Are laws against same sex sexual activity just laws?

[Blue_Horizon]

In order for something to always be true, it must currently be true. You asserted that the Church has always recognized the rights of States to allow prostitution. I submit that this is not the Church’s current position. That rather, today, the Church views prostitution as a form of exploitation against women and that as such “The Church must demand the enforcement of laws protecting women against the scourge of prostitution and trafficking.”

When you have better authority than your own less than well Catholic educated opinion or a foolish use of a less than well understood single sentence pastoral opinion from a non inspired Vatican committee maybe we can take this further.

You did notice your quote begins " The Church should…" didn’t you?
Clearly the writers are aware they do not speak for the Church Universal (let alone on a dogmatic theological point re the rights of the State). It’s just a committee issuing subjective pastoral guidelines/rules for a variety of Vatican and other Catholic bodies .
They equally could have said otherwise should particular circumstances in particular countries suggest the common good is better served by some form of protective legislation improving the lot of prostitutes. As has happened for consensual male relationships.

Me, I will stick with Aquinas and traditional moral teachings re the legitimate rights of the State to legislate even for lesser grave vices in a mixed or immature society for the sake of the common good.

The Church rejects your personal view just as much as it would mullahs demanding imposition of Shariah as a matter of natural law in a mixed religious nation such as Syria or France.

 

[ATraveller]

The increased health consequence is a result of STDs, which are easily transferred by heterosexual premarital sex too. So again why just gay sex and not hetero too? I also find the logic of taxpayer burdens a bit callous as it could just as easily apply to sick individuals having children, along with ties to a eugenics mindset if that becomes a primary arguing point.

I really don’t understand why some Christians expect people with same-sex attractions to be celibate (rightfully if they are Christians) but not unmarried heterosexuals. At least their comments and attitudes imply this. It’s like non-celibate homosexuals have committed the worst unforgivable sin ever but not two heterosexuals fornicating.
I’m not saying anyone here has done this but some Christians have even taken this very unbiblical view (I’m not Catholic) that if two heterosexuals fornicate, it’s a sin but they have urges so it’s excusable even if they continue. But for homosexuals fornicating, it’s a sin and they must repent. No excuses.
I don’t know why for some Christians the simple position of ‘all unmarried people are to be celibate, no exceptions’ isn’t enough. There’s no real need to single anyone out based on their sexual orientation on this.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I really don’t understand why some Christians expect people with same-sex attractions to be celibate (rightfully if they are Christians) but not unmarried heterosexuals. At least their comments and attitudes imply this. It’s like non-celibate homosexuals have committed the worst unforgivable sin ever but not two heterosexuals fornicating.
I’m not saying anyone here has done this but some Christians have even taken this very unbiblical view (I’m not Catholic) that if two heterosexuals fornicate, it’s a sin but they have urges so it’s excusable even if they continue. But for homosexuals fornicating, it’s a sin and they must repent. No excuses.
I don’t know why for some Christians the simple position of ‘all unmarried people are to be celibate, no exceptions’ isn’t enough. There’s no real need to single anyone out based on their sexual orientation on this.

I tend to agree to some extend AT.
I would note though that there seems to be a correlation between homophobia and forum activism so the red-neckers tend to look as if they represent the view of a much higher proportion of Christians than they actually do.

 

[ATraveller]

I’m guessing his point is that there’s been a few hundred years since Aquinas and some of the social commentary he had then doesn’t apply too well these days. The circumstances under which Aquinas and Augustine considered the legality of prostitution were different than the circumstances under which The Modern Church considers it today. And as the Church document nodito cited was from the Church today, I’d say it has more relevance than Aquinas a few hundred years ago.

Here’s Augustine:

“If one suppresses prostitutes, the passions will convulse society; if one gives them the place that is reserved for honest women everything becomes degraded in defilement and ignominy. Thus, this type of human being, whose morals carry impurity to its lowest depths, occupies, according to the laws of general order, a place, although certainly the most vile place, at the heart of society.”

In light of modern evidence, passions will not convulse society if prostitution is outlawed. Augustine may have been wise but he didn’t have the same evidence that confirms the Biblical stance on celibacy i.e. it is realistic contrary to the lies of mass media in the West and the incorrect views of many centuries ago. Unless I’ve misread that passage.

 

[Rau]

I really don’t understand why some Christians expect people with same-sex attractions to be celibate (rightfully if they are Christians) but not unmarried heterosexuals.

I’d make 2 points:

1. It is fruitless to expect to always be able to understand why some people do some things;
2. It is not only some “Christians” that might hold that view.

I’m not saying anyone here has done this but some Christians have even taken this very unbiblical view (I’m not Catholic) that if two heterosexuals fornicate, it’s a sin but they have urges so it’s excusable even if they continue. But for homosexuals fornicating, it’s a sin and they must repent. No excuses.

This is not a position I’ve ever seen put. And heaven knows why you again attribute it only to some “Christians”.

I don’t know why for some Christians the simple position of ‘all unmarried people are to be celibate, no exceptions’ isn’t enough. There’s no real need to single anyone out based on their sexual orientation on this.

When there is a commonly held position on the understanding of marriage, and who is and is not eligible to marry, then I might express a similar view. And acceptance beyond Christians would surely be a good thing too?

 

[ATraveller]

1. It is not only some “Christians” that might hold that view.

Who? Regardless, my concern is with Christians. It seems like more is spent on talking about homosexuals to remain celibate than on heterosexuals. How can we expect homosexuals to choose celibacy when many lay Christians don’t expect that of heterosexuals?

This is not a position I’ve ever seen put. And heaven knows why you again attribute it only to some “Christians”.

Laypeople. I’ll say they aren’t as deep in understanding Christian teachings as most of the people here. Nonetheless, it’s an attitude that’s problematic.

When there is a commonly held position on the understanding of marriage, and who is and is not eligible to marry, then I might express a similar view. And acceptance beyond Christians would surely be a good thing too?

My concern is for Christians. There isn’t a ‘when’, we also have had a position on marriage, one man and one woman as described by Jesus in his reference to Genesis. To stray from that is a grave error. I don’t care much for non-Christians on this. We need our own house in order if we want people outside the Church will listen to us.

 

[Rau]

Who?

People at large. Religious and non-religious (atheists) alike.

Regardless, my concern is with Christians.

I noticed. Your focus on nominating only Christians as hypocrites may lead others to think you are as one-eyed as those you criticise.

It seems like more is spent on talking about homosexuals to remain celibate than on heterosexuals. How can we expect homosexuals to choose celibacy when many lay Christians don’t expect that of heterosexuals?

Do you think that Christians are the only “example setters”? And do you have any research evidence for the position that large numbers of Christians say extra-marital sex is not seriously sinful while homosexual relationships are seriously sinful?

My concern is for Christians. There isn’t a ‘when’, we also have had a position on marriage, one man and one woman as described by Jesus in his reference to Genesis. To stray from that is a grave error. I don’t care much for non-Christians on this. We need our own house in order if we want people outside the Church will listen to us.

Then you may be dismayed to discover a significant proportion of Christians (let alone people at large) do not oppose homosexual relationships, including SSM. And there are a great number of non-Christians who regard SSM as absurd.

 

[nodito]

Blue Horizon,

It’s difficult to have a dispassionate conversation with you because you are so quick to insult me. So far in this thread you have said or implied that I am influenced by pseudo science, less than well educated, lacking in education of Catholic moral theology, and without a strong understanding of natural law. You really don’t know anything about me or my education and it’s poor form to deflect away from my arguments with ad hominem attacks.
Blue Horizon:

You did notice your quote begins " The Church should…" didn’t you?

No, it doesn’t. It says, “The Church must…”
Blue Horizon:

They equally could have said otherwise should particular circumstances in particular countries suggest the common good is better served by some form of protective legislation improving the lot of prostitutes.

They could have, and they didn’t.
Blue Horizon:

The Church rejects your personal view…

Perhaps you reject my view, but I’ve yet to see any evidence that the Church today teaches anything other than that prostitution is a form of violence against women. Aquinas equated prostitution to fornication; he saw it as a moral failure of both parties. There is a greater awareness today of the social pressures on and vulnerability of women who sell their bodies and that the demand for cheap illicit sex is so great that legalizing adult prostitution often leads to a greater demand for children.
Blue Horizon:

just as much as it would mullahs demanding imposition of Shariah

You seem convinced that outlawing the selling of sex or other forms of sexual activity is somehow a form of Catholic sharia. In reality, since prostitution -and fornication, adultery, etc- violate natural law, these are issues than can be legitimately legislated. Whether it is prudent to do so or not is a different matter. On fornication or homosexual activity, I would agree that it seems imprudent; not so for prostitution which is a form of abuse, though I’d be open to other models for penalizing the buyers of sex rather than the sellers of sex. I would agree you that the State should not be mandating compulsory Mass attendance or prohibiting meat on Fridays of Lent.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon,

It’s difficult to have a dispassionate conversation with you because you are so quick to insult me. So far in this thread you have said or implied that I am influenced by pseudo science, less than well educated, lacking in education of Catholic moral theology, and without a strong understanding of natural law. You really don’t know anything about me or my education and it’s poor form to deflect away from my arguments with ad hominem attacks.

No, it doesn’t. It says, “The Church must…”

They could have, and they didn’t.

Perhaps you reject my view, but I’ve yet to see any evidence that the Church today teaches anything other than that prostitution is a form of violence against women. Aquinas equated prostitution to fornication; he saw it as a moral failure of both parties. There is a greater awareness today of the social pressures on and vulnerability of women who sell their bodies and that the demand for cheap illicit sex is so great that legalizing adult prostitution often leads to a greater demand for children.

You seem convinced that outlawing the selling of sex or other forms of sexual activity is somehow a form of Catholic sharia. In reality, since prostitution -and fornication, adultery, etc- violate natural law, these are issues than can be legitimately legislated. Whether it is prudent to do so or not is a different matter. On fornication or homosexual activity, I would agree that it seems imprudent; not so for prostitution which is a form of abuse, though I’d be open to other models for penalizing the buyers of sex rather than the sellers of sex. I would agree you that the State should not be mandating compulsory Mass attendance or prohibiting meat on Fridays of Lent.

Nodito I have given you good advice on where to search to find the teachings I refer to.
If you are unwilling to do the R&D this indicates you have a set position and even a personal phone call from the Pope himself will be unable to enlighten you.

It’s unfortunate that you take what I regard as an objective assessment of the poor tertiary levelCatholic theological and historical understanding I observe in your somewhat dogmatic views as insults against your person. It’s not uncommon on CAF.

That you would believe there is important difference between “the Church must” and “the Church should” re the point I observed sums it all up really.

That you would think your other responses are effective rebuttals indicate you are unfamiliar with commonplace stock concepts (eg what prudential versus principled judgements means) and do not really grasp what I say.

You are certainly entitled to your uninformed views on Catholic teaching but may I kindly suggest you might like to consider putting them forward in a more tentative manner, be open to referenced critique, and do real open minded research rather than merely cherry pick through sources until anything near enough is found to support a set position.

But of course any robust advice that suggests imperfect knowledge or understanding in these egalitarian days is considered gratuitous insulting which may be ignored.

Regardless there is no point taking this topic further with you for the reasons mentioned.

 

[ATraveller]

I noticed. Your focus on nominating only Christians as hypocrites may lead others to think you are as one-eyed as those you criticise.

I can’t tell Muslims or Buddhists what they need to look at. If we want the Church (beyond the Catholic Church) to be strong in this world we need to be able to spot the weak points and repair them. I’m merely pointing out a point of weakness.

Do you think that Christians are the only “example setters”?

Who else? Atheists, the vast majority regard celibacy as unnatural and impossible? Christianity is still the most practised religion in much of the West (for now in some places). We are called to be the salt and light in the world.

And do you have any research evidence for the position that large numbers of Christians say extra-marital sex is not seriously sinful while homosexual relationships are seriously sinful?

I don’t have any research on this. I doubt it’s the majority of laypeople but the fact it can even be uttered by a few is disturbing. It’s possible the approach to teach Christian morality might have a weak point somewhere. If there is, can we mend it? Possibly I’m ‘overreacting’.

Then you may be dismayed to discover a significant proportion of Christians (let alone people at large) do not oppose homosexual relationships, including SSM. And there are a great number of non-Christians who regard SSM as absurd.

I am only dismayed if they think SSM is theologically acceptable.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I really don’t understand why some Christians expect people with same-sex attractions to be celibate (rightfully if they are Christians) but not unmarried heterosexuals. At least their comments and attitudes imply this. It’s like non-celibate homosexuals have committed the worst unforgivable sin ever but not two heterosexuals fornicating.
I’m not saying anyone here has done this but some Christians have even taken this very unbiblical view (I’m not Catholic) that if two heterosexuals fornicate, it’s a sin but they have urges so it’s excusable even if they continue. But for homosexuals fornicating, it’s a sin and they must repent. No excuses.
I don’t know why for some Christians the simple position of ‘all unmarried people are to be celibate, no exceptions’ isn’t enough. There’s no real need to single anyone out based on their sexual orientation on this.

Something I didn’t have time to add before.

I tend to draw a different conclusion from the same comparison.
If St Paul assumed that for some a single life was not possible (it is better to marry than burn) then what would his advice be today for similar homosexuals now that we recognize it’s often an unchangeable reality for many? There is a dissonance here also.

 

[ATraveller]

Something I didn’t have time to add before.

I tend to draw a different conclusion from the same comparison.
If St Paul assumed that for some a single life was not possible (it is better to marry than burn) then what would his advice be today for similar homosexuals now that we recognize it’s often an unchangeable reality for many? There is a dissonance here also.

It’s not like heterosexuals can get married instantly even if they’re burning with passion. There are many who don’t end up being married at all though they may continue to burn with passion. Paul wrote ‘they should marry, it is better to marry than burn with passion’ indicating that if marriage is possible then consider it.

 

[Seamus_L]

We had laws criminalizing homosexual acts in the 1960’s. Some States had them even decades later, though they were seldom if ever enforced. Now a growing number of Americans look back at that period and refer to it as if we were living under some horrific form of tyranny. Yet today our society is more perverse and Godless than it’s ever been.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It’s not like heterosexuals can get married instantly…

You believe homosexuals who burn should enter into Catholic marriages?
Personally I think the odds of that ending well are not good.

 

[at9009]

You believe homosexuals who burn should enter into Catholic marriages?
Personally I think the odds of that ending well are not good.

I would say it’s rare but not impossible. They’re often termed mixed orientation marriages (I’ve discerned it’s not for me, but some seem to see it as possible). I would definitely encourage openness and honesty with the future spouse (like early in the just dating phase) as earliest as possible though.

Here are some interesting articles from people talking about those experiences:
spiritualfriendship.org/2015/01/26/wait-a-minute-a-mixed-what/
spiritualfriendship.org/2013/09/30/a-story-of-marriage/
spiritualfriendship.org/2015/02/10/brian-what-makes-you-tick/
spiritualfriendship.org/2015/02/03/a-simple-reason-to-get-married-we-were-in-love/

Additionally with regard to gay/ssa people burning with passion and not having an outlet (if they discerned marriage is not optional) doesn’t really seem to me to equate to allowing SSM in Catholic teaching. A lot of reasons I think people feel different and struggle with celibacy for homosexual people versus heterosexual people is that seemingly for the homosexual person, celibacy is unchosen (while a heterosexual person theoretically always has the option or hope for marriage in the future). One thing to point out that in many cases, including many of the saints they lived celibate lives (usually due to circumstance rather than sexuality) but it is still possible. Another interesting article is this one to counter that challenge:

spiritualfriendship.org/2016/08/24/voluntary-or-not-celibacy-is-a-gift/

 

[ATraveller]

You believe homosexuals who burn should enter into Catholic marriages?
Personally I think the odds of that ending well are not good.

That’s not what I’m saying. There are many heterosexuals who burn but may never find someone they can be with in marriage was the main point. That first sentence does detract from the main point looking back at it now. Not everyone (most don’t) experience love at first sight.

 

[nodito]

Nodito I have given you good advice on where to search to find the teachings I refer to.
If you are unwilling to do the R&D this indicates you have a set position and even a personal phone call from the Pope himself will be unable to enlighten you.

It’s unfortunate that you take what I regard as an objective assessment of the poor tertiary levelCatholic theological and historical understanding I observe in your somewhat dogmatic views as insults against your person. It’s not uncommon on CAF.

That you would believe there is important difference between “the Church must” and “the Church should” re the point I observed sums it all up really.

That you would think your other responses are effective rebuttals indicate you are unfamiliar with commonplace stock concepts (eg what prudential versus principled judgements means) and do not really grasp what I say.

You are certainly entitled to your uninformed views on Catholic teaching but may I kindly suggest you might like to consider putting them forward in a more tentative manner, be open to referenced critique, and do real open minded research rather than merely cherry pick through sources until anything near enough is found to support a set position.

But of course any robust advice that suggests imperfect knowledge or understanding in these egalitarian days is considered gratuitous insulting which may be ignored.

Regardless there is no point taking this topic further with you for the reasons mentioned.

Blue Horizon, I’m genuinely curious. In your mind, where the line between criminalizing personal vice and the State’s obligation to protect vulnerable populations?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon, I’m genuinely curious. In your mind, where the line between criminalizing personal vice and the State’s obligation to protect vulnerable populations?

As I say there is no fixed line in the eyes of the Church re prostitution and vices of similar gravity. Where’s its drawn is a prudential judgement dependent on the part of the State decision-makers. And the primary function of civil law is not to teach objective personal morality - that is really the role of other organisations - such as the Catholic Church.

A good summary of the Church’s ancient position is here:
illinoismedieval.org/ems/VOL13/13ch4.html

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I would say it’s rare but not impossible. They’re often termed mixed orientation marriages (I’ve discerned it’s not for me, but some seem to see it as possible). I would definitely encourage openness and honesty with the future spouse (like early in the just dating phase) as earliest as possible though.

Here are some interesting articles from people talking about those experiences:
spiritualfriendship.org/2015/01/26/wait-a-minute-a-mixed-what/
spiritualfriendship.org/2013/09/30/a-story-of-marriage/
spiritualfriendship.org/2015/02/10/brian-what-makes-you-tick/
spiritualfriendship.org/2015/02/03/a-simple-reason-to-get-married-we-were-in-love/

Additionally with regard to gay/ssa people burning with passion and not having an outlet (if they discerned marriage is not optional) doesn’t really seem to me to equate to allowing SSM in Catholic teaching. A lot of reasons I think people feel different and struggle with celibacy for homosexual people versus heterosexual people is that seemingly for the homosexual person, celibacy is unchosen (while a heterosexual person theoretically always has the option or hope for marriage in the future). One thing to point out that in many cases, including many of the saints they lived celibate lives (usually due to circumstance rather than sexuality) but it is still possible. Another interesting article is this one to counter that challenge:

spiritualfriendship.org/2016/08/24/voluntary-or-not-celibacy-is-a-gift/

I am not in favour of SSM but I have no great issue with tolerating lesser legal recognition of stable, faithful SS cohabitations. Nor do I believe that consensual SS acts should be recriminalized.

 

[Rau]

I am not in favour of SSM but I have no great issue with tolerating lesser legal recognition of stable, faithful SS cohabitations.

What would “lesser” entail?