Are romantic homosexual relationships moral or immoral?

[Jaroslaw]

Michelle -

I’m aware of all the points you raised, my post was directed to Dakota who has continued to debate and I"m answering him.

I realize also the divorce rate doesn’t affect the Church’s position on homosexuality nor would I expect it to (actually that was said by someone else on a different post) but I was rather pointing out that Church is contributing money to influence the political process when in many other areas it spends much less or none. In other words, why so much attention/money to this issue when others of seemingly much greater impact are ignored (outlaw divorce, ban birth control initiatives)

Regardless what was said in other posts, since you brought it up, #6 should not apply to a chaste homosexual wanting to adopt. Seems like a good parent would be far better than living in an institution. And trust me, a great great many of the foster parents are only in it for the money.

 

[michelleds]

Michelle -

I’m aware of all the points you raised, my post was directed to Dakota who has continued to debate and I"m answering him.

aware of but don’t accept? and so sorry, but Dakota can still answer you

 

[Jaroslaw]

I wouldn’t say “aware but don’t accept” rather the talk doesn’t match the walk. For example, I both understand, I think, why Dignity is not allowed to meet on Church grounds, but then I disagree since where is all this support for the chaste life to come from?

It seems, as I have mentioned already, people due to decades of hate and prejudice are very familiar with the sin of homosexuality and the “objective disorder” but don’t seem to understand the non-discrimination and dignity part.

And accepting a doctrine doesn’t mean that exhaustive inquiry into opposing views is out of bounds does it?

The citation is from Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons 1992

here’s the last paragraph: When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Catholic Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

I especially like the part “behavior which no one has any conceivable right” uh, haven’t many people posted here that homosexuals can do what they like in privacy? (without Church sanction of course) come on already - that is extremely strong negative language.

 

[michelleds]

I wouldn’t say “aware but don’t accept” rather the talk doesn’t match the walk. For example, I both understand, I think, why Dignity is not allowed to meet on Church grounds, but then I disagree since where is all this support for the chaste life to come from?

Dignity is a grotesque pro-homosexual organization, not recognized by the Catholic Church. Courage is a Catholic apostolate for persons suffering homosexual attractions which encourages chastity. please see the Courage website at www.couragerc.net

so your premise is faulty. Dignity would in no way support a chaste life; Courage does and is “allowed on Church grounds”.

It seems, as I have mentioned already, people due to decades of hate and prejudice are very familiar with the sin of homosexuality and the “objective disorder” but don’t seem to understand the non-discrimination and dignity part.

Then your issue is not with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality; your issue is with how human beings live out the teachings?

And accepting a doctrine doesn’t mean that exhaustive inquiry into opposing views is out of bounds does it?

well, I suppose that depends on your motivations. if you motivations is to discredit or find loopholes, then I guess I would wonder to what end? I accept the Church’s teaching on birth control, therefore, I don’t feel compelled to go out reading all the dissenting opinions and thoughts. what point would there be to that unless I was gearing up for some kind of public debate?

The citation is from Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons 1992

here’s the last paragraph: When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Catholic Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

Actually, that document was by the Congregation of Doctrine of Faith, not the Pope per se. And the full quote is:

1. "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

"But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase (No. 10).

This does not say what you were implying the Pope said in your first reference to it.

I especially like the part “behavior which no one has any conceivable right” uh, haven’t many people posted here that homosexuals can do what they like in privacy? (without Church sanction of course) come on already - that is extremely strong negative language.

That is not the Catholic teaching re doing what you want in private.

 

[Jaroslaw]

Michelle -

I only went to one Dignity meeting, which included Mass, at a local Catholic College and I didn’t see anything like what you’re describing. However, going to only one meeting hardly makes me an expert either.

Re; the Church’s teaching vs. how people behave - I have neither the time nor inclination to refute what you as a former lesbian already know - that despite the official teaching, the dignity and compassion part does not get much press nor emphasis compared to the sin/disordered/perverse part. I won’t say everyone got negative images of Gays from the Church, but an awful lot did.

Re: motivation - well, obviously most people who feel extremely passionate about a given subject have a person stake in it but is it really fair to compare homosexuality to murder? Most people say they had same sex attractions very early, before knowledge of the sex act even became a part of it. Many others ignored this, married opposite sex partners and were still unable to tame it. Since the Church itself allows that attraction is not a sin, it seems illogical to me to ask people to be chaste. (I am anyway for what it is worth).

Re: the quote - it sure does say what I’m saying - I said virulently proactive homosexuals - admitting that I didn’t have the quote right, but the language was so strong that is the feeling that I came away with behavior to which no one has a conceivable right uh, shouldn’t that be “to which no Catholic has a conceiveable right?” since they are addressing civil authorities…and it does say specifically "and irrational and violent reactions increase " So I guess teaching about dignity and compassion is not terribly effective then, which proves my point that there is lots of discrimination and hate out there, at least some of it fueled by statements like this since presumably some Catholics pay attention to what the Vatican says?.

I never said I wanted Church permission to have sex in private The people HERE make the claim that Gays have all the rights they need and can do what they want in private and yet the above statement has the Church saying no one does have the right.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

reply to Dakota #48

I read the essay you suggested by Robin Darling and I have to wonder if you read John Boswell’s book? I have noticed that several people have mentioned the number and nature of the posts I have made - seems like pointing out I might have an “agenda” is an agenda in itself, rather why not let what I say rest on its own merits or lack thereof? In any event, if you have followed my other posts, I pointed out that people, myself included, tend to believe sources which confirm what they already believe. Since I do not read any ancient languages, and I’m guessing most if not all of the people commenting here don’t either, we must rely on other sources.

** I just thought about a book called Homosexuality and the politics of truth by Jeffrey Satinower. He starts out rather kind and then becomes completely anti-homo, which is fine except I got some of the books he cited as references and he totally misquoted, misconstrued etc… So shoddy research works both ways. Just wanted to point that out.

It seems rather self evident to me that if homosexuality has encountered any kind of the negativism in the past like it has encountered on these webpages (despite Catholic teaching that affirms the dignity of homosexual persons -who live a chaste life etc) then I am definitely skeptical of the assertions by writers here that all pro-homosexual current and ex or current Catholic Churchmen who are authors are misled or (implied) just plain liars. For example, in a debate I bowed out of, a person stated (approximately) that “murderers, adulterers and other sinners do not march for their rights and societal financial benefits as homosexuals do.” They also stated “homosexuals campaigned to get homosexuality removed as a listed mental illness.” And finally, homosexuals raising children is of “grave consequence” for society.

The first statement about marching for rights/benefits completely ignores the fact that we live in a pluralistic society. (which I might add, speaking fo the US, has been mightily anti-Catholic at various times) The Catholic Church is free and obligated to teach what it feels is the truth, but obviously other citizens do not feel being homosexual is a sin. To ask for the same benefits (Gays pay taxes too you know) is hardly some vile thing. To me, it is plainly insulting to compare murderers to homosexuals and even though it was not intended in a malicious way, it is the result just the same. While we’re at it, why so many Catholic monetary contributions to defeat same sex marriage and no initiative to outlaw divorce (or birth control)? Perhaps, the Gays are an easier target? Second, I happen to know a lot about the mental illness business - the only reason it was on the diagnostic list to begin with is because wealthy Gay men and women, who wanted to conform to societal norms went to psychiatrists for treatement to become straight. I have read the studies which conclude on this basis that Gays are ill. Except the only problem is the doctors were ONLY seeing the people that had already concluded on their own they had a problem! And why wouldn’t they? It wasn’t that many decades ago, homosexual activity was illegal, names were printed in the paper and Gays were evicted from their homes and lost their jobs, completely cut off from their families. I would say that intense level of persecution caused the mental problems, not being Gay by itself, wouldn’t you? All the studies I’m aware of show children raised in qualified Gay homes are turning out just fine. I also know a lot of people who work for protective services and believe me, Gays who want kids jump through lots of hoops to qualify to get them rather than “oops I’m pregnant” after a drunken party. Did you know there are 50,000 unwed births in my midwest state ANNUALLY? Yes, 50,0000. What is the Church doing or saying about that? No one has suggested unwed mothers get cut off welfare. THAT has HUGE consequences for society as well. Far more than a handful of homos, I might add.

Jesus himself stated that divorce was allowed in Moses’ time due to the “hardness of your hearts” but it was not so from the beginning. Interesting change, I think. Didn’t the Church apologize to the Jews for encouraging anti-semitism not too long ago? So the Church is capable of change, Vatican II was a pretty huge one. And of course, various people were stoned, usually the female party to the sin, not the male, which we don’t do anymore either. A non virginal bridel was returned to her parents (to be killed?) and children who talked back were supposed to be killed too? There is much more to say, but room doesn’t permit.

I keep hearing how the doctrine of homosexuality was settled 2000 years ago, and the centuries of prejudice and persecution apparently is just conveniently swept under the carpet. It took the Church 1975 years to say anything positive in affirming their dignjity as persons? What about the current Pope’s statement that says something like “virulently proactive homosexuals should not be surprised if violence against them increases?” Sorry again if I’m skeptical, about all the so-called objective sources of why homosexuality is against natural law etc. Blessings and peace even though we disagree.

Are you insinuating she lied? Translating adelphos (brother) as homosexual lover as rather grave especially when your “translation” is based off the fact that some gays call their sex partner brother.

It hurts me a lot on the inside when I see people comparing homosexuality with murdering, paedophilia and zoophilia as if they are totally equivalent. Homosexuality is not classed as a mental disorder because it doesn’t show up on objective tests, much like masturbation doesn’t.

Actually the concept of homosexuality is a fairly modern thing, previously it was believed any man could commit homosexual acts

 

[Jaroslaw]

Dakota:

I am not insinuating anyone lied. I’m saying this stuff is so complicated and it just goes back and forth. What are those who don’t know Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic etc. supposed to do? Did you read the post where someone referred me to Oiliff rebutting Helminiak’s book? Tons of Bible verses in there. Then I read Helminiak;s rebuttal, he says they are convincing only to the uninformed. He seemed to answer all of their objections. And then there was the Oiloff & co. rebuttal to the rebuttal.

I specifically asked if Helminiak’s rebuttals were all lies and had no valid points and it was ignored. Like a lot of other things I brought up too.

Just for fun, pretend you’re preparing for debate in favor of homosexuality. What would you find? If the Church DID change it’s position, would you go along? or drop out, like so many have done in the Protestant world since some of them now accept Gays.

One thing that just amazes me is that people apparenlty forget how radical Jesus was. I wonder indeed what He would say about all this.

Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness or not?

 

[RCIA4]

Dakota: Am I insinuating who lied? About what? You say “she”?" I don’t know what you’re referencing.

Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness or not?

Jaroslaw homosexuality has been removed from the mental disorder list more than thirty years ago… Almost forty… The DSM and APA are the only ones allowed to make that determination… Not your opinion…

 

[Jaroslaw]

RCIA - you guys are too fast. I edited my post after I realized Dakota was probably speaking about Robin Darling. She asserted that Boswell translated a Greek word “Adelphos” into “gay lover” when it really meant “brother.”

I have no idea since I don’t speak or read much other than Polish, English and French!

What do you mean by “Not your opinon?”

Yes, I know homosexuality has been removed from the list of mental illnesss since 1973 or thereabouts. I have already gone into great detail about that previously, but I will say that Jeffrey Satinower in his book “homosexuality and the politics of truth” insinuated that it was some deep dark manipulative process to get homosexuality removed. Yes, a couple guys spoke at the conference in masks about removal… Of course they wore masks! Why would they risk losing a career they spent 15 or more years of school to get and possibly jail as well? Satinower references some letters that were written to all members etc. but I think it is naive to think that ANY change is made in any group only from the purest, transparent motives and processes. Gosh, look at what goes on in politics. Church history has some pretty vile stuff too.

 

[RCIA4]

RCIA - you guys are too fast. I edited my post after I realized Dakota was probably speaking about Robin Darling. She asserted that Boswell translated a Greek word “Adelphos” into “gay lover” when it really meant “brother.”

I have no idea since I don’t speak or read much other than Polish, English and French!

What do you mean by “Not your opinon?”

Yes, I know homosexuality has been removed from the list of mental illnesss since 1973 or thereabouts. I have already gone into great detail about that previously, but I will say that Jeffrey Satinower in his book “homosexuality and the politics of truth” insinuated that it was some deep dark manipulative process to get homosexuality removed. Yes, a couple guys spoke at the conference in masks about removal… Of course they wore masks! Why would they risk losing a career they spent 15 or more years of school to get and possibly jail as well? Satinower references some letters that were written to all members etc. but I think it is naive to think that ANY change is made in any group only from the purest, transparent motives and processes. Gosh, look at what goes on in politics. Church history has some pretty vile stuff too.

You beat me I only know English and French

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
I only went to one Dignity meeting, which included Mass, at a local Catholic College and I didn’t see anything like what you’re describing. However, going to only one meeting hardly makes me an expert either. …

Although you directed your post to Michelle, I am responding. As you know, this is an open forum where members are not necessarily participating but are following the discussion.

Dignity is right up there with New Ways Ministries in the list of dissenting organizations that claim to be Catholic but are not. That you attended a Dignity meeting is a sign that is consistent with the attraction you have with arguments and positions by ex-Catholics like Boswell and Helminiak.

In a thread that disappeared (pulled by the moderator for some reason), I engaged you on Helminiak’s motivation in his re-interpretation of scripture on homosexuality, which is why I provided the Olliff and Hodges links that challenged Helminiak’s gay theology point by point. Contrary to what you indicated, it was you who did not want to go through the list of criticisms by Olliff and Hodges, ignoring my reply that Helminiak’s rebuttal were just further justifications to his decision to live an openly homosexual life, thereby having no choice but to leave Catholic priesthood. You may be impressed with his pro-homosexuality arguments and his claim of understanding Aramaic. But don’t expect to get affirmation much less encouragement towards gay theology from Catholics in this forum including a number who identify as homosexuals or former homosexuals.

I asked but you did not answer if you believe or do not believe that the Church holds the Truth in the teaching on homosexuality on the basis of scripture (except to homosexualists like Boswell and Helminiak in their convenient belief and proposal to others that scripture is neutral or is not condemning homosexuality at all), the support of tradition, and the rationale of natural law. Even if you don’t reply, it seems clear what your leaning is, and that is your leaning is not consistent with this unequivocal message from then Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI.

The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

1. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.

The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.

There are Catholics who break from the Church because they do not want to live by her teaching on homosexuality. And there are those who stay but insist or wish to have the Church change said teaching.
,

 

[Hadrianus]

Yes, but my point was that’s not what we are doing in this conversation, so there’s no reason to avoid using certain language.

The language in the Catechism strikes me as confused. For instance, in CCC 2357, it is said that “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” The usage here is clearly such that homosexuality refers to the act.

The following two paragraphs however refer at once to “homosexual tendencies” and “homosexual persons,” with the latter being “called to chastity.” The confusion is such that it is not clear what is meant by “homosexual persons”: those who experience the “tendency” or those who practice the “relations.”

This is why I simply use “homosexual” to denote those with the attraction and “sodomite,” the historical norm, to refer to those who act on the attraction. The former implies no sin, the latter does.

I readily concede that the language of official Roman documents can sometimes be confusing for people not used to it, but in fact, there is a pretty consistent practice of employing “homosexuality” to refer to acts, and the adjective “homosexual” to mean same sex attracted. When describing a person the Church uses the phrase “homosexual person” to describe someone who feels a predominant or exclusive attraction to the same sex.

In standard English usage we tend to shorten this to "homosexual"to describe a person who experiences homosexual attraction. This can lead to confusion, but context and a bit of good will can resolve the difficulty.

 

[RCIA4]

I readily concede that the language of official Roman documents can sometimes be confusing for people not used to it, but in fact, there is a pretty consistent practice of employing “homosexuality” to refer to acts, and the adjective “homosexual” to mean same sex attracted. When describing a person the Church uses the phrase “homosexual person” to describe someone who feels a predominant or exclusive attraction to the same sex.

In standard English usage we tend to shorten this to "homosexual"to describe a person who experiences homosexual attraction. This can lead to confusion, but context and a bit of good will can resolve the difficulty.

Homosexual persons or tendencies is a mouthful… I work with people like that… I generally avoid the those terms and SSA even though the Church uses them…

Personally I use the term “homosexual” but at my school where I work outreach I’m usually using the common term “gay” and “lesbian.” But I hesitate to use such a word here because it’s politically charged…

SSA is too scientific so is tendency or person. I just use homosexual… Because its easy…

 

[mexilad]

Immoral. Period.

 

[Hadrianus]

Homosexual persons or tendencies is a mouthful… I work with people like that… I generally avoid the those terms and SSA even though the Church uses them…

Personally I use the term “homosexual” but at my school where I work outreach I’m usually using the common term “gay” and “lesbian.” But I hesitate to use such a word here because it’s politically charged…

SSA is too scientific so is tendency or person. I just use homosexual… Because its easy…

I understand. As Catholics we need to know the precise definitions of the Church, but at the same time it’s often necessary to use ordinary language as well. People make so much out of this, but I think we can almost invariably convey our beliefs while still using the common terminology. If it’s any consolation SSA is only used in American English, the rest of the world gets along without it.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota:

I am not insinuating anyone lied. I’m saying this stuff is so complicated and it just goes back and forth. What are those who don’t know Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic etc. supposed to do? Did you read the post where someone referred me to Oiliff rebutting Helminiak’s book? Tons of Bible verses in there. Then I read Helminiak;s rebuttal, he says they are convincing only to the uninformed. He seemed to answer all of their objections. And then there was the Oiloff & co. rebuttal to the rebuttal.

I specifically asked if Helminiak’s rebuttals were all lies and had no valid points and it was ignored. Like a lot of other things I brought up too.

Just for fun, pretend you’re preparing for debate in favor of homosexuality. What would you find? If the Church DID change it’s position, would you go along? or drop out, like so many have done in the Protestant world since some of them now accept Gays.

One thing that just amazes me is that people apparenlty forget how radical Jesus was. I wonder indeed what He would say about all this.

Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness or not?

It was readily apparent through the logic he used to justify the definition that something was horribly, horribly wrong.

The Church does not hate gays, the Church doesn’t say they are evil, she says homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong and backs this with with reasoning that is 9001% internally consistent with everything else she says. All acts that are closed to life are intrinsically wrong and mortally sinful. What would I do? That’s like asking me

RCIA - you guys are too fast. I edited my post after I realized Dakota was probably speaking about Robin Darling. She asserted that Boswell translated a Greek word “Adelphos” into “gay lover” when it really meant “brother.”

I have no idea since I don’t speak or read much other than Polish, English and French!

What do you mean by “Not your opinon?”

Yes, I know homosexuality has been removed from the list of mental illnesss since 1973 or thereabouts. I have already gone into great detail about that previously, but I will say that Jeffrey Satinower in his book “homosexuality and the politics of truth” insinuated that it was some deep dark manipulative process to get homosexuality removed. Yes, a couple guys spoke at the conference in masks about removal… Of course they wore masks! Why would they risk losing a career they spent 15 or more years of school to get and possibly jail as well? Satinower references some letters that were written to all members etc. but I think it is naive to think that ANY change is made in any group only from the purest, transparent motives and processes. Gosh, look at what goes on in politics. Church history has some pretty vile stuff too.

He did and it does, see pretty much any medieval Greek dictionary. She has authority to speak because she knows a good deal about the subject and has personal experience.

It does not meet the definition of a mental illness therefore it isn’t

I understand. As Catholics we need to know the precise definitions of the Church, but at the same time it’s often necessary to use ordinary language as well. People make so much out of this, but I think we can almost invariably convey our beliefs while still using the common terminology. If it’s any consolation SSA is only used in American English, the rest of the world gets along without it.

Actually the term is being exported just like homosexual communities and the gay lifestyle… (Because if we are exporting problems we should clearly also export the solutions that don’t work).

 

[Jaroslaw]

Reply to #67 In Search of Grace -

Since you’ve followed every post I’ve made, I’ve already made my personal situation clear. Still, going to ONE Dignity meeting, which was basically Mass and light conversation, not even about Gay issues means little.

Now for Helminiak, why would you refer me to non Catholic seemingly Fundamentalist writers when the founder of this Catholic Answers Forum wrote the book “Catholicism & Fundamentalism” where he recounts lie after lie about the Catholic Church? And while you don’t need to recount line by line what you disagree with in DH’s rebuttal, you need to say more than (paraphrased) “it is more justification of his homosexual lifestyle”.

I sincerely doubt if anyone here is qualified to debunk Oliff or Helminiak - referring someone to a dictionary as Dakota does, even a medieval one, hardly seems like that option takes into account all the nuances of language. When I was really using one on my OWN language in 3rd and 4th grade (and I supposedly tested out as a genius although the way my life has turned out, I kinda doubt that one!) there were many things in there that do not square with contemporary or historical usage. This doesn’t mean, by itself, that I agree or disagree with Boswell, I’m saying I just don’t know. The fact that the council of Trent declared infallibly the ONLY purpose of sex in marriage is procreative and later the Church changed its mind and said it is unitive and loving as well gives me hope that the Church may yet change its mind on homosexuality.I almost started this next sentence with “you must admit” but of course you don’t have to and wouldn’t but what is the logic of saying 'homosexual attraction is not voluntary" but a person so disposed must remain chaste! That seems too much to bear unless one does do it voluntarily.

Not sure if this addition fits in here, but not sure where to put it: it certainly seems as though there was cultural prejudice in the translation of the Bible, the punishments certainly bear it out - it was almost always the woman who was getting stoned yet it takes two to commit adultery, right? And it is a fact beyond dispute that the social and sexual sciences are very new relative to all the others.

Yes, the Church is the interpreter of the Bible and policy giver, but everything I’ve been reading said there have been great disputes in the past settled by councils and various heresies addressed. As Dakota himself said, the concept of a homosexual person as opposed to homosexual acts is relatively recent. (While we’re at it, what on earth does that Bible verse mean about the “effeminate” shall not inherit the earth?) I read someplace that the Church changed its position on homosexuality when enough scientific data came in showing SSA was nothing anyone could choose/control (actions yes, of course) whereas prior homosexuality was considered subjective and that any man could be tempted to engage in homosexual activity. I haven’t been able to document this yet from an official source, but it sounds about right based on known societal attitudes 100 years ago from everything I have read which is a lot. There are a lot of seemingly sincere clergy (McNeil, Gumbleton, Helminiak and many others who raise a lot of issues, but I suppose their theories and positions and experiences mean nothing as they are all liars?

Dakota: I will accept your assertion that the Church doesn’t hate Gays, but it certainly has a historical record that makes it seems like it did for most of its existence; it certainly punished as if it did. Contrast the 1975 statement about pastoral care of homosexuals with the one in 1986 and the one in 1992 about seminarians… Seems like they’re getting harsher and harsher to me.

 

[Hadrianus]

Reply to #67 In Search of Grace -

Since you’ve followed every post I’ve made, I’ve already made my personal situation clear. Still, going to ONE Dignity meeting, which was basically Mass and light conversation, not even about Gay issues means little.

Now for Helminiak, why would you refer me to non Catholic seemingly Fundamentalist writers when the founder of this Catholic Answers Forum wrote the book “Catholicism & Fundamentalism” where he recounts lie after lie about the Catholic Church? And while you don’t need to recount line by line what you disagree with in DH’s rebuttal, you need to say more than (paraphrased) “it is more justification of his homosexual lifestyle”.

I sincerely doubt if anyone here is qualified to debunk Oliff or Helminiak - referring someone to a dictionary as Dakota does, even a medieval one, hardly seems like that option takes into account all the nuances of language. When I was really using one on my OWN language in 3rd and 4th grade (and I supposedly tested out as a genius although the way my life has turned out, I kinda doubt that one!) there were many things in there that do not square with contemporary or historical usage. This doesn’t mean, by itself, that I agree or disagree with Boswell, I’m saying I just don’t know. The fact that the council of Trent declared infallibly the ONLY purpose of sex in marriage is procreative and later the Church changed its mind and said it is unitive and loving as well gives me hope that the Church may yet change its mind on homosexuality.I almost started this next sentence with “you must admit” but of course you don’t have to and wouldn’t but what is the logic of saying 'homosexual attraction is not voluntary" but a person so disposed must remain chaste! That seems too much to bear unless one does do it voluntarily.

Not sure if this addition fits in here, but not sure where to put it: it certainly seems as though there was cultural prejudice in the translation of the Bible, the punishments certainly bear it out - it was almost always the woman who was getting stoned yet it takes two to commit adultery, right? And it is a fact beyond dispute that the social and sexual sciences are very new relative to all the others.

Yes, the Church is the interpreter of the Bible and policy giver, but everything I’ve been reading said there have been great disputes in the past settled by councils and various heresies addressed. As Dakota himself said, the concept of a homosexual person as opposed to homosexual acts is relatively recent. (While we’re at it, what on earth does that Bible verse mean about the “effeminate” shall not inherit the earth?) I read someplace that the Church changed its position on homosexuality when enough scientific data came in showing SSA was nothing anyone could choose/control (actions yes, of course) whereas prior homosexuality was considered subjective and that any man could be tempted to engage in homosexual activity. I haven’t been able to document this yet from an official source, but it sounds about right based on known societal attitudes 100 years ago from everything I have read which is a lot. There are a lot of seemingly sincere clergy (McNeil, Gumbleton, Helminiak and many others who raise a lot of issues, but I suppose their theories and positions and experiences mean nothing as they are all liars?

Dakota: I will accept your assertion that the Church doesn’t hate Gays, but it certainly has a historical record that makes it seems like it did for most of its existence; it certainly punished as if it did. Contrast the 1975 statement about pastoral care of homosexuals with the one in 1986 and the one in 1992 about seminarians… Seems like they’re getting harsher and harsher to me.

If I may comment on a post unaddressed to me, I’d say that Boswell is probably trying to read a possible ancient meaning of adelphos into a Mediaeval context, and this does seem to be going too far. As to Trent, I’d have to check the text, on the face of it, it seems unlikely that the definition says the “ONLY purpose” of sex in marriage is procreation. The primary end, perhaps.
“Effeminate” found in English Bibles is almost certainly a mistranslation of the Greek “malakoi” rendered into Latin as “molles” Literally this means “soft” but has a clear sexual connotation. I think the modern Greeks use it to mean “masturbator.” I’ve also seen it rendered as “male prostitute.” There are things in the Bible as in any ancient text, which we can only have suggestions for. As to any change of church teaching on homosexual acts as such, I haven’t heard of it. Greater psychological insight has, however, led to a more sympathetic approach.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Reply to #67 In Search of Grace -

Since you’ve followed every post I’ve made, I’ve already made my personal situation clear. Still, going to ONE Dignity meeting, which was basically Mass and light conversation, not even about Gay issues means little.

Now for Helminiak, why would you refer me to non Catholic seemingly Fundamentalist writers when the founder of this Catholic Answers Forum wrote the book “Catholicism & Fundamentalism” where he recounts lie after lie about the Catholic Church? And while you don’t need to recount line by line what you disagree with in DH’s rebuttal, you need to say more than (paraphrased) “it is more justification of his homosexual lifestyle”.

I sincerely doubt if anyone here is qualified to debunk Oliff or Helminiak - referring someone to a dictionary as Dakota does, even a medieval one, hardly seems like that option takes into account all the nuances of language. When I was really using one on my OWN language in 3rd and 4th grade (and I supposedly tested out as a genius although the way my life has turned out, I kinda doubt that one!) there were many things in there that do not square with contemporary or historical usage. This doesn’t mean, by itself, that I agree or disagree with Boswell, I’m saying I just don’t know. The fact that the council of Trent declared infallibly the ONLY purpose of sex in marriage is procreative and later the Church changed its mind and said it is unitive and loving as well gives me hope that the Church may yet change its mind on homosexuality.I almost started this next sentence with “you must admit” but of course you don’t have to and wouldn’t but what is the logic of saying 'homosexual attraction is not voluntary" but a person so disposed must remain chaste! That seems too much to bear unless one does do it voluntarily.

Not sure if this addition fits in here, but not sure where to put it: it certainly seems as though there was cultural prejudice in the translation of the Bible, the punishments certainly bear it out - it was almost always the woman who was getting stoned yet it takes two to commit adultery, right? And it is a fact beyond dispute that the social and sexual sciences are very new relative to all the others.

Yes, the Church is the interpreter of the Bible and policy giver, but everything I’ve been reading said there have been great disputes in the past settled by councils and various heresies addressed. As Dakota himself said, the concept of a homosexual person as opposed to homosexual acts is relatively recent. (While we’re at it, what on earth does that Bible verse mean about the “effeminate” shall not inherit the earth?) I read someplace that the Church changed its position on homosexuality when enough scientific data came in showing SSA was nothing anyone could choose/control (actions yes, of course) whereas prior homosexuality was considered subjective and that any man could be tempted to engage in homosexual activity. I haven’t been able to document this yet from an official source, but it sounds about right based on known societal attitudes 100 years ago from everything I have read which is a lot. There are a lot of seemingly sincere clergy (McNeil, Gumbleton, Helminiak and many others who raise a lot of issues, but I suppose their theories and positions and experiences mean nothing as they are all liars?

Dakota: I will accept your assertion that the Church doesn’t hate Gays, but it certainly has a historical record that makes it seems like it did for most of its existence; it certainly punished as if it did. Contrast the 1975 statement about pastoral care of homosexuals with the one in 1986 and the one in 1992 about seminarians… Seems like they’re getting harsher and harsher to me.

I just spent a hour on the response and my computer locked up.

please cite that

All they really want is to love and be loved, how could you deny them that, just look at everything around us, the ultimate way to express I love you is to marry them and live with them, to show how much you trust them is to give your body to them in sex. How could someone be so evil to deny them what everyone desires, to love and be loved? What the problem is that people fail to realize that spiritual unions are so much more meaningful and deep than mere unions of the flesh. the spirit has far more depth than mere flesh can ever have, To love someone deeply and care for them more than yourself and for them to do likewise is a noble ideal and one the Church does not condemn. What is condemned is engaging in two people of the same sex engaging in sex. There is no complementarity there, no deepening of the relationship, it actually detracts from the relationship for the rush of hormones merely cover up the cracks. How much better is it to give yourself absolutely and fully, unconstrained by the limitations of flesh in all it’s fragility and even of death?

I am acutely aware of of how involuntary and how hard it is. It’s so much more fun to deal with the feelings when you are are still a teenager, when there are so many hormones circulating in your blood and they make you say incredibly stupid things you know you should never do like say “I love you” to another guy. Those sleepless nights where you wonder how could you ever find love. To rip the petals off a flower saying “He loves me, he loves me not…” while hoping for him to love you and return affection you are also so afraid of what if he loves you too.

 

[Jaroslaw]

Dakota - sorry about your computer

Please cite what?

I’ve been coughing for hours and have quite a wheeze that won’t go away. I’m going to emergency because I don’t think I will make it until urgent care opens 6 hours from now. To be continued…