Could the Catholic Church ever change its teaching on homosexuality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OP: you may as well have asked whether the Church would change its position on the morality of adultery. Homosexual acts are on a same footing.
 
blaskoman said:
OP: you may as well have asked whether the Church would change its position on the morality of adultery. Homosexual acts are on a same footing.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Adultery is typically a normal marital act that is done outside the bond of marriage. It is the misuse of the marital embrace. Homosexual acts are instead intrinsically disordered, an abomination that is a misuse of one’s very body. They are a perversion of the marital embrace, a parody of it. Both are grave matter and both will remove a person from a state of grace, so in this way they are “equal” but they are not morally equivalent.
 
Elizium23 said:
Not exactly. Adultery is typically a normal marital act that is done outside the bond of marriage. It is the misuse of the marital embrace. Homosexual acts are instead intrinsically disordered, an abomination that is a misuse of one’s very body. They are a perversion of the marital embrace, a parody of it. Both are grave matter and both will remove a person from a state of grace, so in this way they are “equal” but they are not morally equivalent.
Click to expand...
Help me understand…

Mortally wounded.

Shot by a bow and arrow.

Shot by a 22 caliber pistol.

Hit on the head with a rock.

Canon blast dismembers you.

You are dead.

Mortal Sin…

Are you implying that sins against Chastity, mortal sins, do not inflict the same wound?
 
I just finished saying that they do inflict the same wound, but in their source they are not equivalent types of sin. What is so hard to understand about that?
 
Elizium23 said:
I just finished saying that they do inflict the same wound, but in their source they are not equivalent types of sin. What is so hard to understand about that?
Click to expand...
Ok,

the means by which you become dead, how important is it to distinguish the means by which you become dead if the end result is death?

Immorality is immorality. Sins against Chastity are grave matter. How is there a distinction and suggesting moral equivalence…they all result in mortal wounds? Knowing what can kill you or what can wound you does not make the means any less potent.
 
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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
The OP states that many Catholics worldwide disagree with the Church on this matter because they have a “gut feeling” the Church is wrong.

Precisely why most Catholics are deceived, because they think with their feelings and not with theor logic, faith, and reasoning. Therefore, the world deceives them easily.
 
PetrusRomanus said:
The OP states that many Catholics worldwide disagree with the Church on this matter because they have a “gut feeling” the Church is wrong.

Precisely why most Catholics are deceived, because they think with their feelings and not with theor logic, faith, and reasoning. Therefore, the world deceives them easily.
Click to expand...
Actually, while many may have emotional reasons–they see their gay brothers or daughters struggling with the Church’s teaching for example–many more have actually thought through the issue–maybe not completely through to the degree many on this forum would wish, since most of are the opinion that the teaching cannot change. Still.
 
Unfortunately, many, many Catholics have been infected by secularism and modernism to believe that our bodies are ours to use as we see fit. The teachings on homosexuality are simple and logical and elegant. They are about the proper use of God’s gifts of body, sexuality, and fertility. We are called to be stewards of creation, not spendthrifts in a dirty sandbox.
 
JerryZ said:
:hmmm: 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 👍
Click to expand...
I do not think the Church can rewrite the Bible. the Church infallibly defined the books of the Bible at the Council of Trent.

Nevertheless, as to the question of change, which I will emphasize here rather than go through every reply, a change on this teaching does seem quite profound and would seemingly go against infallibility. But just look at such a teaching as extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or “outside the Church there is no salvation.” Such a development in understanding was a VERY profound one. Pope Boniface in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam said “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” And as Pope Eugene IV said, “No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” I have read many articles attempting to reconcile the teaching then, which expressed visible membership in the Church as being necessary for salvation, and today’s current teaching. (Another example from the same document Cantate Domino by Pope Eugene also said “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal…unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation…”).

The development on this issue is quite significant, I think. I think Boniface or Eugene would have been taken back at what Vatican II has had to say about the salvation of non-Catholics. As much as we want to defend this particular issue (and I have tried to in the past), I think, deep down, a lot of us are uncomfortable with these official documents of our Church’s past. It is hard to reconcile Eugene and Boniface with Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium.

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.
 
Elizium23 said:
Unfortunately, many, many Catholics have been infected by secularism and modernism to believe that our bodies are ours to use as we see fit. The teachings on homosexuality are simple and logical and elegant. They are about the proper use of God’s gifts of body, sexuality, and fertility. We are called to be stewards of creation, not spendthrifts in a dirty sandbox.
Click to expand...
Not everyone who considers the Church to be in need of looking at its current teaching on homosexuality would agree with your evaluation: There is not only one type of people that is serious about sex, you know. If–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!

The understanding of sex has changed a bit, I would say quite a bit. At one time, the mere pleasure during sex was thought to be a sin. 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). 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.
 
Once again you have presented apples and oranges. Divine Law is crystal clear in its prohibitions of illicit sexual activity. The inner workings of salvation and God’s attitude toward His Church have not always been so apparent. The Church is a relatively new institution. Compared to the history of Judaism we are still in our infancy. Judaism settled the question of homosexuality thousands and thousands of years ago, and the Church only validates those decisions of Divine Law. Now a young Church understood herself differently in regards to salvation. It is true that EENS does not look the same as it did 2000 years ago when Jesus said the things he did. Development of doctrine brings legitimate change in the understanding between Church and God. Theologians are researchers, and have discovered that God grants exceptions to this doctrine and we are only just finding out all the exceptions that can be made. We have always maintained that God is not bound by His Sacraments or His Church. His love and mercy is much greater than the earthly institutions left by Jesus for us to follow. God can save a Buddhist if He so wishes. God can send a sinner to Heaven if that is the true measure of mercy and justice. We on earth are somewhat blind to His true nature, but the things He has revealed infallibly through His Church are abundantly clear to us. The more theologians study homosexuality, the more it is realized to be immoral and wrong for humanity. That is why the understanding will never change. Homosexuality is not a question of God and Church. Homosexuality is a question of God’s law for humans, eternally ordained, true before the Church was founded and true after the Church passes away. God set marriage in motion in the Garden of Eden, and the more we look at it, the more right it seems. Married love is a reflection of the Holy Trinity. The holy vocation of marriage will withstand the assaults coming to it from secularism, atheism, modernism and homosexualism. Good will triumph over evil in the end and homosexualists will meet an undignified end in judgement.
 
Okay, let’s say that the Church changes her teaching on homosexuality and endorses “marriage” between them. Where does their “love” fit in as a vocation for the sake of the Kingdom? What good can come of people committing sodomy “in a loving committed relationship”? Will the Church come to see sodomy as unitive, that a man can “become one flesh” with another man? Does that mean that our understanding of Divine Law was a house of cards? If non-procreative sex is OK with the Church, then what’s to stop us from using artificial contraception? Will polygamy be fair game again, what if three gay men, two bisexuals and four straight women want to enter a committed relationship, how will that be seen as a reflection of the love of the Holy Trinity and a building block of the family?

Can’t you see that the Deposit of Faith is a mighty fortress that is built strongly and logically and protects itself against assault? If bricks start coming out of the side then the edifice crumbles and fails. The teaching on homosexuality is a logical conclusion, it is not an arbitrary rule we made up. It is just one of the many things that are prohibited as being outside the nature of what God ordained for the human race.

Look, God prohibited stealing to the Israelites through Mosaic Law in the Commandments. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, the Native Americans had little concept of personal property; it was not part of their culture or religion. As the Church spread throughout the world, she introduced this uniform concept, taught that it was good for people to own things, and wiped out the previous practice. She also abolished things like human sacrifice. Does this mean that when thieves rise up and pagans who sacrifice humans demand equal rights that the Church can integrate them into the Deposit of Faith, and say maybe stealing and sacrifice isn’t so bad after all, let’s be one happy family? No, God has revealed these things to us as true. It is up for us to convince the world of right and wrong. That is the Church’s holy mission. It is not for the world to impose its beliefs on the Church. That will never happen.
 
Elizium23 said:
Once again you have presented apples and oranges. Divine Law is crystal clear in its prohibitions of illicit sexual activity. The inner workings of salvation and God’s attitude toward His Church have not always been so apparent. The Church is a relatively new institution. Compared to the history of Judaism we are still in our infancy. Judaism settled the question of homosexuality thousands and thousands of years ago, and the Church only validates those decisions of Divine Law. Now a young Church understood herself differently in regards to salvation. It is true that EENS does not look the same as it did 2000 years ago when Jesus said the things he did. Development of doctrine brings legitimate change in the understanding between Church and God. Theologians are researchers, and have discovered that God grants exceptions to this doctrine and we are only just finding out all the exceptions that can be made. We have always maintained that God is not bound by His Sacraments or His Church. His love and mercy is much greater than the earthly institutions left by Jesus for us to follow. God can save a Buddhist if He so wishes. God can send a sinner to Heaven if that is the true measure of mercy and justice. We on earth are somewhat blind to His true nature, but the things He has revealed infallibly through His Church are abundantly clear to us. The more theologians study homosexuality, the more it is realized to be immoral and wrong for humanity. That is why the understanding will never change. Homosexuality is not a question of God and Church. Homosexuality is a question of God’s law for humans, eternally ordained, true before the Church was founded and true after the Church passes away. God set marriage in motion in the Garden of Eden, and the more we look at it, the more right it seems. Married love is a reflection of the Holy Trinity. The holy vocation of marriage will withstand the assaults coming to it from secularism, atheism, modernism and homosexualism. Good will triumph over evil in the end and homosexualists will meet an undignified end in judgement.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this respectful response.

I would definitely agree that God’s Law does not change; the Truth does not change. Taking the Judaism illustration, however, I am not so convinced. I would not be apt to use Old Testament history as a commentary for how sexuality is to work. Today we know their laws were more culturally-bound. The Leviticus command to kill persons doing that which was understood to be immoral or unethical is hardly an example for us today. Great Old Testament figures had multiple wives; again, hardly an example for us regarding God’s plan for sexuality. How is this so “set in stone” from Judaism on? I would agree that the truth–whatever it is–was always there, but I am not so sure it was applied and worked out. Homosexuality was not conceived of in the same way. Neither was sex, nor was marriage in general.

I am glad you refer to theologians as researchers and ones who are “discovering,” for it is precisely theologians who are looking into this homosexuality issue. Not all of them are as convinced on the current magisterium’s position, as you say.

“Theologians have discovered that God grants exceptions to this doctrine.” That seems to be a very sly way of getting around the reality that the teaching changed. You say Church teaching allows for a Buddhist to get to Heaven, which I believe (and understand to be the Church’s teaching). But this goes completely against the statement by Pope Eugene IV: “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the ‘eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ … unless before death they are joined with Her.”

Yes, God makes exceptions, but this is not what Eugene has in mind, but rather the apologists and theologians who attempt to reconcile this statement with other church statements.
 
Elizium23 said:
Okay, let’s say that the Church changes her teaching on homosexuality and endorses “marriage” between them. Where does their “love” fit in as a vocation for the sake of the Kingdom? What good can come of people committing sodomy “in a loving committed relationship”? Will the Church come to see sodomy as unitive, that a man can “become one flesh” with another man? Does that mean that our understanding of Divine Law was a house of cards? If non-procreative sex is OK with the Church, then what’s to stop us from using artificial contraception? Will polygamy be fair game again, what if three gay men, two bisexuals and four straight women want to enter a committed relationship, how will that be seen as a reflection of the love of the Holy Trinity and a building block of the family?

Can’t you see that the Deposit of Faith is a mighty fortress that is built strongly and logically and protects itself against assault? If bricks start coming out of the side then the edifice crumbles and fails. The teaching on homosexuality is a logical conclusion, it is not an arbitrary rule we made up. It is just one of the many things that are prohibited as being outside the nature of what God ordained for the human race.

Look, God prohibited stealing to the Israelites through Mosaic Law in the Commandments. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, the Native Americans had little concept of personal property; it was not part of their culture or religion. As the Church spread throughout the world, she introduced this uniform concept, taught that it was good for people to own things, and wiped out the previous practice. She also abolished things like human sacrifice. Does this mean that when thieves rise up and pagans who sacrifice humans demand equal rights that the Church can integrate them into the Deposit of Faith, and say maybe stealing and sacrifice isn’t so bad after all, let’s be one happy family? No, God has revealed these things to us as true. It is up for us to convince the world of right and wrong. That is the Church’s holy mission. It is not for the world to impose its beliefs on the Church. That will never happen.
Click to expand...
Last issue first: It is not about a syncretism of Catholicism and the world. The Church should never teach something on the basis of pressure, cultural consensus, popularity, etc. But if it is the truth, then for the sake of truth, the Church should teach it. I brought up this question in the first place because many homosexual persons within the Church find no place for themselves at all. Some do, but I would have to guess (but only guess) that this is a very, very small minority. Hence, the great struggle and possibly suffering (as personal experience testifies to) of “gay Catholics,” “Catholics with same sex attraction,” whatever naturally leads to the question: Is the Church even right, here? How could such a hard teaching be true?

And here come all the verses that deal with “taking up the cross,” and how being a disciple of Christ includes suffering. These are beautiful concepts. And I have heard them before, and I know of redemptive suffering–a very unique and wonderful teaching within Catholicism, I think. But the issue still remains: Does the homosexual Christian have to suffer? Catholic/traditional Christian teaching does, I strongly maintain, lead to much struggle and suffering for many homosexual Christians. I think we can all agree that the Church needs a better pastoral approach on how gay and lesbian Christians can better be included in the Church–What is their role? A homosexual Catholic cannot be a priest; he cannot have a romantic relationship; he cannot marry; he cannot have children.

If the Church is wrong to say that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, I do think this means the Church would have to evaluate its understanding of sexuality in general–first. Natural Law is key in the Catholic Church, but a re-evaluation of sexuality would not compromise it. It would be a developed or new understanding, but I do not see how we would no longer have an understanding of natural law, as some are saying.
 
Elizium23 said:
Not exactly. Adultery is typically a normal marital act that is done outside the bond of marriage. It is the misuse of the marital embrace. Homosexual acts are instead intrinsically disordered, an abomination that is a misuse of one’s very body. They are a perversion of the marital embrace, a parody of it. Both are grave matter and both will remove a person from a state of grace, so in this way they are “equal” but they are not morally equivalent.
Click to expand...
It is just as bad as sodomy within marriage
 
You need to open threads on whether the Church could change her teaching on the Eucharist, and why hasn’t she cured cancer yet.

Yes, homosexuals have to suffer. As a single, straight 41-year-old man, I identify with people who feel they have no vocation in the Church. Some of us with disabilities of some kind simply can’t enjoy the fullness of Church life and will never realize a vocation as God calls most Christians to have. We are still called to love God and live as He intends.

If a child is afflicted with cancer, did God intend for her to suffer? Doesn’t it pain God to see someone die young and unfulfilled? A child with cancer may die young, but does not die unloved or unfulfilled. She has lived the life God wanted for her by being faithful. The only person who dies unfulfilled is a person who, given the Gospel news, turns away from the Church and dies unrepentant and goes to Hell. That is the only true tragedy, that some souls are lost forever.

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.
 
Elizium23 said:
You need to open threads on whether the Church could change her teaching on the Eucharist, and why hasn’t she cured cancer yet.

Yes, homosexuals have to suffer. As a single, straight 41-year-old man, I identify with people who feel they have no vocation in the Church. Some of us with disabilities of some kind simply can’t enjoy the fullness of Church life and will never realize a vocation as God calls most Christians to have. We are still called to love God and live as He intends.

If a child is afflicted with cancer, did God intend for her to suffer? Doesn’t it pain God to see someone die young and unfulfilled? A child with cancer may die young, but does not die unloved or unfulfilled. She has lived the life God wanted for her by being faithful. The only person who dies unfulfilled is a person who, given the Gospel news, turns away from the Church and dies unrepentant and goes to Hell. That is the only true tragedy, that some souls are lost forever.

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.

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.
Click to expand...
Again, I understand that there is suffering, and that suffering paired with the faith is fruitful (redemptive suffering, etc.). I am very sorry for your situation.

As for this one, I realize that the suffering endured by many does not prove that a teaching is false or not. For me, it does cause me to question–just like the “problem of evil” causes many to question the existence of God in general. Same-sex attraction, like heterosexual attraction, could be said to be unique, though, because it deals with the very core of the person. I am not trying to say that the person is only defined by who he or she is attracted to (I know, for example, the Church does not like to use the term gay or lesbian, or even “homosexuals” but rather just “homosexual person” to emphasize that sexual orientation is just an aspect of an individual). However, if we were made to live in a special type of communion with another, and if we are not attracted to the right kind of people, naturally the suffering is of a very unique kind. This communion between two people is of a very fulfilling sort. At least a single heterosexual has the hope of one day being in a relationship whereas the faithful homosexual does not.

The Church cannot change its teaching on the Eucharist because that has been so especially defined.

At what council has homosexuality been especially defined in dogmatic form?
In what ex cathedra statement has homosexuality been dealt with?
As for the “ordinary magisterium,” the Holy Spirit has been given to it, of course, but as the “no salvation outside the church” issue has shown, radical development can occur.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top