Could the Catholic Church ever change its teaching on homosexuality?

[catholic1seeks]

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.

Is homosexual activity-as-sin a dogma of the Church?

 

[CopticChristian]

I am not so convinced that passages in the Bible refer to the homosexuality of today–especially in the Old Testament. 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)

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.

So, here we have the Social Contruct view of Homosexuality as opposed to the Essentialism=Born that way view.

 

[catholic1seeks]

**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**

The teaching is a difficult one. But the whole point of the question is, at its essence, asking if it needs to be difficult. What is the truth, here?

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

No. You are suggesting that the Catechism will change and if you look back in time, what is in the Catechism is a compilation of what was taught in past times and carried forward.

 

[catholic1seeks]

No. You are suggesting that the Catechism will change and if you look back in time, what is in the Catechism is a compilation of what was taught in past times and carried forward.

That does not mean its right. Something can be traditional but not true.
As for the catechism, it itself is not infallible, though it may contain infallible statements.

 

[Baelor]

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

Sorry!

Not necessarily. Natural law would not be contradicted. The Church would still believe in natural law.

The Catholic Church would need to retract its statements about natural law. It would basically be unrecognizable after such a change.

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.

They are intrinsically built for each other. The Church rejects the level of individualism you suggest. While a particular man may not be suited to a particular woman (or even any woman), the archetypal male and woman are built for each other. That is what matters.

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.

It is both traditional and true. The point is that the teaching is not in isolation; it is a consequence of other teachings. It is a conclusion based on a number of theological premises, themselves based on other premises.

Guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Which, of course, would not happen because the current teaching is guided by the Holy Spirit.

By catalyst, I meant theological revelation. Again, gay sex is incompatible with Church teaching. If you think it is possible for the Church to change Her position, I would humbly ask to what the position should change and how such a change is reconcilable with the rest of Catholic theology.

Of course, the procreative reason is the reason the church currently gives. What about infertile couples?

The Church already explicitly teaches on this issue.

How is it sex ordered towards procreation if the couple knows the act will not be fruitful?

Good question. The answer is in Church teaching.

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

It does not cause suffering. It should cause joy, as it promotes a godly integration of sexuality with the self.

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.

But any love that simulates a love between husband and wife is intrinsically disordered because it is divorced from its natural purpose, i.e. procreation within the marital bond. The “loving relationship” is irrelevant in this context.

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.

Relationships which are intrinsically disordered insofar as they mimic heterosexual relationships.

 

[CopticChristian]

That does not mean its right. Something can be traditional but not true.
As for the catechism, it itself is not infallible, though it may contain infallible statements.

So, you believe that the Catechism has teachings that are in error?

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Unravel this for me…

**Sacred Scripture…**who is the one that has the ability to interpret Sacred Scripture?

**tradition has always declared…**show me how this statement can be revised, on the basis of time over the past 2000 years? Always is a long time.

Under no circumstances can they be approved.…are you suggesting some revelation will cause the Church to teach a circumstance not already considered over the last 2000 years?

If you doubt the veracity of truth in the Catechism and Church teaching…how is it you came to believe that this was possible?

Next ask yourself if the Church can ever change it’s teachings on any sin against Chastity…

Adultery
Prostitution
Pornography
Lust
Rape
Incest
Fornication
Masturbation

Is it possible the Church is wrong on these too…or do you want to rethink your objection?

 

[Nandarani]

Could not read the entire before bed. No, we are not ‘learning more about’ ourselves vs. a vis homosexuality. Don’t buy into the agenda as the majority of people have done under the influence of powerful media, powerful additives in food and water not there by accident, dual citizens with the stated objectives of ruining the gentile culture (sorry, but it’s true - look up Brother Nathanael on youtube - born a ‘New York Jew’ - who converted to Orthodox Christianity and lives as a monk - he will clue any naive people in on the agenda from Jewish-dominated Hollywood - and YES, Jewish people were among close friends as I grew up outside NYC). Have no doubt whatsoever: Original Jewish morality regards homosexuality as anathema - but you can be sure those secular Jews running Hollywood want the gentile culture ruined - and they are doing a very good of ruining it.

Bro. Nathanael says it much better than I can.

Also, notice the demeanor and expressions of people you can see are homosexual couples on the street. They are not happy; they appear disconnected.

A very very close family friend has been with his partner for decades; they live in Washington, D.C. and married within the last year. The attitude of my friend, who I do value greatly as a connection with my very earliest past, is that pedophiles need to have sympathy, understanding, and love. He takes a skewed approach to things, in my opinion, in championing a group I am sure he would never have joined or want to join, yet evidently he can’t see how ‘disordered’ is the behavior they champion (and he is championing in coming to their aid, so to speak).

Good night all from Honolulu… check out Brother Nathanael…he is extremely articulate. He also knows whereof he speaks.

 

[stephe1987]

The Church is considered infallible with regards to faith and morals.

Homosexuality has been condemned for many centuries, and the cultures in which it was rampant ended up falling in the not-too-distant future. Even though the people involved care about each other and get the emotional high of feeling in love, their bodies are not complimentary and they end up doing unnatural and dangerous acts in the process. It is an open secret that the homosexual community has high rates of STDs, short relationships, domestic violence (esp. in lesbians), depression, suicide, cancer, and overall shorter life expectancies. The disproportionately high health costs alone, for such a small percentage of the population (2% gay men, 1% lesbians), tell us that these activities not something that should be encouraged. And it’s not like people with diabetes or cystic fibrosis or something who cannot help that they need so much medicine, it’s the actions of the homosexuals that lead to these problems, not something the body does on its own outside of the control of the individual. We are called to love people with same-sex attraction and it is a sin to bully or harass or beat them up. But that does not mean we should encourage homosexual activity at ever-younger ages. And no, it’s not a cultural thing, “if people were more accepting…” because the more liberal countries who legalized gay marriage years ago have higher rates of depression and suicide than more conservative ones.

The “geocentric view of the universe” was taught because that was what the scientific method produced at the time. (Remember, the Church has always been a patron of the arts and sciences, started the first universities, and a Christian invented the scientific method.) They did not yet have the technology to prove that the earth revolved around the sun, even though we know from ancient documents that some people in pre-Christian times knew that the earth revolved around the sun. It is one thing to prove something mathematically (theoretical) but another to show it using equipment, running tests to prove a theory is true (scientific method). That was the problem. Yes, it was correct but until it was provable they weren’t allowed to tell people it was fact. And that is why they got in trouble. Not because the Church “hates science” or “was wrong” or “takes the Bible literally.” The Church is interested in promoting Truth.

The Bible is intended to teach people about God (faith and morals) and was never intended to be a book on science.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

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?

The geocentric model was not a matter of theology and Galileo’s proof for the heliocentric model was rubbish, Galileo’s problem is that he started getting preachy without having a degree in theology.

The Church when condemning it is very narrowly talking about a sexual attraction to the same sex, no more.

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)

1. All sex outside of marriage is immoral
2. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman (other restrictions apply)

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Deviances from the natural order are the result of sin having entered into the world and it’s effects such as concupiscence.

You are either misunderstanding the book or it is wrong.

In the case of usury the practice of lending had changed enough that it was no longer necessarily usury. In the case of capital punishment it is no longer needed.

Infertility is not sterility, do note that permanent impotence prevents marriage.

Suffering isn’t necessarily bad

They can still love each other, but no sex (which is overrated anyway).

 

[JerryZ]

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.

I would like for you to answer this question;

Can the Church rewrite the Bible?

Unless your answer is YES then your question has answered itself for you

 

[vsedriver]

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.

their love relationships are inappropriate. this is a hard cross to bear. If they can’t bring themselves to find love with a person of the opposite sex then their only option is to live a chaste single life and the church should support and encourage them to do so.

What is more important? Falling in love and living in sin or loving God with your whole heart, soul, and mind by keeping his commandments including the commands to keep sexually pure. Not every heterosexual has a love partner either. I say it is just as hard for a heterosexual who has lost a spouse to divorce or been abandoned and can’t get an annulment. They too must live a single, chaste life as they are still married in the eyes of God and the Church.

Perhaps you think the church should change its rules on divorce as well?

 

[jwinch2]

Is homosexual activity-as-sin a dogma of the Church?

It is certainly doctrine on Faith and Morals and it is based upon Divine Revelation. That is the definition for Dogma according to the Church.

 

[VanSensei]

Could it? Well, for starters, it could probably take out the words “intrinsically disordered” from CCC 2358. The Catechism is man-made and is changeable. Dogma is not.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

As we can see, God did indeed design Man in a certain way, and this design fits in perfectly with God’s law. The fact that because sin has affected the world for the worse and that therefore some are born with or acquire “manufacturing flaws” does not change God’s law, any more than a US car which mistakenly came out with right-hand drive would allow a change in the law to allow them to drive on the left!

Bit I think your problem is deeper than this issue. I think that you, like so many others, do not understand that the teachings of the Church are as immutable as 2+2=4. Can we consider changing this on the grounds that some do not see it this way or continually get the wrong answer?

Church teaching is a description of the supernatural world as math is a description of the physical. Church teaching is not made-up stuff; it is what God taught us about attaining Heaven. God entrusted this to the Apostles, and He protects His teachings.

There is no way that the teachings on sexual behavior will change, but the reason the will not change is very deep and a good subject for meditation.

 

[fix]

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.

Sin darkens our intellect. So, yes many today cannot reason well morally. That is not new. Truth is a person. He cannot “change”. People do not want a change in teaching. People want to fulfill their personal desires. That is the real issue. The “gut” thing is not truth but mere emotion and carnal desire.

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.

The truth of the teaching is not measured by infallibility:

we must point out the tendency to measure everything on the basis of the distinction between the “infallible Magisterium” and the “fallible Magisterium”.

In this way infallibility becomes the criterion for all authority problems, to the point of actually replacing the concept of authority with that of infallibility. Furthermore, the question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine, by assuming that infallibility is the pre-qualification for the truth and irreformability of the doctrine, and by making the truth and definitive nature of the doctrine depend on whether or not it has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the ), transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching.

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.

The position is true. That is not in question. The problem is some refuse to submit to Christ through His Church. That is not new. If you could poll all the bishops throughout history few would hold to your position here. The truth is the teaching is really easy to grasp.

 

[CopticChristian]

Could it? Well, for starters, it could probably take out the words “intrinsically disordered” from CCC 2358. The Catechism is man-made and is changeable. Dogma is not.

Ok,

Let us accept your position that the Catechism is man-made.

Who makes dogma other than those same men that made the Catechism for you to read?

 

[MarcoPolo]

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

Assuming our current science is correct, geocentrism is not a matter of faith or morals anyway. You could see even from Cardinal Bellarmine’s reaction during the Galileo ordeal that geocentrism wasn’t a dogmatic teaching. Not a valid comparison to morality of homosexual behavior. The Church has never contradicted any of the Ordinary Magisterium’s infallible teaching on faith or morals.

 

[marymary1975]

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)

I haven’t read the entire thread but I just wanted to answer to your last sentence. The church has never ever “taught” that the earth was the center of the universe. You are confusing Roman beliefs and individual personal beliefs with church teaching. Science is not an area of teaching of the church so that statement is wrong.

Second, St. Paul knew very well what he was talking about. Remember, the bible is not interpreted sentence by sentence but as a whole. St Paul in his original writings use very specific words for every immoral act so if you read his entire writing and taking into account how good he detailed immoral acts, yes he was thinking of sex between two people of the same sex even if they claim to be in a “commited” relationship. Finally as to your original question, no the doctrine of the church on this matter because is infallible. Why it is infallible, well Jesus himself made very clear that marriage have to be between one man and one woman and that fornication is a sin. Fornication is sex outside of marriage. Sexual acts between two people of the same sex are fornication so therefore intrinsically sinful. The church can’t change it because the church can’t change what was established by Jesus just to please people.

 

[marymary1975]

Is homosexual activity-as-sin a dogma of the Church?

Yes it is