Catholic Perspective on Gov't and Homosexuality

[Soulstorm]

Ok there are two extremes on this subject

One on side you have secular governments who at worst will kill you or at the very least punish you for being homosexual and committing sodomy. (ex. Saudi Arabia, African nations)

On the other side you have government fully endorsing homosexuality, not only accepting it but making it an added offense to hurt someone because they were gay in the similar manner as racially motivated crimes.

What I want to know is where is the perfect ideal for Catholic beliefs on this matter? Here is the statement of the Catechism.

2357

…Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, Tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358

The number of men and women who have deep seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fufil God’s will in their lives and if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. 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 bold part I felt was important to make note in this discussion. I’m guessing that the perfect place a Faithful Catholic would want their government to be does not include punishing people with prison, fines, or death for committing the sin of sodomy.

I’m completely at a loss on this issue so please comment with your thoughts.

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

As I read this, and the related documents on homosexuality from the Vatican, Catholics should not endorse or support laws that would imprison, much less kill homosexual persons for “sodomy.” I would personally argue that it also makes sense to have laws that protect people from bullying on the basis of sexual orientation – Catholics of different stripes can argue back and forth about what exactly “sexual orientation” is, and whether it’s real, and whether or not people ought to identify as gay or lesbian, but the fact is that sometimes people are subjected to real violence because they are perceived to be gay. This was true before people started to come out of the closet, and it is also true now. These people may be completely innocent of any homosexual acts (I was just reading a blog last night from a Christian lady who was severely bullied throughout her adolescence for being a lesbian – even though she never had a girlfriend or any same-sex sexual experience during that period.) This is hateful behaviour, and it is directed towards a minority who are, in some sense, visible (same-sex attracted people who are not visibly identifiable as LGBTQ are not generally the victims of anti-gay bullying), so I would say that yes, government protections are in order.

 

[robbie20]

As a gay celibate Catholic I do think there is a little validaty to the gay rights movement… We’re not talking about marriage here… We’re talking about Uganda and Saudi Arabia that are chopping people’s heads off…

The validity to the gay rights movement comes here:

The right to be free from discrimination… This obvisouly excludes marriage and adoption and what not; but I don’t think someone should be allowed to fire me just because I have SSA and identify as gay… No matter what their objections are… Firing someone over something they can’t help (I’m just saying SSA; if they’re sexually active it’s different)…

If I’m bleeding from a gunshot wound and a doctor doesn’t want to treat me because I’m gay that’s a load of junk; he took an oath to treat everyone in danger regardless of whoever they might be (Hippocratic Oath)…

The right to be free from violence… I do got out with my other gay friends to clubs and what not… I don’t think Timothy the college football player who thinks homosexuality is a sin has a right to grab me in the street and punch the lights out of me… Or the right to be free from police pearing into my social circle…

These are just simple things that people like me want…

I personally think gay rights should only cover discrimination and violence…

This is my quote from an earlier thread…

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

I’m guessing that the perfect place a Faithful Catholic would want their government to be does not include punishing people with prison, fines, or death for committing the sin of sodomy.

Absolutely. (The boldface emphasis is mine). They will know we are Christians by our love, as the saying goes. To persecute homosexuals for homosexuality is not to be tolerated in our goverment from a Catholic perspective.

 

[markomalley]

Ok there are two extremes on this subject

One on side you have secular governments who at worst will kill you or at the very least punish you for being homosexual and committing sodomy. (ex. Saudi Arabia, African nations)

On the other side you have government fully endorsing homosexuality, not only accepting it but making it an added offense to hurt someone because they were gay in the similar manner as racially motivated crimes.

What I want to know is where is the perfect ideal for Catholic beliefs on this matter? Here is the statement of the Catechism.

The bold part I felt was important to make note in this discussion. I’m guessing that the perfect place a Faithful Catholic would want their government to be does not include punishing people with prison, fines, or death for committing the sin of sodomy.

I’m completely at a loss on this issue so please comment with your thoughts.

There are extensive writings from the Church regarding the treatment of those with homosexual inclination. The most extensive list can be found here (doctrinal documents from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

I know of no Vatican issuance that speaks specifically to the punishment of those who commit sodomy. Including the condoning of that behavior, tolerating that behavior, or, in fact, decriminalizing that behavior. The quote you highlighted refers to tendencies, not behaviors (e.g., sodomy).

I don’t think that the Church would advocate decriminalizing sodomy any more than the Church would advocate decriminalizing pedophilia or rape. I think that the Church teaches that engaging in that behavior is harmful to the individuals, themselves, and is harmful to society at large. And the Church teaches that society has a right to protect itself.

This is not to say that the Church would condone burning at the stake, beheading, a firing squad, or even an excessive prison sentence. Justice must be tempered by prudence.

When you look at the issue of laws in Africa or laws in Saudi Arabia or laws elsewhere you should determine whether those laws penalize one for having homosexual tendencies or manifesting those tendencies in sexual impropriety (impropriety according to the teachings of the Church).

In some cases, those laws are simply not just. But saying that the specific penalty imposed by a law does not serve justice is not the same as saying that a law should not exist.

 

[Soulstorm]

There are extensive writings from the Church regarding the treatment of those with homosexual inclination. The most extensive list can be found here (doctrinal documents from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

I know of no Vatican issuance that speaks specifically to the punishment of those who commit sodomy. Including the condoning of that behavior, tolerating that behavior, or, in fact, decriminalizing that behavior. The quote you highlighted refers to tendencies, not behaviors (e.g., sodomy).

I don’t think that the Church would advocate decriminalizing sodomy any more than the Church would advocate decriminalizing pedophilia or rape. I think that the Church teaches that engaging in that behavior is harmful to the individuals, themselves, and is harmful to society at large. And the Church teaches that society has a right to protect itself.

This is not to say that the Church would condone burning at the stake, beheading, a firing squad, or even an excessive prison sentence. Justice must be tempered by prudence.

When you look at the issue of laws in Africa or laws in Saudi Arabia or laws elsewhere you should determine whether those laws penalize one for having homosexual tendencies or manifesting those tendencies in sexual impropriety (impropriety according to the teachings of the Church).

In some cases, those laws are simply not just. But saying that the specific penalty imposed by a law does not serve justice is not the same as saying that a law should not exist.

First I would ask what secular punishment would be valid for someone who is openly homosexual or who commits sodomy?

 

[rom422]

I think that the purpose of civil laws is not to make people holy, but to protect life, property, peace and order … in other words, the common good.

In many countries there are civil laws that prohibit theft or stealing because it is the function of the government to protect people’s private property. But there are no civil laws that prohibit failing to go to Church on Sundays, or committing immoral acts like masturbation, fornication, etc. because these activities - although immoral in themselves - hardly have consequences that violate the common good. However, although civil laws should not prohibit these immoral acts, they also should not encourage or endorse them.

In view of the above, I think I want a government that does not punish the gays and the lesbians for just being homosexuals. I also don’t think that there should be legislation prohibiting sodomy, just as there should be none prohibiting fornication. HOWEVER, there should be legislation in place that would protect people from criminal and civil damages resulting from other people’s irresponsible or immoral behavior. For example, a person with HIV virus, who knew about his condition, conceals it from his partner, and engages in sodomy in spite of the risks, should be punished by law. But this principle applies not only to homosexuals, but to fornicators as well, etc.

Just my opinion.

 

[markomalley]

First I would ask what secular punishment would be valid for someone who is openly homosexual or who commits sodomy?

The Manual for Courts Martial has the maximum penalty as 5 years + forfeiture of all pay and allowances + a dishonorable discharge. That seems reasonable to me.

 

[St_Francis]

There is a difference between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual behavior. I think that the government has the authority to punish (within reason, and wrt the situation in that place and time) all sexual activity outside marriage or some, but the government also has the authority to tolerate, in its perviois definition of to turn a blind eye to, some or all sexual activity oitside of marriage.

However, I do not believe that simply because a person is preceived by others as homosexual that that should in any way be even noticed. If a man seems “gay” because of effeminacy or a woman be so perceived because of unusually masculine traits (I imagine this is what people are rederring to when they say other people kknow their orientation) well, that’s not something for government or anyone else to even notice.

However, as a general rule when someone “identified themself” as “gay” or does things like going to gatherings of homosexuals, then it seems that they are at a minimum putting themselves into a tempting situation, which is peculiar if one is trying to maintain one’s celibacy. Not that I am in any way condoning people’s beating up on participants nor that the government should go after them either, but as a personal thing.

And there is a question of prudent avoidance of danger. While a woman has a total right to not be raped, she should still take care and avoid dangerous times and places.

 

[Soulstorm]

The Manual for Courts Martial has the maximum penalty as 5 years + forfeiture of all pay and allowances + a dishonorable discharge. That seems reasonable to me.

First I’d like to mention that 5 years in prison for acting on homosexuality seems far too much punishment. For example indecent exposure would probably have a lighter sentence than the one you have put up and that is exposing sexual organs out to the public!

To be honest I didn’t know Don’t Ask Don’t Tell had such harsh penalties on exposed homosexuals, I knew they’d lose their pay and allowance as well as being dishonorably discharged but I didn’t think they’d add 5 years in jail or probation!

One more thing, if you apply this punishment for homosexual acts or support of such acts would you also do so in the case of adultery? What about masturbation in private?

 

[manualman]

The reason we are losing this argument in the court of public opinion is that we have allowed the argument to be framed incorrectly.

Today’s ‘defenders of marriage’ believe they are defending traditional marriage defined as “the union of a man and woman who love each other, wish to publicly celebrate that love for each other and make it a lifelong committment to each other.”

Gay activists complain that this definition unfairly and arbitrarily excludes them. You know what? They’re RIGHT! That’s why we’re losing. (READ ON before responding!)

We’re losing because we’ve been suckered into defending a faulty definition of “traditional marriage.” Traditional marriage has been under assault since the 1920’s. And we lost that battle badly. The ACTUAL traditional definition of marriage was “the union of a man and a woman in a permanent bond of self sacrificial love so profound that it is fundamentally ordered towards the creation and nurturing of new life.”

Any dope can see that two gay men aren’t eligible for that sort of relationship. It’s so deeply true that it is physically visible; it manifests itself in the inherent sterility of their relationship. Traditional marriage was lost and gay marriage became inevitable when the contraceptive advocates gutted marriage of its procreative identity and made it merely about the feelings of the couple. No wonder we’re such narcicists in this culture!

 

[markomalley]

First I’d like to mention that 5 years in prison for acting on homosexuality seems far too much punishment. For example indecent exposure would probably have a lighter sentence than the one you have put up and that is exposing sexual organs out to the public!

To be honest I didn’t know Don’t Ask Don’t Tell had such harsh penalties on exposed homosexuals, I knew they’d lose their pay and allowance as well as being dishonorably discharged but I didn’t think they’d add 5 years in jail or probation!

One more thing, if you apply this punishment for homosexual acts or support of such acts would you also do so in the case of adultery? What about masturbation in private?

Is it?

The UCMJ (10 U.S.C. Chapter 47) says the following:

§ 925. ART. 125. SODOMY (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

This was not put in place in 1993 when don’t ask don’t tell was imposed upon the military by Mr. Clinton. This was part of US law since 1950 when the UCMJ was passed by Congress and signed by Mr. Truman. But sodomy was considered a crime before 1950, as well.

Look, for example, at this extract from the 1920 Articles of War:

ART. 93. VARIOUS CRIMES.–Any person subject to military law who commits manslaughter, mayhem, arson, burglary, housebreaking, robbery, larceny, embezzlement, perjury, forgery, sodomy, assault with intent to commit any felony, assault with intent to do bodily harm with a dangerous weapon, instrument, or other thing, or assault with intent to do bodily harm, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Prior to 1993, they asked. They pursued.

 

[Soulstorm]

Ok, I would like to know your opinion on how this view matches with the Catechism saying

Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

And I’d like to hear your opinion if people should be jailed for an equal amount of time for fornication, masturbation, adultery, and other sexual sins? Granted masturbation already has a penalty to it as indecent exposure, but would you be ok with a wife being allowed to jail their husband for adultery or vice versa?

 

[robbie20]

DADT resulted in an honorable discharge after 1993

 

[robbie20]

There is a difference between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual behavior. I think that the government has the authority to punish (within reason, and wrt the situation in that place and time) all sexual activity outside marriage or some, but the government also has the authority to tolerate, in its perviois definition of to turn a blind eye to, some or all sexual activity oitside of marriage.

However, I do not believe that simply because a person is preceived by others as homosexual that that should in any way be even noticed. If a man seems “gay” because of effeminacy or a woman be so perceived because of unusually masculine traits (I imagine this is what people are rederring to when they say other people kknow their orientation) well, that’s not something for government or anyone else to even notice.

However, as a general rule when someone “identified themself” as “gay” or does things like going to gatherings of homosexuals, then it seems that they are at a minimum putting themselves into a tempting situation, which is peculiar if one is trying to maintain one’s celibacy. Not that I am in any way condoning people’s beating up on participants nor that the government should go after them either, but as a personal thing.

And there is a question of prudent avoidance of danger. While a woman has a total right to not be raped, she should still take care and avoid dangerous times and places.

Francis let me play devil’s advocate because I am that sissy gay person you want locked up… If I want to have sex… I’m going to have sex… If I want to go to a gay bar; I am going to get into a gay bar…

The laws you are proposing have all been struck down as Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court… Are you suggesting a sodomy amendment to the Constitution?

 

[markomalley]

Ok, I would like to know your opinion on how this view matches with the Catechism saying

Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

And I’d like to hear your opinion if people should be jailed for an equal amount of time for fornication, masturbation, adultery, and other sexual sins? Granted masturbation already has a penalty to it as indecent exposure, but would you be ok with a wife being allowed to jail their husband for adultery or vice versa?

In fact, adultery, according to the MCM, is punishable by 1 year confinement, loss of all pay and benefits, and a dishonorable discharge. Cohabitation is punishable by confinement for 4 months and loss of 2/3 pay for those 4 months.

Just sayin’

ON EDIT: to add: I don’t have a problem with the phrase you quoted from the Catechism. For it doesn’t refer to people who give in to their temptations and act on those homosexual tendencies, it refers to people who are merely tempted.

And, on the subject of “unjust discrimination”, you may wish to refer to a 1992 CDF note that, in part, clarifies the meaning of “unjust discrimination:”

1. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.
2. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

You may also wish to refer to the 1986 letter from the CDF to the world’s bishops on the subject of the homosexual problem (part of the text from which was used to form the paragraph out of the CCC that you referenced):

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.

Again, just sayin’

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

There are extensive writings from the Church regarding the treatment of those with homosexual inclination. The most extensive list can be found here (doctrinal documents from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

I know of no Vatican issuance that speaks specifically to the punishment of those who commit sodomy. Including the condoning of that behavior, tolerating that behavior, or, in fact, decriminalizing that behavior. The quote you highlighted refers to tendencies, not behaviors (e.g., sodomy).

I don’t think that the Church would advocate decriminalizing sodomy any more than the Church would advocate decriminalizing pedophilia or rape. I think that the Church teaches that engaging in that behavior is harmful to the individuals, themselves, and is harmful to society at large. And the Church teaches that society has a right to protect itself.

This is not to say that the Church would condone burning at the stake, beheading, a firing squad, or even an excessive prison sentence. Justice must be tempered by prudence.

When you look at the issue of laws in Africa or laws in Saudi Arabia or laws elsewhere you should determine whether those laws penalize one for having homosexual tendencies or manifesting those tendencies in sexual impropriety (impropriety according to the teachings of the Church).

In some cases, those laws are simply not just. But saying that the specific penalty imposed by a law does not serve justice is not the same as saying that a law should not exist.

…
I… what… are you serious…

consensual sodomy while sinful is not even close to child molestation and rape in terms of damage to society.

The Manual for Courts Martial has the maximum penalty as 5 years + forfeiture of all pay and allowances + a dishonorable discharge. That seems reasonable to me.

anti-sodomy laws were struck down because they were really only targeting homosexuals for enforcement when heterosexuals can and do commit sodomy often

Francis let me play devil’s advocate because I am that sissy gay person you want locked up… If I want to have sex… I’m going to have sex… If I want to go to a gay bar; I am going to get into a gay bar…

The laws you are proposing have all been struck down as Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court… Are you suggesting a sodomy amendment to the Constitution?

Define sissy. I would suggest you stay the hell away from gay bars, nothing good comes out of them.

 

[robbie20]

…
I… what… are you serious…

consensual sodomy while sinful is not even close to child molestation and rape in terms of damage to society.

anti-sodomy laws were struck down because they were really only targeting homosexuals for enforcement when heterosexuals can and do commit sodomy often

Define sissy. I would suggest you stay the hell away from gay bars, nothing good comes out of them.

Dakota I was playing devil’s adovocate… I’m gay and I’ve got the whole preppy clothes and high pitch voice going…

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota I was playing devil’s adovocate… I’m gay and I’ve got the whole preppy clothes ans high pitch voice going…

preppy clothes are fine, but don’t start mincing your words or being limp-wristed, for your own sake. Also dropping the voice an octave (or at least a half) would be a worthwhile endeavour.

 

[andrewstx]

Mark you should look agian at the laws yo keep qoteing.

They are now invalid and dadt is over, gone, cuput.