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

[urban-hermit]

I’m not sure the message will be accepted no matter how you put it. Once they figure out what you’re saying, you’ll be labeled a bigot and charged with a hate crime.

This sums up the challenge of ministry to gay/lesbian/homosexual/same-sex-attracted Catholics if they have embraced the common way of thinking about homosexuality today.

Thanks Janet.

 

[JReducation]

This sums up the challenge of ministry to gay/lesbian/homosexual/same-sex-attracted Catholics if they have embraced the common way of thinking about homosexuality today.

Thanks Janet.

I would add that we avoid an apriori assumption that gay and lesbian people are anti-Catholic, have a victim complex and personality defects that makes them paranoid. This does not do justice to the majority of people in the gay and lesbian community.

There are always going to be people who will claim bigotry and hate, if they can use this line. Look at some Black leaders.

St. Francis taught us that most people are good, even if they are mistaken. Mother Teresa taught us that Jesus lives within every human being. Therefore, people must be inherently good.

We have to have faith the the silent ones are listening. Even if they disagree or feel disappointment, they are not going on the attack.

Disagreement is OK. The Church respects the primacy of conscience, as long as its an honest conscience, even it it’s a mistaken one. The Church understands human disappointment and feels compassion in those cases.

As to those who throw stones at the Church, well the Church also has love and compassion for those who are angry and bitter.

I was trained in Franciscan spirituality. We were always taught to embrace the cross and identify with the crucified Christ. Christ was the target of abuse, but he didn’t see evil in those who abused him.

His parting words were, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

The Gospels are full of examples of people who were confused by Christ’s teaching and we see him calmly accepting that as a fact of life. He doesn’t jump to believe that they have an agenda. He knows they are confused. He accepts that. Time and grace will take care of that.

There are those who disagree, but do no harm. They debate with him and he tells them how things are.

The only time that we see Christ angry and almost insulting is when he calls some “whitened sepulchers” and “children of the devil”. Because they are not just disagreeing, they are out to do damage and smoke screen it behind some pius excuse. That was a small group.

I learned this through my Franciscan education. It has really helped me learn to trust human integrity, even whe we make mistakes. Most of the time, they are not meant to do harm.

Therefore, I believe that those who cry bigotry or hate crimes on this issue are a small number compared to those who will listen, reflect and make up their own mind.

That’s why I love St. Francis and Mother Teresa. They have taught us such a simple, but evangelical way of approaching such issues and those involved.

Isn’t it great to have such examples on how we should behave and feel in these situations!

 

[urban-hermit]

I also know Cardinal O’Malley, how is not relevant here, but I have seen him in action. I have heard him say things that people disagree with. However, he does so in the most Franciscan manner, that no one has ever charged him with being a bigot or with a hate crime.

When he approached the state of MA and asked for an accommodation in the adoption policies so that Catholic Charities would continue to work with the State, he never said, that the State was wrong and the Church was right.

He used a different approach. He said that the Sate’s legislation was in conflict with the faith of the Church and that the Church could not continue to cooperate in adoptions as long as Catholic Charities was subject to place children in gay homes.

He knew that the State legislature and social service were aware of the Church’s position on homosexual couples. There was no need to restate that fact. He simply stated that there was a conflict and asked for a dispensation from the state’s law.

When the State said that they could not give Catholic Charities what they wanted, he said that he regretted that Catholic Charities would no longer be able to help the State with adoptions. The State’s and the public response was very dignified. They said that they regretted having to part company on THIS joint effort which they had shared for more than 100 years. They expressed gratitude to the Church for their previous support and that was it.

…

I believe the manner in which Sean presented it was so humble and yet very clear that he was first a Catholic, then a Franciscan Brother, then a bishop and then a citizen of the Commonwealth of MA, that only the very ignorant could show any disrespect toward him.

I wish I could avoid criticizing Cardinal O’Malley who I am sure is a good and holy priest who did what he thought was best, but it seems to me that your narrative misses a key point in the archbishop’s battle with the State of Massachussetts over adoption policy:

HE LOST.

He LOST his appeal for a religious dispensation. He LOST his diocese’s ability to help the most disadvantaged children who do not have parents.

The result? These most vulnerable children, many if not most of them already handicapped, will now likely be lifelong orphans - most unlikely to ever have stable parents to love and protect and nurture them.

Why did this happen? Because the State of Massachussetts holds that it is illegal to act as if homosexual sex acts are intrinsically despicable.

And, unfortunately, the Church, under Cardinal O’Malley’s leadership, chose to shut the door in the face of these poor vulnerable children who NEED parents, rather than simply defy this insane state law.

The issue is not how much respect we get and how much offense we avoid giving. While it is advisable to earn respect and not offend, earning respect and not offending others are not the main purpose of following Christ, and neither are they indicators of how effectively we are actually following Christ.

 

[urban-hermit]

Disagreement is OK. The Church respects the primacy of conscience, as long as its an honest conscience, even it it’s a mistaken one. The Church understands human disappointment and feels compassion in those cases.

I believe you are mistaken on this point.

As I understand it, there is no way a person who is unrepentant of any mortal sin, including homosexual sex acts, can spend eternity united to the all-good God, UNLESS they DO repent. A mistakenly formed conscience on this point (although there are surely others as well) will not be an excuse.

There is no such thing as “the primacy of conscience” as you have outlined it. Don’t get me wrong - in a way, I wish there were. I wish that all those who live lives (as I once did) indulging in and seeking after active homosexual gratification will all end up in heaven with God. But I think the Church is clear that, without repentance, this is not the case.

 

[JReducation]

I wish I could avoid criticizing Cardinal O’Malley who I am sure is a good and holy priest who did what he thought was best, but it seems to me that your narrative misses a key point in the archbishop’s battle with the State of Massachussetts over adoption policy:

HE LOST.

He LOST his appeal for a religious dispensation. He LOST his diocese’s ability to help the most disadvantaged children who do not have parents.

And, unfortunately, the Church, under Cardinal O’Malley’s leadership, chose to shut the door in the face of these poor vulnerable children who NEED parents, rather than simply defy this insane state law.

If you Google Sean Cardinal O’Malley and adoption, you will find several articles that explain why he lost. But he did not lose because of a lack of leadership.

The order from the Vatican was very clear. Catholic Charities could not longer place children with gay couples. If the State did not accept the Diocese’ proposal, there was nothing that the Diocese could do. Only the State has the power to make an adoption effective. The Diocese has no authority over the courts.

Catholic Charities would have been in contempt and none of their adoptions would have gone forth. Taking on the legal system would not have accomplished anything. They had no choice but to close down their adoption program.

The Cardinal did say that this was a challenge, but there was nothing else that they could do. The admirable thing is that he accepted the challenge and the loss, without bitterness toward the State or those on his staff who disagreed with the Church’s position on this matter.

 

[JReducation]

I believe you are mistaken on this point.

As I understand it, there is no way a person who is unrepentant of any mortal sin, including homosexual sex acts, can spend eternity united to the all-good God, UNLESS they DO repent. A mistakenly formed conscience on this point (although there are surely others as well) will not be an excuse.

There is no such thing as “the primacy of conscience” as you have outlined it. Don’t get me wrong - in a way, I wish there were. I wish that all those who live lives (as I once did) indulging in and seeking after active homosexual gratification will all end up in heaven with God. But I think the Church is clear that, without repentance, this is not the case.

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable. Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one’s own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom. even in matters religious. (Gaudium et Spes, 26)

The Church does not deny the obligation to form one’s conscience according to the mind of Christ. But it recognizes that man has to act according to his conscience.

I hope these citations help.

God bless.

 

[urban-hermit]

The order from the Vatican was very clear. Catholic Charities could not longer place children with gay couples. If the State did not accept the Diocese’ proposal, there was nothing that the Diocese could do. Only the State has the power to make an adoption effective. The Diocese has no authority over the courts.

Catholic Charities would have been in contempt and none of their adoptions would have gone forth. Taking on the legal system would not have accomplished anything. They had no choice but to close down their adoption program.

The Cardinal did say that this was a challenge, but there was nothing else that they could do. The admirable thing is that he accepted the challenge and the loss, without bitterness toward the State or those on his staff who disagreed with the Church’s position on this matter.

I think that defying the law, and forcing the state to close down Catholic adoption agencies who were helping disabled children be adopted by loving heterosexual couples would have been a bold witness that the Church will help the helpless even if the state says it is illegal.

I disagree that it would not have accomplished anything. It may have failed legally, but we would have gone down fighthing for children. Or, we may have won legally, who knows for sure?

Instead, we didn’t even try. We didn’t force a legal action, or bring a lawsuit to challenge the law. We threw in the towel without a fight, shut the doors and turned out the lights.

But that is all beside the point of this thread. As I already pointed out, the whole REASON this adoption fiasco tragedy came to pass was because people were AFRAID to act as if homosexual sex acts are despicable.

Or perhaps they were not afraid so much as they simply did not actually believe or understand that homosexual sex acts really are destructive and despicable acts. In other words, they were acting on a malformed conscience. And the consequences of that course of action lacked strength (virtue) and allowed evil to propagate in the world rather than extending Christ’s blessings on those children and the parents who might have adopted them.

 

[JReducation]

I think that defying the law, and forcing the state to close down Catholic adoption agencies who were helping disabled children be adopted by loving heterosexual couples would have been a bold witness that the Church will help the helpless even if the state says it is illegal.

I disagree that it would not have accomplished anything. It may have failed legally, but we would have gone down fighthing for children. Or, we may have won legally, who knows for sure?

Instead, we didn’t even try. We didn’t force a legal action, or bring a lawsuit to challenge the law. We threw in the towel without a fight, shut the doors and turned out the lights.

But that is all beside the point of this thread. As I already pointed out, the whole REASON this adoption fiasco tragedy came to pass was because people were AFRAID to act as if homosexual sex acts are despicable.

Or perhaps they were not afraid so much as they simply did not actually believe or understand that homosexual sex acts really are destructive and despicable acts. In other words, they were acting on a malformed conscience. And the consequences of that course of action lacked strength (virtue) and allowed evil to propagate in the world rather than extending Christ’s blessings on those children and the parents who might have adopted them.

Since we’re getting off the thread, I’ll just say one more thing, which I read. It was the order of the Papal Nuncio to go that route.

 

[urban-hermit]

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable. Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one’s own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom. even in matters religious. (Gaudium et Spes, 26)

The Church does not deny the obligation to form one’s conscience according to the mind of Christ. But it recognizes that man has to act according to his conscience.

I hope these citations help.

God bless.

Thank you for your post, JReducation.

Your citations address a broad range of sins, not homosexuality in particular. Some things people might be genuinely mistaken about. But there are certain actions which God knows that we know are wrong. Fornication and homosexual sex acts are examples of such things.

You are assuming that it is possible for a person to be invincibly ignorant that homosexual sex acts are wrong. I do believe you are mistaken about that. Although I sincerely hope that the scenario you suggest might be possible, and that my friends and family members who are unrepentant, active homosexuals and fornicators might be saved just as they are now, without repentance, I do believe you are mistaken about that, and would be willing to look for citations to back that up (perhaps in a separate thread). As I understand it, homosexual sex acts are one of those “no-no’s” that are written on the human heart which everybody, at some level, knows are wrong - especially the first time they try it.

I hope you are not confusing the phrase “activity in accord with the upright norm of one’s own conscience” with homosexual sex acts, because I believe, again, you would be in error on that point. “Homosexual sex acts” and “upright norm” do not go together, and I do not think you can find a Catholic citation anywhere that says otherwise.

Basically, anybody who uses your line of reasoning is “betting the farm” that an unrepentant homosexual is really and truly completely invincibly ignorant that homosexual sex acts are wrong.

It’s a very risky proposition. And note that that is not the same thing as refusing to believe it because one does not want to believe it.

 

[blessedtoo]

The Church does not deny the obligation to form one’s conscience according to the mind of Christ. But it recognizes that man has to act according to his conscience.

There are several threads currently discussing conscience. However, I wanted to make sure we did not overlook this part of the Catechism’s description about conscience and culpability.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 **In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. **

I would add that we avoid an apriori assumption that gay and lesbian people are anti-Catholic, have a victim complex and personality defects that makes them paranoid. This does not do justice to the majority of people in the gay and lesbian community.

If you read what urban-hermit wrote, you will se that he was very specific with his statment and makes no assumptions about any group.
**

This sums up the challenge of ministry to gay/lesbian/homosexual/same-sex-attracted Catholics if they have embraced the common way of thinking about homosexuality today.

**

 

[blessedtoo]

We have to have faith the the silent ones are listening. Even if they disagree or feel disappointment, they are not going on the attack.

It depends on how you define “attack”. Those who make known that they are living in unrepentent mortal sin yet continue to receive the Eucharist are causing confusion and scandal among the faithful. Those who live openly immoral lifestyles, whether they are marching in parades or just quietly showing up for choir practice with their self-identified “life partners” are causing confusion and scandal among the faithful. You might take a moment to review some of the countless threads on CAF which illustrate this confusion among Catholics.

Disagreement is OK. The Church respects the primacy of conscience, as long as its an honest conscience, even it it’s a mistaken one. The Church understands human disappointment and feels compassion in those cases.

See my quote above from the Catechism. Every man has the responsibility to inform his conscience, to seek the truth. Those that choose to willfully remain ignorant may still be culpable. It it nearly impossible for me to imagine that there are those in the homosexual lifestyle who are completely unaware of the prohibition against this sin. Indeed, ALL the homosexual folks I knew and know are MORE aware of the Catholic position than many heterosexual Catholics.

As to those who throw stones at the Church, well the Church also has love and compassion for those who are angry and bitter.

Is the Church, in your opinion, to remain a passive victim of any and all aggressors?

I was trained in Franciscan spirituality. We were always taught to embrace the cross and identify with the crucified Christ. Christ was the target of abuse, but he didn’t see evil in those who abused him.

The first Pope, Peter, was referred to as “Satan” by our Lord. Last time I checked, Satan was the epitome of evil.

Recalling the scene when our Lord expressed a bit of anger in the Temple when His Father’s house was desecrated by the merchants.

He was pretty firm when He stated that He had come to not bring peace, but the sword, which would divide father and son, brother and brother, mother and daughter.

The Gospels are full of examples of people who were confused by Christ’s teaching and we see him calmly accepting that as a fact of life. He doesn’t jump to believe that they have an agenda. He knows they are confused. He accepts that. Time and grace will take care of that.

See above.

There are those who disagree, but do no harm.

What about the harm they do to themselves? If disagreement takes the form of sin, are we, in your opinion, to remain indifferent? And how do you suppose these people will receive grace when they are closed off from Him through unrepentent sin?

The only time that we see Christ angry and almost insulting is when he calls some “whitened sepulchers” and “children of the devil”. Because they are not just disagreeing, they are out to do damage and smoke screen it behind some pius excuse. That was a small group.

See above.

Therefore, I believe that those who cry bigotry or hate crimes on this issue are a small number compared to those who will listen, reflect and make up their own mind.

I’m sorry but I think you are a tad naive. “Small in number” would not be capable of redefining the definition of marriage, as has been done in Massachusetts, and probably other states to follow. Nor does it manage to successfully confuse and obfuscate the truth among Christians, as it has done in the Epicopalian Church and other denominations. It does not manage to infiltrate the main stream media so successfully that at any time of day or night, an eight year old child can turn on the tv and view a program about bi-sexual match-making. While it is true that the homosexual community itself is small in number, it is precisely it’s ability to mobilize most of it’s devotee’s to activism in some form that has made it so successful.

That’s why I love St. Francis and Mother Teresa. They have taught us such a simple, but evangelical way of approaching such issues and those involved.

I love the Church and the Communion of Saints because we have such a wide variety of spiritualities upon which to model our spiritual witness.

 

[JReducation]

It depends on how you define “attack”. Those who make known that they are living in unrepentent mortal sin yet continue to receive the Eucharist are causing confusion and scandal among the faithful. Those who live openly immoral lifestyles, whether they are marching in parades or just quietly showing up for choir practice with their self-identified “life partners” are causing confusion and scandal among the faithful. You might take a moment to review some of the countless threads on CAF which illustrate this confusion among Catholics.

See my quote above from the Catechism. Every man has the responsibility to inform his conscience, to seek the truth. Those that choose to willfully remain ignorant may still be culpable. It it nearly impossible for me to imagine that there are those in the homosexual lifestyle who are completely unaware of the prohibition against this sin. Indeed, ALL the homosexual folks I knew and know are MORE aware of the Catholic position than many heterosexual Catholics.

Is the Church, in your opinion, to remain a passive victim of any and all aggressors?

The first Pope, Peter, was referred to as “Satan” by our Lord. Last time I checked, Satan was the epitome of evil.

Recalling the scene when our Lord expressed a bit of anger in the Temple when His Father’s house was desecrated by the merchants.

He was pretty firm when He stated that He had come to not bring peace, but the sword, which would divide father and son, brother and brother, mother and daughter.

See above.

What about the harm they do to themselves? If disagreement takes the form of sin, are we, in your opinion, to remain indifferent? And how do you suppose these people will receive grace when they are closed off from Him through unrepentent sin?

See above.

I’m sorry but I think you are a tad naive. “Small in number” would not be capable of redefining the definition of marriage, as has been done in Massachusetts, and probably other states to follow. Nor does it manage to successfully confuse and obfuscate the truth among Christians, as it has done in the Epicopalian Church and other denominations. It does not manage to infiltrate the main stream media so successfully that at any time of day or night, an eight year old child can turn on the tv and view a program about bi-sexual match-making. While it is true that the homosexual community itself is small in number, it is precisely it’s ability to mobilize most of it’s devotee’s to activism in some form that has made it so successful.

I love the Church and the Communion of Saints because we have such a wide variety of spiritualities upon which to model our spiritual witness.

Thanks for your responses. I will respond to your last one, because it may sum it all up for me. Maybe I am a “tad naive”. I learned it from my Franciscan brothers and sisters (Such as Mother Teresa) and from our Holy Father Francis. In fact, she said that it didn’t matter if you were not Christian, because you are still a child of God and that’s all that matters. Today, the Chuch wants to canonize her. Francis tried to convert the Muslims and when he saw how much cruelty they suffered at the hands of Christians, he apologized in the name of the Church and returned home. The Church later gave him the official Title “Mirror of Perfection.”

Both of my mentors have done very well in the area of spiritual growth and achieved union with God. They have believed what the Church believes. Taught fidelity to the Church and also taught the Church something about humility.

Maybe naive is not such a bad thing.

God bless!

 

[urban-hermit]

Thanks for your responses. I will respond to your last one, because it may sum it all up for me. Maybe I am a “tad naive”. I learned it from my Franciscan brothers and sisters (Such as Mother Teresa) and from our Holy Father Francis. In fact, she said that it didn’t matter if you were not Christian, because you are still a child of God and that’s all that matters. Today, the Chuch wants to canonize her. Francis tried to convert the Muslims and when he saw how much cruelty they suffered at the hands of Christians, he apologized in the name of the Church and returned home. The Church later gave him the official Title “Mirror of Perfection.”

Both of my mentors have done very well in the area of spiritual growth and achieved union with God. They have believed what the Church believes. Taught fidelity to the Church and also taught the Church something about humility.

Maybe naive is not such a bad thing.

God bless!

Thank you for your witness, JReducation. I do not think there is anything wrong, nor can there really be anything wrong, with simple whole-hearted devotion to Christ and His Church. You are most probably better at it than I am.

Upon this point, though, homosexuality - and specifically how homosexuality as an issue operates in our culture - upon that point naivete can actually be dangerous. Not because the naive person would be at fault, but because a failure to recognize certain dangers puts us at risk. Many young men and women fall into that trap of worshiping sexuality and lose their faith. My point in this thread was to try and recognize the foundational point that homosexual sex acts, the actual sin itself, is the problem that needs to be recognized.

 

[LittleDeb]

Many young men and women fall into that trap of worshiping sexuality and lose their faith. My point in this thread was to try and recognize the foundational point that homosexual sex acts, the actual sin itself, is the problem that needs to be recognized.

This understanding has been so helpful to me in this thread. My struggle has really been in minimizing that homosexual acts are sinful. Objectively I do get it, but having never had same sex attraction myself, I don’t feel qualified to announce the call to chastity.

Now when we talk fornication I am on the front lines! Been there. I know firsthand the massive damage it does. So I thank all of you, once again, who struggle with SSA for your witness and support. You give me credibility. I am finding that I only need to continue to proclaim the call of chastity for all. “We are all called to chastity” actually opens up a lot of dialog no matter what topic is being addressed.

 

[urban-hermit]

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable. Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one’s own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom. even in matters religious. (Gaudium et Spes, 26)

The Church does not deny the obligation to form one’s conscience according to the mind of Christ. But it recognizes that man has to act according to his conscience.

I hope these citations help.

God bless.

I have started a new thread which takes up the question above.
Catholics: Can homosexual sex acts really be commited in “invincible ignorance” ?

 

[JReducation]

I have started a new thread which takes up the question above.
Catholics: Can homosexual sex acts really be commited in “invincible ignorance” ?

That’s a good idea.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for your witness, JReducation. I do not think there is anything wrong, nor can there really be anything wrong, with simple whole-hearted devotion to Christ and His Church. You are most probably better at it than I am.

Upon this point, though, homosexuality - and specifically how homosexuality as an issue operates in our culture - upon that point naivete can actually be dangerous. Not because the naive person would be at fault, but because a failure to recognize certain dangers puts us at risk. Many young men and women fall into that trap of worshiping sexuality and lose their faith. My point in this thread was to try and recognize the foundational point that homosexual sex acts, the actual sin itself, is the problem that needs to be recognized.

Do you believe that mystics like Francis of Assisi and Mother Teresa were naive? It’s from them that I learned how to approach these issues. Both reached a degree of Mystical Union that is beyond our comprehension. Both approached sin as something to be recognized and avoided. Both are famous and greatly appeciated by the Church for thier simple and peaceful approach to sin and conversion.

Francis was never militant on anything except poverty, yet the Church gave him the title of “Mirror of Perfection.” As far as sin and turning away from sin, he preached conversion through an appeal to the heart and walked away. His approach was very simple, but between 1209 and 1226 (17-years) he had converted half of Europe and today (800 years later) has followers who number more than a million. Are these one million men and women naive too?

I would choose another term, maybe quiet witnesses of the Gospel.

 

[Janet_S]

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable. Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one’s own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom. even in matters religious. (Gaudium et Spes, 26)

The Church does not deny the obligation to form one’s conscience according to the mind of Christ. But it recognizes that man has to act according to his conscience.

I hope these citations help.

God bless.

Conscience is the voice of God encouraging a person to do what is good and to avoid what is evil.

Since some Catholics try to justify homosexual sex on the basis of conscience, what exactly is their claim?

Are they saying that homosexual sex is something good; something that God encourages and wants people to do? According to the definition of conscience, that must be what they are claiming. Though this seems a strange claim since God is surely telling His Church the opposite.

Or are they claiming homosexual sex is morally neutral–neither good nor bad? It is no better or worse than eating a candy bar or dyeing your hair red. And, if this is their claim, then it would have nothing to do with conscience at all. Remember conscience tells us to do good and avoid evil. Morally neutral actions aren’t the object of conscience at all. We don’t engage our conscience for every minor decision in our life.

It’s good to keep in mind why we have a conscience and what its purpose really is. It seems a lot of Catholics today lose sight of this, especially those who support abortion, ABC, and homosexuality in the name of conscience.

People have the duty to follow their well-formed consciences, and they can appeal to their consciences against authority when it comes to a decision between obeying God and obeying man. An example of this would be if a solider was commanded by his supervisor to shoot civilians. The soldier knows that it is against God’s law to kill innocent people. His conscience informs him, and he cannot disobey his conscience. No matter what the consequences, he cannot obey his supervisor’s directive to kill innocent civilians; he must obey his conscience.

With that in mind, how can you compare the above scenario (the soldier disobeying his supervisor’s orders based on his conscience) to a gay Catholic disobeying the Church or the Pope on the basis of conscience?

Because to my mind, these cases are nothing alike.

 

[blessedtoo]

Do you believe that mystics like Francis of Assisi and Mother Teresa were naive?

Please do not make an argument our of thin air. The original statement was:

I’m sorry but I think you are a tad naive. “Small in number” would not be capable of redefining the definition of marriage, as has been done in Massachusetts, and probably other states to follow. Nor does it manage to successfully confuse and obfuscate the truth among Christians, as it has done in the Epicopalian Church and other denominations. It does not manage to infiltrate the main stream media so successfully that at any time of day or night, an eight year old child can turn on the tv and view a program about bi-sexual match-making. While it is true that the homosexual community itself is small in number, it is precisely it’s ability to mobilize most of it’s devotee’s to activism in some form that has made it so successful.

The assumption on your part that an agenda does not exist among most homosexuals is what I called naive. I did not refer to St. Francis or Mother Theresa.

Since you continue to bring up these two saints, I will address your assertions about them.
St. Francis was called to a vocation of ministry to the poor. I daresay that the pastoral approach to poverty differs from that of the pastoral approach one might take with unrepentent sinners. My understanding is that he also lived the life of a penetent, praying and doing penanace ceaselessly for the conversion of sinners.

Mother Theresa also ministered to the poor and the dying. In this ministry, her approach would hardly have been the same as Cardinal Ratzinger had to take here in my city of Seattle back in 1986. In addition, when Mother had the opportunity to speak before people who supported such things as abortion (during her acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize), she did not mince words about the evil being perpetrated against the unborn, as well as other sins. Context is everything.

It’s from them that I learned how to approach these issues. Both reached a degree of Mystical Union that is beyond our comprehension. Both approached sin as something to be recognized and avoided. Both are famous and greatly appeciated by the Church for thier simple and peaceful approach to sin and conversion.

Well, I have not, nor has anyone else, suggested militancy or violence in dealing with the issue presented in this thread. And as far as I am concerned, it is a very simple question and an even simpler answer: Do you hate homosexual acts? Yes.

 

[catharina]

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable. Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one’s own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom. even in matters religious. (Gaudium et Spes, 26)

**

The Church does not deny the obligation to form one’s conscience according to the mind of Christ. But it recognizes that man has to act according to his conscience.**

I hope these citations help.

God bless.

JR, first of all, I loathe having to disagree with you on any point because it so obvious that your intentions are good and your study is serious. However, having said that, I do disagree with the (bolded) conclusion above. If it instead, it stated the following, I would agree:

“The Church does not deny the obligation to form one’s conscience according to the mind of Christ, and it recognizes that man has to act according to his conscience.”

The notion that one can have a well-formed conscience that is at odds with the mind of Christ is erroneous. A well-formed conscience is, in the end, always at one with the mind of Christ. We, in the Church are given the great and graced liberty of adhering to conscience through our acceptance of Church teachings without the necessity of ‘doing the math’ to figure out the Church’s carefully considered, formed and then “taught” conclusions.