Could the Catholic Church ever change its teaching on homosexuality?

[Elizium23]

The Church has many teachings which are hard to assent to. Over the course of my life, I’ve doubted some of them. I’ve disagreed and argued with them. For 11 years I denied my Catholicity and lived as an agnostic who didn’t care about religion. Then I realized that this was not a rational choice. I swallowed my doubt and came back to the Church with an attitude of humble submission. I don’t always agree with the way clergy do things, or with established discipline, modern liturgy, some doctrine and dogmas are still hard for me. The voice of doubt is still there, but it gets smaller over time. What I don’t try to do is sow doubt and disobedience among the faithful. I don’t start threads about maybe these teachings should be changed. I don’t try to poke holes in the history of the Church and try to prove that maybe it’s not all it is cracked up to be. I keep quiet about my misgivings, because doubt and dissent come from the devil. He is always happy with threads like this because the debate feeds the weak-minded. No matter how many Catholics come to a thread to set things right and speak the Truth, there is always at least one who will keep the argument going by taking the wrong side. This is a subtle proselytization of dissent that we must be aware of. Observers see the threads and think to themselves, “Catholics can’t agree on anything! Look how much argument there is in the Church about even fundamental teachings! I will stay away from them.” There are subjects which can be the focus of legitimate debate, but the truth of doctrine must not. We are called to give faithful assent to doctrinal teachings. Sometimes that is a cross for one to carry. Sometimes it causes suffering to be faithful. But we do it anyway, out of love for God, or even out of fear of Hell.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The Church has many teachings which are hard to assent to. Over the course of my life, I’ve doubted some of them. I’ve disagreed and argued with them. For 11 years I denied my Catholicity and lived as an agnostic who didn’t care about religion. Then I realized that this was not a rational choice. I swallowed my doubt and came back to the Church with an attitude of humble submission. I don’t always agree with the way clergy do things, or with established discipline, modern liturgy, some doctrine and dogmas are still hard for me. The voice of doubt is still there, but it gets smaller over time. What I don’t try to do is sow doubt and disobedience among the faithful. I don’t start threads about maybe these teachings should be changed. I don’t try to poke holes in the history of the Church and try to prove that maybe it’s not all it is cracked up to be. I keep quiet about my misgivings, because doubt and dissent come from the devil. He is always happy with threads like this because the debate feeds the weak-minded. No matter how many Catholics come to a thread to set things right and speak the Truth, there is always at least one who will keep the argument going by taking the wrong side. This is a subtle proselytization of dissent that we must be aware of. Observers see the threads and think to themselves, “Catholics can’t agree on anything! Look how much argument there is in the Church about even fundamental teachings! I will stay away from them.” There are subjects which can be the focus of legitimate debate, but the truth of doctrine must not. We are called to give faithful assent to doctrinal teachings. Sometimes that is a cross for one to carry. Sometimes it causes suffering to be faithful. But we do it anyway, out of love for God, or even out of fear of Hell.

Oh I really hope you are not trying to get me kicked off this forum.

What is the purpose of CAF if not to ask authentic, honest questions? I am not trying to get anyone to change his or her mind. I see the vast majority of responses holding firm to traditional Catholic teaching. I consider myself a faithful Catholic who happens to struggle with this teaching very, very much, since I struggle very much with “deep-seated” same-sex attraction. I have struggled for a while with this teaching, and I have been on a spiritual roller coaster. I can only repeat that I am only asking honestly. There is a lot of talk of the magisterium saying this, infallibility covering that: But no response on *here *is guaranteed infallible, and no member of these forums represents the magisterium.

Reading what other priests and theologians have to say on this issue causes me to see an honest searching among others as well.

I know there are crosses in Christianity. I have acknowledged that already. Responses from others keep saying this–that teachings can be hard to accept, Christianity involves suffering, etc. But the point of my question is the truth of the teaching; the years of struggling has caused the questioning on my part.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Trust your Church and her teachings and accept them.***

Peace, Mark***

Yes, I wish it were that easy!
Yet some would call this blind faith. I cannot conflate teaching authority, which the magisterium does have, and so-called command authority, which it does not. The Church’s hierarchy cannot command someone to believe, since belief is not that kind of act. Rather, an individual believes because the object of belief appears true.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

May I commend you on your confession? To admit that actions were deplorable, to admit neglect and abuse of people is open and honest. It would appear to suggest that you understand that people, like you should be respected. Am I correct?

Recognition of the change and giving credit where credit is due is mature of you, may I commend you. Thanking the Lord for your change, I would assume is part and parcel of your new understanding of looking at others and understanding others and being less self centered. Am I correct?

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.

Your understanding of living a life of sin, without correction, is tragic. Do you believe that in this regard fraternal correction aids those that need correction, even if it causes them sadness? Not offering correction I am sure you would agree would be tragic. Am I correct?

 

[Elizabeth502]

There is a lot of talk of the magisterium saying this, infallibility covering that: But no response on *here *is guaranteed infallible, and no member of these forums represents the magisterium.

But when members quote the Magisterium and refer questioners to resources and links, then indirectly they very much do “represent the Magisterium.” The Magisterium is not going to come personally to knock on your door, to reassure you that what’s in writing is what they authored. They’re presumably a continent away. That’s why there are these things called documents. And when CAF members cite authoritative Magisterial documents/teachings, it’s the equivalent.

Reading what other priests and theologians have to say on this issue causes me to see an honest searching among others as well.

No, that ^ is not correct, based on your very words below.

But the point of my question is the truth of the teaching; the years of struggling has caused the questioning on my part.

…and therefore you are seeking loopholes in the teaching, or relative clauses in the absolutes, and you will not find them.

Your experience is not that different – although you may not believe so – from people who “struggle with the teachings of” cohabitation, contraception, or abortion. Virtually to a person, the “questioning of the teachings” follows the personal struggle with conformity to the required behavior. A couple finds NFP (approved) more inconvenient than contraception (not approved). Poster after poster comes onto CAF looking for loopholes, rationalizations, etc. Or someone “sees nothing wrong” with an uncommitted live-in relationship, and says adultery is not fornication, “therefore” the Sixth Commandment is not being broken. Same with all of the sexual sins. They are comforting; they are tempting; many of them are lifelong struggles, therefore, we seek excuses for them.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, I wish it were that easy!
Yet some would call this blind faith. I cannot conflate teaching authority, which the magisterium does have, and so-called command authority, which it does not. The Church’s hierarchy cannot command someone to believe, since belief is not that kind of act. .

Rather, an individual believes because the object of belief appears true

I have read all your posts. I see that you struggle with Essentialism and Social Construct explanation of the secular explanation of Homosexuality. While you suggest that it is not about intimacy…

But the homosexual person is attracted to a person of the same-sex, not an activity. The attraction involves far more than genital relations.

You do struggle with that as well…

homosexual persons are just like heterosexual persons in this case: they are attracted to specific individuals whom they want to share their lives with, be emotional and intimate with.

Homosexual persons also desire to express their love in a sexual manner.

IF–the Church could ever develop its understanding on this issue such that homosexual acts are no longer seen as “intrinsically evil,” that would not mean the seriousness of sex, the holiness of sex is thrown out the window!

So, here I ask you to consider what it is you believe…if you believe the object of your belief to be true as you say…then consider…

If you believe that same sex attraction is fixed and immutable then the object of your belief is different than if you accept that same sex attraction is not fixed and not immutable.

Your belief will be your struggle either hopeless or hope filled.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes, I wish it were that easy!
Yet some would call this blind faith. I cannot conflate teaching authority, which the magisterium does have, and so-called command authority, which it does not. The Church’s hierarchy cannot command someone to believe, since belief is not that kind of act. Rather, an individual believes because the object of belief appears true.

You’re right (in theory) and you’re wrong (in practice).

First of all, try to realize (or remember, if you’ve been taught it) that there are levels of belief, levels of assent, levels of knowledge, levels of understanding. Some people do have blind faith, with little or no understanding. Sometimes that blind faith eventually becomes more enthusiastic assent, even with continued minimal understanding. Sometimes that blind faith eventually becomes accompanied by understanding and an apprehended knowledge, as a fruit of faith.

However, mostly – and I can understand the impulse of all of us rational beings to do this; I do it, too – you are assuming that in order to have faith one must first find the content of that faith “reasonable” or rational. It doesn’t always work that way. Often, reason follows after faith.

Second, this is what many people who have left sinful lifestyles of any kind report, regarding their conversion: While they were in the lifestyle, no amount of rational discussion of doctrine persuaded them of the logic and the Truth of that doctrine. Once they started living according to the teaching, they then understood the teaching. (They saw its benefit; they saw its spiritual fruit; and together, reason and faith were united, and the intellectual and/or emotional struggle against the doctrine ceased.)

 

[catholic1seeks]

I have read all your posts. I see that you struggle with Essentialism and Social Construct explanation of the secular explanation of Homosexuality. While you suggest that it is not about intimacy…

You do struggle with that as well…

So, here I ask you to consider what it is you believe…if you believe the object of your belief to be true as you say…then consider…

If you believe that same sex attraction is fixed and immutable then the object of your belief is different than if you accept that same sex attraction is not fixed and not immutable.

Your belief will be your struggle either hopeless or hope filled.

Hi. Thanks for reading all of my posts. I am about to go nighty-night, but I am a little confused with the terms of classification and what exactly you think I’m saying. In any case, I definitely do believe some people have a homosexual orientation-for whatever reason-that is not due to merely environmental or social reasons. If you are asking me whether I believe some homosexuals are ‘‘born this way,’’ then yes, I do. Maybe not all, but I think research points there.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi. Thanks for reading all of my posts. I am about to go nighty-night, but I am a little confused with the terms of classification and what exactly you think I’m saying. In any case, I definitely do believe some people have a homosexual orientation-for whatever reason-that is not due to merely environmental or social reasons. If you are asking me whether I believe some homosexuals are ‘‘born this way,’’ then yes, I do. Maybe not all, but I think research points there.

There is not now or ever been any proof to substantiate “born this way”=Essentialism to be true.

 

[catholic1seeks]

There is not now or ever been any proof to substantiate “born this way”=Essentialism to be true.

Apparently it is not a huge concern to traditional Catholic teaching. The catechism notes that whatever the origins are, the moral standing, well, still stands. I think it does make a difference. And there is evidence! But what I refer to is not the same thing as ‘‘gay gene.’’ Have you looked into twin studies, for example?

Goodnight!

 

[Elizium23]

The central teaching to be aware of here is marriage. If you understood how marriage fit into God’s plan, then you would not doubt His law in regards to all manner of sexual sins and conduct. Here is what I suggest. Do a study of Church documents about marriage. Try and digest just how important marriage is to the Kingdom. Read the Bible. Especially Revelation. What does Revelation have to do with marriage, you may ask? A lot. I just completed Jeff Cavin’s study of this book and, it turns out that the book is all about two things: liturgy and marriage. It primarily treats the mystical marriage of Christ and His Church, but there is plenty of meat in there about the human institution of marriage as well. Led by a young married couple on the cusp of delivering their second child, this Bible study really helped open my eyes to the true importance of marriage in the world. It is not something we can dismiss lightly or misunderstand. It is a vocation vital to the spread of the Church and the Gospel. If there were no married couples raising children in the Faith then there would be no Faith! If a man and a woman did not love each other sacrificially then the Trinity would be meaningless and empty. God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. Not all of us can live up to that command. Some are homosexual, others are infertile, some are called to the religious life or a celibate priesthood. But thanks be to God that we have people who are willing to step up and live out the vocation of marriage for the sake of the Kingdom. My parish is on fire with many convalidations now. I am incredibly pleased that these young people are putting behind them a life of sin and denial to live a life of faith.

At my age, I’m not so sure I can look forward to marriage at all. But I am glad to fight side-by-side with the Church in defense of traditional marriage and promote the vocation as God intended it.

Church documents on marriage, from the USCCB

 

[Elizabeth502]

There is a lot of talk of the magisterium saying this, infallibility covering that: But no response on *here *is guaranteed infallible

It most certainly is guaranteed, when references are made to magisterial documents and the subject is not geocentrism, liturgical variations, or other changeable matters.

The moral teachings of the church are without error (infallible), even when they are not included in the rare ex cathedra statements by Popes, which are few.

Here is what our Brother JR, with his theological seminary training, has said, and he has repeated this often, because many Catholics are not aware of this fact:

Anything in the CCC that comes from scripture, morals or dogma is infallible. Anything that is law, discipline, commentary, or pastoral can change. It is not infallible.

And elsewhere he has reminded us:

Church law and tradition teach us that everything that the Holy Father teaches in matters of faith and morals carry the obligation of assent. There is also our faith that the Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

Regarding your suggestion about “theologians”:

Reading what other priests and theologians have to say on this issue causes me to see an honest searching among others as well.

One thing that is important here is to determine if the priest was making an academic statement or a moral statement. Let us not forget what happened to Benedict XVI when he spoke academically and quoted an ancient emperror concerning Islam. It was taken out of context by the press and it offended the Muslims to no end.

A priest’s or theologian’s intellectual musings have no authority against the Magisterium. If the two conflict, it is the latter that are binding,not the former.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

May I commend you on your confession? To admit that actions were deplorable, to admit neglect and abuse of people is open and honest. It would appear to suggest that you understand that people, like you should be respected. Am I correct?

Recognition of the change and giving credit where credit is due is mature of you, may I commend you. Thanking the Lord for your change, I would assume is part and parcel of your new understanding of looking at others and understanding others and being less self centered. Am I correct?

Your understanding of living a life of sin, without correction, is tragic. Do you believe that in this regard fraternal correction aids those that need correction, even if it causes them sadness? Not offering correction I am sure you would agree would be tragic. Am I correct?

Yes, it is incredibly heroic especially on CAF, almost as much as someone coming out as gay in the mainstream media.

 

[aemcpa]

Rather, an individual believes because the object of belief appears true.

“O my God, I firmly believe that you are one God in three divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe that your divine Son became man and died for our sins, and that he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the holy catholic Church teaches, because in revealing them you can neither deceive nor be deceived.”

The only issue you need to resolve is this: is the Catholic Church worthy of belief or not?

 

[clem456]

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.

One can dance around ad infinitum with Church teaching, wrangling with the meaning of scripture and whether Christ really said this or that. If you would rather not simply follow Church teaching, then use your God-given reason for a minute as follows.

Ask yourself this question:
“If a man and a woman did not have sexual relations, would you even exist in human form to debate this question.?”
Simple answer: NO. What does the fact that sexual reproduction is necessary for existence mean for us? And why would the Church go against what is naturally self evident? It would be like claiming the sun revolves the earth from west to east.

You are asking for a debate on a topic that is absurd.

 

[CopticChristian]

Apparently it is not a huge concern to traditional Catholic teaching. The catechism notes that whatever the origins are, the moral standing, well, still stands. I think it does make a difference.
Goodnight!

And there is evidence! But what I refer to is not the same thing as ‘‘gay gene.’’ Have you looked into twin studies, for example?

Yes. I know about all this. Have you read the Journal of Human Sexuality?

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, it is incredibly heroic especially on CAF, almost as much as someone coming out as gay in the mainstream media.

Dakota?

How can you compare someone confessing and coming to the Faith in strength

to

a gay person in the mainstream media?

 

[CopticChristian]

“O my God, I firmly believe that you are one God in three divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe that your divine Son became man and died for our sins, and that he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the holy catholic Church teaches, because in revealing them you can neither deceive nor be deceived.”

The only issue you need to resolve is this: is the Catholic Church worthy of belief or not?

You have stumbled on to the most important point, I believe, that causes most that are in the Faith, coming to the Faith, or resisting the Faith. It is the problem that keeps Protestants…Protestant and the point that creates some of the biggest problems…

The Catechism is divided into 4 parts…

1. We Believe…revealed truths…in many and various ways God spoke to us through Prophets and in these last days through His Son…Our profession of Faith…This has to be accepted 100%

We believe (I believe ) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begottenSon of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God ) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for usmen and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man ; was crucified also for us underPontius Pilate, suffered and wasburied ; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe ) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son ), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by theProphets. **And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. **We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) theresurrection of the dead and thelife of the world to come. Amen."

In the creed we believe and the belief in the OHCAC is the stumbling block to overcome, because without it there is created an inablitiy to proceed with…

1. Sacramental Life
2. Life in Christ, morality, the commandments, with God’s help becoming Holy as God is Holy
3. Prayer always available…

So without the belief in the OHCAC there is difficulty in Life in Christ, difficulty in the Sacramental Life and God still gives us the ability to ask for help and Pray…

I believe in OHCAC…may be the meditation and the acceptance that may cause the only change that can be the change that will cause the change for true acceptance…

or else the struggle continues…

 

[catholic1seeks]

However, mostly – and I can understand the impulse of all of us rational beings to do this; I do it, too – you are assuming that in order to have faith one must first find the content of that faith “reasonable” or rational. It doesn’t always work that way. Often, reason follows after faith.

Ask a homosexual Christian to believe the Church’s teaching on this issue–a teaching that calls his or her “deep-seated” attraction to be intrinsically disordered–without seeing the reasonableness of it.

Second, this is what many people who have left sinful lifestyles of any kind report, regarding their conversion: While they were in the lifestyle, no amount of rational discussion of doctrine persuaded them of the logic and the Truth of that doctrine. Once they started living according to the teaching, they then understood the teaching. (They saw its benefit; they saw its spiritual fruit; and together, reason and faith were united, and the intellectual and/or emotional struggle against the doctrine ceased.)

I understand the principle you expound on here, but this says nothing of whether or not current church teaching is true. In addition, the way you phrase it has the impression as if homosexual Christians who disagree with the doctrine are those who live the lifestyle, want to justify it, etc. Isn’t it enough to admit that there are people who actually disagree with current church teaching because they do not see it to be true?

 

[catholic1seeks]

The central teaching to be aware of here is marriage. If you understood how marriage fit into God’s plan, then you would not doubt His law in regards to all manner of sexual sins and conduct. Here is what I suggest. Do a study of Church documents about marriage. Try and digest just how important marriage is to the Kingdom. Read the Bible. Especially Revelation. What does Revelation have to do with marriage, you may ask? A lot. I just completed Jeff Cavin’s study of this book and, it turns out that the book is all about two things: liturgy and marriage. It primarily treats the mystical marriage of Christ and His Church, but there is plenty of meat in there about the human institution of marriage as well. Led by a young married couple on the cusp of delivering their second child, this Bible study really helped open my eyes to the true importance of marriage in the world. It is not something we can dismiss lightly or misunderstand. It is a vocation vital to the spread of the Church and the Gospel. If there were no married couples raising children in the Faith then there would be no Faith! If a man and a woman did not love each other sacrificially then the Trinity would be meaningless and empty. God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. Not all of us can live up to that command. Some are homosexual, others are infertile, some are called to the religious life or a celibate priesthood. But thanks be to God that we have people who are willing to step up and live out the vocation of marriage for the sake of the Kingdom. My parish is on fire with many convalidations now. I am incredibly pleased that these young people are putting behind them a life of sin and denial to live a life of faith.

At my age, I’m not so sure I can look forward to marriage at all. But I am glad to fight side-by-side with the Church in defense of traditional marriage and promote the vocation as God intended it.

Church documents on marriage, from the USCCB

I think this was a really great contribution to the discussion. Thank you!

I do know of the biblical references to marriage, and the beautiful imagery of Christ being the bridegroom of his Church, the Bride. Images such as this, with God being the lover of his people, extend back even to the Old Testament. I think these images are saying something profound, but they are obviously not the same thing as our marriages. They may be saying something, even a lot, about what marriage means for us. But they do not say much about the physicality of marriage (since, for example, the Church is not an actual singular female entity, paralleling Christ, even though the Church has been given a feminine personification).

The theology surrounding marriage and sex has, well, had a certain theology and development because these concepts have been understood in a certain way for so long, and the writers of Scripture naturally would have used certain images pertinent to the culture. There were no homosexual marriages for example! And Christian theologians would have developed the concepts in the same terms as well.