Catholic & Homosexual

[The_Reginator]

Since becoming Catholic I’ve started thinking that homosexuality, for a Catholic, is a HUGE cross to bare.

This video really sums up my feelings:
Catholic & Homosexual

For the Catholic who has this cross … and desires to follow the Church … the suffering is also of a sort that is beyond understanding for non-homosexual persons.

This is a cross that has little by way of comparison. And … seen with the Catholic mind …
it also means that this person … made in the Image of God … is more intensely loved by
God than most others.

So what is the aim of this intensity of suffering? What it always has been … the salvation
of souls. It is modeled after the crucifixion. It is a scourge laid on those who suffer with
loneliness of never really feeling that they are like everyone else.

He the homosexual person] is different. His cross … if accepted … unlike that of many other people’s crosses … will
draw countless souls to Christ. The heavier the cross … the more burdensome … the
greater the glory realized.
We celebrate this truth in raising martyrs to the honors of the altar. Greater love hath no
man than this … that he lay down his life for a friend.
For the faithful Catholic with the cross of homosexuality … he or she lays down their life
everyday for their friends.

To all Catholic homosexuals: Please offer up your sufferings for those in need, the unborn and their mothers, those in Purgatory, all suffering from hunger or lack of shelter, the sick and dying, all suffering in natural (and unnatural) disasters, our bishops and priests, the Holy Father, all us here at CAF, even for myself wondering what work God has in store for me …

But above all, please offer your suffering for the salvation of souls.

May God always bless you and give you strength.
– Reg.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Since becoming Catholic I’ve started thinking that homosexuality, for a Catholic, is a HUGE cross to bare.

This video really sums up my feelings:
Catholic & Homosexual

To all Catholic homosexuals: Please offer up your sufferings for those in need, the unborn and their mothers, those in Purgatory, all suffering from hunger or lack of shelter, the sick and dying, all suffering in natural (and unnatural) disasters, our bishops and priests, the Holy Father, all us here at CAF, even for myself wondering what work God has in store for me …

But above all, please offer your suffering for the salvation of souls.

May God always bless you and give you strength.
– Reg.

While this message was intended to give hope, I see several problems with it:

First, it is implied that God actually imposes homosexuality on the victim. That would make God the author of evil.

Second, it makes it sound like God’s love is abusive and hurtful. Think about it. God comes to you, hits you in the face (i.e., gives you the curse of homosexuality) as hard as He can and says, “I love you.” Then, He proceeds to hit you again (worse than second class citizen status in the Church), “do you love Me?” That’s not conducive to trust, it’s more like a recipe for disaster. As a sci-fi geek, I think of two kinds of beings that are similar, both of which are evil. The first on an original Star Trek episode wherein a creature that feeds on violent emotions traps the crew of the Enterprise with a group of Klingons to fight violently throughout eternity as the ship hurtles through the void of intergalactic space. The second is from Stargate SG-1 after the defeat of the Goa’uld and a new enemy called the Ori, which feed on the worship of their followers with the promise of ascension (like heaven) only to never ascend anyone so as to not share the power. I don’t want to think like this, but if God needs us to feel pain in order to know His love, how is that love and not cruelty?

Third, how is my suffering going to help ANYONE be drawn to Christ?

Fourth, how do I know that God won’t send me to Hell anyway?

 

[The_Reginator]

While this message was intended to give hope, I see several problems with it:

First, it is implied that God actually imposes homosexuality on the victim. That would make God the author of evil.

Second, it makes it sound like God’s love is abusive and hurtful. Think about it. God comes to you, hits you in the face (i.e., gives you the curse of homosexuality) as hard as He can and says, “I love you.” Then, He proceeds to hit you again (worse than second class citizen status in the Church), “do you love Me?” That’s not conducive to trust, it’s more like a recipe for disaster.

Third, how is my suffering going to help ANYONE be drawn to Christ?

Fourth, how do I know that God won’t send me to Hell anyway?

Firstly, homosexuality is not evil. Only homosexual acts are.
That is why homosexuality is a cross to bare, just as, say, muscular dystrophy.

Secondly, the greater our hurt, the more faith we must have in our Saviour.
Consider this: The Father loves Jesus His Son. Yet He allowed Him to be torchered and die a humiliating death.
Disaster results from our reaction to our problems. If we rely on ourselves, indulge in our passions, and ignore God’s teaching, then we choose disaster for ourselves.

Thirdly, as with any time we suffer, we can join our sufferings with those of Jesus and offer them for the salvation of any souls in danger of hell. Nobody need notice this – as long as God knows what is in our hearts it can help. Pray, pray, pray!

Fourthly, God won’t send anyone to hell. They choose it themselves.

LCMS_No_More, I hope I’ve answered your concerns a little. It’s getting late and I’m not sure how well I’ve explained things. (Obviously, I didn’t get into any detailed explanations.)

 

[jbuttrey]

Hi

I was sexually abused by protestant male pastor and became addicted to Masterbation.

After one year as a Catholic, Christ came to me in the Eucharist and took
40 years of bondage away.

Join Courage it will do the same thing if the Eucharist isn’t powerful enough in your life yet.

Christ comes to heal us in the Eucharist

John Buttrey

For me to talk at your Parish about healing from sex abuse and sugar abuse

email me at wbuttrey@gmail.com

 

[Matthew1128]

The New Testament says women must cover their heads, slaves must obey their masters, and that men who have sexual relartionships with one another are every bad thing in the book.

The Old Testament says raped women who are single should be forced to marry the rapist (and the father must pay 20 silver sheckles), that disobedient children should be killed, and that gay men should be stoned to d eath.

Why do you choose to accept certain things, and not others? We can’t just take things as they are, I don’t think God would even want us to do that. The bible was written by HUMANS. There is a whole lot of truth that lies within it, but be realistic, the bible isn’t 100% truth (unless you believe in raped women being forced to marry and stoning children).

The church itself is imperfect. It was heresy to say that the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe, at one point. The church, and the bible, are imperfect - they are things of man - our relationship with God through The Holy Spirit is not. Pray, meditate, let The Holy Spirit speak to you. If what you feel is of love and compassion, the nature of God, then you know you’re on the right path.

Before returning to spirituality and Catholicism, I was an atheist for five years (which – some are anti-abortion, some aren’t, like any other group). During that time, I was EXTREMELY pro-choice, moreso than anyone you’d meet. But I used this method… I put my personal wants and desires for answers aside just to listen, just to hear them. I let The Holy Spirit communicate with me. And what I found has made me the most anti-abortion person I know. This was about submitting myself to God… beyond doctrine, institution, or pre-concieved ideas.

I did the same with homosexuality. I cannot find it within my heart, spirit, or being when trying to connect with God or any other time a single ounce of sin in being homosexual, or being in a healthy, loving homosexual relationship. Any cross to bear is created by a society that tells them they are wrong, not a God who created them that way and loves them exactly for how he made them. Not to mention, if you want to talk New Testament, an argument can be (and is) made that Paul was a repressed, self-hating homosexual… which, if this is the case, would make a whole lot of sense in terms of New Testament reference.

That, or we can stone children.

 

[Lynxdk]

First, it is implied that God actually imposes homosexuality on the victim. That would make God the author of evil.

That’s because you’re making the mistaken assumption that homosexuality is ~evil~ in the first place. People are who they are, they are who they’re ~meant~ to be, and some people are homosexual… Made By God…

Do the churches say it’s evil? Sure… but have you ever asked God about it directly? hmm?

 

[The_Reginator]

The church, and the bible, are imperfect - they are things of man - our relationship with God through The Holy Spirit is not.
The Church on earth is made up of imperfect human beings, but the Church has Jesus as her head and Her interpretations of the bible are guided by the Holy Spirit.

I cannot find it within my heart, spirit, or being when trying to connect with God or any other time a single ounce of sin in being homosexual, or being in a healthy, loving homosexual relationship. ** Any cross to bear is created by a society that tells them they are wrong, not a God who created them that way and loves them exactly for how he made them.**
God gives us all crosses to bear. Society may also give us crosses, but only because it is God’s will. Nothing in the whole of creation happens unless God either causes it or allows it. All that is good and all that is hard is sent to us for the good of our immortal souls. If we can accept, say, that being born without limbs is a cross to bear, why is it so hard to accept that God insisting that we live a celibate life is another form of cross? When you boil it down homosexuality is not the cross, the cross to bear is celibacy.

Not to mention, if you want to talk New Testament, an argument can be (and is) made that Paul was a repressed, self-hating homosexual… which, if this is the case, would make a whole lot of sense in terms of New Testament reference.

This is not a teaching of the Holy Spirit, but rather it comes from the minds of proud men who think they can understand history and scripture better than the Holy Spirit speaking through His Church. (I have my own huge chunk of pride, therefore I have to rely on the Church or else I’ll be thinking that I’m ‘oh so wise’.)

 

[The_Reginator]

That’s because you’re making the mistaken assumption that homosexuality is ~evil~ in the first place. People are who they are, they are who they’re ~meant~ to be, and some people are homosexual… Made By God…

Do the churches say it’s evil? Sure… but have you ever asked God about it directly? hmm?

Yes the Church has asked God about the evil of homosexual activity. If she hadn’t then there would be no teaching about it. Our job is to overcome our own wills and learn obedience.

 

[Vince1022]

Firstly, homosexuality is not evil. Only homosexual acts are.

Homosexual acts are not necessarily evil. They are objectively wrong.

 

[Matthew1128]

Yes the Church has asked God about the evil of homosexual activity. If she hadn’t then there would be no teaching about it. Our job is to overcome our own wills and learn obedience.

Obedience to the church, which has changed it’s views throughout history and has been responsible for death for claiming scientific facts we now know are true (the heliocentric theory)? Or obedience to God?

I’ve done what you said, and changed my views. I respect and love The Catholic Church. But I refuse to believe in its infallibility, especially when it is logically impossible to make the claim that it is infallible… it’s changed its views, it is responsible for millions of deaths… was this The Holy Spirit, or Man? Of course the church CLAIMS to be the final word of God, but are we to trust our fellow man on those claims? Or trust deep prayer, based in love, for the answers? I was open to homosexuality being a sin, I found out it wasn’t.

 

[Matthew1128]

Homosexual acts are not necessarily evil. They are objectively wrong.

Based on…?

 

[The_Reginator]

Mathew,
It seems to me that the problem here is one of understanding what the Catholic Church is.
I recently heard it described in this way: The Church is both an “it” and a “she”.
“It” is an institution run by men requiring a bureaucracy to keep it running. “It” is subject to error from time to time.
“She” however is a Divine Institution created by God with Jesus as Her head. Jesus made St. Peter the head of His Church on earth and this papacy has been passed down from age to age. When speaking of matters of faith and morals the Pope can speak infallibly. When we are disputing Church teaching we are disputing with a Church that is 2000 years old with Jesus as Her head, the rest of us as Her body. Divine truth has been entrusted to Her. The apostles were entrusted with the Sacred deposit of the faith. We still have that Sacred deposit.

Isn’t it rather presumptuous to think that one person can know the truth better than the Catholic Church simply by praying deeply but alone? The Church has been praying and been guided by the Holy Spirit since it’s institution by God. We cannot get the fullness of Truth all by ourselves. We are part of the Body of Christ. We can look for answers in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We can speak with priests that are loyal to Rome. We cannot do it by ourselves, especially when we are continually bombarded by the falseness of the world.

 

[Matthew1128]

Mathew,
It seems to me that the problem here is one of understanding what the Catholic Church is.
I recently heard it described in this way: The Church is both an “it” and a “she”.
“It” is an institution run by men requiring a bureaucracy to keep it running. “It” is subject to error from time to time.
“She” however is a Divine Institution created by God with Jesus as Her head. Jesus made St. Peter the head of His Church on earth and this papacy has been passed down from age to age. When speaking of matters of faith and morals the Pope can speak infallibly. When we are disputing Church teaching we are disputing with a Church that is 2000 years old with Jesus as Her head, the rest of us as Her body. Divine truth has been entrusted to Her. The apostles were entrusted with the Sacred deposit of the faith. We still have that Sacred deposit.

Isn’t it rather presumptuous to think that one person can know the truth better than the Catholic Church simply by praying deeply but alone? The Church has been praying and been guided by the Holy Spirit since it’s institution by God. We cannot get the fullness of Truth all by ourselves. We are part of the Body of Christ. We can look for answers in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We can speak with priests that are loyal to Rome. We cannot do it by ourselves, especially when we are continually bombarded by the falseness of the world.

Again, I ask, what then of the fact that the church has changed its own views throughout history? Has truth somehow changed over time?

What of the crusades? Was that of divine inspiration?

I don’t think it is presumptuous to question and challenge an authority of Earth that claims to be an institution representing the only real authority - to form a personal relationship with God (this can be tricky, as one has to be careful as to whether it is God speaking or not). I believe it is blind to follow it without question, not only blind, but wholly illogical because as I said - the church has changed its views, not to mention has a history of corruption.

Am I claiming the Pope and top authorities are not inspired by The Holy Spirit? Of course not. I’m claiming that they, like we, are human - and get caught up in rote obedience rather than an objective analysis of the scripture they like to quote to defend such evils as homophobia, etc.

 

[The_Reginator]

Again, I ask, what then of the fact that the church has changed its own views throughout history? Has truth somehow changed over time?
Here is an old thread on this issue: Unchanging?

No, let us be very clear. The Church teachings, dogma & canon, WILL NEVER CHANGE. Practice may change, but the foundational beliefs will not.

Since I don’t feel that I can answer your concerns satisfactorily I’ve started an new thread: what then of the fact that the church has changed its own views throughout history? Has truth somehow changed over time? What of the crusades? Was that of divine inspiration?

I hope this helps us understand the Church better.
Reg.

 

[Matthew1128]

Since I don’t feel that I can answer your concerns satisfactorily I’ve started an new thread: what then of the fact that the church has changed its own views throughout history? Has truth somehow changed over time? What of the crusades? Was that of divine inspiration?

I hope this helps us understand the Church better.
Reg.

First, very interesting thread, thanks for posting!

Second, in terms of moral teachings, I could make an argument in specific situations where it has changed - but it’s irrelevant. The fact that The Pope is supposedly infallible, yet any kind of stances have changed over time, contradicts this notion. By logic, it is impossible for the claims of The Pope (as a general position) to be infallible, due to historical contradictions of any kind… God didn’t change His mind on the reality of the heliocentric theory as soon as it appeared as a theory. Why a moral teaching somehow has bearing over any other teaching, in terms of proving The Pope (as a general position) is always correct in the name of God, is beyond me. Therefore, The Pope’s view on ANYTHING does not hold absolute value - The Pope, and therefore the church, may be wrong on some things.

I don’t accept Earthly authorities at face value - I don’t intrinsically trust any institution. I trust God and believe in God in the absolute - that’s it. But to unquestionably believe an institution claiming to represent God, simply because they say so, to me seems dangerous.

 

[Newbie2]

The New Testament says women must cover their heads, slaves must obey their masters, and that men who have sexual relartionships with one another are every bad thing in the book.

The Old Testament says raped women who are single should be forced to marry the rapist (and the father must pay 20 silver sheckles), that disobedient children should be killed, and that gay men should be stoned to d eath.

Why do you choose to accept certain things, and not others? We can’t just take things as they are, I don’t think God would even want us to do that. The bible was written by HUMANS. There is a whole lot of truth that lies within it, but be realistic, the bible isn’t 100% truth (unless you believe in raped women being forced to marry and stoning children).

The church itself is imperfect. It was heresy to say that the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe, at one point. The church, and the bible, are imperfect - they are things of man - our relationship with God through The Holy Spirit is not. Pray, meditate, let The Holy Spirit speak to you. If what you feel is of love and compassion, the nature of God, then you know you’re on the right path.

Before returning to spirituality and Catholicism, I was an atheist for five years (which – some are anti-abortion, some aren’t, like any other group). During that time, I was EXTREMELY pro-choice, moreso than anyone you’d meet. But I used this method… I put my personal wants and desires for answers aside just to listen, just to hear them. I let The Holy Spirit communicate with me. And what I found has made me the most anti-abortion person I know. This was about submitting myself to God… beyond doctrine, institution, or pre-concieved ideas.

I did the same with homosexuality. I cannot find it within my heart, spirit, or being when trying to connect with God or any other time a single ounce of sin in being homosexual, or being in a healthy, loving homosexual relationship. Any cross to bear is created by a society that tells them they are wrong, not a God who created them that way and loves them exactly for how he made them. Not to mention, if you want to talk New Testament, an argument can be (and is) made that Paul was a repressed, self-hating homosexual… which, if this is the case, would make a whole lot of sense in terms of New Testament reference.

That, or we can stone children.

Friend, seems to me that your knowledge of scripture is woefully inadequate, both from a perspective about how scripture is to be used and about the meaning of the content of scripture.

If you believe someone other than God to be the author of scripture, in an inspired sense, then please don’t call yourself Christian 'cuz it ain’t so. Rather, you need to take the time to learn about scripture and learn scripture itself.

What exactly is healthy about a healthy homosexual relationship? Where on earth does one get the idea that St. Paul was homosexual? If one believes that, what’s preventing one to believe such blasphemy that Christ himself was homosexual?

These ideas are so bizarre that I don’t quite know how to respond in charity.

First, very interesting thread, thanks for posting!

Second, in terms of moral teachings, I could make an argument in specific situations where it has changed - but it’s irrelevant. The fact that The Pope is supposedly infallible, yet any kind of stances have changed over time, contradicts this notion. By logic, it is impossible for the claims of The Pope (as a general position) to be infallible, due to historical contradictions of any kind… God didn’t change His mind on the reality of the heliocentric theory as soon as it appeared as a theory. Why a moral teaching somehow has bearing over any other teaching, in terms of proving The Pope (as a general position) is always correct in the name of God, is beyond me. Therefore, The Pope’s view on ANYTHING does not hold absolute value - The Pope, and therefore the church, may be wrong on some things.

I don’t accept Earthly authorities at face value - I don’t intrinsically trust any institution. I trust God and believe in God in the absolute - that’s it. But to unquestionably believe an institution claiming to represent God, simply because they say so, to me seems dangerous.

Seems like you feel that you’re somehow blessed with a knowledge of the Almighty that religioius “institutions” all fail to have?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Struggling Catholic homosexuals may want to listen to Peter Kreeft’s elucidating talk on Moral Theology and Homosexuality, at St. Michael’s College in Toronto back in 2002. Unfortunately, I could not find a transcript for those who might want to read text instead of listening to an MP3 file.

It’s an hour long, well worth it, the last 20 minutes devoted to an excellent Q&A segment. Anyone who listens would agree why Dr. Kreeft is a sought after speaker on matters of faith.

See here to view the outline.

You would hear many noteworthy arguments if you listen to the talk yourself. From my notes, following are what I took away from the talk:

1. If one is Catholic, he/she accepts that the Church has theological and moral authority.
2. Sex is sacred. It is an act invariably described as ecstatic, not unlike how mystics describe their experience in finding closeness with God. The sex act creates life; it is how/when God comes in to our lives, when a soul comes into being.
3. Homosexuals have difficulty with or do not accept the distinction Church makes in the teaching, love the sinner, hate the sin. This is because homosexuals identify themselves with their act (sodomy).
4. Dr. Kreeft asks this of Catholic homosexuals: which is your religion (belief)? Catholic or homosexuality?
5. Morality is unchanging in: all humans are to be loved and respected, homosexual acts are wrong. Homosexuals accept the first, but not the second. If some of the cargo is deemed no longer useful by one or a group of people, said cargo cannot be thrown overboard.
6. The Church is accused of being intolerant and bigoted, but it is actually the friend of homosexuals. Just look at what happened 50+ years ago in Nazi Germany, where the Church stood as Hitler sent Jews and homosexuals to the gas chambers.
7. If the Church does away with one or more teachings, she will cease to be the deliverer of the message of truth but would instead take the role of author or partial author.
8. Before you tear down a moral tradition, understand it first. If you don’t understand it, it is not a reason for it to be torn down.
9. Now there will always be Catholics, even leaders of the Church, who do not practice what the Church teaches. This is no less than hypocrisy, not to be followed, but not a reason to debunk the teaching. Notwithstanding the betrayals and sins in the ranks and hierarchy of the Catholic Church, no teaching on faith and morals in her long history has been changed.
10. Definition of sin: it is a wrongdoing, what you do, not what you are (being).
11. Factors to consider with the rightness or wrongness of a deed, subject to moral criteria:

a. Act itself, which is objective and absolute
b. Intention or motive, which is subjective and absolute
c. Circumstance or situation, which is objective and relative

1. On the issue on faithful and loving homosexual relationships: It is a mixture of agape and eros, consisting of good intention but it is nevertheless the wrong act. Similarly, euthanasia consists of merciful and loving intention, but it is intrinsically wrong.
2. Dr. Kreeft agrees that sodomy need not be recriminalized, although it remains sinful, for practical and political purposes. Going back to penalties for the act would be like re-instituting the inquisition.
3. In reply to a question, Dr. Kreeft agrees that tolerance (which has a prejudicial connotation as felt more by homosexuals on this issue) is not acceptance. The Church and Catholics do not tolerate a good thing, it tolerates a bad thing. The Church and Catholics accept a good thing, does not accept a bad thing.

God bless.

. . . . . .

 

[The_Reginator]

First, very interesting thread, thanks for posting!

Second, in terms of moral teachings, I could make an argument in specific situations where it has changed - but it’s irrelevant. The fact that The Pope is supposedly infallible, yet any kind of stances have changed over time, contradicts this notion. By logic, it is impossible for the claims of The Pope (as a general position) to be infallible, due to historical contradictions of any kind… God didn’t change His mind on the reality of the heliocentric theory as soon as it appeared as a theory. Why a moral teaching somehow has bearing over any other teaching, in terms of proving The Pope (as a general position) is always correct in the name of God, is beyond me. Therefore, The Pope’s view on ANYTHING does not hold absolute value - The Pope, and therefore the church, may be wrong on some things.

As far a papal infallibility goes I suggest you read True meaning of infallibility from The Catholic Encyclopedia.
Here’s an excerpt:

…infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

* The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

AND

It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter’s successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.

See also forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=582927.

I don’t accept Earthly authorities at face value - I don’t intrinsically trust any institution. I trust God and believe in God in the absolute - that’s it. But to unquestionably believe an institution claiming to represent God, simply because they say so, to me seems dangerous

By accepting the teachings of the Catholic Church you are accepting a heavenly authority. The Church is the body of Christ with Jesus as its head. The Church includes all saints – in heaven everyone is Catholic. The earthly Church cannot be separated from the communion of the saints.
All Catholics must learn humble submission to God through His Church.

 

[Vince1022]

Based on…?

Church teaching.

e.g. CCC 2357 ff.

CDF teaching on homosexual unions: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

No description of acts being “evil” here. Disordered, depraved, morally wrong…yes.

 

[Vince1022]

Again, I ask, what then of the fact that the church has changed its own views throughout history? Has truth somehow changed over time?

No, of course truth has not changed. Our understanding of the truth has. And our application of our understanding of truth always depends on current circumstances.