Mama ChaCha has, it seems, the right response to the opening question and she has the experience to back it up.
We need to remember that detraction is "the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer." (Catholic Encyclopedia--Emphasis added.) It would not be a sin of detraction to inform a potential client of a Financial Analyst that the man has been convicted of embezzlement. Nor, would I think it would be a sin of detraction to inform a potential spouse of a "reformed" sodomite that the man has an unsavory sɛҳuąƖ past and the lady may wish to discuss it with the gentleman.
If you knew a man had once molested a child but had repented and not done it for many years, would you not let the couple who is going to let him babysit their young children that, just perhaps, this isn't a good idea?
In this time, especially, any ["former"] sodomite is going to feel intense pressure to return to that life. Just a few years ago it still would have been an object of shame but today it is something that society celebrates. A young lady may still enter into a relationship with the man, but she needs to do so with her eyes open.
Frankly, I truly do not understand how people can truly change how they really feel (in a purely emotional sense) when they happen to see a beautiful person. Can the senses truly change or must a person suppress them? Those men who truly see in other men what normal men see in women are truly disordered both psychologically and spiritually. Once upon a time such a man could truly do penance his whole life. I don't know if such a man can truly resist the temptations that will inundate him from every direction today.
This is a very good post from TKGS.
In our current society the growing acceptance of Sodomites places a wholly large burden upon the shoulders of those who would otherwise be recovering from the unnatural vice, the sin against nature, one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance, and the most repulsive of all the vices man can have.
The sin of Sodom is in a class by itself, because its natural bent is to consume both body and soul of man. Even the devils are revolted by this sin, and they abandon man to this vice because it is so revolting in the spiritual reality that it is, even too much for devils to endure being witnesses.
In the real world, someone who is ever once convicted of theft or larceny or embezzlement can never in the future get a job as a security guard or get a license to practice locksmithing, or get security clearance in government buildings. Even a conviction of child abuse (not necessarily sɛҳuąƖ but corporal punishment, i.e. hitting) is sufficient to ban a person (usually men!) from government clearance. Such a mark on one's record is permanent and cannot be removed by any means.
So the secular world takes a breach of behavior like that very seriously.
Why would the same not apply to one who was at one time consumed with unnatural vice, the sin of Sodom?
It seems to me that the only answer is, that the devil has managed to achieve in our fallen world an inversion of common sense, and this is the way he is accomplishing it: Make the sin against nature not so much a thing of revulsion (even though it is for devils themselves!) but turn it around and make anyone who recognizes this abiding truth as
the real villain in the whole scenario. Who could have thought it would ever be possible to achieve that?
Furthermore, those who have a great weakness to be consumed with NATURAL lust (toward the opposite sex) have a lot of trouble being okay with the mere thought of Sodomites. This seems to me to be the case because they are aware that the same vice to which they are so vulnerable is not really so distant from the one they despise, and so, they just don't want to think about it. It seems to me they tend to recognize in it themselves, and that thought is too hard to accept.
.
Topic: How should ex-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs be treated? (Read 3210 times)