Another Gay Thread

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thank you for a wonderful example of why this debate is not only maddening, but will never end.

LOL - that is about it ​

True Scotsmen:

• eat porridge
• drink whisky
• play the bagpipes

That, if true, would reduce the population of Scotland to a few thousand. It’s at least as sensible as the OP’s idea; and at least failure to ingest porridge & whisky or to play the pipes has no doctrinal implications.

If hereterosexuality were, as the OP thinks, essential to being Catholic, the Church would be lacking a lot of its current members, including quite a few clergy. If a bishop is homosexual, therefore not a true Catholic, that makes hay of his sacramental ministry - none of the men he ordains as priests are more than laymen; so the men they ordain priests, when some of them become (supposed) bishops, remain laymen. And priests who are laymen can’t offer Mass. So all the non-Hosts that result, are worshipped as God when they are nothing but bits of blessed bread.

That, and much more, is what happens if the Catholic identity of a layman is contingent on his not being homosexual in orientation. He can’t be ordained priest by even the most militantly heterosexual Catholic bishop, if he is not himself a Catholic. And according to the OP, he won’t be a Catholic. So no sacrament conferred on or by him, apart from Baptism - which anyone can confer - will be valid. Any ordination he receives will be an empty show, even if nobody, himself included, knows he is not a Catholic. And the higher he rises in the Church, the wider his sphere of influence to affect the Church by conferring invalid sacraments.

Thre is no way of knowing beyond doubt that this has not happened - if the OP is correct.

 

[JReducation]

LOL - that is about it ​

True Scotsmen:

• eat porridge
• drink whisky
• play the bagpipes

That, if true, would reduce the population of Scotland to a few thousand. It’s at least as sensible as the OP’s idea; and at least failure to ingest porridge & whisky or to play the pipes has no doctrinal implications.

If hereterosexuality were, as the OP thinks, essential to being Catholic, the Church would be lacking a lot of its current members, including quite a few clergy. If a bishop is homosexual, therefore not a true Catholic, that makes hay of his sacramental ministry - none of the men he ordains as priests are more than laymen; so the men they ordain priests, when some of them become (supposed) bishops, remain laymen. And priests who are laymen can’t offer Mass. So all the non-Hosts that result, are worshipped as God when they are nothing but bits of blessed bread.

That, and much more, is what happens if the Catholic identity of a layman is contingent on his not being homosexual in orientation. He can’t be ordained priest by even the most militantly heterosexual Catholic bishop, if he is not himself a Catholic. And according to the OP, he won’t be a Catholic. So no sacrament conferred on or by him, apart from Baptism - which anyone can confer - will be valid. Any ordination he receives will be an empty show, even if nobody, himself included, knows he is not a Catholic. And the higher he rises in the Church, the wider his sphere of influence to affect the Church by conferring invalid sacraments.

Thre is no way of knowing beyond doubt that this has not happened - if the OP is correct.

Thank God, sexual orientation is not the essence of either Holy Orders or religious vows. Otherwsie, we would be in serious trouble. The Church has put some restrictions on the ordination of homosexual men or the religious profession of vows, but she has not banned them from either Holy Orders or religious life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am having a hard time following this. We are only to condemn sin that we feel we might commit? Would that apply to murder, incest, rape? Believe me i have no attraction for any of these but feel i have every right to condemn them.

The truth of the matter is we see this kind of amibivalnce when people are really not persuaded that homoexual behavior is a sin. It is an attitude born of our current culture. Rather than flat out reject the Churchs teachings on homosexualtiy people have a tendecy to make excuses for it, claiming they agree with the Churchs teaching but lashing out at most everyone who publicly affirms the Church’s teachings.

ISTM the OP’s point is, that people who do not feel any temptation to sin X, are not the most credible people to denounce sin X; they do not what it is like to commit or to be enslaved by it, they have not “been there”, or, as the saying goes, “walked the walk”. People who have had trouble with sin X, but have learned strategies for getting the better of it, who may even have overcome it, have “walked the walk”; they do know what it’s like; so they do have credibility in speaking about it. They are also in a far better position than the untempted to know what needs saying, and how, for that sin has been part of their experience.​

What I don’t see anywhere in the OP’s post is any kind of “ambivalence”, or “lashing out” - ISTM you’re talking about the moral status of homosexuality, whereas the OP is talking about the manner in which people express their convictions about its status; which are two different things.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You know, I was just thinking; if someone went through therapy to become heterosexual, and married, would that be possible grounds for annulment if the marriage didn’t work out because of related sexual issues?

Father John Harvey, the founder of Courage:​

• [http://couragerc.net/ (http://couragerc.net/)

• who has worked with homosexual Catholics since 1954 - discusses this point in one of his books, and does come down in favour of making homosexual orientation one of the canonical impediments to contracting a valid marriage.

[http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/03/feb/9/18.html (http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/03/feb/9/18.html)

---

[http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=656 (http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=656)

 

[mbc22488]

LOL - that is about it ​

If hereterosexuality were, as the OP thinks, essential to being Catholic, the Church would be lacking a lot of its current members, including quite a few clergy. If a bishop is homosexual, therefore not a true Catholic, that makes hay of his sacramental ministry - none of the men he ordains as priests are more than laymen; so the men they ordain priests, when some of them become (supposed) bishops, remain laymen. And priests who are laymen can’t offer Mass. So all the non-Hosts that result, are worshipped as God when they are nothing but bits of blessed bread.

QUOTE]

I do NOT believe that heterosexuality is essential to being Catholic. Please read the entire thread.

My concern with this thread is about finding the homosexuals place in the church. We are not looking at wether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. We are simply exploring the social perpectives on this issue. A homosexual priest is still a priest. Homosexuality is a very small part of what makes a person a person.

 

[StillWondering]

ISTM the OP’s point is, that people who do not feel any temptation to sin X, are not the most credible people to denounce sin X; they do not what it is like to commit or to be enslaved by it, they have not “been there”, or, as the saying goes, “walked the walk”. People who have had trouble with sin X, but have learned strategies for getting the better of it, who may even have overcome it, have “walked the walk”; they do know what it’s like; so they do have credibility in speaking about it. They are also in a far better position than the untempted to know what needs saying, and how, for that sin has been part of their experience.​

What I don’t see anywhere in the OP’s post is any kind of “ambivalence”, or “lashing out” - ISTM you’re talking about the moral status of homosexuality, whereas the OP is talking about the manner in which people express their convictions about its status; which are two different things.

Then what the OP is saying is not quite true. I’m not trying to quibble, I just want to clarify and make distinctions to avoid blurry ideas. It’s when ideas get blurred that it’s hard to tell what’s right from wrong and true from false after all.

Let’s use me as an example, I and many others have had thoughts of driving off the freeway overpass. Strange, yeah but it happens. I know a priest who has these thoughts. He does not seem suicidal but I have mental difficulties. In this case, sure I have the experience from temptations but I would only be in a “better position to understand the needs of another having this problem” if I honestly and diligently do thoughtful and critical reflections.

The key to this is experience does not bring wisdom, it is how we reflect on experience that determines any wisdom begotten. This reflection involves critical thinking, critical reading, and feedback from others in humility.

On the flip side, by not having temptations does not automatically rule one to be unable to make fully sound and even more sound judgment then another with both experience and reflection. This is why there is that old saying that sometimes you need feedback from someone not in the conflict.

Either way it boils down to the quality of the intellect, character, and honesty of the person doing the (name removed by moderator)ut to make use of any experience or lack of experience.

 

[StillWondering]

I do NOT believe that heterosexuality is essential to being Catholic. Please read the entire thread.

My concern with this thread is about finding the homosexuals place in the church. We are not looking at wether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. We are simply exploring the social perpectives on this issue. A homosexual priest is still a priest. Homosexuality is a very small part of what makes a person a person.

I totally agree with you that our sexuality is only one of many parts to being a person. Society tends to make us believe other wise. While we are always a male or female we are not always having sex or sexual activity. In fact, I remember being taught while I was in elementary school that it is okay to think about sex all the time; males think about some absurd numbers such as having a sexual thought ever minute according to that instructor and females are nearly as often. I do not relate. And while I do know as a guy, we guys can think things and images pop into our heads when a girl walks by with clothes meant to instigate sexual thoughts, I just cannot imagine my fellow fourth graders at the time thinking about sex every minute. I hardly even notice my classes, and at times including their genders. I’m sure I would bring down the average if it is even that high. So I definitely rely behind your statement about sexuality being a small part. It takes guts to speak up when society is trying to spoon fed us the opposite.

 

[JReducation]

If by sexuality we mean our maleness and femaleness, then it is true that it plays an important part in daily life. Men and women perceive and process things differently. We have different ways of communicating. We also bring to the table different intelligences.

All of that being said, none of it is an absolute. There are exceptions to these rules. Many men are very right-brained and many women are very left-brained, and so forth. Is this the norm? No. Is it possible for a man or a woman to have the perspectives and cognitive abilities of the opposite genter? Of course.

As to one’s place in the Church, these points are not as important. That’s my opinion. We enter the Church as individuals with our unique gifts and we give those gifts to the service of God and the community. It does not matter if our gift is more commonly found in the opposite gender. It remains a gift. What we as a Church have to do is to encourage people to come with their gifts and their sins, because we are all gifted and are all sinners. When we come together we begin again, one day at a time. Holiness is not achieved in an instant. It’s a constant struggle.

If someone really wants to know about struggles with sexuality, let them read the story of St. Margaret of Cortona, one of our Secular Franciscans.
ewtn.com/saintsHoly/saints/M/stmargaretofcortona.asp

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[BobObob]

Part of the problem that has to be overcome is the violation of privacy on both sides of the aisle. No one has the need to reveal his or her sexual orientation to the world. That’s not necessary to be an effective member of a parish or a family. On the other hand, people need not go on a hunt to find out who is gay and who is straight either. Both behaviors are serioius violations against privacy. Privacy is part of human dignity. When that is violated, human dignity is violated, be it by the person who opens up a can of worms by exposing his or her sexual presference or the person who gossips about the sexual preference of another.

I would just like to say that there can be much merit for someone with SSA to confide the fact that he has SSA to close friends. There may often be a disconnect between a person with SSA and his friends who don’t know about his SSA because there may be fear that if they knew about his SSA, they would reject them. Confiding one’s SSA to friends can remove such fears and tear down some previously debilitating walls. Someone with SSA needs to have close friends (especially of his own sex) who would treat him like a close friend even after knowing about his SSA. In fact, it is only through such chaste friendships, especially with heterosexuals who they may be attracted to (trust me on this, it would take me too much effort to explain this), that someone with SSA can live a chaste life.

Confiding one’s SSA to any other should not be done arbitrarily and should be done prudently, with others who are likely to react appropriately and in a friendly manner.

I don’t really have anyone that I can confide my SSA to with confidence that it won’t cause problems for me. It’s debilitating and helps to increase the disconnect between others and I.

 

[JReducation]

I would just like to say that there can be much merit for someone with SSA to confide the fact that he has SSA to close friends. There may often be a disconnect between a person with SSA and his friends who don’t know about his SSA because there may be fear that if they knew about his SSA, they would reject them. Confiding one’s SSA to friends can remove such fears and tear down some previously debilitating walls. Someone with SSA needs to have close friends (especially of his own sex) who would treat him like a close friend even after knowing about his SSA. In fact, it is only through such chaste friendships, especially with heterosexuals who they may be attracted to (trust me on this, it would take me too much effort to explain this), that someone with SSA can live a chaste life.

Confiding one’s SSA to any other should not be done arbitrarily and should be done prudently, with others who are likely to react appropriately and in a friendly manner.

I don’t really have anyone that I can confide my SSA to with confidence that it won’t cause problems for me. It’s debilitating and helps to increase the disconnect between others and I.

I don’t think that we’re saying anything different. I do believe that much harm has been done by violating the boundaries of privacy and common sense. I agree that everyone needs friends who will accept him/her and have a close and chaste relationship that is fraternal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sebastien]

I haven’t read all the replies on this thread but thought It might be useful to reflect on why there is a big difference between “homosexual” and “heterosexual” sins.

Firstly, of course, the Church does not recognise such catagories. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned God has created “them male and female”. Yes, some men and women commit sodomy (well, mainly a minority of men) - but this particular sin should not then lead to some form of identity, i.e. the “gay” identity. Sodomy can, and should, be, in many ways, just another sexual sin (as grave as adultery or fornication). The Catholic Church considers the promotion of this “gay” identity (as if it is some kind of third gender, or different race), though, as very wrong. The identity as a sub-type of human does not exist in God’s plan. This is why the Church bars “gay” men (i.e. those caught up in the “gay / homosexual lifestyle”) from priesthood, because they are homosexually inclined to such an extent that they have stopped believing that there is only one sexuality that makes a human being fully alive (the one that leads to a man and a woman being one) and have chosen to believe that there is a sub-type of human who is meant to be “gay” or who is a “homosexual” (some even argue that God designed them this way!). Such a world view is heretical - it is an exchange of the truth for a lie (as St Paul said of this particular sin and mindset). It would also mean that the priest would ot be able to identify with men and women as one like them - one who would, had he not been called to priesthood, be getting married. This is why the Church is opposed to “gay rights” and the homosexual agenda of trying to equate a fallen aspect of being human with (what the Church teaches is) the correct way of being a man / woman.

Homosexual acts and therefore - for those who think these acts constitute an identity of person - homsexuality is one of the Five Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance (see; The Catechism # 1867). The other sins in this catagory are: murder; denying the labourer his just wage; the political oppresion of the People of God; and the neglect of widows, orphans and the stranger. These sins, amongst all others, have been chosen by God for special mention in Scripture - and we are told that they cry to Him for His vengeance. There are moral and philosophical reasons behind the special need to catagorise these sins as particularly dangerous. The present Holy Father has warned about the sin of sodomy (homosexuality) as it seems to want to justify itself and seeks rights and legal validation for its wrong-doing. In many ways it is very dangerous. Psychologically it is narcissistic, and a sign of sexual immaturity and fear. As it cannot lead to life it is nearly always selfish and can be highly addictive. As homosexuals tend to identify with one another and create ghettos within cities it creates division, and a particularly false human identity (based exclusively on erotic desire). Therefore the so-called “gay scene” can be, and often is, very promiscuous and physically, morally, psychologically and spiritually dangerous. So often the greatest opponents of the Church have been “gay rights” activisits who, consumed by anger at the Church’s Truth, can unleash unjustifiable venom at Christ and His Holy Gospel. Within the Church homosexuality has often been a problem within the priesthood, and has been an effective tool used by our enemies (both secular and eternal!). It is often forgotten that most clerical child abuse was committed by men on teenage boys. The Holy Father, and his predecessor, of beloved memory, have called homosexuality an “intrinsic evil” (being against God’s will for humanity) and “morally disordered” (often leading to a distorted view of life and the gender roles of male and female, etc). Such things as homosexual “marriage”, etc, devalue the traditional Christian notion of marriage - as the State co-operates with a lie in placing a sacred relationship on par with one the Church considers to be wrong, and dangerous to the individual soul and to society at large. States who enact laws like this encourage those inclined to this way of life into a serious break with the Church and immortal peril.

So, I think it’s only fair that the Church keeps vigilant when it comes to homosexuality. It has become the new issue in which Satan will try and cause division and trouble for the Church. As a sexual sin then a man having sex with another man needs to be confessed - as sodomy. It should never be referred to as “gay sex” in the confessional. After confessing this sin it would be best for the penitent to aviod anyone who claims to be “gay” or who rejoices in being a “homosexual”, and also to actively reject that identity. After a while he will begin to notice that such an identity does not exist - and after some time, and by God’s Grace, he might even begin to be healed of this impulse. The healing might take some time, and the impulse might not go away, and it might be a very lonely experience…We all have our Crosses to bear. But bear them silently, with no fuss, with thanksgiving and joy, and always atuned to the mind of God! Also, another important point, the sooner in life this tempation is dealt with the better - a younger man can so often change and overcome this inclination; those who have allowed themselves to be conquered by it so often will not be able to change in later life and might end up being very miserable souls.

I hope this has explained some of these attitudes you have experienced. If you do not act like a “gay man” or announce yourself as one you will not have anything to fear - you will just be a single man attending Mass and no-one will be any the wiser. If you start making a fuss about it, then you will be seen to be someone who identifies with the “gay cause”, a cause which is anti-Christian by its premise.

 

[redrosetea]

I would just like to say that there can be much merit for someone with SSA to confide the fact that he has SSA to close friends. There may often be a disconnect between a person with SSA and his friends who don’t know about his SSA because there may be fear that if they knew about his SSA, they would reject them. Confiding one’s SSA to friends can remove such fears and tear down some previously debilitating walls. Someone with SSA needs to have close friends (especially of his own sex) who would treat him like a close friend even after knowing about his SSA. In fact, it is only through such chaste friendships, especially with heterosexuals who they may be attracted to (trust me on this, it would take me too much effort to explain this), that someone with SSA can live a chaste life.

Confiding one’s SSA to any other should not be done arbitrarily and should be done prudently, with others who are likely to react appropriately and in a friendly manner.

I don’t really have anyone that I can confide my SSA to with confidence that it won’t cause problems for me. It’s debilitating and helps to increase the disconnect between others and I.

I think there are some groups within the church that could help you if you would reach out to them

There is a group called courage I have heard Fr Groschel speak of…It must be a hard cross to carry… I hope you can find some people you feel safe enough to share with

 

[JReducation]

If any Catholic gay or lesbian wants to receive support from a Catholic ministry, go to this site and it will direct you to fellowship and formation.

couragerc.net/

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

I don’t know if everyone saw this on foxnews, but schools are actually banning books that refer to the possibility that homosexuality can be “reversed” .

While on the other hand they allow books that have explicit gay sex encounters depicted in them.

Here’s the story:
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569135,00.html

John Marie Philomena