Dealing with gays

[90Domer]

continued from previous post

I will grant that people who do not show signs of improving or controlling their homosexual desires are barred form the priesthood. There are various reasons for this, many stemming from the desire to protect the priesthood. Just because the Bishops did a poor job of handling the situation does not negate the underlying issue with having blatant or active homosexuals being leaders within the Church. It is sad, and it may not seem “fair” from your limited perspective, but it is important for the church to protect herself and offer the best possible guidance for future generations. I will concede the point, however, that certain people are prevented form becoming priests because they are gay.

I still don’t see anything wrong with it though. As I said before, equality is not about everyone being able to do everything everyone else is able to, its about recognizing people for what they are, and treating them accordingly. You do not treat an athlete like a rocket scientist, and you do not treat a rocket scientist like an athlete, their roles, purpose and skills are different, and as such they should be treated according to those capacities. To believe otherwise is a logical fallacy. Gay people should be treated with respect, but that doesn’t mean that their disordered tendancies should just be ignored outright.

Here is a brief article that goes into why active / dep-seated homosexual cannot become priests. It does a pretty good job of explaining it. lisagraas.com/blog/archives/5170

Briefly, if you read just a little bit past where you appear to have stopped in that declaration: (about halfway through the first paragraph in segment 3)

As a Catholic, don’t you think you should trust the Church to do what’s best for you, her and society? If you don’t, then why are you Catholic?

 

[90Domer]

There are adulterers who work with the poor. They are kind and say nice things. Is adultery good? There are contraceptors who are ushers at mass and would help you if you tripped? Is contraception good? Truth is a person. To deny the truth is denying Christ. How do we claim fidelity to Him while rejecting His law?

I think I am getting your point, but could you clarify?

 

[fix]

I think I am getting your point, but could you clarify?

Yes, my point is we cannot reject the moral law and claim fidelity to Christ. When the young man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life the first thing Jesus said was keep my commandments.

The idea that one can reject the moral law, but “help the poor” and still be faithful cannot be reconciled with the bible or we the faith. We cannot barter with God.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Yes, my point is we cannot reject the moral law and claim fidelity to Christ. When the young man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life the first thing Jesus said was keep my commandments.

The idea that one can reject the moral law, but “help the poor” and still be faithful cannot be reconciled with the bible or we the faith. We cannot barter with God.

 

[WildCatholic]

The teaching of the Catholic Church promotes respect and compassion, opposing injustice:

Unfortunately, there are many Catholics and other Christians who fail to live up to this teaching. Whether they intend to do so or not, some Catholics do marginalize homosexual persons through words and actions that make people with same-sex attraction feel unwelcome, unwanted, disrespected, disregarded, or unloved. I am sure that I have probably failed in this regard many times. But we have a responsibility to our Lord, to his Church, and to all our brothers and sisters to make conscious efforts to treat homosexual persons with dignity and respect, to make conscious efforts to welcome them into the life of faith and pursuit of holiness together with us, to put away actions and words that are hurtful and needlessly alienate people. We do not need to change the Church’s moral teaching regarding sex in order to love people better than we seem to be doing. We need to put into practice what the Church teaches.

It’s not only when this is directed at homosexual persons that this can be harmful, either. Even when it’s directed at straight people as an insult, someone with same sex attraction who overhears it will know what it means: homosexual people are not wanted or loved.

The Catholic Church has spoken out. I think the problem is that we’re not adequately publicizing it in our own words and actions.

How has the church spoken out on treating gays as people? I went to a Catholic school where simply because I was not the most macho guy I was bullied and called fagg and fudge packer and none of the priests stood up for me. They all said it was my fault for getting angry(yes in a sense it was, but none of my bullies even got a talking to).

And whaddya know these same people, some of whom only step into a church 2 or 3 times a year talk about on facebook how the Catholic Church is against gay marriage and all that, yet get drunk and use BC and all that ****.

Sorry for the rant. This is just a tough subject. Especially since I was bullied for being gay when I myself am not even close to being gay.

 

[fix]

How has the church spoken out on treating gays as people?

She has continually. Can you point out one thing the Church has taught that demeans homosexual persons?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

How has the church spoken out on treating gays as people? I went to a Catholic school where simply because I was not the most macho guy I was bullied and called fagg and fudge packer and none of the priests stood up for me. They all said it was my fault for getting angry(yes in a sense it was, but none of my bullies even got a talking to).

And whaddya know these same people, some of whom only step into a church 2 or 3 times a year talk about on facebook how the Catholic Church is against gay marriage and all that, yet get drunk and use BC and all that ****.

Sorry for the rant. This is just a tough subject. Especially since I was bullied for being gay when I myself am not even close to being gay.

Failure of individuals within an organization to live up to the standards of that organization does not negate the organization’s goals or ideals, it just makes those people bad practitioners.

 

[mattwilliams]

May I join in?

I am not Catholic, although am considering going through RCIA. Currently, I am Baptist. But, I am also a political libertarian, and have a unique insight into this issue.

Marriage is really one name for what is two separate things. One of those things is what is recognized by the church, while the other is something that is regulated by the state.

It is, and should always be, the church’s perrogative to join whomever they want in “holy matrimony,” that is the act of what most of us think of when we conjure images of marriage. They can also deny this privilege to whomever they want.

What is called “marriage” in a legal sense really isn’t marriage at all. That’s where you go to the local city hall and get a judge to legally bind you to another person. You have entered into a legal contract where your tax status changes, and you also have financial and asset ties to this other person. Most people enter this contract because they are getting married by the church… But really, anybody could go enter into this contract. The state calls this a “marriage license,” but it really doesn’t have anything to do with marriage, when you think about it.

If gay couples want to go to city hall and bind their earthly treasure (money, assets, etc) to another person in a legally binding contract, I’m ok with that. I think most of us can agree that discriminating against a group of people by denying them certain tax advantages due to a religious argument shouldn’t have a place in government. I know that I would not want that shoe to be put on my foot. I also think it is ok if churches, as private institutions, want to deny gay couples the privilege of being bound together in marriage under their roof, and the government has no right to tell the churches to do otherwise.

In the end, I think the framers got it right when they said “all men are created equal,” and that we are all “endowed by the Creator with certain unaleinable rights.” Am I less of a sinner than a gay man? I don’t think so. I’ve led as sinful a life as anyone else. Sould someone be denied civil liberties because they are gay? I think not. I don’t think God would think so, either. The legal contract that comes out of City Hall is not marriage.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

May I join in?

I am not Catholic, although am considering going through RCIA. Currently, I am Baptist. But, I am also a political libertarian, and have a unique insight into this issue.

Marriage is really one name for what is two separate things. One of those things is what is recognized by the church, while the other is something that is regulated by the state.

It is, and should always be, the church’s perrogative to join whomever they want in “holy matrimony,” that is the act of what most of us think of when we conjure images of marriage. They can also deny this privilege to whomever they want.

What is called “marriage” in a legal sense really isn’t marriage at all. That’s where you go to the local city hall and get a judge to legally bind you to another person. You have entered into a legal contract where your tax status changes, and you also have financial and asset ties to this other person. Most people enter this contract because they are getting married by the church… But really, anybody could go enter into this contract. The state calls this a “marriage license,” but it really doesn’t have anything to do with marriage, when you think about it.

If gay couples want to go to city hall and bind their earthly treasure (money, assets, etc) to another person in a legally binding contract, I’m ok with that. I think most of us can agree that discriminating against a group of people by denying them certain tax advantages due to a religious argument shouldn’t have a place in government. I know that I would not want that shoe to be put on my foot. I also think it is ok if churches, as private institutions, want to deny gay couples the privilege of being bound together in marriage under their roof, and the government has no right to tell the churches to do otherwise.

In the end, I think the framers got it right when they said “all men are created equal,” and that we are all “endowed by the Creator with certain unaleinable rights.” Am I less of a sinner than a gay man? I don’t think so. I’ve led as sinful a life as anyone else. Sould someone be denied civil liberties because they are gay? I think not. I don’t think God would think so, either. The legal contract that comes out of City Hall is not marriage.

The problem with this, and part of what the Church is fighting, is that it relegates the concept of marriage to… well… nothing. If all that is required is for two people to want to be in a marriage, for either tax or sexual reasons, what logical reason do you have to prevent me from, say, marrying my brother so we can get a tax break?

One you remove the necessary aspect of marriage, being the procreation and raising of children, there is no logical point at which you can say “no, that’s enough”

What about three people who want to get married? Why is their love any less than the gays? What about four? five? What about a group marriage (swingers), what about a man and a young girl? After all, their love is love to (according to them, and who are you to say otherwise, since there’s no longer a valid definition of appropriate love).

No, that may sound idyllic, but it does not hold up under scrutiny or logic. Once you remove procreation from marriage, there is no longer a point at which you can rightfully claim, “no, that’s wrong; that’s not marriage.”

In addition, all those benefits these people are (incorrectly) claiming they have a right to, were instituted to ensure that a parent would be able to continue raising their child should the other parent die. Since gays cannot have children, they have no right to those benefits. And don’t even get started on gays adopting, which is an abomination against the child, who does have a right to a mother and a father. To demand the right to adopt is a selfish demand, denying the child what is rightfully theirs.

One last little thing, you talk about unalienable rights. If you look in the Constitution, Marriage is not one of these rights, period. That is because the founding fathers understood that marriage is not something as petty and unimportant as a right. It is a duty, it is an obligation, and it is the foundation of a proper society.

 

[fix]

May I join in?

I am not Catholic, although am considering going through RCIA. Currently, I am Baptist. But, I am also a political libertarian, and have a unique insight into this issue.

Marriage is really one name for what is two separate things. One of those things is what is recognized by the church, while the other is something that is regulated by the state.

It is, and should always be, the church’s perrogative to join whomever they want in “holy matrimony,” that is the act of what most of us think of when we conjure images of marriage. They can also deny this privilege to whomever they want.

What is called “marriage” in a legal sense really isn’t marriage at all. That’s where you go to the local city hall and get a judge to legally bind you to another person. You have entered into a legal contract where your tax status changes, and you also have financial and asset ties to this other person. Most people enter this contract because they are getting married by the church… But really, anybody could go enter into this contract. The state calls this a “marriage license,” but it really doesn’t have anything to do with marriage, when you think about it.

If gay couples want to go to city hall and bind their earthly treasure (money, assets, etc) to another person in a legally binding contract, I’m ok with that. I think most of us can agree that discriminating against a group of people by denying them certain tax advantages due to a religious argument shouldn’t have a place in government. I know that I would not want that shoe to be put on my foot. I also think it is ok if churches, as private institutions, want to deny gay couples the privilege of being bound together in marriage under their roof, and the government has no right to tell the churches to do otherwise.

In the end, I think the framers got it right when they said “all men are created equal,” and that we are all “endowed by the Creator with certain unaleinable rights.” Am I less of a sinner than a gay man? I don’t think so. I’ve led as sinful a life as anyone else. Sould someone be denied civil liberties because they are gay? I think not. I don’t think God would think so, either. The legal contract that comes out of City Hall is not marriage.

Words have meanings. Once you mis-define a word you cause confusion.
By Any Other Name? The Manipulative Metaphysics of Redefinition

What is being lost in a lot of these debates today is respect for reality. We assert our power and dominion and run roughshod over reality.

Redefinition is dangerous. We had better be very, very sure before we redraw the borders on a minefield.

Any redefinition should, ideally, reflect a better understanding of reality — and not a manipulative desire to change reality or, worse, to pretend it isn’t there.

 

[90Domer]

Yes, my point is we cannot reject the moral law and claim fidelity to Christ. When the young man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life the first thing Jesus said was keep my commandments.

The idea that one can reject the moral law, but “help the poor” and still be faithful cannot be reconciled with the bible or we the faith. We cannot barter with God.

Totally agree. I thought that’s what you were getting at. Fighting a migraine now, so I’m a little slow.

 

[stlcatholic86]

I just want to be clear that defining marriage between one woman and one man doesn’t prevent the slippery slope arguments that are brought up. It doesn’t prevent incest nor pedophilloic relationships it just prevents them from members of the same sex.

 

[JillianRose]

With all the damage that SSA inclined priests and bishops have done to the Church (take a look at the Diocese of Rochester for one sad example), I am glad the church has this stance. Heck, my son has autism and will never have the social skills to be a priest…so I need to bad mouth the Church because of this. Let’s face it, LIFE ISN’T FAIR.

Bless your little boy. He can still do other great things for our Church!!

 

[90Domer]

Bless your little boy. He can still do other great things for our Church!!

Aw, thank you so much! You put a big on my face. Honestly story (sorry, don’t want to derail a thread)…I prayed to then Pope JPII, as it was shortly after his death that I realized there was something very wrong with my son’s development. I told him that if God allowed him to talk, I would promise I would do what I could to help his discern a vocation to the priesthood.

He is the most pious child in Church. He sets such a good example for me and his dad.

 

[aspirant]

How has the church spoken out on treating gays as people?

Since you appear to have skipped or missed the heart of the post:
"Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

We call on all Christians and citizens of good will to confront their own fears about homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that offend homosexual persons. We understand that having a homosexual orientation brings with it enough anxiety, pain and issues related to self-acceptance without society bringing additional prejudicial treatment…

{To Church Ministers:} Welcome homosexual persons into the faith community, and seek out those on the margins. Avoid stereotyping and condemning. Strive first to listen. Do not presume that all homosexual persons are sexually active.

I went to a Catholic school where simply because I was not the most macho guy I was bullied and called fagg and fudge packer and none of the priests stood up for me.

This is a perfect example of what I said:

aspirant:

Unfortunately, there are many Catholics and other Christians who fail to live up to this teaching. Whether they intend to do so or not, some Catholics do marginalize homosexual persons through words and actions that make people with same-sex attraction feel unwelcome, unwanted, disrespected, disregarded, or unloved. I am sure that I have probably failed in this regard many times. But we have a responsibility to our Lord, to his Church, and to all our brothers and sisters to make conscious efforts to treat homosexual persons with dignity and respect, to make conscious efforts to welcome them into the life of faith and pursuit of holiness together with us, to put away actions and words that are hurtful and needlessly alienate people. We do not need to change the Church’s moral teaching regarding sex in order to love people better than we seem to be doing. We need to put into practice what the Church teaches.

 

[mattwilliams]

The problem with this, and part of what the Church is fighting, is that it relegates the concept of marriage to… well… nothing.

One last little thing, you talk about unalienable rights. If you look in the Constitution, Marriage is not one of these rights, period. That is because the founding fathers understood that marriage is not something as petty and unimportant as a right. It is a duty, it is an obligation, and it is the foundation of a proper society.

Actually, the Constitution doesn’t define any unalienable rights, except for saying that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are AMONG them.

What is happening here is that the state has defined something as something. And there are those in the church who accept the state-defined definition of marriage as marriage. But, the state cannot create the spiritual definition of something through legislation. So, in the end, whatever the government legislates to be the definition of marriage doesn’t really matter. It’s not their duty to do so, nor do they have the authority to do so. All they can do is define and enforce legal contracts. What ends up happening in the end is that people want to use the government to enforce their brand of morality onto others, which in itself is immoral because the very nature of government is violence, because the government enforces legislation through the threat of and acts of violence. No matter what you believe, it is never moral to use violence in order to steer the beliefs of others.

 

[Lana_Morgana]

Since gays cannot have children

Tell that to thousands of children born and being raised to same-sex couple!
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with ability to take part in procreation process.Tell that to these fine ladies -http://www.parentdish.com/2011/03/14/aussie-lesbian-couple-gives-birth-to-quintuplets-without-ivf/
Actually its women who push human race forward in this regard.Since only they atm can give birth to new member of society.Regardless of their sexual orientation.I will be blunt- getting sperm into a vagina is an easy task even without all these fancy medical procedures.

And you dare to claim you protect family and children when in reality you lot wage war on families and their children, demonizing, stigmatizing, depriving them of social security and all that stuff other families are entitled to.calling for discrimination against their parents…so sad.

 

[fix]

Tell that to thousands of children born and being raised to same-sex couple!
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with ability to take part in procreation process.Tell that to these fine ladies -http://www.parentdish.com/2011/03/14/aussie-lesbian-couple-gives-birth-to-quintuplets-without-ivf/
Actually its women who push human race forward in this regard.Since only they atm can give birth to new member of society.Regardless of their sexual orientation.I will be blunt- getting sperm into a vagina is an easy task even without all these fancy medical procedures.

And you dare to claim you protect family and children when in reality you lot wage war on families and their children, demonizing, stigmatizing, depriving them of social security and all that stuff other families are entitled to.calling for discrimination against their parents…so sad.

Your post shows why the gay agenda is so bad. To look at marriage and children as you present here is a good example of the evil that we come from mis-defining marriage.

 

[SnakeMauler]

Obviously it’s going to be tough in this day and age to oppose gay marriage. However, one thing Catholics can do is to oppose homophobia. That’s right. You can still oppose homophobia while opposing homosexual acts. Remember, the Catechism teaches there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual. You just can’t practice homosexual acts. High schools these days are tough with all the bullies calling homosexuals “faggots” and “dykes.” This doesn’t just happen in high school either unfortunately. I think as Catholics, we should strive to fight homophobic bullying while maintaining an opposition towards homosexual marriage. Such an announcement from the Catholic Church would bring light to Catholic communities all over the US.

This is a little off-topic, but supporting gay marriage outside of the Catholic Church is NOT ok for Catholics to do, right? I mean it wouldn’t make sense since two homosexuals marrying is considered a homosexual act…

You shouldn’t have this attitude of “how to deal with gays.” Let them do what they want with their life. Perhaps their sole happiness in life comes from forming relationships with members of the same sex, who are you to try to stop them?

 

[jonathan_hili]

Obviously it’s going to be tough in this day and age to oppose gay marriage. However, one thing Catholics can do is to oppose homophobia. That’s right. You can still oppose homophobia while opposing homosexual acts. Remember, the Catechism teaches there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual. You just can’t practice homosexual acts. High schools these days are tough with all the bullies calling homosexuals “faggots” and “dykes.” This doesn’t just happen in high school either unfortunately. I think as Catholics, we should strive to fight homophobic bullying while maintaining an opposition towards homosexual marriage. Such an announcement from the Catholic Church would bring light to Catholic communities all over the US.

This is a little off-topic, but supporting gay marriage outside of the Catholic Church is NOT ok for Catholics to do, right? I mean it wouldn’t make sense since two homosexuals marrying is considered a homosexual act…

Ummm you’re right, it’s not okay for Catholics to do.

But seriously, dude, change the thread title, it’s rather disrespectful.