Catholics cannot accept gay marriage, pope says

[rlg94086]

Should a genetic basis for homosexuality emerge prior to our becoming fully human, what would your reaction be?

I’ll worry about it, if it actually happens. I doubt it.

James1215:

We can already trace back the lineages of various parts of DNA to way before we were human, so it would be possible to prove in theory. We can see our bacterial heritage in our mitochondria, for example.

So, if we found a genetic basis for murderous rage, you would exempt those folks from being condemned for murder? Genetic predisposition means absolutely nothing, when it comes to morality.

 

[rlg94086]

If gay relationships had never been approved of, they would still be right. It is not good for man to be alone (the Bible tells us). If it is a man’s nature to seek the company of another man,** he ought to be in a relationship with him in a way consummate with his natural desires**.

So, if his “natural desire” is to be with an animal, would that be okay? If not, why not? If his “natural desire” is to be with his mother or brother, would that be okay? If not, why not?

 

[irishpatrick]

Yes indeed Jesus said marriage is between a man and a woman, but he did not say it wasn’t for gay people too! Jesus did not say gay sex was sinful, and it would have been a contradiction if He had. Therefore, we can presume that there ought to be a legitimate form of recognition for serious gay unions. Don’t you agree?

Yes He did!

Jesus is God–the Second Person in the Holy Trinity.

Everything that ever was, or ever will be, came through and for Jesus.

Every revealed Word in the Bible, and every known truth in the Church, comes from Jesus.

Therefore, Jesus has spoken many times about marriage, and He has said many times that homosexual acts are gravely sinful. This is the unchangeable, infallible truth that the Church has always held and always will hold.
**
Way to go Pope Benedict VXI–the current Vicar of Christ!**

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Not quite an accurate statement. There is clearly a genetic relationship, based on the results of identical twin studies. It is also true that a specific genome sequence has not yet been identified.

Not true. Can you cite any study that backs up your position? Is it the result of legitimate, impartial research, or skewed data promulgated by a gay researcher/ My money is on the latter.
The whole gay propaganda thing started in the 1960’s when a gay multi-millionaire in California died and left his fortune to the Matachine Society for the purpose of changing society’s opposition to homosexuality. The first thing the Matachine Society did was to hire several important public relation firms to outline a strategy for attaining that goal. The rest is history.
However the gay community fails to realize that what they have achieved is not tolerance. Homosexuality is not accepted by the mass of people in the US, Canada, and Europe. At best they are tolerated.
In addition, the best estimate of the number of homosexuals of all persuasions in Western Society is 12%. So how come 12% of society dictate to the majority that 5000= years of conventional morality is wrong? It is propaganda on a par with pre-WWII Nazi propaganda about their invincibility and Soviet propaganda that Stalin was kindly “Uncle Joe”.

 

[Elizabeth502]

There may be some on this site who are actually qualified as biblical scholars, but that requires an understanding of the Greek language, and the culture of the time, since Professor McNeill’s argument was founded in part of what he viewed to be a faulty translation, one loaded with cultural bias.

in which case McNeil did not understand “the culture of the time,” nor Mosaic law. It is unequivocal that homosexual behavior was condemned by Mosaic law; it is unequivocal that Jesus was a devout follower of the Mosaic law, and represented its fullness. The history is unequivocal that Jews distinguished themselves from the Romans quite deliberately in several areas – one of which was assimilation of homosexuality as routine within the Roman culture. And all of the biblical scholarship which I personally respect (Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic) from the combined body of work of these Greek & Hebrew scholars, supports this view.

And in any case, it would have been a completely unthinkable proposition to the Jews of Jesus’ time (and therefore to Jesus Himself) that homosexuals should “marry” - IOW, that there should be some kind of institutionalized, state recogniition of a theoretically parallel or equivalent pairing to heterosexual arrangements, and/or a religious celebration of such pairings – formalized by the religious authorities.

Anything else is a thorough failure to understand the anthropology and history of the ancient Mediterranean.

Further, McNeil is one of the founders of Dignity, a group which which opposes Church teaching on sexuality. This guy has an agenda, major. In his Foreword are some rather inaccurate statements which hardly bolster any argument about his “scholarship.” The additional politically charged comments in the Foreward about how “the Vatican hates all things gay” merely reinforces the polemic nature of this book, and its obvious lack of objectivity. He also pulls out the tired, discredited Sin of Sodom as “inhospitality” – a subject which has been thoroughly discussed on this forum and in many scholarly venues. The entire Foreward is a study in emotionally charged rhetoric and is one of the most unbalanced pieces I have ever read.

And I love his sources being the cough APA and the NYT.

And here’s the clincher with regard to his cough objectivity:

As a gay Catholic theologian and psychotherapist…

Yeah, he’s not biased. Please.

 

[Elizabeth502]

In addition, the best estimate of the number of homosexuals of all persuasions in Western Society is 12%.

That’s a lot higher than current, more accurate estimates of around 3%. Remember that the 12% figure arose during the sloppy Kinsey research and tabulations which folded into the 12% any person who had ever experimented even once with a homosexual act of any kind.

 

[the_phoenix]

I support the Pope, 100%

Same here.

Welcome to CAF, by the way!

 

[someguy14]

I enjoyed his speech.

Proverbs 13:24 KJV
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes .

 

[SanAgustin]

Okay. As soon you find out whether or not there is a genetic basis, you should get to work on proving that Adam and Eve were both born with it. In the meantime, I’ll just stick with Church teaching.

Actually, I don’t know what a genetic explanation for it proves or disproves. I’m kind of curious what people on either side think.

If you look at it outside of any theology, a genetic predisposition for homosexual attraction doesn’t bring value to the evolutionary bottom line, that shouldn’t be a controversial statement no?

A generic predisposition also doesn’t mean that something is natural, or desirable. I don’t want to compare a homosexual attraction to a disease, but if you make the genetic argument, can’t you then compare it to a genetic disorder?

I’m not sure what the genetic argument brings to the table. Is it a way to say that because its a built in orientation, even if we say that it is wrong, you are not culpable because of genetics?

Looking forward to any opinions on this …

 

[Elizabeth502]

SanAgustin,
The “genetic” claim is a back-door way of legitimizing homosexual behavior as (a) predetermined, (b) designed specifically by God, and therefore something to be acted upon (c) “requiring” action upon such a “predisposition” as an aspect of justice and charity (d) equating homosexual relationships with heterosexual ones.

 

[Fiasco]

Theres a book by Dutch psychoanalyst Gerard van den Aardweg, titled "The Battle for Normality". Its published by Ignatius Press; and apparently buries the so-called “gay gene” lie. I was told about it, less than a week ago, by someone who used to be heavily involved with “Courage”. She said Dr van den Aardweg is a devout Catholic.
Four copies have been ordered.
It`s only a short book - 157 pages, so maybe as many concerned Catholics as possible should get one.

Dr Jeffrey Satinover authored a book titled “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”. He, too, rejects the “gay gene” lie.

Thanks be to God for Pope Benedict XVI!

 

[SanAgustin]

Thanks for your replies, but for the sake of argument, I’d like to hear what the arguments are if we assumed that there is such a thing as a “gay gene”.

In my view, I don’t see how it changes the situation much. I kind of see it like how Catholic Answer explains it;

archive.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable “lifestyle” any more than homosexuality is.

See, if there is a genetic predisposition, or we see that behavior in animals it doesn’t say much about its morality, no?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Thanks for your replies, but for the sake of argument, I’d like to hear what the arguments are if we assumed that there is such a thing as a “gay gene.” In my view, I don’t see how it changes the situation much.

Then why is it so important to be discussing it, since you agree that it doesn’t change the immorality of it?

People are born with all kinds of disordered attractions, tendencies, preferences, and even with organic conditions such as Tourette’s and other conditions that are problematic in terms of interrelationships, socially acceptable behavior, and morality/legality itself. People can discipline themselves, or be trained with certain clinical conditions, not to indulge in the disordered inclination, whatever it is.

However, there is still something very fundamental that you apparently do not understand, and is often dismissed by other posters on CAF who want to narrow it to a “gay gene.” Psychiatrists and psychologists, as a scientific community, agree that sexuality is not a “given” from birth, because we are born essentially asexual beings whose sexuality develops in response to experiences with other people (validation, rejection, invitation, etc) – beginning before we are aware of this, and continuing after we become aware of it. Whatever would be “a” or even “a primary” tendency at birth is affected, molded, modified, by what occurs in our lives, positively and negatively, throughout early childhood and adolesence. Sexuality is a dynamic. It’s not a static, fixed reality. It’s relational. I’ve known plenty of “effeminate” men who are heterosexual and have never had a single homosexual experience, but whose personality tends more to the affective side, and has (by their account) from early childhood: they were always more sensitive, more tender, more giving, etc., than other boys. With different experiences, they might have turned out with a different orientation. Sexuality is not deterministic, no matter what the “genetic predisposition” or cluster is or is not. It evolves, includes learned responses, and is not a data point.

 

[SanAgustin]

Then why is it so important to be discussing it, since you agree that it doesn’t change the immorality of it?

It seems important because people keep bringing it up (read the thread). I’m asking the question because even if it is accepted, I don’t see it changing the moral teaching of the Church regarding it. However, since people bring it up, I’m curious to see why they would think it might make the homosexual act more acceptable.

However, there is still something very fundamental that you apparently do not understand, and is often dismissed by other posters on CAF who want to narrow it to a “gay gene.”

Er … I’m not trying to narrow anything down to a “gay gene”. Again, it keeps being brought up again and again.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Er … I’m not trying to narrow anything down to a “gay gene”. Again, it keeps being brought up again and again.

OK, fair enough. I’m sorry if I seemed to lash out at you in particular; I’m simply frustrated because yes, the subject comes up again and again, and again and again other posters do not do their homework:

…about the fluid nature of sexuality in the early years of life
…about the excellent response you cited from this very website (in the apologetics library section)
…about the fact that Catholicism, unlike many other systems, philosophies, religions, does not put primacy in secular theories of sexuality when making determinations about moral absolutes.

According to modern secular society, if behavior exists, it must be good, or at worst, neutral. I’m obviously exaggerating, but that is the logical extension of the assumptions. The biological passions are “all good,” simply because they emanate from biology (or they are theorized to emanate from biology). But passions can be very bad. In the Church, we call those bad passions the 7 Capital Sins, even if any of us “were born with” some or all of them!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Pope Benedict said on Saturday the Catholic Church could not accept gay marriage and urged young people to root out evil in society and shun a “lukewarm” faith that damages their Church.

af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE78N1NT20110924?sp=true

What I find strange is this. People heterosexual who are not married, for they live like that as an option, do not call to their combination “marriage” and find other ways of speaking.
Gay people could find another word for their combination but they want the word “marriage” for them, even if they need to distort the notion of marriage.

They could invent a word like “nipilsy” and have the same rights like marriage, and leave the word “marriage” in peace. But no…

In not time someone will want this word for the combination of 1 to 4 gays like in poligamy!

Brrrrrr…I feel a chill in my spine…crazy world…

 

[discocatalyst]

I’m glad that he reiterated this, but sadly my “pro-gay rights” peers at school have been targeting me for their snide remarks…sigh.

Why can’t they just understand that it’s “love the sinner, hate the sin”?

 

[barb_finnegan]

I agree 100% with the Pope.

So do I!

He’s not afraid to speak the Truth!

Way to go, Papa Benedict! Long Live Our German Shepherd! :clapping:

 

[jwinch2]

There have been a number of people stating that only homosexual acts are wrong, but the tendencies are not. I understand where those people are coming from but I would suggest that the interpretation is not completely accurate. The Catechism says that homosexual tendencies are objectively disordered. If something is disordered that means it does not come from God. The only things in the world that exist but did not come from God, come from sin and/or the evil one. Use of the word objective indicates that it is this is not an opinion which is open to interpretation.

Therefore, the urge or desire for homosexuality, in and of itself, is wrong. That does not mean that those experiencing it are guilty of sin as has been noted above. However, in order to have an accurate discussion on the subject there needs to be an acknowledgement that the tendency itself does not represent the norm. If you cannot start there, it become very difficult to discuss the behavior.

 

[CMatt25]

The title of this thread is a misnomer. I read the article and I didn’t see where the Pope said Catholics can not. I saw where he said the “Catholic* Church *can not”.

There’s a difference at least for those of you who claim to be following what the Catholic Church teaches. She teaches who is to be identified as a Catholic.

Now if you want to say practicing Catholic faithful can not, then perhaps that’s another story.

It’s like people saying you can not be pro choice and be Catholic. Or can not be be under any circumstances, not even if the mother’s life is in danger, and be Catholic. Sure you can if you were baptized and/or confirmed in a Catholic church. You perhaps can’t be a fully faithful Catholic is what they are actually saying.