Could the Catholic Church ever change its teaching on homosexuality?

[catholic1seeks]

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.

 

[Baelor]

In what possible way is gay sex reconcilable with Church teaching? Let us say that the Church were considering condoning gay sex, an obvious impossibility. What contradictions would arise?

These are the questions that demonstrate conclusively that the answer is “no.” The notion that the Church teaching stands in isolation and relies on perceived “infallibility” is sterile. More fruitful is the perspective that the condemnation is a necessary consequence of Catholic teaching as a whole. This framework is incompatible fundamentally with gay sex, and thus there is no possible way that the Church will teach error (i.e. change Her position on homosexuality).

 

[MidnightSun12]

Ultimately the progress that I think we will see in nations that move to embrace homosexuality (ie. the west) is that they will become increasingly weak, economically, and may eventually even lose their democracies. Fertility rates will continue to dwindle below replacement levels and this will cause wars and some countries will cease to exist (namely, those that have sub 1.5 fertility rates in Europe).

On the other hand, nations that are progressing away from homosexuality (namely Russia Ukraine and maybe eventually other countries in the east) will become increasingly christian (and hopefully Catholic). God will bestow graces on these countries and the balance of power will eventually shift. It wouldn’t surprise me if we eventually see a complete reverse of the situation in the 1950’s where Russia will now be the force of good in the world and the west will be drenched in athiesm and godlessness.

And in the middle of all of this, the Church’s infallible teachings will remain true to Our Lord’s Word… Unchanging.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

There is all the evidence a reasonable person could ask for that the Church’s teaching that homosexual behavior is intrinsically evil is an infallible position, taught as such by the Ordinary Magisterium at a minimum. It is a moral issue, which falls under the umbrella of infallibility. I don’t even think it is a serious argument to suggest otherwise. There is unanimity in the Church on this matter going back even to the Old Testament.

 

[catholic1seeks]

In what possible way is gay sex reconcilable with Church teaching? Let us say that the Church were considering condoning gay sex, an obvious impossibility. What contradictions would arise?

These are the questions that demonstrate conclusively that the answer is “no.” The notion that the Church teaching stands in isolation and relies on perceived “infallibility” is sterile. More fruitful is the perspective that the condemnation is a necessary consequence of Catholic teaching as a whole. This framework is incompatible fundamentally with gay sex, and thus there is no possible way that the Church will teach error (i.e. change Her position on homosexuality).

I realize my question relates to bigger issues, e.g., the Church’s understanding of sexuality in general. As it stands now, the Church’s position does condemn homosexual activity, and for different reasons. It is not ordered to the procreative ends that heterosexual sex is, for example. This does not mean the Church cannot develop its understanding of sexuality in general. 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. On the topic of sexuality, in the past the Church has emphasized the procreative aspect of sex. More recently came that and the emphasis on the unitive aspect as well.

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.

Also note that bigger concepts such as natural law would not be contradicted. The issue is an understanding of the homosexual person as an individual with a very different experience. The experience of many homosexuals testify that the Church’s teaching is very difficult to assent to; the Church says they have a disordered condition because they are attracted to “intrinsically evil” acts. But the homosexual person is attracted to a person of the same-sex, not an activity. The attraction involves far more than genital relations. Church documents seem to get caught up in the acts, when 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.

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?

 

[catholic1seeks]

There is all the evidence a reasonable person could ask for that the Church’s teaching that homosexual behavior is intrinsically evil is an infallible position, taught as such by the Ordinary Magisterium at a minimum. It is a moral issue, which falls under the umbrella of infallibility. I don’t even think it is a serious argument to suggest otherwise. There is unanimity in the Church on this matter going back even to the Old Testament.

I am not so convinced that passages in the Bible refer to the homosexuality of today–especially in the Old Testament. I know this has been talked about a lot on CAF, but I do not think we should be so quick to brush aside the insistence on taking into account the culture of the times. I hardly would believe Leviticus or Paul had in mind a committed relationship, for example.

Was teaching the earth as the center of the solar system part of the ordinary magisterium? Just curious. (Honestly)

 

[sw85]

It may indeed be arbitrary to throw out “infallibility” everywhere. People often speak as if every utterance of any bishop anywhere came straight from the mouth of God. I recall a while back a stupid kerfluffle in which then-Pope Benedict said something quite inoffensive, to the effect that a prostitute’s decision to use contraception so as not to infect his partner with AIDS might represent a symbolic first step on the road to a fuller charity that would cause them to refrain from prostitution altogether, which was immediately taken as a sign that the Church had OK’d condom usage in Africa.

But this is not one of those times. There are virtually no non-dogmatic teachings of the Church that have enjoyed quite as an unanimous historical support as that on the grave moral evils of sodomy. Nothing even approaching a sideways endorsement of it can be found anywhere in the history of the Magisterium. This teaching enjoys the unequivocal and unbroken endorsement of every saint, every council, and every catechism which has deigned to address the topic and records of which have survived to the present age. The consensus of history prior to the time of, say, Cardinal Martini (who, curiously, died immediately after rejecting this teaching), is virtually unanimous.

Moreover, since all that is required for infallibility under the ordinary and universal Magisterium is the unanimous consent of all the bishops alive at one point in time, it’s safe to say this criterion was pretty much satisfied from the moment of the Church’s birth at Pentecost.

So no, the Church will not and cannot change her teachings on this. If she can, she can change her teachings on literally anything. I don’t know what possesses anyone to think otherwise (or to think that “otherwise” would be a particularly desirable outcome).

 

[sw85]

I am not so convinced that passages in the Bible refer to the homosexuality of today–especially in the Old Testament. I know this has been talked about a lot on CAF, but I do not think we should be so quick to brush aside the insistence on taking into account the culture of the times. I hardly would believe Leviticus or Paul had in mind a committed relationship, for example.

We are fortunate that we don’t have to rely on your opinion, since the Church (which alone is the authentic interpreter of Scripture) has already ruled definitively, repeatedly, that the Scriptures offer nothing but unequivocal condemnation of sodomy, which is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

 

[Baelor]

This does not mean the Church cannot develop its understanding of sexuality in general.

The Church would have to dismantle everything from its understanding of sexuality to natural law.

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. On the topic of sexuality, in the past the Church has emphasized the procreative aspect of sex. More recently came that and the emphasis on the unitive aspect as well.

Right, and my understanding of history is that the Church has taught this consistently. Natural law is nothing new.

I am not a doctrinal history expert; would you mind posting some reference to the Church’s doctrinal position on geocentrism? My guess is that the two are not theologically comparable.

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.

The teaching of the Church has remained constant on this topic for a reason. It is difficult for me to foresee any possible catalyst for change.

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.

That relationship is not ordered toward the production of children through procreative and unitive sex; it is thus a perversion of the good.

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

Yes, it would. At least in the Catholic context.

The issue is an understanding of the homosexual person as an individual with a very different experience. The experience of many homosexuals testify that the Church’s teaching is very difficult to assent to;

So? Many men feel the desire to masturbate. Difficulty in adherence is hardly a suitable consideration for the validity of doctrine.

the Church says they have a disordered condition because they are attracted to “intrinsically evil” acts.

i.e., gay sex.

But the homosexual person is attracted to a person of the same-sex, not an activity.

The Church clearly considers homosexuality to be sexual attraction to a person of the same sex, which by definition involves an attraction to an intrinsically evil act.

The attraction involves far more than genital relations.

And yet it involves genital relations.

Church documents seem to get caught up in the acts, when 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.

The physical intimacy is intrinsically disordered. This is obviously a consequence of Church teaching. It follows directly from the Church’s teaching on sexuality, which itself is a consequence of other theological tenets.

The Church has sometimes been wrong in the past. Could this be an issue the Church is wrong on? I am not sure.

I am: No.

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?

Again, you are approaching this from the wrong angle. Reconcile gay sex with Church teaching. There’s the approach.

 

[chimo]

I do not believe the Church will ever change its position on its teaching regarding homosexuality. Pastoral care can change to better understanding of what needs are for when ministering to those with homosexual tendencies for instance. The Church cannot change for the simple reason why it can’t for instance change its stand on permitting women to be priests. Just because many people want women to be priests will never make it right just as homosexual behaviours cannot be accepted in the Church even though it seems many in the society accepts it. The women priest issue can be an easy one to understand by using this method. Since God only calls men and here we must understand certain men to the priesthood then this election is easier when women are excluded. But some may still object on the reasons why women cannot be chosen. So there must be another way to show it. Simply said Jesus the High Priest is married to His bride the Church. The parish priest is married mystically to his bride which is his parish. The husband married to his bride which is his wife. In all three scenarios the bride cannot be the groom. The groom must be male. Therefore it is impossible for any female to represent the groom. It is the order and function of nature that spells out the priesthood and in like same manner so does what sexuality is permissible within the Church. It also cannot be changed.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The consensus of history prior to the time of, say, Cardinal Martini (who, curiously, died immediately after rejecting this teaching), is virtually unanimous.

Thank you for your sensitivity.

 

[catholic1seeks]

We are fortunate that we don’t have to rely on your opinion, since the Church (which alone is the authentic interpreter of Scripture) has already ruled definitively, repeatedly, that the Scriptures offer nothing but unequivocal condemnation of sodomy, which is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

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.

 

[Luna_de_Colores]

The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality are the most developed in the world. To contradict his teachings would be to go backwards. God has already led his Church into the deep meaning of sexuality. The Church’s teaching on sexuality, including homosexuality, are infallible, and can not change unless God changes. We are not currently discovering committed homosexual relationships which would lead us to further understanding, we are struggling to understand God originally and are working his plans to fit our culture and mentality.

Actually, The One Thing is Three: How the Most Holy Trinity Explains Everything by Gaitley is a good read. It’s not even on sexuality, but Catholicism is hard to understand unless you understand the Trinity. Start here.

 

[sw85]

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.

I’m not saying it’s easy. I’m just saying it’s simple.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Baelor! Why did you have to respond like that! It’s so hard to quote then reply, quote then reply

The Church would have to dismantle everything from its understanding of sexuality to natural law.

Not necessarily. Natural law would not be contradicted. The Church would still believe in natural law. But to say that man and woman are built for each other by God does not seem to be the case for everyone, by nature. So in this case–homosexuality–a development or change would occur. Aquinas did not think of homosexuality in the same terms we do. Can we blame him? Even today the Church discusses homosexuality and sexuality in general in different ways than 700 years ago. Sticking to homosexual activity as sin could be a traditional interpretation, but not in fact true.

Right, and my understanding of history is that the Church has taught this consistently. Natural law is nothing new.

I am not a doctrinal history expert; would you mind posting some reference to the Church’s doctrinal position on geocentrism? My guess is that the two are not theologically comparable.

A book I have on the church (a Catholic textbook) refers to the geocentric view in the category of doctrine (when it was accepted), though not dogma.

The teaching of the Church has remained constant on this topic for a reason. It is difficult for me to foresee any possible catalyst for change.

Guidance of the Holy Spirit.

There have been developments and even changes in the Church’s moral understanding, though I have to admit I have not fully read-up on them. For example, usury and capital punishment–the former more of a change; the latter, a development.

That relationship is not ordered toward the production of children through procreative and unitive sex; it is thus a perversion of the good.

Of course, the procreative reason is the reason the church currently gives. What about infertile couples? How is it sex ordered towards procreation if the couple knows the act will not be fruitful?

So? Many men feel the desire to masturbate. Difficulty in adherence is hardly a suitable consideration for the validity of doctrine.

I understand the point. The teaching does cause much suffering, hence the question in the first place.

The Church clearly considers homosexuality to be sexual attraction to a person of the same sex, which by definition involves an attraction to an intrinsically evil act.

And yet it involves genital relations.

Of course. Homosexual persons also desire to express their love in a sexual manner. But the Church in its documents seems to neglect the loving relationship aspect to homosexual couples, and it instead seems to focus on the “evil” of the actions. And this is extremely hard for gay and lesbian people to hear, since they experience their sexual acts to be components of their love relationships.

 

[aemcpa]

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.

**Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? “What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. So Jesus said to the Twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” - John 6:60-69**

 

[aemcpa]

Not necessarily. Natural law would not be contradicted. The Church would still believe in natural law. But to say that man and woman are built for each other by God does not seem to be the case for everyone, by nature.

That’s not what natural law means.

 

[jwinch2]

So in this case–homosexuality–a development or change would occur. Aquinas did not think of homosexuality in the same terms we do. Can we blame him? Even today the Church discusses homosexuality and sexuality in general in different ways than 700 years ago. Sticking to homosexual activity as sin could be a traditional interpretation, but not in fact true.

No, this is not possible. We can come to a fuller understanding of some doctrines or dogmas, but nothing can happen which changes the understanding of either.

First Vatican Council, Session Three, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason

1. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
2. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.

First Vatican Council, Session Three, Canons

1. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

An act which is intrinsically evil and a desire which is inherently disordered is not going to suddenly be OK’d by the Church. Mortal sin today will be mortal sin tomorrow. Its not, as you suggested above about some infallible declaration, but rather, about Divine Revelation.

 

[Elizium23]

Catholic Encyclopedia: Modernism
Catholic Encyclopedia:

The general idea of modernism may be best expressed in the words of Abbate Cavallanti, though even here there is a little vagueness: “Modernism is modern in a false sense of the word; it is a morbid state of conscience among Catholics, and especially young Catholics, that professes manifold ideals, opinions, and tendencies. From time to time these tendencies work out into systems, that are to renew the basis and superstructure of society, politics, philosophy, theology, of the Church herself and of the Christian religion”. A remodelling, a renewal according to the ideas of the twentieth century — such is the longing that possesses the modernists. “The avowed modernists”, says M. Loisy, “form a fairly definite group of thinking men united in the common desire to adapt Catholicism to the intellectual, moral and social needs of today” (op. cit., p. 13)

 

[catholic1seeks]

That’s not what natural law means.

There are different senses to nature, I am aware

But instead of being technical on me, I am sure you are able to understand what I meant. If the Church’s teaching on natural law would contradict homosexuality-as-being-OK, as someone said it would, then that would be because of the understanding that God has designed Man in a certain way.