Catholics only: Do you hate homosexual sex acts (as we are obliged to)?

[Nagoda]

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZB.HTM

1 corinthians with commentary at the bottom

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PYP.HTM

romans 1

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P10Z.HTM

1 timothy

really if the bishops’ interpretation of the greek is correct, corinthians should read along the lines of “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor the men who engage in homosexual acts with them nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

all im saying is that the st paul is being specific in whos not getting in. itd be a mistake to generalize to all practicing homosexuals based on these few verses. HOWEVER the Church i think can and has made the best argument against practicing homosexuality because it goes against the natural order that God set up in the first place. its disordered because it takes the plan of God and warps it. youd be better off using verses that support complimentarity of the sexes and God’s plan than you would St Paul or Leviticus because they’re too specfic in what they condemn (the Bishops have no commentary on Leviticus but we obviously cant take it literally: its physically impossible for a man to lie with another man in the exact same way he would with a woman because men obviously dont have the same genitilia as their female counterparts). an examination of God’s creation however and his order can show that homosexual acts do twist his plan. i am willing to accept the church’s teaching based on this rather than a misinterpretation of the few verses that have been used in the past. before you go telling me im against tradition remember: it is a dogmatic truth that homosexual acts are disordered. the interpretation of why this is can change over the years as the holy spirit guides the bishops and brings the church to a fuller understanding on the matter. this is perfectly seen in the interpretation of the dogma of no salvation outside the church which went from: only roman catholics can be saved to protestants and people of other world religions are part of the mystical body of christ and have a chance at being saved. there is a difference there in interpretation and im only using that as an example of how interpretation of dogma has led to a fuller understanding of dogmatic truths within the church.

will practicing homosexuals (lets assume they arent prostitutes) get into heaven if the church is correct? i cant say but we can pray that god is understanding and merciful towards them in such cases.

as for the NAB being free of error in regards to doctrine: it has both the nihil obstat and the imprampatur (is that how you spell it?). i thought when you had those a bible was free of error, as for the bishops’ commentary not counting: i thought when a group of bishops got together and taught something they were guided by the holy spirit. if its really free of error, and the church would have to approve a bible thats free of error, than the commentary by the bishops who are interpreting the scriptures would have to be free as well because they are teaching the faithful what the words of scripture teach.the teaching may be lacking in a fuller interpretation, but that doesnt mean theyre teaching something wrong. that only makes sense.

 

[rpp]

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZB.HTM

1 corinthians with commentary at the bottom

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PYP.HTM

romans 1

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P10Z.HTM

1 timothy

really if the bishops’ interpretation of the greek is correct, corinthians should read along the lines of “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor the men who engage in homosexual acts with them nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

all im saying is that the st paul is being specific in whos not getting in. itd be a mistake to generalize to all practicing homosexuals based on these few verses. HOWEVER the Church i think can and has made the best argument against practicing homosexuality because it goes against the natural order that God set up in the first place. its disordered because it takes the plan of God and warps it. youd be better off using verses that support complimentarity of the sexes and God’s plan than you would St Paul or Leviticus because they’re too specfic in what they condemn (the Bishops have no commentary on Leviticus but we obviously cant take it literally: its physically impossible for a man to lie with another man in the exact same way he would with a woman because men obviously dont have the same genitilia as their female counterparts). an examination of God’s creation however and his order can show that homosexual acts do twist his plan. i am willing to accept the church’s teaching based on this rather than a misinterpretation of the few verses that have been used in the past. before you go telling me im against tradition remember: it is a dogmatic truth that homosexual acts are disordered. the interpretation of why this is can change over the years as the holy spirit guides the bishops and brings the church to a fuller understanding on the matter. this is perfectly seen in the interpretation of the dogma of no salvation outside the church which went from: only roman catholics can be saved to protestants and people of other world religions are part of the mystical body of christ and have a chance at being saved. there is a difference there in interpretation and im only using that as an example of how interpretation of dogma has led to a fuller understanding of dogmatic truths within the church.

will practicing homosexuals (lets assume they arent prostitutes) get into heaven if the church is correct? i cant say but we can pray that god is understanding and merciful towards them in such cases.

as for the NAB being free of error in regards to doctrine: it has both the nihil obstat and the imprampatur (is that how you spell it?). i thought when you had those a bible was free of error, as for the bishops’ commentary not counting: i thought when a group of bishops got together and taught something they were guided by the holy spirit. if its really free of error, and the church would have to approve a bible thats free of error, than the commentary by the bishops who are interpreting the scriptures would have to be free as well because they are teaching the faithful what the words of scripture teach.the teaching may be lacking in a fuller interpretation, but that doesnt mean theyre teaching something wrong. that only makes sense.

Okay, this post cleared up a number of things for me regarding your position. You desire to be in line with Church teachings on the matter of homosexual activity, but that seems to be a bit of a struggle for you. Is that a fair assessment of what you are saying? (Please I mean absolutely no disrespect here.)

I would like to point out that I, as a heterosexual single man, must also remain chaste; abstaining from all sexual activity and that can be a struggle for me.

In reference to the scripture verses, first thank you for providing the link to the commentary. I would like to say that while the the passage in Corinthians (and Timothy?) may be under question with some, the one in Romans is certainly about homosexual activity in general.

As for NAB, yes it does carry those important seals, imprimatur and nihil obstat, that does not mean it is an ideal or perfect translation in every instance for every verse. Since the NAB is a dynamic translation, one which tries to ‘fill in the blanks’, it can be less precise than more literal translations like the RSV or the DR. But that is a topic for another thread. And another person as I am not a scripture or language scholar.

God bless.

 

[Nagoda]

yes that would be a completely fair and accurate assesment to make. i just want more clarity i suppose when it coems to translating and interpreting the scripture passages. i will do my best to stay chaste and i confidently believe that i will recieve the final answer from god on the matter when im in heaven with him, but i will do my best to stay in line with church teaching, struggle though i may with it, as chastity in this case is the safest and most reasonable option available to me as far as i can see.

i must turn my romantic desire for men into a lasting friendship with jesus. only when i become fully united with the male aspect of God will i be able to overcome this and understand as much as i can what it means to be male and in his image.

as for romans, i may be reading this wrong, but is St. Paul saying that homosexuality is God’s curse so to speak for not worshipping him and falling into idolatry?

 

[catharina]

yes that would be a completely fair and accurate assesment to make. i just want more clarity i suppose when it coems to translating and interpreting the scripture passages. i will do my best to stay chaste and i confidently believe that i will recieve the final answer from god on the matter when im in heaven with him, but i will do my best to stay in line with church teaching, struggle though i may with it, as chastity in this case is the safest and most reasonable option available to me as far as i can see.

i must turn my romantic desire for men into a lasting friendship with jesus. only when i become fully united with the male aspect of God will i be able to overcome this and understand as much as i can what it means to be male and in his image.

as for romans, i may be reading this wrong, but is St. Paul saying that homosexuality is God’s curse so to speak for not worshipping him and falling into idolatry?

I think this flow of specifics is more relevant and is certainly not limited to homosexuality and its actions:

"28

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

29

They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips

30

and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.

31

They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

32

Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

 

[urban-hermit]

Drunkenness is the practice of drinking until you are drunk. It is not the same thing as the person who does it. It is an unfortunate and self-destructive action that that PERSON, whom we are OBLIGED to LOVE, chooses to take.

Do you hate drunkenness? Yes or no.

I have to go with the medical model of alcoholism - it’s a disease for which there is a demonstrated biological basis. You can argue this point with me if you wish, but I have the medical literature on the subject at my fingertips, so unless you can come up with peer-reviewed empirical evidence to dispute that model, you’re not going to convince me otherwise.

I chose to start drinking - which, morality aside, is socially acceptable. After a period of time, my choice was limited to either drink or go into screaming delirium tremens - which isn’t much of a choice. If you ever want to get an idea of what hell is like, watch someone go through DTs.

Do I hate drunkenness? I hated it most when I was a drunk.

You have dodged my question, as I’m sure you are aware.

That’s ok I guess. …

In terms of the question I am asking, it is irrelevant whether a person is compelled to drink or whether they do it of their own free will. Same with homosexual sex acts. I think you can see that, but you are unwilling to say you hate something somebody does, perhaps for fear you will be hating the person.

There is a connection between the destructiveness of certain acts and the self-destruction of the person.

(I apologize for the slow response.)

 

[neuro_nurse]

You have dodged my question, as I’m sure you are aware

The only question mark I saw was after “Do you hate drunkedness?”, and although my answer did not contain the word ‘yes,’ I answered in the affirmative.

Therefore, I did not dodge your question.

No one hates drunkedness more than a drunk.

 

[neuro_nurse]

I think you can see that, but you are unwilling to say you hate something somebody does, perhaps for fear you will be hating the person.

I’m not afraid of how I feel, and although I don’t care that much about what other people think of me, I believe that I would be less well received by people I am to minister to if I was perceived as being homophobic (hating the sinner) – and let’s face it, some Christians don’t seem to be too discerning in the way they display their revulsion to homosexuals (the papers and Internet are full of stories of homosexuals who were beaten senseless or murdered by good ‘Christian’ folks) – it’s too bad that the perceptions of those people are generalized to us – but they are, and we have to deal with it.

I am cautious about the way I am perceived because we can’t minister to people who have closed the door to our ministering (I used the example of Protestants who tell me that Catholics are going to hell as an example – *if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow *– those Protestants who believed they needed to minister to me didn’t get very far at all).

In an earlier post based on the ‘sticky’ subject thread by Ferdinand Mary I suggested that perhaps we could be most effective ministering to other sinners by befriending them (I say ‘other sinners’ because we are all sinners and I don’t believe that homosexual acts are more ‘sinful’ than those I commit - Matthew 5:21-22, James 2:10 – repentant or not, I am a sinner and cannot judge others for their sins – I believe St. Paul made that very clear).

At least one person responded in a way that seemed to me to suggest that we should not associate with homosexuals.

I received no answer when I asked whether or not that was that person’s intended meaning. Instead, it turned into an argument about the semantics of whom and how Jesus associated with sinners.

So, the question that you want me to answer: Do I hate homosexual acts? Yes, but (since just about every comment I have made on this thread has generated a ‘yes, but…’ response, allow me the license to do so myself – actually, never mind, I’ve already stated my ‘buts’)

Peace!

 

[blessedtoo]

I’m not afraid of how I feel, and although I don’t care that much about what other people think of me, I believe that I would be less well received by people I am to minister to if I was perceived as being homophobic (hating the sinner) – and let’s face it, some Christians don’t seem to be too discerning in the way they display their revulsion to homosexuals (the papers and Internet are full of stories of homosexuals who were beaten senseless or murdered by good ‘Christian’ folks) – it’s too bad that the perceptions of those people are generalized to us – but they are, and we have to deal with it.

I get your point. However, your assertion that the papers and internet are “full of stories of homosexuals who were BEATEN SENSELESS OR MURDERED by good Christian folks” is nothing more than rhetoric. You stated that I was arguing “semantics” with you regarding the “Jesus hung out with sinners” comment. I do not see this discussion as one of semantics. You, and many others, seem to to have a propensity for rhetoric that originates directly from the main stream media and the gay apologists. Completely false assertions like the one you made above may circulate frantically on the internet, but that does not make them true and repeating them only perpetuates the stereotype that Christians are hateful and anti-gay. I certainly expect propaganda like that to be disseminted on secular sites but not on a Catholic forum.

Here are recent FBI stats on “hate” crimes.

The FBI’s newly released hate crime statistics should be welcomed news to homosexuals. The latest hate crime numbers have been posted on the FBI’s web site. According to the FBI, there were a total of 11.6 million crimes reported to law enforcement officials in 2000. Of those, an estimated 1.4 million were violent crimes.
The FBI hate crime statistics show the following: In 2000, there were a total of 8,152 hate crimes reported involving a total of 9,524 distinct incidents. Out of a total of 8,144 single-bias incidents, for example, 5,206 were racially motivated and 1,568 were bias crimes against a person’s religion.
The FBI says the most common hate crime was that of “intimidation” with a total of 3,294 cases. A person who was “intimidated” was a victim of profanity, racial slurs, or verbal threats by another individual. In short, a third of these hate crimes were non-violent and amounted to name-calling. The other two-thirds involved violence against property, (2,766 offenses) simple assault (1,616 offenses), and aggravated assault (1,274).
Overall, there were only 1,517 hate crimes of bias committed because of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation in 2000. It is likely that at least a third of these were intimidation or name-calling. The FBI gathered these statistics from 11,691 law enforcement agencies encompassing a total of 237 million Americans-or 84.2% of the entire population.
traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=66

At least one person responded in a way that seemed to me to suggest that we should not associate with homosexuals.

I said no such thing. What I did say is that “hanging out” with unrepentent sinners (regardless of their particular sin) WITHOUT a clear dedication to ministry will do none of us any eternal good. I maintain relationships with some unrepentent sinners (family mostly) BECAUSE I still have hope and I continue to ask God to give me opportunities to speak the truth to them. I do not ever wish to give the impression to them, or anyone else, that I agree with their choices. Consequently, many of these relationships will fall by the wayside. It’s extremely uncomfortable and unpleasant for proud sinners to “hang out” with folks who are clearly not in agreement with them. That is their choice, IMO. I have been and continue to be more than willing to remain in relationships with ANYONE who can tolerate the truth. I am not the one who flees the relationship.

 

[urban-hermit]

I’m not afraid of how I feel, and although I don’t care that much about what other people think of me, I believe that I would be less well received by people I am to minister to if I was perceived as being homophobic (hating the sinner)

Well, with the last homosexual person you ministered to, did the situation arise when they spoke of their partner or somebody they thought was attractive or made some other comments referring to their homosexuality to informally “come out” to you, and get a feel for your attitude toward homosexuality, when you were then given an opportunity to say something such as “that’s nice” or some other form of approval?

You have probably found, as I have, that homosexual people very often do this early in the befriending process to discern whether or not you are gay-friendly so they can decide whether or not you will be supportive of their choices.

There are certain truths we Catholics must be aware of, and there are certain times when we must be careful not to choose to just get along and seem tolerant, in an honest effort to be compassionate but ending up indirectly supporting actions and attitudes that are destructive, such as the skewed view of sexuality which supports and leads to homosexual sex acts.

I have encountered similar situations in dealing with the chronic drinker, who talks cheerfully about how he got so trashed at a party and it was a blast, etc.

The bottom line is, if you don’t really think the sinful actions themselves are destructive, and you don’t believe they really do harm to the person, you will not be able to respond as effectively, even though your intentions are good.

 

[neuro_nurse]

Overall, there were only 1,517 hate crimes of bias committed because of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation in 2000.

Gee, now there’s something to be proud of – only 1,517 crimes!

The F.B.I. hate crime information for 2006 says the 15.6% of hate crimes were committed against homosexuals. I guess we should be proud of that too.

I guess I’d rather be perceived as ‘gay-friendly’ than complacent when it comes to hate crimes.

 

[neuro_nurse]

Let’s see; 1,517 hate crimes committed against homosexuals in a year. That’s an average of 4.16 hate crimes per day. I’ve read that about 70% of individuals in the U.S. identify themselves as Christians - but let’s give ourselves a break and say that only a quarter of those hate crimes are committed by people who identify themselves as Christians (which begs the question, who are those other 1138 hate crimes committed by?) - that’s still at least one hate crime against a homosexual every day of the year committed by a person who identifies him- or herself as a Christian.

 

[estesbob]

Gee, now there’s something to be proud of – only 1,517 crimes!

The F.B.I. hate crime information for 2006 says the 15.6% of hate crimes were committed against homosexuals. I guess we should be proud of that too.

I guess I’d rather be perceived as ‘gay-friendly’ than complacent when it comes to hate crimes.

The definition of hate crimes is so broad it renders it meanlingness. And many hate crimes (Mathew Shepard, for instance) turn out not to have been hate crimes at all. If the papers are full of reports on attacks on homosexuals you should have no poblem linking us to lots of recent attacks.

Of course this whole tangent is a strawman. Rather than talk about whether homosexual beahavior is a sin lets turn homosexuals into victims and attack those who support Church teachings as bigots.

 

[neuro_nurse]

that does not make them true and repeating them only perpetuates the stereotype that Christians are hateful and anti-gay. I certainly expect propaganda like that to be disseminted on secular sites but not on a Catholic forum.

The stereotype exists.

As far as propaganda, I guess that depends on your perspective, because I’ve found what I consider to be propaganda posted on this forum – see my last two responses to “Cost of Illegal Immigration.”

The definition of hate crimes is so broad it renders it meanlingness.

Who is engaging in rhetoric now?

Rather than talk about whether homosexual beahavior is a sin lets turn homosexuals into victims and attack those who support Church teachings as bigots.

If you look back on my previous posts on this thread, you will see that I am in agreement that homosexual acts are sins – so if that’s the entire purpose of this thread, then there really isn’t that much to talk about, is there?

The purpose of this thread, as I understand it, is the Christian response to homosexual acts.

On the one hand it seems as if I am being told I should be deeply concerned about sins my neighbor is committing, but on the other hand minimize the violence committed against my neighbor.

How we respond to injustice is, as I understand it, an important part of the Christian life. If our response is indifference, then aren’t we also to blame?

 

[estesbob]

On the one hand it seems as if I am being told I should be deeply concerned about sins my neighbor is committing, but on the other hand minimize the violence committed against my neighbor.

How we respond to injustice is, as I understand it, an important part of the Christian life. If our response is indifference, then aren’t we also to blame?

But you have set up a false paradyme-that is that there is any connection between pointing out the sinfullenss of homosexual behavior and the alleged heightened violence aganst them. You have thus far been unable to show that there is heightened violence against homnosexuals or that evne if there were there is a connection between Christian admonishment of homosexual behavior and the alleged violence against those who engage in this behavior.

 

[Cathy]

I have heard people say they have a problem with anybody who treats homosexual sex acts as more serious than other mortal sins, such as contraception or fornication. This makes no sense to me.

I have heard people say that homosexual sex acts are expressions of love, which also makes no sense to me.

Are the “peace and love” people missing the fact that the active homosexuals they love will basically rot in hell if they do not repent?

We should do our best to fast and pray for conversion for people (including ourselves) whose souls are in imminent mortal danger. This includes people engaged in all kinds of sexual immorality (not just homosexuality; all are death-dealing and harmful to society), as well as gluttons and greedy people. We who excuse these sins and therefore encourage others in those sins are in mortal danger as well. We ALL have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

Dr. Nicolosi (www.narth.com) sees homosexual activity, especially in men, as a misguided drive of the person to repair an undeveloped or damaged sense of sexuality. He says that in women, it’s a bit more complicated. He has helped hundreds of men with unwanted homosexual attraction.

Another helpful Catholic group, which encourages chastity and real supernatural love toward us sinners, is Courage (www.couragerc.net)).

 

[Kolbe300]

Hi everyone! I’ve been meandering through this thread and noticing all the typical stuff until we came to this point. I actually had to look around the room to see if maybe I’m on Candid Camera. Can you people honestly be serious about this? A Catholic actually posts a quote that says, “ONLY 1517 hate crimes were committed…” And the quote goes on to furthure minimize any wrong doing by stating that some of the crimes were, after all, just intimidation. Is not ONE hate crime for ANY reason too much? To make an argument that there aren’t as many brutal crimes against homosexuals as some will say is fine (I’ll be the first to admit that there are those who exagerate the fact), but to go to the extent of minimizing the crimes that DO occur!?

The definition of hate crimes is so broad it renders it meanlingness. .

Or do people want it to be meaningless? The FBI puts it in four major categories: murder, forcible rape, aggravated assaut, simple assault, and intimidation. Any victim of one these crimes, whether for reasons of race, religion, orientation, whatever certainly doesn’t think it to be meaningless.

And many hate crimes (Mathew Shepard, for instance) turn out not to have been hate crimes at all.

Did an episode of 20/20 convince you of that?

If the papers are full of reports on attacks on homosexuals you should have no poblem linking us to lots of recent attacks.

You’re right, the papers aren’t full of them. It’s an untrue claim for anyone to make. However, do the papers have to be “full of them” for crimes against homosexuals to exist? This is truly a sad discussion because everyone turns away from what matters in order to discuss it. If someone wants to make an argument for there being less hate crime against homosexuals as some may portray, well you win that argument (good for you). For the rest of us, lets pray for the victims of the crimes that do exist (for any reason) and lets pray for those who perpetrate these crimes. And lets all work together to end the bigotry and hatred that leads to any crime of hate.

I pray we are able to always see what really matters. One more day till Christmas!!!

Peace and Love

 

[Kolbe300]

Completely false assertions like the one you made above may circulate frantically on the internet, but that does not make them true and repeating them only perpetuates the stereotype that Christians are hateful and anti-gay. I certainly expect propaganda like that to be disseminted on secular sites but not on a Catholic forum…

Blessedtoo, I make a friendly challenge for you to find a hateful or anti-gay website that isn’t run by “Christians”. I’ve been looking, but haven’t found one yet. The “Christians”, on the other hand, must be going for a record.

One day till Christmas!!!

Peace and Love

 

[catharina]

Hi everyone! I’ve been meandering through this thread and noticing all the typical stuff until we came to this point. I actually had to look around the room to see if maybe I’m on Candid Camera. Can you people honestly be serious about this? A Catholic actually posts a quote that says, “ONLY 1517 hate crimes were committed…” And the quote goes on to furthure minimize any wrong doing by stating that some of the crimes were, after all, just intimidation. Is not ONE hate crime for ANY reason too much? To make an argument that there aren’t as many brutal crimes against homosexuals as some will say is fine (I’ll be the first to admit that there are those who exagerate the fact), but to go to the extent of minimizing the crimes that DO occur!?

Or do people want it to be meaningless? The FBI puts it in four major categories: murder, forcible rape, aggravated assaut, simple assault, and intimidation. Any victim of one these crimes, whether for reasons of race, religion, orientation, whatever certainly doesn’t think it to be meaningless.

Did an episode of 20/20 convince you of that?

You’re right, the papers aren’t full of them. It’s an untrue claim for anyone to make. However, do the papers have to be “full of them” for crimes against homosexuals to exist? This is truly a sad discussion because everyone turns away from what matters in order to discuss it. If someone wants to make an argument for there being less hate crime against homosexuals as some may portray, well you win that argument (good for you). For the rest of us, lets pray for the victims of the crimes that do exist (for any reason) and lets pray for those who perpetrate these crimes. And lets all work together to end the bigotry and hatred that leads to any crime of hate.

I pray we are able to always see what really matters. One more day till Christmas!!!

Peace and Love

Hate crimes come in with numbers very close to fatalities from child abuse in the USA. I think the objection to the discussion of hate crimes is that a poster tied it to “so-called Christians” who must be commiting the crimes (!) when the poster’s own statistics show a nation with 30% non-Christians. Thirty percent being between 6 and 7 million people who might be commiting those one-thousand plus crimes a year. The poster’s ‘blame factor’ is insupportable by any measure. To allege hate crimes as the preferred sin of Christians? Ludicrous.

Peace to men of good will.

 

[urban-hermit]

If you look back on my previous posts on this thread, you will see that I am in agreement that homosexual acts are sins – so if that’s the entire purpose of this thread, then there really isn’t that much to talk about, is there?

Judging from the fact that you yourself and many others just keep posting and posting to this thread, this would appear to be an illogical conclusion.

More importantly, you still have not fully grasped the question. I can agree that gossiping about my neighbor is a sin, but not hate it enough to stop doing it or discourage others from doing it. Does that make sense?

The purpose of this thread, as I understand it, is the Christian response to homosexual acts.

After all this time, it’s frustrating to hear that you still think this. The title question is clear and unambiguous. Where we go with our Christian response after we answer the question is really a different thread. Answering the question in the title of this thread, and answering it thoughtfully and directly, is important before we can take the next logical step in our Christian response.

Your point, obviously, and I agree with you too, is that this is not the ONLY thing to keep in mind. MY point, is that this is the ONLY thing people striving to comfort the homosexual tend to forget about!

On the one hand it seems as if I am being told I should be deeply concerned about sins my neighbor is committing, but on the other hand minimize the violence committed against my neighbor.

YES, this is EXACTLY what the catechism is telling us to do: avoid unjust discrimination against homosexuals WHILE AT THE SAME TIME refraining from any approval of homosexual sex acts under any circumstances, because they are destructive to the person doing them.

There’s no paragraph that says “this is easy to do.” It simply says to do this if you want to follow Christ more perfectly.

How we respond to injustice is, as I understand it, an important part of the Christian life. If our response is indifference, then aren’t we also to blame?

This is exactly what I am saying to anybody who does not refrain from approving of homosexual acts. I am saying that it is unjust FOR US to encourage, by way of approval, our brothers and sisters who persist in indulging in homosexual sex acts when it is self-destructive. When we do this we contribute to their demise. Can you see that?

I truly think your problem is a deep prejudice against anybody who speaks a word against homosexuality. You immediately conclude they are haters. In this way you yourself are deeply concerned with the sins of others. That is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. It does tend to need discussion, though. Which is what this forum is all about.

 

[urban-hermit]

Blessedtoo, I make a friendly challenge for you to find a hateful or anti-gay website that isn’t run by “Christians”. I’ve been looking, but haven’t found one yet. The “Christians”, on the other hand, must be going for a record.

Hi Kolbe - I see you are new to the forum and I am glad you are here. Welcome!

As you may have noticed from some of my other posts, I am a Catholic who has had to deal with homosexuality and am striving to live according to Catholic teaching and finding it truly the best thing that ever happened to me.

Anyway, I was wondering if you could post some links to these sites you speak about, who are hateful and anti-gay. I am curious how many, if any, are run by Christians who are not heretics, i.e., that follow (or claim to follow) the Catholic faith as, for example, reflected in the documents posted at vatican.va

Please post us some links so we know what we are talking about. Thanks!