Ed, there is no gay gene.
Hi Christopher: Thank you for your response and the specific items you listed. It gives me a chance to clarify my position and what I believe is the Church’s thinking on these specifics. We’ve been talking in generalities - which is good in terms of acknowledging the moral framework we, as Catholic Christians, operate in - but ultimately, as you have done here, it must come down to specifics - mostly because that’s the way the Gospel is lived – person to person. God is love; the Good News is about that love, personified by the God-man, Jesus - so I agree with you that if we can’t bring our ‘philosophy’ down to the everyday and the everyman, it’s not worth much to us. Thank you for bringing the discussion to this level.I again understand the general point of your post, but I still have difficulty understanding the application of it in regard to specific situations. For example, let’s say you are neighbors with a couple who is believed to be in a homosexual relationship. If you address this with them in conversation and they politely decline to discuss it, then what? Are you in favor of laws to arrest and punish them for suspected homosexual behavior? And how would that be proven without a gross violation of their civil liberties? And in regard to civil partnerships, there is nothing legally preventing any two people from having an attorney draw up legal documentation detailing their wishes regarding visitation rights, inheritance, etc. I understand that in a broader context, there is a concern about society somehow validating homosexual behavior. However, I am very uneasy with moral decisions being made simply by whoever has the most political power, as I have never looked to politicians for moral guidance, nor do I admire the behavior that many of them routinely exhibit.
And a Merry Christmas to you as well!
Thank you again for another well-written and well-reasoned post.Hi Christopher: Thank you for your response and the specific items you listed. It gives me a chance to clarify my position and what I believe is the Church’s thinking on these specifics. We’ve been talking in generalities - which is good in terms of acknowledging the moral framework we, as Catholic Christians, operate in - but ultimately, as you have done here, it must come down to specifics - mostly because that’s the way the Gospel is lived – person to person. God is love; the Good News is about that love, personified by the God-man, Jesus - so I agree with you that if we can’t bring our ‘philosophy’ down to the everyday and the everyman, it’s not worth much to us. Thank you for bringing the discussion to this level.
Here is what I believe: First, as the Church and the Catechism insist - there is to be NO discrimination against any person, for any reason. So we must respect homosexual persons and treat them with the dignity with which we would treat Christ (whatever you do to the least of these…etc…). Of course this goes for ALL persons. We, according to our faith, distinguish between the sinner and the sin; we are able to condemn and reject the sin of homosexual behavior while according dignity and respect to the homosexual persons, themselves. (I think many people have great difficulty with this…imho)
In order to ‘hate the sin’ (but love the sinner), it is not necessary to always and everywhere CONFRONT the sinner, as you asked about in your post. That may or may not be the appropriate thing to do; it depends on the situation and the people. The Church teaches that in ‘admonishing the sinner’ (which is what confronting the same-sex partners amounts to), we are obliged to only do so if our actions will not offend charity, make the situation worse, or drive the soul(s) further away from Jesus. This is an individual decision to be made but the important thing, per your inquiry, is that it is not required we do that. It does not violate the stance of opposition to or hatred of sin to decide, in a given case, that confrontation is not appropriate for the reasons mentioned above.
It therefore follows that I am not in favor of criminal prosecution and punishment for homosexuals who engage in sinful behavior. The Church nowhere advocates this either. This whole issue is about souls, their salvation, and the God of Love. Sometimes we can ‘confront’ (or discuss, evangelize, etc.) but not always - and possibly not even frequently or most of the time. However, we must (and this is my position) in our hearts and lives, hate and repudiate all manner of sin - (again, this does not have to be in the form of ranting at the sinner. That can easily devolve into nothing but self-righteousness!)
But we cannot compartmentalize either, and we cannot say that sin does not concern us unless it’s our personal sin. We need to repudiate and hate it with our whole being and involve our whole selves in the work against sin. So we pray, we offer sacrifice and penance in reparation, we adore God for those who do not adore Him, love Him for those who do not love Him, believe in Him for those who do not believe in Him, etc. This will be much more effective in overcoming the evil one and his influence than ranting at individual sinners. I chimed into this whole discussion because what you were saying came off to me as your saying, in effect, that someone else’s sin was none of your business and had nothing to do with you…and I hope I clarified myself in my opposition to that concept. We ARE our brother’s keeper; his/her sin affects us and gives us an opportunity to pray for them and to offer some small reparation to Love, Itself, for the disrespect and offenses any sin heaps on the gentle heart of our Father.
Thank you for your Christmas wishes…may the child of the holy night to come, touch you with His awesome love and keep you in His providence !
I think you’re right on, Christopher! Preaching the Gospel without ‘words’ is exactly what St. Francis of Assisi has modeled and encouraged for us. I don’t doubt at all that your living in that way is not only immensely pleasing to God, but has an affect on your fellow humans - an affect that will not even be known, in it’s fullness, by you until the other side. God bless you!Thank you again for another well-written and well-reasoned post.
I will readily admit that this is an issue that I struggle to understand, in that the Church’s position is different to what my natural response would be, which is to treat the issue with indifference. Like you, I also oppose any forms of discriminations against homosexuals and any criminal prosecution for homosexual behavior. Instead, I simply try to live my life as moral as possible, and hopefully let my behavior be a positive influence on those around me - on my wife, children, friends, co-workers, etc. I know I have my faults, but on issues such as this one, I think it is better for me to live by example, and to pray for them, rather than telling someone else what they’re doing wrong.
Yes, I am looking forward to the days ahead - not the “presents” but rather His “presence.”
NO, a Catholic may not and Can-NOT.
**BlueShadow;
Chris, what are you on about? You act as if I’m an atheist or something. I am a Christian, I just think people are born gay. Thats the point I’ve been trying to make. No more, no less than that.
Hello BlueShadow; I am not advocating in anyway that you are an atheist.Chris, what are you on about? You act as if I’m an atheist or something. I am a Christian, I just think people are born gay. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. No more, no less than that.
In the first place people are not born homosexual. There is no gay gene. If you believe that then point me to the medical/scientific study that provides the evidence. Homosexuality is the product of one or more of upbringing, environment, choice.
Hi Thistle: I just wanted to chime in here for a second to agree with you (and others who have posted here in this vein) that no one is ‘born’ homosexual. I agree that we humans are much too complex for such a simplistic answer and that we have yet to understand the situation of homosexuality as it pertains to causes, etc.
There’s no evidence for that. Second, homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973 by nonscientific vote. Look it up if you don’t believe me.Chris, what are you on about? You act as if I’m an atheist or something. I am a Christian, I just think people are born gay. Thats the point I’ve been trying to make. No more, no less than that.
edwest2,
What is the basis of civil partnerships? Science or not? If two gay men want to adopt, what do they tell the judge? Do you know why the Church teaches what it does?
Having same sex attraction in itself does not damn a soul. What damns the soul is same sex sexual activity (a sexually active homosexual) which remains unrepented.
Thistle: Good! That’s what I thought and assumed you meant, but some of your posts were unclear in that regard. Pardon my missing your point - and, of course, I agree with your position - as I agree with and accept the Church’s teaching on this, which is the same as what you stated above. Thanks for clarifying----
He probably does; he probably also thinks that if another person willfully decides to disobey this it is that person’s own choice.
First I am a GIRLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL for the last time.