault of the person suffering from it.

In that sense, cancer is easy to separate from a person. It's easy to hate a person's cancer, because it's not a part of who they are.
A person's desires, their psychological dependencies, their thought patterns which draw them towards sinful decisions and behaviours, are so much more a part of the person; and a lot more difficult to hate in isolation of the person.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Not really.
Cancer isn't a fundamental part of someones psychology It's something everyone agrees is a terrible medical condition to be fought against. Often bought about by no fault of the person suffering from it.

In that sense, cancer is easy to separate from a person. It's easy to hate a person's cancer, because it's not a part of who they are.
A person's desires, their psychological dependencies, their thought patterns which draw them towards sinful decisions and behaviours, are so much more a part of the person; and a lot more difficult to hate in isolation of the person.

"...mercy is the true force that can save man and the world from the 'cancer' that is sin, moral evil, spiritual evil." - Pope Francis

But an atheist would disagree with us on the nature of sin because they don't even acknowledge the existence of God.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Not really.
Cancer isn't a fundamental part of someones psychology It's something everyone agrees is a terrible medical condition to be fought against. Often bought about by no fault of the person suffering from it.

In that sense, cancer is easy to separate from a person. It's easy to hate a person's cancer, because it's not a part of who they are.
A person's desires, their psychological dependencies, their thought patterns which draw them towards sinful decisions and behaviours, are so much more a part of the person; and a lot more difficult to hate in isolation of the person.

Which is exactly why the secular world has no choice but to hate the mentally ill, should their mental illness tempt them towards despicable acts.

Well, that's actually not fair. They can pretend that the mental illness is not actually a mental illness, as has been done several times as of late.

 

[Genersis]

"...mercy is the true force that can save man and the world from the 'cancer' that is sin, moral evil, spiritual evil." - Pope Francis

But an atheist would disagree with us on the nature of sin because they don't even acknowledge the existence of God.

My atheism is irrelevant.

While 'Cancer' is often used to refer to a widespread ill, it doesn't mean sin and cancer are comparable beyond such a superficial level. To try and incorporate it into "hate the sin" I think is stretching the analogy too far. It trivialises the difficulties in separating the sin from the sinner.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

My atheism is irrelevant.

It's absolutely relevant because one has to believe in God to understand the spiritual effect of sin. The cancer analogy for sin is one that has been taught in the Church. There's also the analogy of leprosy. These are physical analogies for something spiritual.

 

[FlaviusAetius]

I seems to grasp where Christians come from in terms of witnessing sin in others.

At this point I suppose my only issue is accepting certain actions as sin even if logically they don't seem to do harm.

To use a issue that effects typical Christians, would you agree that if you are generally a good person but decided to miss Sunday Mass once and your house collapsed on you that this deserves sending you to Hell to burn in agony for eternity? Why doesn't such extreme punishment make you question God's love?

If your biological father said he'd only love you if you became a janitor, wouldn't you question his love?

 

[Sweet Tooth]

I seems to grasp where Christians come from in terms of witnessing sin in others.

At this point I suppose my only issue is accepting certain actions as sin even if logically they don't seem to do harm.

To use a issue that effects typical Christians, would you agree that if you are generally a good person but decided to miss Sunday Mass once and your house collapsed on you that this deserves sending you to Hell to burn in agony for eternity? Why doesn't such extreme punishment make you question God's love?

If your biological father said he'd only love you if you became a janitor, wouldn't you question his love?

Your hypothetical is a good reason why it would be okay to miss mass. There are countless other reasons why it would be permissible to miss mass (Sickness in the family, injury, distance to travel to the closest Church, work, death in the family). In some cases you would still be advised to make up for the days you missed going to mass or adjusting your schedule, but there still are actual hindrances which would prohibit you from attending one.

Your janitor example locks a loving figure into a tiny corner. I've already alluded to this in this thread: even if you are a practicing Catholic, so what? You can follow every dogma and doctrine the Church has bestowed upon you, but it means little in the long run if your private life is almost an antithesis to Catholicism. I may be mistaken but people who are not of the faith but yet live their lives closer to what Jesus wanted of us have a better shot than the Catholic in name only.

There are other things where there is no outright harm being done to oneself or people around - I suppose you mean physical or mental duress - but that still doesn't mean it isn't a sin.

 

[Leevo]

Did he add some "...or else..."?

No but that does not mean that it is okay to just continue sinning. Christ said not to do what she did again, not to just go and be as she was.

 

[Leevo]

Doesn't Catholic Charities refuse to allow gays to adopt or foster children?

Perhaps, but I understand that they have a religious objection. However, what they don't do is make a huge fuss about it and call them "damn degenerate sinners" as OP said.