Of Course “Being” A Homosexual Is A Sin

Being a homosexual, it it means anything, means embracing a certain style of behavior, dress, mindset and mannerisms. Most dress and mannerisms are not sins, but some mindsets and many behaviors are.

Sodomy is a most grievous sin, one that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. Participating in or encouraging others to participate in or even to think well of any sinful act is itself sinful. Lust is a sin; therefore, encouraging lust is also a sin. Pride parades and Pride masses, for example, encourage lust.

To claim (with serious intent) to be what you are not is a sin. There are no such things as homosexuals (or necrophiliacs, pedophiles, ecosexuals, etc.) in any ontological or metaphysical sense. Therefore to claim to be a homosexual in this sense is a sin. “Being” a homosexual necessarily only means embracing and endorsing certain set of behaviors, which are sinful, or to boast of suffering certain temptations.

It is not a sin to have a temptation, only to give in to one. It is a sin to lay claim to a temptation as if the temptation is a virtue. It is impossible for anybody to be their temptation. Temptations do not define beings or essences, even permanent temptations. If temptations defined being then we would have Miser Pride Parades and Glutton celebrations. We’d also have gluttonophobia, a medical insult to be cast at those who dislike the sin of gluttony.

It is absurd—logically, biologically, or morally—for anybody to define themselves by their temptations toward certain sins. So it is a sin to say God created people as their temptations. It is thus a sin to publicly boast, as many do, that “God made me suffer constant temptations to sodomy, which makes me special.” If temptations made people into special beings, then necrophiliacs, masturbators, adulterers, zoophilies, ecosexuals, those with other lusts, the greedy, the slothful, the wrathful, the envious, and the impious could all boast of their special gifts and qualities. And, of course, they could claim to be these sins.

Some (and even some well known priests who ought to know better) say the Church has always treated homosexuals, or those with other lusts, badly, or that it has discriminated against them. This is false. It is not only false, but impossible. Since there are no such creatures as homosexuals, the Church could not have treated people which do not exist badly. The Church has, in its past, discriminated against those who practice or who openly advocate sodomy. It now, if anything, openly courts those who boast of having these temptations, or in indulging in them.

Discrimination is good. The Church necessarily discriminates against kinds and types of sins, and against the people advocating or indulging in them. You, dear reader, discriminate, too, in either agreeing or disagreeing with this argument. It is impossible not to discriminate when a decision must be made. It is only true the Church has not always treated every single individual justly. Yet no institution run by people has, or will. Plus, those who claim to indulge in sodomy cannot lay claim to preferential treatment.

Having, encouraging, or requiring people to say “I am a homosexual” or “I am a man who is a woman” or “I am a necrophiliac” or whatever, must necessarily increase sin. It causes sin first by the false identification. It encourages sin by suggesting the normality of the acts, which are then engaged in more often, or by suggesting that mortal sins are venial or even sinless.

There is no such thing as the “LGBT community” in any ontological sense. There are only men and women, boys and girls. Having a group self-identify by their temptation is already absurd; to have a group self-identify by claiming not to be able to help oneself but to given in to a temptation is a sin. As is giving in to the temptation.

We could not have summarized it any better than Lifesite’s Martin M. Barillas (in an article about a faithless priest who encourages sodomy):

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and “under no circumstances can they be approved.” It adds: “They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity” (CCC 2357).

The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s document Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons says Catholics have a “duty” to oppose same-sex “marriage.”

It is, as is and always has been obvious, impossible for two men to marry each other.

Telling a person he is, or a person claiming to be, a homosexual (or necrophiliac or miser or etc.) is to embrace a lie. No one ever has to give in to temptation. Adopting a manner of living that with greater frequency than otherwise puts one in the way of temptation is nonsensical. To encourage embracing this manner of living, knowing it will increase temptation, and so also the giving in to temptation, is itself therefore sinful.

To say one is a homosexual (or necrophiliac or miser or glutton or etc.) is to claim that temptations are always and ever permanent fixtures, that God in His mercy cannot eliminate or lessen them for any person. And that is perhaps the biggest sin of all.

Never use the enemy’s language.

To support this site using credit card or PayPal click here

33 Thoughts

  1. Just the usual observation, eternally correct, that if homosexuals ARE what they are and cannot change, then so are pedophiles, serial killers, thieves, liars and virtually everyone. There is no sin and no responsibility. We cannot punish murderers because they are just doing what they ARE—murdering because they are murderers.

  2. This is absolutely key, the question is what someone means when they say “I am a homosexual”. This is where there’s cross talk, some people are just deceived, they have heard that “science says homosexuality/trans/etc. is something you’re born with” and so when they hear that “homosexuality” is wrong that translates to “something that’s not your fault is a sin”. Clarity here changes everything.

    Related: Comedian Andrew Schulz on another perversion on the upswing and what to do if you are so afflicted: “Just deal with it. You don’t always get to have the sex you want. I want to have sex with Heidi Klum but I don’t get to.”

  3. One of the more amusing normalizing arguments for homosexual behavior is the use of supposed homosexual liaisons among other species; e.g., its acceptable for humans because penguins do it, aka argumentum ad spheniscidaum.

  4. @trigger warning

    I’ve often thought that too. That puts us off the hook for imperialism too, invasive species are extremely common.

    Don’t hate colonizers, they were born that way.

  5. Excellent, I have been thinking these ideas for decades and never got around to writing them down. You have done a much better job than I would have done. You express simple Catholic truth.

  6. And it seems you have consistently condemned such other words, like glutton and miser, as well. It is commendable that you are consistent. I think, however, that temptations can sometimes be fixed, in the sense that someone may have a major temptation he struggles with most. This does not imply that it is permanent, as someone may cease to be a glutton or a miser &c..

    It is probably best not to use some of these words without clarification, however, as they are ambiguous between those who habitually engage in sinful acts and those who merely feel the temptation. The word homosexual is now ambiguous between homosexually active homosexuals and those who merely feel the temptation. Hence why it became trendy in Christian websites to say “same-sex attracted”. Similarly, if I state that I am a glutton, you may think that I eat a lot, until I clarify what I meant. The words greedy and lustful, however, do not really imply any action.

  7. @ trigger warning,

    “One of the more amusing normalizing arguments for homosexual behavior is the use of supposed homosexual liaisons among other species;”

    This argument is made in response to the claim that homosexuality is _unnatural_. It isn’t “animals do X, so it’s okay”, it’s “animals do X, so it’s natural”.

  8. So well written!! The best ever explanation!!! Thank you!
    Human carnality and satanic temptations work to make plausible, counterfeit sexuality for human beings, which counterfeit God’s created heterosexuality for human beings.
    And by working to make the counterfeit, a person’s identity, the whole business becomes more palatable and acceptable to many.
    God bless, C-Marie

  9. This is hate speech, but it’s true that the Vatican lends it aid and support in designating “homosexual persons” primarily as people subject to an inclination to gravely disordered acts (rather than gifted with a capacity for love for members of their own sex just as heterosexual persons are gifted with a capacity for love for members of the other sex).

  10. @ Ye Olde Statistician,

    “That ain’t what ‘natural’ means in that context.”

    Oh yes it is.

  11. “Sodomy is a most grievous sin, one that cries out to Heaven for vengeance.”

    1. Why, exactly?

    2. Does that mean lesbianism is okay?

    By continuing to complain about gay people every couple of days, you’re just making your religion look more irrelevant. It’s sad, really. Do you not know any gay people?

  12. Do not expect logic or consistency from a left-leaning swordfish.
    For creatures of this ilk, facts are only ever used as minor weapons, and ignored when inconvenient. Reality, truth, and goodness are their enemy, and they make war upon them every hour of every day.

  13. Perhaps homosexuality is submission to a demonic obsession. One may fairly consider it to be bestial – a perversion of our procreative sexuality to gratify oneself on another’s corpus – it seems beastly and inhuman. Old Scratch is grinning with delight watching the impotence of queerdom as he quaffs draughts of babies’ blood.

  14. @swordfishtrombone
    Dogs are sometimes corprophagic, therefore corprophagia is “natural”
    Lemmings are sometimes suicidal, therefore suicide is “natural”
    Rabbits are known to eat their young, so infanticidal cannibalism is “natural”
    Magpies like to steal shiny things, so theft is “natural”…
    Oh and baby crab spiders eat their moms…
    Surely we must celebrate these behaviors when found in humans with a parade!

  15. @ McChuck,

    “Do not expect logic or consistency from a left-leaning swordfish.”

    And don’t expect someone who accuses you of being illogical and inconsistent to explain what they mean.

  16. I thought this was a good treatment of the subject, Mr. Briggs.

    How many times have we heard, “being homosexual is not a sin, it’s the homosexual acts that are a sin.”

    As you deftly point out, there’s no such thing as “being” homosexual. So by “being” homosexual they mean someone inclined to sodomitical lusts.

    We all are tempted to various things. Giving in to temptation to lust and thereby sinning does not exclusively mean physically acting on the temptation.

    I am a normally disposed man, which is to say my inclination is toward adult female. I am also a married man (for real married) so that my desire must be always strictly focused on my wife, even in my mind.

    The Lord is clear in Matthew 5:28 “But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. ”

    Pretty clear. I can’t even think about another woman lustfully without committing adultery. It stands to reason that similarly, if a single fellow thinks lustfully about a single woman he sees, he’s already committed fornication even though he hasn’t laid a finger on anyone.

    Is it then that a fellow who indulges lustful thoughts of a sodomitical nature, even though he correctly doesn’t physically act out on them, has not already committed sodomy anyway?

  17. Joseph S. O’Leary
    “And don’t expect someone who accuses you of being illogical and inconsistent to explain what they mean.”

    Your illogic and inconsistency precludes any serious commitment to providing such explanation to you. You demonstrate a remarkable inability to grasp self-evident truth so that additional explanation is a waste of time and effort.

    Why bother?

  18. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.”
    1 Corinthians 6: 9-11.

    Which means that those who persist in these sins rather than seeking and receiving God’s forgiveness, and rather than working with Him to overcome the giving in to those temptations to sin, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

    There are many, many reasons as to why the temptation to sin is given in to, and with homosexuality, there has most often been tremendous emotional damage done to those who believe that is who or what they are. The seeking for affection and more, from one of the same sex, can be the result of such damage done.

    The world, with which Christianity is at enmity, and the devil, push the counterfeit of God’s creation of heterosexuality, which counterfeit is LGBTQ and more, to be accepted and acceptable and natural. There s no surprise here. The last thing the enemy wants is for all Christians to know and live the truth, that any kind of same sex attraction is not of God, nor the extended acceptance of LGBTQ and more.

    There are gifts given by the Holy Spirit to the Church which could be exercised to bring much healing. Read Acts. Signs, power of God exercised in wonders and miracles, are throughout the Book of Acts. I think that those who are Godly men who are ordained, ought to be questioning, examining, wondering, asking their hierarchy and more, as to the obligation which is imposed upon them at their ordination as priest, bishop, and more, to the making use of those gifts given, today….now….such would please God, for it is He Who gave the gifts to be used for those who are His.

    The Body Is the Lord’s, and thus to be used only according to His creation of it. God created the body heterosexual…see Genesis…see Jesus in Matthew…

    God bless, C-Marie

  19. Briggs – Further to your article is there such a thing as a heterosexual? Or does it follow if there is no such thing as a homosexual there is also no such thing as a homosexual?

  20. Homosexual acts are not permanent features; but having an exclusively same-sex attraction is a permanent feature even if you don’t act on it. If you say that you are gay because of this, it may not be any different than stating your ethnic group. You are merely stating a characteristic of yourself that many others do not have.

  21. @ Phil STeinacker

    “You demonstrate a remarkable inability to grasp self-evident truth so that additional explanation is a waste of time and effort.”

    I take that rubbish to mean you can’t actually think of any examples.

  22. @ michael,

    “Dogs are sometimes corprophagic, therefore corprophagia is “natural” [Etc]”

    Did I not say that this point is simply a counter to those who argue that being gay is ‘unnatural’? I’m pretty sure I did say that, but well done for completely missing the point.

  23. There is a possibly relevant dimension of this discussion that Briggs did not choose to address, possibly because Science has not uncovered anything close to definite or provable, and may never. But it is still interesting, and that is the genetic argument and (in this case) whether there may exist “Gay Gene(s)” i.e., a combination of genes or genetic influences (particles or synapses as yet unidentified) that predetermine a strong predisposition to homosexual behavior.
    (See: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2155810-what-do-the-new-gay-genes-tell-us-about-sexual-orientation/ )

    A couple potential issues:

    1. Micro – If such genetic combinations are eventually found to exist exclusively within a population that identifies as homosexual, does this change the conclusion that one can legitimately ‘be’ a homosexual, i.e., and without sin?

    2. Macro – Very hypothetically, if highly specific genetic combinations are identified and inextricably linked to various behaviors, such as homosexuality, does this not alter our view of having free will, and lead to a more deterministic view of our actions and conduct?

    Would respectfully appreciate your comments, Briggs.

  24. So, basically I. Reaction to the LGBQlmnop movement we deny that there are same sex attracted men and women who have a unique fight to remain faithful to the Lord. To much philosophy to little inderstanding of the lived experience, sin, Grace and the human heart. You can deny homosexuality as a condition some live in…that changes nothing for those who suffer from the affliction and strive to follow the way of the Gospel.

  25. The problem I have with this argument is that it assumes natural language must always denote exact ontological realities. Unlike artificial languages like computer code or symbolic logic, natural language, even when responsibly used, is messy. It routinely makes use of tropes like irony, hyperbole, and euphemism. And to make matters worse, grammar can be polyvalent and words can be–correction, usually are–polysemous. The worst culprit in English is the copula “be.” What do we mean when we say, “X is [choose your noun or adjective] ?” Well, it depends on the context. Just ask Bill Clinton: It depends on what your definition of “is” is. 😉 If we could speak only when our words were ontologically exact, we would keep our mouths closed almost the entire time.

    Toward the end of his life, Wittgenstein (who many would say *was* a homosexual) concluded that most philosophical problems boil down to imprecisions in human language. If we just had a better, more precise language to philosophize in than German, English, French, etc., the great philosophical problems of the millennia would vanish. I think he was right, which is why we should not try to press language into service it is not designed to handle.

    At any rate, I don’t think St. Paul would have agreed with the reasoning in this blog post. He felt quite at liberty using global labels to describe people according to their sins (e.g., “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *