Archbishop Under Fire for Church Teaching on Homosexuality Supported by Catholic Parents

[Adonis33]

To many (and myself), this is not a “sin”. I view this a greater scapegoating (sad as that is) to deflect from the sex scandals of the past and present.

Same-gender preference is not a defining personal characteristic. What the Archbishop is doing is a divide and conquer as he later on unfairly relates this to Alochohics.

You don’t think a person having sexual relations with another person of the same sex is a sin?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Same-gender relationships are not just some fling to be taken lightly,

Exactly. These guys are sending themselves to hell, and this ridiculous priest, instead of WARNING them like he is supposed to, is blessing them and telling them that it’s OK! Mortal sin is not to be taken lightly!

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

You don’t think a person having sexual relations with another person of the same sex is a sin?

No, I see it as part of who they are, part of what they were given through nature (a part of natural law). I have had several friends with same-gender preferences and first of all you would not know it unless they brought it up. It was not a defining personal characteristic. I actually the same love towards their partners I see with everyone else with different gender problems. I see love of unity on the theological level as sacramental marriage. Are they perfect? Of course not, no relationship is, you have all the usual pitfalls.

If they can give and receive love with their partner towards each other and others in their lives, that is fine with me. There is no monster under the bed when you look at this.

 

[Adonis33]

No, I see it as part of who they are, part of what they were given through nature (a part of natural law).** I have had several friends with same-gender preferences and first of all you would not know it unless they brought it up.** It was not a defining personal characteristic. I actually the same love towards their partners I see with everyone else with different gender problems. I see love of unity on the theological level as sacramental marriage. Are they perfect? Of course not, no relationship is, you have all the usual pitfalls.

If they can give and receive love with their partner towards each other and others in their lives, that is fine with me. There is no monster under the bed when you look at this.

People did not know who the BTK serial killer was either - since it was part of who he was, since it was part of his nature - nothing he did was sinful.

I could say the same thing about pedophiles.

The Catholic Faith teaches that Homosexual behavior is sinful. To openly go against this teaching (or any teaching) is heretical.

 

[Moneo]

Part of the discussion is what is defined as a “sin” in this case. Gender preference for sexual relations is not a defining personal characteristic. They are who they are and should not be looked as lesser people as this statement infers. Same-gender relationships are not just some fling to be taken lightly, there is a true connection there that is no different than different-gender relationships. What is “truth” in this case is not uniformly defined in the Church and human respect is being lost in statements like these.

Bravo. Way to ignore the points raised in the post without addressing a single one of them directly.

What is “defined as a sin in this case” is blazingly evident and has been pointed out again and again. Relationships between people of the same gender involving genital activity or any behaviour leading to it, of any kind, ARE SINFUL AND CONTRARY TO GOD’S WILL FOR HUMAN SEXUALITY. God created man for woman and woman for man. Period.

And you really need to stop projecting “inferences” into the statement and listen to what it says, because the inferences you claim to see there don’t exist.

It is nonsense to say that the statement “infers” that anyone is inferior to anyone else. It talks about homosexual activity and the sin involved in approving of or supporting it. So, like it or not, I repeat: the activity is sinful, and taken lightly or not, same-gender relationships which involve genital activity are CONTRARY TO GOD’S WILL and SINFUL. To the extent that you approve of, facilitate or encourage this behaviour in another, you likewise participate in the guilt of that sin.

And to say that there is a “true connection there that is no different than different-gender relationships” is absurd. That only works if you define a relationship in terms of emotion and sentimentalism. No matter how romantic homosexual relationships may be, they can only ever be a pale imitation of a genuine male-female relationship.

 

[goofyjim]

You need to do both. The subjectivist environment in which we live which denies that there are any absolute or objective moral truths, all personal choices are presumed to be valid. No one will presume that you are adhering to an objective moral law with real spiritual consequences unless you say it. They’ll just put it down to your “personal choice”, perhaps presume that you are a “self-loathing homosexual” and get on with their immoral and destructive behaviour.

Jesus did not spend time with prositutes and tax collectors and keep silent about the sinfulness of their behaviour, nor did He indulge their narcissistic fantasies or confirm them in their sin. HE CALLED THEM TO CONVERSION. Every single prostitute, adulteress or tax collector cited in the Gospels was moved to conversion by Christ, and yes, he certainly preached to them as well.

In this the good bishop is imitating Christ far more closely by refusing to apply the social (not the Gospel) standard of “accepting you just the way you are.” God doesn’t accept us the way we are, he calls us to conversion.

Jesus hung out more with the tax collectors and prostitutes. We do not have a record of him saying much except preaching the Beatitudes and such. We do have explicit words in the gospels that the prostiutes and tax collectors would get into the kingdom before the pharisees. There are far too many in the Church and world that ake the approach of the pharisees. I won’t look for Jesus there when he comes again. I will look for him among the sinners.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

People did not know who the BTK serial killer was either - since it was part of who he was, since it was part of his nature - nothing he did was sinful.

I could say the same thing about pedophiles.

The Catholic Faith teaches that Homosexual behavior is sinful. To openly go against this teaching (or any teaching) is heretical.

The problem with your thesis is the assumption that

Homosexual = pedophile

Which is not the case of course (much less infered serial killers).

If you look at the long history of the Church, many teachings have varied over the centuries as the Church grew and moved ahead in the world. The Church of today is not the Church of the Middle Ages or 300AD.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Bravo. Way to ignore the points raised in the post without addressing a single one of them directly.

What is “defined as a sin in this case” is blazingly evident and has been pointed out again and again. Relationships between people of the same gender involving genital activity or any behaviour leading to it, of any kind, ARE SINFUL AND CONTRARY TO GOD’S WILL FOR HUMAN SEXUALITY. God created man for woman and woman for man. Period.

And you really need to stop projecting “inferences” into the statement and listen to what it says, because the inferences you claim to see there don’t exist.

It is nonsense to say that the statement “infers” that anyone is inferior to anyone else. It talks about homosexual activity and the sin involved in approving of or supporting it. So, like it or not, I repeat: the activity is sinful, and taken lightly or not, same-gender relationships which involve genital activity are CONTRARY TO GOD’S WILL and SINFUL. To the extent that you approve of, facilitate or encourage this behaviour in another, you likewise participate in the guilt of that sin.

And to say that there is a “true connection there that is no different than different-gender relationships” is absurd. That only works if you define a relationship in terms of emotion and sentimentalism. No matter how romantic homosexual relationships may be, they can only ever be a pale imitation of a genuine male-female relationship.

How do we know “God’s Will” in this case? Same-gender preference animals appear in nature, so it follows at is part of “natural law” as it comes through what is seen in nature.

I described it more than just emotion and sentimentalism. The connections are as true as different-gender relationships. The strength of the mating connection is as strong as it is for both same-gender and different-gender relationships (which means some succeed, some fail, and there are lots of ups and downs inbetween).

Sexual preference (having and acting on it) is not a defining personal matter and not sinful.

Humanity will continue to procreate like it has always done, the species will continue. Some members choose those of the same gender, which is just a fact of nature.

 

[goofyjim]

The problem with your thesis is the assumption that

Homosexual = pedophile

Which is not the case of course (much less infered serial killers).

If you look at the long history of the Church, many teachings have varied over the centuries as the Church grew and moved ahead in the world. The Church of today is not the Church of the Middle Ages or 300AD.

Unfortunately this is where I disagree also. The behavior is still a sin. But I see it on an equal par with a host of other sexual sins.

 

[Moneo]

Jesus hung out more with the tax collectors and prostitutes. We do not have a record of him saying much except preaching the Beatitudes and such. We do have explicit words in the gospels that the prostiutes and tax collectors would get into the kingdom before the pharisees. There are far too many in the Church and world that ake the approach of the pharisees. I won’t look for Jesus there when he comes again. I will look for him among the sinners.

Jesus hung out more with prostitutes and tax collectors because they were sinners in need of repentance, and because they were prepared to listen to Him because He loved and approached them, while the Pharisees did not and would not.

He absolutely did not say that they would enter the Kingdom first **BECAUSE **they were prostitutes and tax collectors though. Their saving virtue, in spite of their many sins, was that they realised they were in need of repentance and THEY REPENTED, while the Pharisees, who thought that they were already just, did not repent.

Jesus did not condone sin.

 

[goofyjim]

Jesus hung out more with prostitutes and tax collectors because they were sinners in need of repentance, and because they were prepared to listen to Him because He loved and approached them, while the Pharisees did not and would not.

He absolutely did not say that they would enter the Kingdom first **BECAUSE **they were prostitutes and tax collectors though. Their saving virtue, in spite of their many sins, was that they realised they were in need of repentance and THEY REPENTED, while the Pharisees, who thought that they were already just, did not repent.

Jesus did not condone sin.

And we are all sinners my friend. To think that someone else’s is worse and then make a judgement that they will go to hell is also against scripture. Why evening prayer alone this evening said stop passing judgement before the coming of the Lord. He will then reveal the hearts of men and each will receive his praise from God.

 

[Adonis33]

The problem with your thesis is the assumption that

Homosexual = pedophile

Which is not the case of course (much less infered serial killers).

If you look at the long history of the Church, many teachings have varied over the centuries as the Church grew and moved ahead in the world. The Church of today is not the Church of the Middle Ages or 300AD.

I never stated that that “Homosexual = Pedophile”.

Which Catholic doctrine has changed?

 

[MrS]

No, I see it as part of who they are, part of what they were given through nature (a part of natural law).

Sorry, I may get some infraction points for this… but that statement of yours is absolutely ridiculous.

You have no idea of what natural law is, do you? And there is nothing “natural” about a disordered, and sinful, lifestyle. Whether it be pedophile, alcoholic, or SSA.

 

[Moneo]

How do we know “God’s Will” in this case?

We are members of Christ’s Church. God’s will is made known to us by Revelation. Revelation is contained in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition. The Magisterium of the Church is the authority established by God to guarantee the preservation and transmission of God’s Revelation in both its ordinary and extraordinary teaching.

Same-gender preference animals appear in nature, so it follows at is part of “natural law” as it comes through what is seen in nature.

Adam and Eve’s sin affected not only human nature (robbing us of eternal life, the preternatural gifts and subjecting us to concupiscence), it produced a “ripple effect” that spread outward from the human race and disordered all of God’s creation. It is not surprising then that the disorders which afflict our baser nature should also afflict the natures of animals.

Cancer, Down’s syndrome, schizophrenia, bi-polar disorders, etc. are all “natural” insofar as they all “appear in nature” too, yet we seek cures for these disorders; we do not subject them to a senitmental whitewash and try to pretend that they are not debilitating disorders.

I described it more than just emotion and sentimentalism. The connections are as true as different-gender relationships. The strength of the mating connection is as strong as it is for both same-gender and different-gender relationships (which means some succeed, some fail, and there are lots of ups and downs inbetween).

The mating desire is present in all human beings, I agree. Human beings pair up because "“it is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen 2: 18), but this desire was placed in man by God, and ordered by Him toward the opposite gender. When this desire manifests itself in a man as a desire for another man, it is a disordered desire and it must be rejected. If a man pairs with another man, or a woman with another woman, the emotional behaviour will mimic that of a person involved in a heterosexual relationship of course, but it is a deceit. However deep or pleasurable a man’s emotional attachment to another man may be, it remains a disordered manifestation of an otherwise good desire.

Sexual preference (having and acting on it) is not a defining personal matter and not sinful.

The rainbow flag crew seems to disagree with you. Anybody who insists that the rest of us relate to them as “gays”, “lesbians”, “bi’s”, “queers”, “transgendered” etc., etc. ad nauseum is certainly defining themselves in terms of their favourite, perverted genital activity and disordered identity. And anyone who’s ever been treated to immoral spectacle of a “Gay Pride” parade has no doubt as to what the defining element of their identities are for the infantile and narcissistic personalities that stage such events.

 

[Moneo]

And we are all sinners my friend. To think that someone else’s is worse and then make a judgement that they will go to hell is also against scripture. Why evening prayer alone this evening said stop passing judgement before the coming of the Lord. He will then reveal the hearts of men and each will receive his praise from God.

I’ll say to you what I said elsewhere: you’re projecting. Knock it off.

Wrap quotes around the text of any of my entries in which I said that I am not a sinner. You can’t, because I didn’t. So are you presuming to know what is in my heart? That, by the way, is the judgement Jesus warned us against. Judging a BEHAVIOUR as sinful is not condemned by the Gospel.

Now wrap quotes around any text where I said that homosexual sins are worse than any sins I or another person might commit. You can’t. Because I didn’t.

Now wrap quotes around any text where I said anything about anyone going to hell. You can’t. Because I didn’t.

 

[The_Rock]

Sexual preference (having and acting on it) is not a defining personal matter and not sinful.

 Your statement is the completely antithetical to Church teaching. You are advocating heresy. You are  doing a great disservice to those who struggle  against SSA. You are encouraging serious sin. If you love Christ...STOP!

 

[Steeltemplar]

Unfortunately this is where I disagree also. The behavior is still a sin. But I see it on an equal par with a host of other sexual sins.

Mortal sin is mortal sin, I agree. Homosexual promiscuity and heterosexual promiscuity, for instance, are both gravely sinful acts that are destructive to the individuals involved with them. And sadly modern society has made both become widely accepted.

 

[agangbern]

I am certainly not an expert in these maters but wouldn’t God rid us of concupiscence as well before we enter heaven? I can’t imagine the inclination towards sin remaining with us when we are in Heaven…

Here is a quote from Theology of the Body, in no. 2: “One element of this kind, for example, is a comparison between concupiscence of the flesh and fire. Flaring up in man, this invades his senses, excites his body, involves his feelings and in a certain sense takes possession of his heart. Such passion, originating in carnal concupiscence, suffocates in his heart the most profound voice of conscience, the sense of responsibility before God; and in fact that is particularly placed in evidence in the biblical text just now quoted.”

 

[goofyjim]

I’ll say to you what I said elsewhere: you’re projecting. Knock it off.

Wrap quotes around the text of any of my entries in which I said that I am not a sinner. You can’t, because I didn’t. So are you presuming to know what is in my heart? That, by the way, is the judgement Jesus warned us against. Judging a BEHAVIOUR as sinful is not condemned by the Gospel.

Now wrap quotes around any text where I said that homosexual sins are worse than any sins I or another person might commit. You can’t. Because I didn’t.

Now wrap quotes around any text where I said anything about anyone going to hell. You can’t. Because I didn’t.

My apologies. The complaint was not against you personally. It is against some other selfrighteous posters in this and other threads. I will never forget the one poster in one thread who picked up the gauntlet when challenged with “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and offered to throw the first stone. At that point I was stunned that we had someone on these forums who would have the audacity to challenge Jesus Himself and deny that he(meaning the poster) was without sin.

 

[Moneo]

My apologies. The complaint was not against you personally. It is against some other selfrighteous posters in this and other threads. I will never forget the one poster in one thread who picked up the gauntlet when challenged with “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and offered to throw the first stone. At that point I was stunned that we had someone on these forums who would have the audacity to challenge Jesus Himself and deny that he(meaning the poster) was without sin.

Apology accepted. And thank you … I mean that sincerely.

Jim, your struggle is not an easy one and I never meant to imply otherwise. God bless you abundantly as you seek His will for your life.