Anyone know the Catholics Church's official stance on the nature of homosexuality?

[fix]

Urf:

Everything is a perspective, why cant you see that? There is no black and white. There is no rulebook that can solve every problem. Trace the church’s stance back, it’s all someone’s perspective. If you want to accept it, that is your CHOICE.

Rigidity? Yeah, that describes the Catholic churche quite well. You know what leads to intolerance and things like Nazism? A lack of questioning. People accepting things without asking “why? what if it’s wrong? for what reason?”

I can see that relativism is unreasonable, illogical and requires almost no thinking. It is based primarily of feelings, not reason.

Why do you insist those who bind themselves to absolute truth do not reason? The greatest thinkers and minds in history have been Catholic. The Church gave us much of Western civilization, including universities.

Catholics question, reason and have faith. It is your position that leads to rigidity. The Nazis were relativists. They rejected the moral absolutes.

You show an absolutist how his ideas conflict with absolute truth and he will change his views to conform with truth. The relativist has no reason to change as his feelings rule his thinking. If he does change that change is hit or miss.

 

[Urf]

fix:

I can see that relativism is unreasonable, illogical and requires almost no thinking. It is based primarily of feelings, not reason.

And where is the reason in accepting something because the church tells you to?

Why do you insist those who bind themselves to absolute truth do not reason?

Because they call it ‘absolute truth’ just because someone told them it was true. You said yourself “If your interpretaion of the bible differs from mine, how do we determine which is correct?” Well I dont know, but I sure as heck dont know how you determined what the ‘absolute truth’ was after saying something like that.

The greatest thinkers and minds in history have been Catholic. The Church gave us much of Western civilization, including universities.

Religion controls. There have been plenty of great minds that werent Catholic, but you know who wrote history? Catholics. Why? Power.

Catholics question, reason and have faith. It is your position that leads to rigidity. The Nazis were relativists. They rejected the moral absolutes.

Stunning arguments here. sigh Who questioned Nazism? Who? Not enough people. Why? It was built into so many people. They were taught the beliefs in school and they didnt question, they followed orders.

You show an absolutist how his ideas conflict with absolute truth and he will change his views to conform with truth. The relativist has no reason to change as his feelings rule his thinking. If he does change that change is hit or miss.

Who says I base my ideas on my feelings alone? I base them on reality, what is here. The only thing I have said about my beliefs is that I DO NOT base them on this ‘absolute truth’ simply because someone told me to.

You have already accepted this ‘absolute truth’ without question. Your argument is that the great Catholic minds of the past have done your thinking for you. I think that’s kinda sad.

 

[fix]

Urf:

And where is the reason in accepting something because the church tells you to?

Because they call it ‘absolute truth’ just because someone told them it was true. You said yourself “If your interpretaion of the bible differs from mine, how do we determine which is correct?” Well I dont know, but I sure as heck dont know how you determined what the ‘absolute truth’ was after saying something like that.

Religion controls. There have been plenty of great minds that werent Catholic, but you know who wrote history? Catholics. Why? Power.

Stunning arguments here. sigh Who questioned Nazism? Who? Not enough people. Why? It was built into so many people. They were taught the beliefs in school and they didnt question, they followed orders.

Who says I base my ideas on my feelings alone? I base them on reality, what is here. The only thing I have said about my beliefs is that I DO NOT base them on this ‘absolute truth’ simply because someone told me to.

You have already accepted this ‘absolute truth’ without question. Your argument is that the great Catholic minds of the past have done your thinking for you. I think that’s kinda sad.

Catholics accept the teachings of the Church because they are true. They do not accept them because someone tells them to, but because faith and reason shows them they are true.

Your line of reasoning simply says you determine moral truths by your opinion. That is hardly a severe uncritical logic, it is simply your feeling.

You keep claiming Catholics do not think, yet I provided you one example that shows the contradiction in your logic and you provide no refutation. I ask again how how do we know truth if we both hold contradictory views on moral issues?

 

[Urf]

fix:

Catholics accept the teachings of the Church because they are true. They do not accept them because someone tells them to, but because faith and reason shows them they are true.

Yet EVERY SINGLE TIME I ask you for that logic you babble about ‘absolute truth.’ I’ve been asking this whole time how reason shows that the church’s interpretations are true.

Your line of reasoning simply says you determine moral truths by your opinion. That is hardly a severe uncritical logic, it is simply your feeling.

Quit shoving your words down my throat. The only thing I have said about my line of reasoning is that I do not base them off of the church’s teachings. Why? Because my argument is that logic and reason DONT show the church’s teachings to be true. You are going with the simple minded black and white argument of “you are not Catholic therefore you are this, this, this, this, and this” when you actually know nothing about me or the way I think.

You keep claiming Catholics do not think, yet I provided you one example that shows the contradiction in your logic and you provide no refutation. I ask again how how do we know truth if we both hold contradictory views on moral issues?

yeah, I clearly missed that example. If it was the Nazism, try harder, I did indeed respond to that.

 

[fix]

**

WHY DON’T CATHOLICS THINK FOR THEMSELVES?

Like Christ Himself, the Church of Christ wants man to use his intelligence to investigate her credibility. She claims to be the voice of God in the world, to speak on matters of faith and morality with the finality of God. If her claims are not true she should not receive our allegiance. If her claims are true she speaks with divine guarantee and cannot mislead. To listen to her and to be guided by her is no more surrendering intelligence or being herded than it is for people to submit to vaccination. Millions of people submit to vaccination every year because they have faith in the credibility of those who advocate it. They first ascertain, by intellectual investigation, or by what they consider credible report, that the medical authorities are trustworthy. Once they have faith in them they are reasonable in submitting to them, even if they understand little or nothing about what is prescribed. Not one man in a million who takes a prescription to a druggist understands anything about it, yet he accepts it confidently. In so doing he does not surrender his intelligence, but makes a wise use of it, for he reasons that it is reasonable to trust to one who is an authority or specialist in a matter…

Now the whole matter reduces itself to this: Is the Catholic Church the Church established by Christ, and guaranteed by Him never to teach error? If so she is to be regarded with the same reverence and trust in matters of faith and morals as Christ Himself. We are free to use our intelligence to the utmost limit to ascertain if the Catholic Church is the true Church of God. Let me say in passing that if she is not, no Church is, and Christianity is false, and all revealed religion is an imposition…
mafg.home.isp-direct.com/cques06.htm**

 

[fix]

Urf:

Yet EVERY SINGLE TIME I ask you for that logic you babble about ‘absolute truth.’ I’ve been asking this whole time how reason shows that the church’s interpretations are true.

Quit shoving your words down my throat. The only thing I have said about my line of reasoning is that I do not base them off of the church’s teachings. Why? Because my argument is that logic and reason DONT show the church’s teachings to be true. You are going with the simple minded black and white argument of “you are not Catholic therefore you are this, this, this, this, and this” when you actually know nothing about me or the way I think.

yeah, I clearly missed that example. If it was the Nazism, try harder, I did indeed respond to that.

Friend, it is you who are putting words in my mouth and it is you with the simple minded argument.

I ask again, if we both come to different conclusions on moral issues, how do we determine what is right?

 

[Urf]

That was about as coherent as a creationist trying to prove evolution false. Vaccinations have something going for them: concrete evidence. Allow me to draw out the religious version of vaccination.

I’m selling vaccinations with magical ingredients. People who recieve the vaccination have a chance of being made immune to certain diseases, but only if they are pure of heart.

What happens when someone still gets sick? I say they arent pure of heart. What happens when someone is cured? I give credit to my vaccination. That was hard.

 

[Urf]

fix:

Friend, it is you who are putting words in my mouth and it is you with the simple minded argument.

I take it that by saying this you are hinting that you have nothing new to say?

I ask again, if we both come to different conclusions on moral issues, how do we determine what is right?

We’ve been here. I argued that we cannot determine that one is true over the other because we differ in perspective and it is merely claim against claim. Apparently you couldnt handle this concept because you went back to the concept of ‘absolute truth’ that started this whole argument.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Urf:

As in whether it is a choice or genetic, etc…

Does anyone know?

Urf, you should file a grievance against the moderator. Your thread has been hijacked. Ooops. You hijacked it yourself. I believe that Forest Pine answered it quite well and as soon as you didn’t like it, you changed the thread to be one where you assert that the Church is wrong-headed. It appears you had already reached that conclusion before the thread even started. If that is a case, why did you even want to start the thread unless it was to berate and otherwise insult people who sincerely wanted to give you an answer?

 

[Urf]

I had my opinions before the my question was answered, yes. Follow the posts, they all link.

Edit: I give everyone a chance to express their feelings before I argue against them. If I gave the impression that I came here to berrate them I’m sorry, I guess I get frustrated when I’m reading the same argument with different wording in every single post.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Urf:

I had my opinions before the my question was answered, yes. Follow the posts, they all link.

Edit: I give everyone a chance to express their feelings before I argue against them. If I gave the impression that I came here to berrate them I’m sorry, I guess I get frustrated when I’m reading the same argument with different wording in every single post.

In other words, you used this issue to express your opposition to a Catholic’s submission to the teaching authority of the Church. Why not then just start a thread that says that you reject the Magisterium and that you believe that each individual is their own Magisterium? Furthermore, they weren’t expressing their “feelings” but their assent to the Teachings they believe are inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, since you weren’t clear that your intent was your disagreement with the Church’s authority, it is understandable that they would keep saying the same thing: They accept the Church’s teaching as a matter of logic and reason framed within the context of their submission to Christ and His Church.

 

[urban-hermit]

Urf:

I had my opinions before the my question was answered, yes. Follow the posts, they all link.

Edit: I give everyone a chance to express their feelings before I argue against them. If I gave the impression that I came here to berrate them I’m sorry, I guess I get frustrated when I’m reading the same argument with different wording in every single post.

I myself have experienced decreased homosexual tendencies and increased heterosexual ones by following what the Church tells us is absolutely true. I am acquainted with others who have done likewise.

This should be a different sort of response for you. If you would care to discuss this further, publicly or privately, I would be happy to do so.

 

[Urf]

urban-hermit:

I myself have experienced decreased homosexual tendencies and increased heterosexual ones by following what the Church tells us is absolutely true. I am acquainted with others who have done likewise.

This should be a different sort of response for you. If you would care to discuss this further, publicly or privately, I would be happy to do so.

See, I dont really know what you’re calling a tendency. Attraction? Aside from bisexuality, I really dont see how you can call an attraction a tendency. If you are attracted to men and women, sure you can tend to one side. If you are attracted to only men, I’m just not understanding the idea behind inreased tendency to be attracted toward women.

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

Urf:

Thanks for the info, but I’m asking what the Church’s stance is on the nature of homosexuality, not homosexual acts.

“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”

In other words, homosexuality refers to homosexual acts.

Urf:

As in whether the church says that people choose to be homosexual or whether it is something you are born with.

“Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”

Courage Apostolate is a support group, endorsed by the Holy See, for those with same-sex attractions. You can visit www.couragerc.org for more info.

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

Urf:

See, I dont really know what you’re calling a tendency. Attraction? Aside from bisexuality, I really dont see how you can call an attraction a tendency. If you are attracted to men and women, sure you can tend to one side. If you are attracted to only men, I’m just not understanding the idea behind inreased tendency to be attracted toward women.

As Dr. James Dobson has stated about homosexuality, “Change is possible. Hope is available. And Christ is in the business of healing.”

For more info. on homosexuality, visit www.narth.com.

 

[Petergee]

Forest-Pine:

This, to me, falls into the same category as the earth’s beginnings. That, too, is left to science. We are free to believe what we will (6 days, millenia, 8000 years, whatever) so long as it does not conflict with church teaching (that God was the sole creator of all there is). The church does not have an official stance on evolution as that is left to the realm of science. The idea of an atheistic “big bang” however is rejected by the church as it defies the basic doctrine of God’s existence and his sole existence calling all else into being. So, too, with homosexuality’s beginnings. It is left to science. But if science puts forth a claim that defies what faith knows to be true, the church will reject it.

(Sorry for hijack)
God caused the big bang. There is nothing "atheistic’ about the “big bang” theory. On the contrary, it was first proposed by a Catholic priest in the 1920s. For decades it was pooh-poohed by atheists who asserted that the universe is in a “steady state” that always has existed and always will exist. They finally had to admit that the scientific evidence supports the big bang theory. And the fact that the universe had a definite beginning is a powerful argument for the existence of God.

 

[urban-hermit]

Urf:

See, I dont really know what you’re calling a tendency. Attraction? Aside from bisexuality, I really dont see how you can call an attraction a tendency. If you are attracted to men and women, sure you can tend to one side. If you are attracted to only men, I’m just not understanding the idea behind inreased tendency to be attracted toward women.

Good point - it is important to choose words carefully and I did not.

Yes, I meant “attraction” when I used the word “tendency”.

So, to re-state, by submitting to what I believe are the moral teachings of Jesus Christ - the moral teachings of the Catholic Church - I have, over the course of about 3 years, experienced decreased attractions toward other men and some feelings of attraction and excitement around women, whereas previously there was very little if any.

Does this mean that if I can change, but choose not to aggressively pursue that avenue, that my having same-sex attractions is a choice?

I think some people see it that way. I believe these people are glossing over the difficulty involved in this process and the real suffering that is encountered along the way. But even more than that, as Fr Harvey, the widely respected (among faithful Catholics at least) director of the Courage apostolate has said, not everyone who seeks to rid themselves of same-sex attractions will be successful. And so the Church does not require people to pour great amounts of emotional and often financial (for therapy) resources into this endeavor.

What the Church does require is what it requires of every one of her members: chastity. All married Catholics are called to marital chastity (faithfulness to one another, and faithfulness to God in being open to life). All single Catholics are called to celibate (unmarried) chastity.

( BTW: isn’t this thread in the wrong category ? )

 

[fix]

Urf:

That was about as coherent as a creationist trying to prove evolution false. Vaccinations have something going for them: concrete evidence. Allow me to draw out the religious version of vaccination.

I’m selling vaccinations with magical ingredients. People who recieve the vaccination have a chance of being made immune to certain diseases, but only if they are pure of heart.

What happens when someone still gets sick? I say they arent pure of heart. What happens when someone is cured? I give credit to my vaccination. That was hard.

Catholics understand that God founded one Church and speaks to humans through that Church. If you want to argue whether God exists, that is a separate thread.

If you want proof of why the CC is the true Church we can start another thread.

 

[fix]

Urf:

I take it that by saying this you are hinting that you have nothing new to say?

We’ve been here. I argued that we cannot determine that one is true over the other because we differ in perspective and it is merely claim against claim. Apparently you couldnt handle this concept because you went back to the concept of ‘absolute truth’ that started this whole argument.

The concept of absolute truth is not a perspective, but is reality. Your understanding of reality seems to be primarily one of feelings and opinion rather than logic and reason.

The proof that the CC speaks infallibly can be reasoned and we can go through those reasons on another thread if you desire.

 

[Forest-Pine]

(Sorry for hijack)
God caused the big bang. There is nothing "atheistic’ about the “big bang” theory. On the contrary, it was first proposed by a Catholic priest in the 1920s. For decades it was pooh-poohed by atheists who asserted that the universe is in a “steady state” that always has existed and always will exist. They finally had to admit that the scientific evidence supports the big bang theory. And the fact that the universe had a definite beginning is a powerful argument for the existence of God.

I did not argue against any big bang theory, but against an atheistic one. I believe my statement was true and you read into it something in order to argue it. We are free to believe in any origin scenario so long as it does not conflict with church teaching. An atheistic big bang would therefore not be allowable. One caused by God --God calling all existence out of nothingness-- would be.

The same is true of the origins of homosexuality. This thread seems to have wandered all over the place. The OP was pretty clear that his OT was not the church’s teachings on what a homosexual is to do, the morality involved, etc. The OT was where homosexuality comes from in the first place. Obviously, people have proposed their own theories. However, no matter how popular the idea, none are representing CHURCH teaching as this is something the CHURCH does not address. As a matter of fact, the only quote being tossed around is canon law (which is changeable and not dogmatic) which says in effect, “We don’t know!” While PeterGee might argue with a 6-day creationist on scientific grounds, they are each equal theories on theological ones. The same is true of homosexuality’s origins. You can argue it scientifically, but the church does not have a position on that. Which means we are each free to believe whatever we want (psychological, genetic, environmental, chemical, etc) so long as it does not interfere with church teaching.