Could the Catholic Church ever change its teaching on homosexuality?

[simpleas]

I take it no one understood what I was trying to say…:nope:

 

[fix]

This is definitely the big question, since it involves the Big Church and not just my opinion. I believe in a Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit. But I am not sure that that means the Church cannot be wrong or right all the time in the way people on here are saying.

What I have said so far, as stated in the original post, is that the Church would not view homosexual relationships and acts as intrinsically evil but rather morally acceptable. The Church would have to touch on its understanding of sexuality in general, definitely, applying Natural Law differently and interpreting biblical passages in ways it has not customarily done.

That the Church has developed its understanding of sexuality in the context of morality is clear, as can be seen in how it deals with culpability with all the grave sexual sins (like masturbation). What has got me thinking is that, if the Church in her official documents understands that various factors can diminish culpability for sexual sins, could not the Church also come to the deeper understanding that homosexual relationships and acts would not be in the same sense “SINS,” as it has traditionally done, since many homosexual persons are not responsible for their orientations. I know of the distinction between objective vs. subjective, but it still something to consider. A mortal sin, after all, is not cut-and-dry MORTAL just by the act itself. That the Church sees many factors, like psychological, is a development I think.

The Church has answered your questions almost point for point in several documents including On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.

She has given direct answers. The point is will you submit with cheerful obedience or not?

 

[StJudeprayforme]

That the Church has developed its understanding of sexuality in the context of morality is clear, as can be seen in how it deals with culpability with all the grave sexual sins (like masturbation). What has got me thinking is that, if the Church in her official documents understands that various factors can diminish culpability for sexual sins, could not the Church also come to the deeper understanding that homosexual relationships and acts would not be in the same sense “SINS,” as it has traditionally done, since many homosexual persons are not responsible for their orientations. I know of the distinction between objective vs. subjective, but it still something to consider. A mortal sin, after all, is not cut-and-dry MORTAL just by the act itself. That the Church sees many factors, like psychological, is a development I think.

The basic question you are asking is whether or not the Church could recognize homosexual actions and relationships as mere material sins, and not formal sins. I think the answer is that she already recognizes it to be this way. Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1986 letter to the bishops acknowledges varying levels of culpability due to varying factors.

At the same time, even if something is purely a material sin, it still does great harm and is objectively sinful (think of people who use contraception not knowing it is wrong). So even though the Church does recognize varying levels of culpability, she could never approve of acts that she knows to be objectively sinful.

Does that help?

 

[aemcpa]

I know of the distinction between objective vs. subjective, but it still something to consider. A mortal sin, after all, is not cut-and-dry MORTAL just by the act itself. That the Church sees many factors, like psychological, is a development I think.

That is not a “development”; it is the traditional teaching of the Church going back at least as far as Aquinas. And while sexual orientation and other psychological and intellectual factors could possibly reduce the subjective gravity of a sin, they cannot change the objective morality of an act from sinful to not sinful. Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil. That means that they wrong always, everywhere and for everyone, independent of any individual circumstances. You spent a lot of time speaking about individual culpability but then leap to this puzzling statement:

Could not the Church also come to the deeper understanding that homosexual relationships and acts would not be in the same sense “SINS,” as it has traditionally done, since many homosexual persons are not responsible for their orientations.

We aren’t saying they’re responsible for their orientations. We are saying they’re responsible for their ACTIONS. Orientation doesn’t have a moral component, but every act does. A sinful act is a sinful act; even if the person doing it is not culpable, it is still harmful in the objectiive order. And this is the “obstacle” (although it’s really a hedge of protection) that you simply will not be able to get around.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is definitely the big question, since it involves the Big Church and not just my opinion. I believe in a Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit. But I am not sure that that means the Church cannot be wrong or right all the time in the way people on here are saying.

. I know of the distinction between objective vs. subjective, but it still something to consider. A mortal sin, after all, is not cut-and-dry MORTAL just by the act itself. That the Church sees many factors, like psychological, is a development I think.

What I have said so far, as stated in the original post, is that the Church would not view homosexual relationships and acts as intrinsically evil but rather morally acceptable. The Church would have to touch on its understanding of sexuality in general, definitely, applying Natural Law differently and interpreting biblical passages in ways it has not customarily done.

So, what you are asking is that the Church be conformed to the World and not be transformed by the renewal of the mind.

That the Church has developed its understanding of sexuality in the context of morality is clear, as can be seen in how it deals with culpability with all the grave sexual sins (like masturbation). What has got me thinking is that, if the Church in her official documents understands that various factors can diminish culpability for sexual sins, could not the Church also come to the deeper understanding that homosexual relationships and acts would not be in the same sense “SINS,” as it has traditionally done, since many homosexual persons are not responsible for their orientations

So, after 2000 years the Church has to come to some understanding that is not evident about

Adam and Eve

putting this thing there that is immoral
accepting this thing here that is immoral
putting parts where they don’t belong that is immoral

2000 years and there is some new understanding?

I doubt that there is anything new under the sun as it concerns what has been understood and taught as it concerns Faith and Morals on this issue…

You may want to reconsider what it is you believe will happen and accept what you cite in the creed…

I believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and just submit to it…

 

[simpleas]

It is the “gays” that place people in a box.

By saying that you just proved my statement…

 

[fix]

By saying that you just proved my statement…

I cannot imagine why? Those who refine their being by a distorted sexual desire are the one’s reducing people to being in a box.

 

[simpleas]

I cannot imagine why? Those who refine their being by a distorted sexual desire are the one’s reducing people to being in a box.

Fine, if you see people who are faithfully searching for a answer to their existance in the world putting people who know ALL the answers into a box thats your agenda. I don’t like label or judge anyone, well i try my best not to!

 

[Elizabeth502]

So with the ssa, if you have never had to confront the issue with yourself you can’t understand how the teaching makes a person feel about themself. Does anyone understand what i’m trying to say?

The Church has lots of teachings which, when personalized, would or might make an individual Cahtolic “feel [bad] about himself.” Some people have experienced that the more they get to know themselves, the more honestly they inspect themselves, the more they can define themselves as an abject, unworthy sinner. That is also a name, a label, a box. It is a box with an escape valve, which is the salvific grace of Jesus Christ. We can discard the box as long as we are willing to rely not on our attachments to the box but on our attachments to true spiritual freedom.

(And I apologize for not responding earlier. I was multi-tasking. )

 

[simpleas]

The Church has lots of teachings which, when personalized, would or might make an individual Cahtolic “feel [bad] about himself.” Some people have experienced that the more they get to know themselves, the more honestly they inspect themselves, the more they can define themselves as an abject, unworthy sinner. That is also a name, a label, a box. It is a box with an escape valve, which is the salvific grace of Jesus Christ. We can discard the box as long as we are willing to rely not on our attachments to the box but on our attachments to true spiritual freedom.

(And I apologize for not responding earlier. I was multi-tasking. )

No need to apologize.

Nicely put, i will be searching all my life i think!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I cannot imagine why? Those who refine their being by a distorted sexual desire are the one’s reducing people to being in a box.

How do they put people in a box?
How does the label magically define their entire identity?

 

[CopticChristian]

What i meant about its not all black and white was for the person dealing with it, i agree the churches teaching is clearly black and white. I struggle with ssa, and yes it may well be my cross to bare, i also have never had a relationship with a person of the same sex, but because i have thought about it and been impure i therefore have committed a mortal sin. Yes we are ALL sinners, but in my own personnal opinion, baring in mind i don’t agree with sex before marriage, contraception, or abortion, why the church teaches us that being impure is as big a sin as sleeping with someone outside of marriage, murder of another born or unborn confuses me. I understand our bodies belong to christ and therefore should be kept as pure as we can, but “the spirit is willing and the flesh is weak” never truer words were spoken! (probably not the actual words, but i’m trying)
Now you probably say i’ve contradicted myself by saying i don’t agree with sex before marriage, but as the order is, in a perfect world, everyone would marry before procreating, noone would use contraception, every child would be born and born healthy and there would be no ssa! Bliss, but then i would think adam and eve would never have committed the original sin so we would all be in perfect harmony with our souls and God.
Sorry if i’m going on abit but i don’t find writing my thoughts down very easy, so tend to ramble on.
So, as i don’t agree with say, contraception, i have never been a situation where i might have to decide if its right or wrong like a person who has been in that situation, so i believe it to be wrong indefinatley. So with the ssa, if you have never had to confront the issue with yourself you can’t understand how the teaching makes a person feel about themself. Does anyone understand what i’m trying to say?

I believe I understand you and have a question prior to proffering my thoughts. Have you read the Catechism from cover to cover and do you understand the organization of the Catechism?

 

[edwest2]

How do they put people in a box?
How does the label magically define their entire identity?

Gay Pride Parades?

Seriously. Imagine the following. You walk into a room and you see six people. Two are black, two are Oriental and two are White. Quick, which one is gay?

Peace,
Ed

 

[CopticChristian]

Gay Pride Parades?

Seriously. Imagine the following. You walk into a room and you see six people. Two are black, two are Oriental and two are White. Quick, which one is gay?

Peace,
Ed

The gay one

 

[edwest2]

The gay one

The answer is none of them are.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Gay Pride Parades?

Seriously. Imagine the following. You walk into a room and you see six people. Two are black, two are Oriental and two are White. Quick, which one is gay?

Peace,
Ed

I find them as silly as Irish Pride Parades (St. Patrick’s Day) and Italian Pride Parades (Columbus Day).

Things can exist without being immediately visible. Black, White, Oriental and Gay are all social constructs.

 

[Elizium23]

Homosexuals are impossible to spot on sight, as edwest has demonstrated. Just because a person suffers with same-sex attraction does not make him tangibly different from other human beings. However, it is extremely easy to spot the homosexualist. He or she is wearing a rainbow flag pin, wears an “OUT AND PROUD” shirt, voted Democrat for the past 8 years, flinches when you say phrases like “traditional marriage” or “Ten Commandments” or “abomination unto God”. Probably has piercings and tattoos. Has mastered the lifestyle affectations such as effeminacy for a man or butch style for women. Religious beliefs are anything but Christian; Buddhism and atheism are likely. May actually be Christian too, and just attends one of those “accepting, inclusive” ecclesial communities like Hollywood First Methodist. Might practice yoga, loves New Agey stuff.

I intended this to be a general catch-all description, but I just accurately described my best friend from high school. I ended up like me, and he ended up in a homosexual “marriage”. We still get together for lunch a few times a year. I try to quietly evangelize him, with little hope of getting through. We avoid uncomfortable subjects altogether.

 

[Abu]

Sunday 19/5/13 Simpleas #167
I don’t like label or judge anyone, well i try my best not to!

Correct.

However it is absolutely essential to judge everything by the fullness of true teaching which is found only in the Catholic Church of which you are a member.

Apart from commanding the woman found in adultery to “go and sin no more” the Christ commanded us to:
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).
“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).

And St Paul, following the Master:
“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).
“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).

That is precisely why we judge actions, speech, writing against true teaching as to what is good and what is evil, and we know what is good and what is evil only by following the teaching of His Church – not by our opinions, desires, prejudices, feelings, wants – selfism.

We are commanded not to judge the guilt of anyone before God.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Homosexuals are impossible to spot on sight, as edwest has demonstrated. Just because a person suffers with same-sex attraction does not make him tangibly different from other human beings. However, it is extremely easy to spot the homosexualist. He or she is wearing a rainbow flag pin, wears an “OUT AND PROUD” shirt, voted Democrat for the past 8 years, flinches when you say phrases like “traditional marriage” or “Ten Commandments” or “abomination unto God”. Probably has piercings and tattoos. Has mastered the lifestyle affectations such as effeminacy for a man or butch style for women. Religious beliefs are anything but Christian; Buddhism and atheism are likely. May actually be Christian too, and just attends one of those “accepting, inclusive” ecclesial communities like Hollywood First Methodist. Might practice yoga, loves New Agey stuff.

I intended this to be a general catch-all description, but I just accurately described my best friend from high school. I ended up like me, and he ended up in a homosexual “marriage”. We still get together for lunch a few times a year. I try to quietly evangelize him, with little hope of getting through. We avoid uncomfortable subjects altogether.

Seriously? If this is the case then I’ve never met any close to that which is absurd considering I go to college in one of the most liberal counties in California.

 

[simpleas]

I believe I understand you and have a question prior to proffering my thoughts. Have you read the Catechism from cover to cover and do you understand the organization of the Catechism?

No I can honestly say i have not read the ccc fully, so i do not understand…