Defending the Church's Position on Homosexuality

[KarrollKid04]

I got into a discussion tonight with a proponent of gay “marriage.” His claim was that the Church will come around to accepting homosexual activity because the Church has done so with other issues. For example, the Church now looks back on the Inquisition as a disgrace, but fully embraced the Inquisition at the time. Or, the Church looks back on witch burning with embarrassment, but had no problem with this back then. You could also mention the Crusades and slavery. So, he argues that the Church now condemns homosexual behavior, but will one day change her opinion and look back on how “naive” she was.

How do I respond to these claims? I know that Church dogma does not change, but it does seem that the Church’s position on issues has changed over the years… and does this mean it could change regarding the morality of homosexual activity? I am definitely not a good apologist, so any help would be appreciated! Thanks!

J-

 

[Edward_H]

I got into a discussion tonight with a proponent of gay “marriage.” His claim was that the Church will come around to accepting homosexual activity because the Church has done so with other issues. For example, the Church now looks back on the Inquisition as a disgrace, but fully embraced the Inquisition at the time. Or, the Church looks back on witch burning with embarrassment, but had no problem with this back then. You could also mention the Crusades and slavery. So, he argues that the Church now condemns homosexual behavior, but will one day change her opinion and look back on how “naive” she was.

How do I respond to these claims? I know that Church dogma does not change, but it does seem that the Church’s position on issues has changed over the years… and does this mean it could change regarding the morality of homosexual activity? I am definitely not a good apologist, so any help would be appreciated! Thanks!

J-

Hmmm…just what we need. Another posting on homosexuality. Did you find the other 5-6 active homosexual threads insufficient?

Actually, the Church doesn’t look back on these events with quite the ‘disgrace’ you or your friend indicates. There are far more points to these periods in history than the average person, including Catholics, seem to know and appreciate. The crusades began as a defensive act. The compact between king/lord and worker…wherein the king/lord were supposed to defend the commoner from attacks broke down, leaving the local bishop no choice (“just war”) but to organize defensive actions.

And on the homosexual question, read up on the Catechism. It’s very clear, intellectually forceful and charitable. The Church doesn’t change its stance on matters of faith and morals.

I recommend you spend the time reading the Catechism first, coming to forums for additional points if needed.

 

[skyisfalling]

I would recommend reading the work of some good apologists (and also checking out the Ask an Apologist forum and searching for “homosexuality” for related posts). As far as the church “changing its mind,” that’s actually quite a bit of nonsense, an idea that’s come about from misunderstandings throughout history. One of the great things about the Church is her steadfastness. She has not changed the faith, ever. Understandings of doctrine and dogma has deepened over time, but the fundamental truth has not altered (because truth is truth!). I recommend Karl Keating’s *Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians.” * It has a whole section about the Inquisition that might clarify some things.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Me1234]

Read this from the bible to him:
Romans Chapter 1:24-32 New Jerusalem Bible
24 That is why God abandoned them in their inmost cravings to filthy practices of dishonouring their own bodies-
25 because they exchanged God’s truth for a lie and have worshipped and served the creature instead of the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions:
27 why their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, too, giving up normal relations with women, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameful things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion.
28 In other words, since they would not consent to acknowledge God, God abandoned them to their unacceptable thoughts and indecent behaviour.
29 And so now they are steeped in all sorts of injustice, rottenness, greed and malice; full of envy, murder, wrangling, treachery and spite,
30 libellers, slanderers, enemies of God, rude, arrogant and boastful, enterprising in evil, rebellious to parents,
31 without brains, honour, love or pity.
32 They are well aware of God’s ordinance: that those who behave like this deserve to die – yet they not only do it, but even applaud others who do the same.

God is way too stern on the sinfulness of this for the church to say it is ok. Being married is the catholic go-ahead that sex now is unsinful between the 2 of them. The church will never use a sacrament to approve of a union worthy of death.

 

[mdgspencer]

This argument is meaningless. Will the Church change its stand on burglary because it has changed on other things before? When he says this, he presumes that homosexual acts are acceptable in the first place. He makes what is called a circular argument–the Church will come to say it is acceptable because it is acceptable.
Since you said at the beginning that he is a proponent of “gay marriage,” I wonder if something the Church has put out on gay marriage would be helpful? This is at: (see section III particularly)
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

I got into a discussion tonight with a proponent of gay “marriage.” His claim was that the Church will come around to accepting homosexual activity because the Church has done so with other issues. For example, the Church now looks back on the Inquisition as a disgrace, but fully embraced the Inquisition at the time. Or, the Church looks back on witch burning with embarrassment, but had no problem with this back then. You could also mention the Crusades and slavery. So, he argues that the Church now condemns homosexual behavior, but will one day change her opinion and look back on how “naive” she was.

How do I respond to these claims? I know that Church dogma does not change, but it does seem that the Church’s position on issues has changed over the years… and does this mean it could change regarding the morality of homosexual activity? I am definitely not a good apologist, so any help would be appreciated! Thanks!

J-

 

[retiredladyann]

It seems that most people defending so-called homosexual marriage are not the least bit interested in hearing scripture passages, as good as they are; they give us the facts about how much God values HIS plan for man’s cooperation in bringing new life into the world. That is the crux of the argument or reason, but with in-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood and other ways to “create a life” in these times, it’s difficult to try to convince people who believe “It’s my life and I can do whatever I please, and you can’t stop me.” In other words, if something can be done, then it should be done. And they probably do not understand natural law either. What is the answer? Prayer, and being living witnesses to marriage or a celibate lifestyle by our example. Lots of prayer, and especially for our clergy who will be in the crosshairs of people wanted the Church to just shut up and put up. Catholics do not condemn people with same-sex attractions; we pray for them, but we cannot condone the behavior of those who use each other for sex outside of marriage, just as we can’t condone adultery and fornication. There is available a CD on which a physician/permanent deacon from Canada gives the medical implications of homosexual practices. The disease rates and early death statistics are never mentioned in any secular reporting.