Cardinal: Gays "will never enter the Reign of God"

[Other_Eric]

Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, a Mexican cardinal and emeritus president of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Health (1996-2009), has said in an interview with Pontifex, that homosexuals and transvestites “will never enter into the reign of God,” appealing to St. Paul. "[T]rans e omosessuali non entreranno mai nel Regno dei Cieli, e non lo dico io, ma San Paolo." Later in the interview he says that he believes homosexuals are not born that way but become that.(1)

God bless this cardinal and all others who possess the courage to proclaim the beautiful truth: the experience of same-sex attractions is itself a sin that will lead people to Hell. It is an appetite that is willfully and obstinately chosen. The answer is to go to NARTH to rid yourself of these disgusting attractions or resign yourself to the fate of eternal damnation.

(1) Martin, James. “Cardinal: Gays ‘Will Never Enter the Kingdom of God.’” America Magazine. America Press Inc., New York, NY. Dec. 2, 2009. Available online at: americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=91852264-3048-741E-9870142928939885

 

[chrysostim83]

The experience of same-sex attractions is itself a sin that will lead people to Hell. It is an appetite that is willfully and obstinately chosen. The answer is to go to NARTH to rid yourself of these disgusting attractions or resign yourself to the fate of eternal damnation.

Clearly the Bishop didn’t mean to single out a group of people who are as such unredeemable. As St. Paul also said, “Christ died for all.” Period.

Other Eric’s contributions raise some interesting questions:

1. 
   *]How can an experience be a sin?
   *]How can “the experience of same sex attraction” be an “appetite”?
   *]How can an appetite be wilfully and obstinately chosen?
   *]If same sex attraction were chosen, why would NARTH’s help be necessary?
   *]Exactly how many alternatives have been left out of the false dichotomy at the end?
   
   Just fun points to ponder. Maybe only the last question deserves an answer: Christians who experience same sex attraction need only do their best, with the help of God’s grace, to please God and grow in holiness. Whether their experience of same sex attraction will diminish or no is really nobody’s business.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Clearly the Bishop didn’t mean to single out a group of people who are as such unredeemable. As St. Paul also said, “Christ died for all.” Period.

Other Eric’s contributions raise some interesting questions:

1. 
   *]How can an experience be a sin? By doing so as an act of one’s will, while knowing that the act is against God’s will and law, both Divine and Natural.
   *]How can “the experience of same sex attraction” be an “appetite”? Through habitual engagement in the act or even habitually consenting to the thought.
   *]How can an appetite be wilfully and obstinately chosen? Through the will. We can only sin by choice. We can sin, not just in deed, by in thought, also.
   *]If same sex attraction were chosen, why would NARTH’s help be necessary? For the same reason we have Alcoholics Anonymous, etc. When disordered behavior becomes habitual, it is harder to change.
   *]Exactly how many alternatives have been left out of the false dichotomy at the end? Was the article, etc., intended to be a be-all, end-all of the topic at hand?
   
   Just fun points to ponder. Maybe only the last question deserves an answer: Christians who experience same sex attraction need only do their best, with the help of God’s grace, to please God and grow in holiness. Whether their experience of same sex attraction will diminish or no is really nobody’s business.

 

[fish90]

Homosexual attraction is not a sin in itself from what I know. The activity seems to me to be like something that happens in a marriage. Let’s say that a beautiful woman other than a man’s wife whose very presence makes the man feel an attraction. The man is not committing adultery should he refrain from having lustful thoughts.

Homosexuals who have great difficulty in becoming heterosexual must live a celibate life, period. They can enter heaven should they be celibate and not have any other mortal sin on their souls.

I hope the Cardinal was talking about the stereotypical homosexual: promiscuous, having a homosexual relationship, getting “married,” and etc.

This does not mean homosexuality is to be accepted, but we must remember these people as God’s children as well, not give acceptance to their sinful behavior and most of all demand they live a celibate Christian life.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Other_Eric]

Clearly the Bishop didn’t mean to single out a group of people who are as such unredeemable. As St. Paul also said, “Christ died for all.” Period.

Other Eric’s contributions raise some interesting questions:

1. 
   *]How can an experience be a sin?
   *]How can “the experience of same sex attraction” be an “appetite”?
   *]How can an appetite be wilfully and obstinately chosen?
   *]If same sex attraction were chosen, why would NARTH’s help be necessary?
   *]Exactly how many alternatives have been left out of the false dichotomy at the end?
   
   Just fun points to ponder. Maybe only the last question deserves an answer: Christians who experience same sex attraction need only do their best, with the help of God’s grace, to please God and grow in holiness. Whether their experience of same sex attraction will diminish or no is really nobody’s business.

1. 
   

   Of course, as Catholics, we do not expect that the doctrine of Christ having died for all means that nothing at all is required of us. Such an attitude is a deadly combination of both presumption and sloth. We are not Protestants who blithely go around saying “once saved, always saved.” Sin is real and it can damn one for eternity.

   The experience of same-sex attraction, being an appetite since the subject is moved towards it, is, as NARTH’s science has revealed, an impulse that can be resolved if the subject wills it. The experience of same-sex attractions directly contradicts God’s natural order and holy plan for man. It therefore contradicts charity to preach that Christians grow indifferent to the experience of something that endangers a person’s immortal soul.

 

[Other_Eric]

Homosexual attraction is not a sin in itself from what I know. The activity seems to me to be like something that happens in a marriage. Let’s say that a beautiful woman other than a man’s wife whose very presence makes the man feel an attraction. The man is not committing adultery should he refrain from having lustful thoughts.

Homosexuals who have great difficulty in becoming heterosexual must live a celibate life, period. They can enter heaven should they be celibate and not have any other mortal sin on their souls.

I hope the Cardinal was talking about the stereotypical homosexual: promiscuous, having a homosexual relationship, getting “married,” and etc.

This does not mean homosexuality is to be accepted, but we must remember these people as God’s children as well, not give acceptance to their sinful behavior and most of all demand they live a celibate Christian life.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

The entire question of whether same-sex attractions themselves are not sinful hinges entirely on whether or not they are chosen. A decision not to engage in therapy that would cure the disorder is a passive decision to continue experiencing same-sex attractions. Therefore the experience itself is a sin.

 

[Seamus_L]

I’m sure the Cardinal is referring to unrepentent homosexuals.

 

[Other_Eric]

I’m sure the Cardinal is referring to unrepentent homosexuals.

“Unrepentant homosexual” is a redundancy.

 

[pcg2]

God bless this cardinal and all others who possess the courage to proclaim the beautiful truth: the experience of same-sex attractions is itself a sin that will lead people to Hell. It is an appetite that is willfully and obstinately chosen. The answer is to go to NARTH to rid yourself of these disgusting attractions or resign yourself to the fate of eternal damnation.

What an uncharitable and disgusting way to view the people that bear this cross… do you honestly believe that these people CHOOSE to be attracted to the same sex? That doesn’t even make sense. How about the countless faithful Catholics that have same sex attraction that are also faithful to the Church’s teachings (live celibately and chastely)? You don’t think that at least some of them (if not all of them) hope and pray that they had normal desires? It’s INSANITY to think that everyone can change the sex that one is attracted to! I’m sure that it is possible for some people, but for others, no. I’m sorry friend, but your view of these people is not the same view Jesus holds of them :nope:

 

[dixieagle]

God bless this cardinal and all others who possess the courage to proclaim the beautiful truth: the experience of same-sex attractions is itself a sin that will lead people to Hell. It is an appetite that is willfully and obstinately chosen. The answer is to go to NARTH to rid yourself of these disgusting attractions or resign yourself to the fate of eternal damnation.

(1) Martin, James. “Cardinal: Gays ‘Will Never Enter the Kingdom of God.’” America Magazine. America Press Inc., New York, NY. Dec. 2, 2009. Available online at: americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=91852264-3048-741E-9870142928939885

Fr. Martin’s article goes on to cite the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, which proclaims a different view from yours, and the Cardinal’s: *“By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” *

The Cardinal’s opinion on whether homosexual orientation is a “choice” is just that…his opinion. (Why anyone would choose an orientation that is reviled by many is completely beyond me.)

It goes without saying that homosexual activity is objectively sinful.

 

[chrysostim83]

The experience of same-sex attraction, being an appetite since the subject is moved towards it, is, as NARTH’s science has revealed, an impulse that can be resolved if the subject wills it.

In light of what you say here, let me try to clarify what my questions were trying to get at:

Question 1: An experience cannot be a sin, because only acts are sins.
Question 2: An experience cannot be an appetite, because experiences come one at a time, while an appetite is an enduring characteristic of the individual. Thus, the experience of SSA is at most the experience of a manifestation of an appetite.
Question 3: The appetites for food and drink, sex, fellowship, truth, etc, are discovered and not chosen. If these examples are representative of all the appetites, then no appetite is chosen.
Question 4: First, it is not at all clear how one goes about choosing to experience same sex attraction: most people, even if they tried as hard as they could, wouldn’t be able to do it. Second, if same sex attraction were chosen, how could NARTH help, when according to their theory, same sex attraction is not chosen (cf. Moberley, Nicolosi, Harvey, etc)? Third, if same sex attraction were chosen, why couldn’t it be unchosen without help? I mean, experiencing same sex attraction is merely disconcerting if you’re a Catholic, so how can a disconcerting experience be addictive?

Since question 5 has already been elaborated on by pcg2 and me, there’s no need to go on about it again.

 

[JaMc]

“Unrepentant homosexual” is a redundancy.

Not necessarily. There are some who confess, repent, and live a celebate lifestyle thereafter. You just only hear about the unrepentant ones.

 

[fish90]

The entire question of whether same-sex attractions themselves are not sinful hinges entirely on whether or not they are chosen. A decision not to engage in therapy that would cure the disorder is a passive decision to continue experiencing same-sex attractions. Therefore the experience itself is a sin.

The homosexual who experiences an attraction, experiences a temptation to sin, and does not fall into the temptation is not sinning.

 

[fish90]

The Cardinal was not teaching the Catholic truth.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17921

 

[reggieM]

The willful desire to fornicate with someone is a serious sin.

 

[redrosetea]

I’m sure the Cardinal is referring to unrepentent homosexuals.

I think you’re right…Unrepentant sinners won’t be saved…and that includes every type of sin…so it includes everyone

 

[frtrue]

I would not like to have this Cardinal as my spiritual guide. His idea that gays will not enter into the Reign of God sounds exactly like the fundamentalist Baptist group in Oklahoma who demonstrated outside the funeral of young man murdered in Wyoming because he was gay. They carried posters for the parents of the young man, Matthew Shepard to see as they left the funeral home, proclaiming “God Hates Gays.” How can any person with Christ in his heart, let alone a Cardinal of the Church, say such hateful things?

 

[Hopemercy]

Amen…

Old saying; you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Dismissing Protestants also is offensive.

And in the end it is for God alone to sort and sift; THANKFULLY!

Read Jesus’ John chapter 8…

Blessings

I would not like to have this Cardinal as my spiritual guide. His idea that gays will not enter into the Reign of God sounds exactly like the fundamentalist Baptist group in Oklahoma who demonstrated outside the funeral of young man murdered in Wyoming because he was gay. They carried posters for the parents of the young man, Matthew Shepard to see as they left the funeral home, proclaiming “God Hates Gays.” How can any person with Christ in his heart, let alone a Cardinal of the Church, say such hateful things?

 

[jay29]

Very simple to me…

ANY sex (gay or straight) outside of a marriage between one man and one woman is a mortal sin. Unrepentant mortal sin results in hell after death according to the Catechism.

 

[Other_Eric]

In light of what you say here, let me try to clarify what my questions were trying to get at:

Question 1: An experience cannot be a sin, because only acts are sins.
Question 2: An experience cannot be an appetite, because experiences come one at a time, while an appetite is an enduring characteristic of the individual. Thus, the experience of SSA is at most the experience of a manifestation of an appetite.

I answer that since an experience can rightly be called the manifestation of an underlying appetite, that this manifestation is indistinguishable from an action and therefore sinful.

Question 3: The appetites for food and drink, sex, fellowship, truth, etc, are discovered and not chosen. If these examples are representative of all the appetites, then no appetite is chosen.

I answer that it is not true that no appetite is unchosen in the strictest sense. Rather, appetites food, drink and so forth are instead malleable, and capable of being trained. The teenager who hacks and finds disgusting his first inhale of a cigarette may yet become a chain smoker later on. Therefore, his appetite for tobacco is chosen. If appetites such as that can change as directed by the will, why would we make exceptions for any other appetite?

Question 4: First, it is not at all clear how one goes about choosing to experience same sex attraction: most people, even if they tried as hard as they could, wouldn’t be able to do it.

This is an unsupported assertion.

Second, if same sex attraction were chosen, how could NARTH help, when according to their theory, same sex attraction is not chosen (cf. Moberley, Nicolosi, Harvey, etc)?

This depends entirely on what is meant by the word “choice.” A man might not consciously choose to have heart disease, but if his diet consists of little more than doughnuts and fried chicken he is most definitely making a decision in favor of that particular disorder. The individual with same-sex attractions who refuses treatment for his condition chooses his orientation in the same way. That choice is a sin that endangers his soul.

Third, if same sex attraction were chosen, why couldn’t it be unchosen without help?

Perhaps it can be unchosen without help. Since, however, we are talking of eternal consequences, it is gravely foolish to gamble one’s salvation in such a fashion. The prudent individual who loves God and desires closeness with Him will therefore maximize his chances for recovery.

I mean, experiencing same sex attraction is merely disconcerting if you’re a Catholic, so how can a disconcerting experience be addictive?

The experience of same-sex attractions is nothing so benign as to be merely disconcerting. It is a direct affront to God’s creation of an individual as either male or female and, as such, calls into question the individual’s conception of what it means to be human. To refuse to be healed is, ultimately, to refuse the graces Christ offers in preference for doing things one’s own way, the sin of pride.