Could the Catholic Church ever change its teaching on homosexuality?

[StJudeprayforme]

Homosexuals are impossible to spot on sight, as edwest has demonstrated. Just because a person suffers with same-sex attraction does not make him tangibly different from other human beings. However, it is extremely easy to spot the homosexualist. He or she is wearing a rainbow flag pin, wears an “OUT AND PROUD” shirt, voted Democrat for the past 8 years, flinches when you say phrases like “traditional marriage” or “Ten Commandments” or “abomination unto God”. Probably has piercings and tattoos. Has mastered the lifestyle affectations such as effeminacy for a man or butch style for women. Religious beliefs are anything but Christian; Buddhism and atheism are likely. May actually be Christian too, and just attends one of those “accepting, inclusive” ecclesial communities like Hollywood First Methodist. Might practice yoga, loves New Agey stuff.

I intended this to be a general catch-all description, but I just accurately described my best friend from high school. I ended up like me, and he ended up in a homosexual “marriage”. We still get together for lunch a few times a year. I try to quietly evangelize him, with little hope of getting through. We avoid uncomfortable subjects altogether.

And it is the “homosexualists” who put people in a box. I know plenty of gay people who favour the push for “marriage equality” who are nothing like that, and I know plenty of straight people who favour it who fit that description more than my gay friends.

 

[CopticChristian]

No I can honestly say i have not read the ccc fully, so i do not understand…

It was my belief that you had not based on this statement…

Yes we are ALL sinners, but in my own personnal opinion, baring in mind i don’t agree with sex before marriage, contraception, or abortion, why the church teaches us that being impure is as big a sin as sleeping with someone outside of marriage, murder of another born or unborn confuses me.

The Catechism is divided in 4 parts…

1…We believe, you have seen the Creed and what is in the Catechism is a summary of what we believe and when you say the “church teaches”…you need to be familiar with what the Chruch teaches by studying the Catechism and that would resolve your confusion…

1. The Sacramental Life…part of living in grace, getting help and celebrating the Christian mystery based on What we Believe
2. Life in Christ, morality, the commandments and becoming Holy as God is Holy, answering the question you pose as to the impurity and need for purity that should aid your confusion
3. Prayer, asking for help.

The Church also teaches we need to form our conscience…

The formation of a good conscience is another fundamental element in
Christian moral teaching. “Conscience is a judgment of reason by wbi the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act” (CC no. 1796). “Man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary” (GS, no. 16).’

Moral choices confront us. the decision to follow or depart from reason and the divine law. A got conscience makes judgments that conform to reason and the good da is willed by the Wisdom of God. A good conscience requires lifela formation. Each baptized follower of Christ is obliged to form his or b conscience according to objective moral standards. The Word of Gt is a principal tool in the formation of conscience when it is assimilaa by study, prayer, and practice. The prudent advice and good example a others support and enlighten our conscience.

The authoritative teaching of the Church is an essential element in our conscience formation.

So, if you study the Catechism, cover to cover, you would know this. If you were constantly forming your conscience and knew the teachings of the Church, your confusion would dissipate…

Your lack of understanding was an indication to me that you had not done so and I suggest to allay your further confusion you do so. I recommend the USA catechism for adults Audio and hardcover.

 

[simpleas]

It was my belief that you had not based on this statement…

The Catechism is divided in 4 parts…

1…We believe, you have seen the Creed and what is in the Catechism is a summary of what we believe and when you say the “church teaches”…you need to be familiar with what the Chruch teaches by studying the Catechism and that would resolve your confusion…

1. The Sacramental Life…part of living in grace, getting help and celebrating the Christian mystery based on What we Believe
2. Life in Christ, morality, the commandments and becoming Holy as God is Holy, answering the question you pose as to the impurity and need for purity that should aid your confusion
3. Prayer, asking for help.

So, if you study the Catechism, cover to cover, you would know this. If you were constantly forming your conscience and knew the teachings of the Church, your confusion would dissipate…

Your lack of understanding was an indication to me that you had not done so and I suggest to allay your further confusion you do so. I recommend the USA catechism for adults Audio and hardcover.

Thanks for that, I do have a little copy of the ccc, so will read it and try to get a better understanding of the church’s teaching, and in due course of myself

 

[edwest2]

I find them as silly as Irish Pride Parades (St. Patrick’s Day) and Italian Pride Parades (Columbus Day).

Things can exist without being immediately visible. Black, White, Oriental and Gay are all social constructs.

No they’re not. People don’t choose to be Black or White or Oriental. Gay is not a social construct either.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

No they’re not. People don’t choose to be Black or White or Oriental. Gay is not a social construct either.

Peace,
Ed

What race are Indians? (Y’know, the kind from the Indian subcontinent)

People don’t choose to be gay either; concupiscence comes unbidden.

 

[CopticChristian]

What race are Indians? (Y’know, the kind from the Indian subcontinent)

People don’t choose to be gay either; concupiscence comes unbidden.

So, you are equating the choice to act on Same Sex Attraction as concupiscence=created that way=Essentialism…is that correct?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

So, you are equating the choice to act on Same Sex Attraction as concupiscence=created that way=Essentialism…is that correct?

At no point did I equate actions with concupiscence.

What exactly do you mean by “created that way” and “Essentialism”?

 

[edwest2]

What race are Indians? (Y’know, the kind from the Indian subcontinent)

People don’t choose to be gay either; concupiscence comes unbidden.

Regarding Indians, we have four major groups. Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Negritos and Australoids. Get a good photo book of the peoples of China and you’ll see the northern Chinese are taller and with slightly different facial features than their southern counterparts.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CopticChristian]

At no point did I equate actions with concupiscence.

What exactly do you mean by “created that way” and “Essentialism”?

Essentialism=Born That way=Secular argument for the existence of someone that behaves based on SSA…as if they were created that way and there is no proof of this…

 

[catholic1seeks]

Essentialism=Born That way=Secular argument for the existence of someone that behaves based on SSA…as if they were created that way and there is no proof of this…

It is not just the “secular argument.”

 

[CopticChristian]

It is not just the “secular argument.”

Enlighten me. Whose argument is it other than the secular argument, so I may be informed and without lack of understanding and knowledge?

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Regarding Indians, we have four major groups. Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Negritos and Australoids. Get a good photo book of the peoples of China and you’ll see the northern Chinese are taller and with slightly different facial features than their southern counterparts.

Peace,
Ed

The theory you are espousing is no longer accepted to be true and is considered by many to be racist (it was used the basis for European colonization and eugenics programs…) because it thought that the various races were genetically diverse enough to be considered a sort of subspecies. We now know from genetics that this is empirically false, and that there is really no genetic basis for race.

 

[edwest2]

The theory you are espousing is no longer accepted to be true and is considered by many to be racist (it was used the basis for European colonization and eugenics programs…) because it thought that the various races were genetically diverse enough to be considered a sort of subspecies. We now know from genetics that this is empirically false, and that there is really no genetic basis for race.

Funny that you believe that. It’s not true.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Regarding Indians, we have four major groups. Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Negritos and Australoids. Get a good photo book of the peoples of China and you’ll see the northern Chinese are taller and with slightly different facial features than their southern counterparts.

Peace,
Ed

So what race are Indians? They both exist and there are enough of them to matter.

Essentialism=Born That way=Secular argument for the existence of someone that behaves based on SSA…as if they were created that way and there is no proof of this…

Q) A=B=C, solve for A
A) insufficient information to solve.

You didn’t actually give me an answer

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

I know this is a huge question. I know “change” and “teaching” in the same sentence is scary, especially when Catholicism regards itself as having a continuity of teaching. Please consider my question seriously, though. I want to have an intelligent conversation on this. At the very least, I think we can all predict there will be some development on the issue in the future, especially as society grows apart from traditional Catholic teaching. Even Catholics across the world tend to support LGBT rights, holding a view contrary to most of the hierarchy. This is not to say that cultural trends or majority opinion determine what is true; not at all, only that something in the “gut” of many in the Church sense something is very wrong with the Church’s current teaching. Many homosexual Catholics, for example, do not find true what many church documents say–that their relationships cannot express authentic love.

This question–whether the Church could change its teaching on homosexuality (specifically, whether the Church would regard homosexual relationships and acts as *not *intrinsically evil, and even morally acceptable)–brings into question whether the current teaching is considered infallible or not.

I hope a good dialogue starts. I do not wish for simple answers like “No, it will not change its teaching because the teaching is infallible.” I have taken this position in the past, not only with this issue, but for a variety of modern issues. And for core teachings of the faith, say, the Holy Trinity, it seems most obvious that God would guide the Church into truth. But it seems so arbitrary to throw out infallibility everywhere, even covering current or past theological opinions (Was limbo an infallible teaching? etc.) It is simplistic to view the Church as the “Infallible Church,” and this can cause one to disregard the disagreements and developments that have taken place throughout the history of the Church.

P.S. By asking this, I am not denying infallibility at all–just questioning whether the current position of the Church is true.

Homosexuality is an abomination.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Funny that you believe that. It’s not true.

Peace,
Ed

I’ll go with the Oxford geneticist.

cnn.com/2003/US/07/11/nyt.kristof/

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Funny that you believe that. It’s not true.

Peace,
Ed

“The consensus among Western researchers today is that human races are sociocultural constructs.”

This book review gives a good background on the subject (you don’t have to read it all, most of the relevant points are before the reviews of the books actually start):
americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/race-finished

 

[edwest2]

So what race are Indians? They both exist and there are enough of them to matter.

Q) A=B=C, solve for A
A) insufficient information to solve.

You didn’t actually give me an answer

You are referring to Native Americans? Northern Asian origin with some Middle Asian.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

You are referring to Native Americans? Northern Asian origin with some Middle Asian.

Peace,
Ed

What race are Indians?** (Y’know, the kind from the Indian subcontinent)**

People don’t choose to be gay either; concupiscence comes unbidden.

That kind.

 

[edwest2]

“The consensus among Western researchers today is that human races are sociocultural constructs.”

This book review gives a good background on the subject (you don’t have to read it all, most of the relevant points are before the reviews of the books actually start):
americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/race-finished

Thanks for the link. Are you familiar with forensic anthropology?

amazon.com/Skeletal-Attribution-Race-Forensic-Anthropology/dp/0912535067

Peace,
Ed