Could the Catholic Church ever change its teaching on homosexuality?

[Elizium23]

Frankly, you are probably right that attitudes in the Church can change regarding homosexuality, and I will agree that they have changed dramatically in the recent past, but certainly not in the direction that you have hoped. In the past, homosexuality was secret and subcultural and not something “respectable citizens” practiced or admitted. Except of course, in the decadent Roman Empire and Greece in the world that grew up around the Early Church. As Christianity spread, with its clear prohibitions on homosexuality and other kinds of depravity, homosexuality was driven into hiding and disuse. The resurgence of homosexuality today is thanks in part to the loosened grip Christianity has on the Western World, the decrease in influence of the Catholic Church in parts, and the emergence of so many Protestant Christian sects that are willing to embrace any anti-teaching no matter how ridiculous it sounds to defenders of orthodoxy. The resurgence of homosexuality has caused a reaction in the Church. The Church has bolstered her view on homosexual acts, and mounted a full frontal assault on this new danger of homosexual “marriage”. The Church has spoken forcefully on the dangers of legalizing it, on the dangers of the spread of homosexualism. The Church has not been asleep or unready to confront the fresh heresy spreading in the world because she understands that there is nothing new under the sun. Meanwhile, the Church has made efforts to safeguard the rights and privileges of intrinsic human dignity. The Catechism stresses that homosexual persons are to be afforded all due care and love because they are human, after all. There is a reaction among orthodox Catholics to the anti-gay element among Christians, who are bigoted and hateful. Some of us can never countenance unjust discrimination and ghettoization of homosexual persons. Some people spend a lot of time “hating the sinner”. This is not the way of Christ. No, I see a future of strengthened opposition to homosexuality. No Pope or bishop or orthodox theologian will speak against the clear position of the Church. Instead, the faithful will retreat into the Church and take comfort in her constant teachings and reaffirm what we have always known to be true about right and wrong. Marriage is a divine institution and it will enjoy God’s favor until the end of time; nothing can change that.

 

[CopticChristian]

Elizium23:

And thus you enunciate the concerns of millions of secularists who think that you can legalize “homosexual marriage” because it is just equivalent to real marriage if you will just give those poor homosexuals their “right” to marry.

Wow. Since I oppose same sex marriage I need to know what it it you are proposing here. To whom are you addressing this “and thus”…what is it that caused you to state that the concerns of millions of secularists have been enunciated. State this specifically so I may too be aware of how to argue against this.

**People **think that the mean old Catholics only think homosexual acts are a sin because they’re outside of marriage. That we will stop at nothing to keep them illegal but if we could only see the truth, that it’s just two people expressing their love in a legitimate sexual embrace, then we would legalize “marriage” between them.

What People think this when you say “people think” who are you speaking of? How is it you came to believe that anyone believes that homosexual acts can be thought of as sin because they are outside of marriage? Where is it you came to address this issue about what you call the truth and how is it you are expressing thoughts on same sex marriage? What caused you to think to say this, based on what?

The reality is that homosexual acts (sodomy) have more in common with masturbation than fornication or adultery. It matters that they are fundamentally different, because marriage between two men is always invalid. Sexual complementarity comes into the picture here. Man and woman, made for each other, complete each other sexually in the marital embrace, which two men or two women can never do. Two women can never “become one flesh” nor can they “be fruitful and multiply”.

Provide me your insights as it concerns sins against Chastity as outlined in the Catechism as it concerns the 6th commandment. What is the rationale for comparing sins against Chastity and if you do how does this make sense in helping avoid them?

Adultery and fornication can be unitive and procreative, while sodomy is neither. The essential act of adultery and fornication, the marital embrace, becomes moral and acceptable when it is realized between a man and a woman united in matrimony. Adultery and fornication are illicit only because they do not enjoy the legal status of marriage as God ordained. It is impossible to take sodomy (like masturbation) and replace it in a setting which would make it acceptable. It is always an abomination. It will always be wrong no matter how the state wants to make it right.

Ok, then Adultery, Fornication, Homosexuality, Prostitution, Lust, Rape, Incest and Masturbation are all sins against Chastity and are never accepted. Do you agree with that?

That being said, I will repeat again that they have the same end. They all result in mortal sin. They will send you to Hell just as surely if you stole a car and crashed it. Stealing a car is not sodomy, but we must understand that stealing a car is not morally equivalent to sodomy, which most adults can plainly see.

That being said, whatever it is you said, having said it, knowing full well that you said it, if you stole a car and crashed it, you would according to this formulation go to hell if you were an adulterer, fornicator, homosexual, prostitute, luster, rapist, incester and masturbator moments before you stole it and crashed it…going to hell. Do you agree?

By the same token, if I open a car door and start it up, and drive it away, am I stealing it? Is that a licit action? It can be perfectly morally acceptable to drive a car if I own it. If I am the legal owner then there is no sin. However, if I do not own the car then I have stolen it and I am guilty of theft. This is the marital embrace (driving a car) and ownership is equivalent to the marriage covenant. If I get in my car in a state of grace and drive it and it crashes, then I will not go to Hell because I did not sin, because I was using my car in the proper fashion.

With another token if you were an adulterer, fornicator, homosexual, prostitute, luster, rapist, incester and masturbator moments before you start up a car and drive it away even if you own it and you are…going to hell.

However, if I put sugar in the gas tank of a car, is it moral? I can put sugar in my own gas tank and only cause problems for myself. I am misusing that sugar and the tank. If I put sugar in someone else’s tank, then I can be arrested for damage. I have still misused the tank. When is the right time to put sugar in a gas tank? I would say never.

My cousin once put sugar in his father’s car gas tank. What a mess. Now if you do this for you car or anothers car then if you were an adulterer, fornicator, homosexual, prostitute, luster, rapist, incester and masturbator moments before you put sugar in the gast tank of any car you may be condemned. to hell if you then walk across the street and get hit by a car, even if that car was driven by a Saint.

 

[Brendan]

I
It is something to consider. It does no good to throw out the infallibility card if that means we are going to disregard that the Church really has developed her teachings, sometimes in quite profound (and even radical) ways.

If you think the Church has changed it’s position , check out what Pope Francis said

“Christian identity is belonging to the Church, because all of these (the apostles) belonged to the Church, the Mother Church, because finding Jesus outside the Church is impossible,” he said.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/jesus-not-found-outside-the-church-pope-preaches/

 

[sw85]

There was no “development in doctrine” re: the necessity of the Church for salvation. There was a change in phrasing. Reading doctrinal discontinuity into this is absolutely forbidden, and that comes straight from Peter, as well. It’s called a “hermeneutic of rupture.”

Communion with the Pope is still absolutely necessary for salvation. That extraordinary means of salvation are available to those who are inculpably non-Catholic (which has been taught since the beginning of the Church) doesn’t change that. And even their salvation is still mediated by the Church in a hidden and mysterious way.

I don’t think you get what “doctrinal development” means, anyway. It means adding new stuff, not repudiating old stuff. Since this is what you are asking be done for the Church’s ancient teachings on sodomy (you desire that "homosexual acts are no longer seen as ‘intrinsically evil’), there cannot be “change” in this manner. And I don’t know what could be added to “intrinsically evil” and “cries out to Heaven for vengeance” in a way that would make it palatable to your modern sensibilities.

At one time, the mere pleasure during sex was thought to be a sin.

Not by the Magisterium.

During medieval times, the Church hierarchy was so caught up with sex issues that they were the primary sins, and there were even days of the year where one was not to have any sexual activity (the majority of the year, in fact).

Praxis isn’t doctrine.

All of this is to say the so-called “seriousness” of sex should not be seen as somehow static outlook the Church has always had. The holiness of it exists because it is part of God’s creation! But history shows that the Church has interpreted sex to mean different things.

The dying-out of theologically non-binding opinions never endorsed by the Magisterium don’t constitute changes in doctrine any more than do changes in praxis.

 

[Elizium23]

Ok, then Adultery, Fornication, Homosexuality, Prostitution, Lust, Rape, Incest and Masturbation are all sins against Chastity and are never accepted. Do you agree with that?

Yes. The rest of your post is argumentative non sequitur and not worthy of reply.

 

[catholic1seeks]

There was no “development in doctrine” re: the necessity of the Church for salvation. There was a change in phrasing. Reading doctrinal discontinuity into this is absolutely forbidden, and that comes straight from Peter, as well. It’s called a “hermeneutic of rupture.”

Communion with the Pope is still absolutely necessary for salvation. That extraordinary means of salvation are available to those who are inculpably non-Catholic (which has been taught since the beginning of the Church) doesn’t change that. And even their salvation is still mediated by the Church in a hidden and mysterious way.

I don’t think you get what “doctrinal development” means, anyway. It means adding new stuff, not repudiating old stuff. Since this is what you are asking be done for the Church’s ancient teachings on sodomy (you desire that "homosexual acts are no longer seen as ‘intrinsically evil’), there cannot be “change” in this manner. And I don’t know what could be added to “intrinsically evil” and “cries out to Heaven for vengeance” in a way that would make it palatable to your modern sensibilities.

Not by the Magisterium.

Praxis isn’t doctrine.

The dying-out of theologically non-binding opinions never endorsed by the Magisterium don’t constitute changes in doctrine any more than do changes in praxis.

Hi. I am on my phone, so responding is awkward, and I will reply more later. But as for the magisterium technicality you mentioned – Note that in itself even developed. The high hierarchical and well-defined categories of infallibilty were not around in the early church. Pope Gregory the Great was such a figure who taught pleasure in sex was sinful.

 

[catholic1seeks]

If you think the Church has changed it’s position , check out what Pope Francis said

catholicnewsagency.com/news/jesus-not-found-outside-the-church-pope-preaches/

Pope Francis obviously has eyes on Vatican II teaching. The difference between Eugene and Boniface and today’s teaching is rather apparent. Not seeing it is due to the (well-intentioned) belief that the two have to be reconcilable. I think there is a way to reconcile them, but not so far as having to shy away from recognizing change or understanding infallibility more modestly even.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

(…)

There is no absolute prohibition on a homosexual being married or entering the priesthood. It can happen; it is rare. If someone masters self-control and continence then they may be able to cope as a celibate priest. If someone meets a woman he can truly love for life, there is the small possibility of a Josephite marriage (of course, even such a marriage must be able to be consummated…) A chaste homosexual can explore avenues of lay ministry and apostolate that do not require a conventional vocation. He is not useless to the Church. Nobody will be thrown away if they are faithful and willing to serve. Think of the difficulty encountered by a laicized priest who remains bound to his promise of celibacy. What vocation does he have to look forward to? What kind of life for him? He can’t participate in any ministry without extraordinary permission from his ordinary. He still can’t marry. That is a tragedy indeed. Then how about a registered sex offender? Where can he live? Who can he date and reveal the truth easily? Where can he worship? I think these cases are worse tragedies than the example of a homosexual, but all have value to God. All can attempt to love Him and be faithful and live out the life chosen for them by fate.

But it is just a simple fact of life that some people with a disability cannot enjoy the life they want. That is the cross for many. As someone who once had a promising career in Information Technology, I now make near-minimum wage in a part-time job which I am lucky to have. This is not the life I wanted for myself, but I remain faithful to God who has rewarded me abundantly for that fact.

I personal would suggest there is a moral issue with entering into marriage under false pretenses.

I don’t know of a case where the priest was laicized without being released from the obligation of celibacy that didn’t involve molestation of children, in those cases they are suffering the consequences of their horrible actions.

Registered sex offenders who are indeed guilty are reaping what they sowed.

It is not tragic when someone who is guilty of vehicular manslaughter is barred from ever getting a driving license whereas it is tragic when someone who has epilepsy is barred from one. In the former case they caused their problems, in the latter they are punished while they did no wrong.

Family and friends make hardship bearable; to know your entire life will be hardship, that you must face it alone and that you have nothing to live for will break the strongest people. Loneliness can destroy you. What does one live for if one has nothing to live for?

 

[Elizium23]

Family and friends make hardship bearable; to know your entire life will be hardship, that you must face it alone and that you have nothing to live for will break the strongest people. Loneliness can destroy you. What does one live for if one has nothing to live for?

To say that this is the lot of the homosexual person is B.S. In my life I have family and friends and church. There is nothing to prevent a single celibate person from enjoying all the fruits of these things. I enjoy the company of my parents, my sister, my niece. My whole life will not be hardship if I continue to be a single celibate person. I have plenty to live for. To say that a homosexual without a companion has nothing to live for or will be condemned to loneliness is a bald-faced lie.

I have a past life marked by cohabitation with women, contraception, abortion. These things were deplorable. I neglected and abused my girlfriends and my children. I was lucky to escape from this lifestyle unburdened by marriage or dependents. I thank my good Lord every day that I have changed and that I lead a good life moving forward. For homosexuals who are not chaste, for those who are promiscuous and plagued by deep-seated attractions to members of the same sex, there is hope. It is called faithfulness and chastity. This is the ONLY hope for salvation. You can’t sit around waiting for the Church to change around you. You have to conform yourself to the will of Christ and trust in His mercy and forgiveness. There is abundant life at the end of the tunnel, but you have to carry your cross to get there.

People who are living out the consequences of their sins are leading tragic lives. It is tragic for rights or privileges to be taken away. It is justice, but it is still tragic. God doesn’t want that for us. But that is the reality of temporal punishment for sin. Concupiscence is a disability we all live with. The sin of Adam and Eve led to tragic circumstances. We overcome the tragedy by our faithfulness to God. The only true tragedy is eternal punishment and loss of souls.

 

[sw85]

Hi. I am on my phone, so responding is awkward, and I will reply more later. But as for the magisterium technicality you mentioned – Note that in itself even developed. The high hierarchical and well-defined categories of infallibilty were not around in the early church.

This is a complete non sequitur. You are demanding doctrinal repudiation, not doctrinal development. Doctrinal development is real, that’s why we have a living Magisterium. Doctrinal repudiation is an impossibility.

Pope Gregory the Great was such a figure who taught pleasure in sex was sinful.

I’ve heard this claim before. It is meritless. See, for instance, here.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

To say that this is the lot of the homosexual person is B.S. In my life I have family and friends and church. There is nothing to prevent a single celibate person from enjoying all the fruits of these things. I enjoy the company of my parents, my sister, my niece. My whole life will not be hardship if I continue to be a single celibate person. I have plenty to live for. To say that a homosexual without a companion has nothing to live for or will be condemned to loneliness is a bald-faced lie.

I have a past life marked by cohabitation with women, contraception, abortion. These things were deplorable. I neglected and abused my girlfriends and my children. I was lucky to escape from this lifestyle unburdened by marriage or dependents. I thank my good Lord every day that I have changed and that I lead a good life moving forward. For homosexuals who are not chaste, for those who are promiscuous and plagued by deep-seated attractions to members of the same sex, there is hope. It is called faithfulness and chastity. This is the ONLY hope for salvation. You can’t sit around waiting for the Church to change around you. You have to conform yourself to the will of Christ and trust in His mercy and forgiveness. There is abundant life at the end of the tunnel, but you have to carry your cross to get there.

People who are living out the consequences of their sins are leading tragic lives. It is tragic for rights or privileges to be taken away. It is justice, but it is still tragic. God doesn’t want that for us. But that is the reality of temporal punishment for sin. Concupiscence is a disability we all live with. The sin of Adam and Eve led to tragic circumstances. We overcome the tragedy by our faithfulness to God. The only true tragedy is eternal punishment and loss of souls.

I didn’t say that.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Can we remind ourselves the Christian* context of this discussion? Let’s please be respectful of each other. I have to remind myself of this, too, of course. But this is a sensitive issue, involving real people, people who are searching for answers.

 

[catholic1seeks]

This is a complete non sequitur. You are demanding doctrinal repudiation, not doctrinal development. Doctrinal development is real, that’s why we have a living Magisterium. Doctrinal repudiation is an impossibility.

I’ve heard this claim before. It is meritless. See, for instance, here.

The very fact that the article is attempting to refute other theologians who are of the opinion that Pope Gregory did in fact mean something that the Church of today does not teach at least shows there is discussion and debate surrounding the topic. Although I have not done enough research myself, I am starting to become very interested in the Church’s history of doctrine, especially with regards to the current topic of sexuality.

As of now, I am not convinced that “doctrinal repudiation” is impossible–if that means the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is able to have an increased understanding and thereby acknowledge itself to be wrong in something.

 

[JimG]

The chance that the Church will change its moral teachings with respect sexual matters is the same as the chance that it will change its teaching on women priests, exactly zero. It would be a mistake to think that the Church will change its teachings on matters of faith and morals.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The chance that the Church will change its moral teachings with respect sexual matters is the same as the chance that it will change its teaching on women priests, exactly zero. It would be a mistake to think that the Church will change its teachings on matters of faith and morals.

The thread so far has been an attempt to flesh this out more. I understand why most of the responses have this view, but I am not so convinced of it.

 

[sw85]

The very fact that the article is attempting to refute other theologians who are of the opinion that Pope Gregory did in fact mean something that the Church of today does not teach at least shows there is discussion and debate surrounding the topic. Although I have not done enough research myself, I am starting to become very interested in the Church’s history of doctrine, especially with regards to the current topic of sexuality.

Gregory’s words are reproduced right there in the article. Read them for yourself; their meaning is clear. There is no “discussion” or “debate.” There are perversity-apologists and notorious dissidents like Curran waterboarding words until they say what he wants them to say.

As of now, I am not convinced that “doctrinal repudiation” is impossible–if that means the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is able to have an increased understanding and thereby acknowledge itself to be wrong in something.

In other words, you are not convinced infallibility is a thing. So just say so.

 

[JimG]

The thread so far has been an attempt to flesh this out more. I understand why most of the responses have this view, but I am not so convinced of it.

Well, convinced or not, it’s not something that’s ever going to happen–i.e. a change in the teaching–so waiting for the change would be an inevitable disappointment.

 

[catholic1seeks]

In other words, you are not convinced infallibility is a thing. So just say so.

What? I just described what I meant.

 

[adrift]

and the Church can teach error, as it did with the geocentric model of the universe. But that was an issue of common teaching, of the doctrine of the times.

You are promoting a common myth. The “Church” did not teach geocentric model. The Church had never declared geocentricism a tenet of faith. However, it is a common myth.

God protects the Church from error. And now that humanity is discovering more about itself in this particular area (homosexuality), perhaps God will at the same time guide the Church into a deeper understanding of sexuality. We now know that homosexual persons are a whole group of people out there (even if a very small minority); a homosexual person is capable of flourishing in a loving relationship with another individual.

Wow! No a person who is sining and continues to sin thus turning their back on God is not flourishing and it is hardly loving to help destroy the soul of another.

Also note that bigger concepts such as natural law would not be contradicted.

Oh. How is that?

The Church has sometimes been wrong in the past. Could this be an issue the Church is wrong on? I am not sure. Sometimes I find the discernment of which teachings to be infallible somewhat of a circular argument, because we presume there to be an infallible institution in the first place. I do understand there to be the “Charism of truth.” But to what extent?

The Church has NEVER been wrong on issues of faith and morals. To restate it another way the Church has NEVER declared a tenet of faith and morals that had to be believed by the faithful that was wrong.

Marriage is a sacrament. It has to have the capability to be consummate. Same sex couples aren’t capable of doing that.

 

[Mark121359]

I am quite aware you don’t have to rely on my opinion. I would like to readily assent to the Church on this matter, but for some it is hard. And you know, I think you really ought to realize that.

For some (and when I say some it’s actually better than half of all Catholics if you believe the polls) it’s hard to accept Church teachings on contraception, abortion, divorce, so-called same sex marriage, same sex adoption, sex between an unmarried man and woman, etc. etc. etc. So what’s new? The Church will never change her teachings on these issues!. And besides, I don’t ever recall Our Lord saying that following him would be a cakewalk. Trust your Church and her teachings and accept them. And as to your original question…the Church has about as much chance of changing her view on homosexuality as changing her view on abortion!

---

Peace, Mark***