I find this rather annoying. Because you are ignoring his point that yes in many churches people don’t live up to showing charity and respect towards gay people even if they are celibate. Instead the assumptions are the gay person is less of a Christian because of their particular cross, some assume a hedonistic promiscuous lifestyle, assume they have particular childhood traumas, assume they are a threat to children, assume they are a thread or Trojan horse to the church.
But hey if only they stay closeted then that’s not a problem right. You are basically saying that a gay person’s being welcomed and tolerated in the church is dependent on their ability to stay closeted. That is not helpful to people with this cross. Does everyone need to know… no? But does the person’s treatment have to depend on their ability to be closeted, it shouldn’t yet in many circles it does. THAT is the issue. Trying to change the discussion to why should they be open ignores the many issues there currently are.
No, this is a false argument (I avoid using the term ‘strawman argument’ as that would make me an official blogger/debater).
Reason being, that you are justifying open lifestyle upon the premise that Catholics unfairly judge those who feel a certain way, based on assumptions.
Wrong for a few reasons:
First, Catholics are quite able to base an opinion on an external circumstance, such as people making it plainly clear that they are living an openly active sinful lifestyle.
Second, the assumption you said Catholics make, is that we assume such people are conflicted, having often experienced childhood trauma: many have.
Third, you mention being “closeted”. The idea about being Catholic, isn’t that faith makes a person closeted, but that the truth frees them. The Truth puts the struggle of any person with any kind of cross, into perspective - they join their sufferings with those of Jesus who died for the sins of humankind.
What makes the struggle of a gay person any worse than the struggle of a straight person who knows their calling is not to be married? The straight person has to struggle with beautiful women around everywhere, and probably finding that they get on with women on an intellectual level too, know full well that they cannot further a relationship beyond a certain limit if they are to follow their call. Also, they cannot have physical relations with a woman until marriage, and so have no option but to abstain. So, why is it that one gender preference gets to exploit sin, while the other, doesn’t. The gay person’s pride does not excuse sin, just as the single straight person’s pride, does not excuse sin.
I agree with you, to the point that, if some gay people were walking down the road, and not doing anything sinful, then some might judge them - this would be wrong, because the people seeing them do not necessarily know anything about them and therefore cannot assume something sinful is happening, behind the scenes.
It is hard to imagine someone who is maybe a bit effeminate in terms of their gesticulatory behaviour being judged by those around them when at church. I can’t see that happening. Maybe there are slightly less manly men around here and there. I have never seen Catholics run up to such people shouting at such a person or even giving them accusatory stares. People are people. We take people as they are. When at church, we are there for God. However, if you mean, that one should be comfortable with two homosexual people holding hands in church, obviously together in gay lifestyle, then this does bring up a few issues. One cannot react with hate but it is still problematic and I would empathise with anyone who would be feeling uncomfortable with such a scenario.
