Do conservative Christian teachings on homosexuality cause hatred and violence against the LGBT community?

[Holly3278]

Hey everyone. I have heard the argument that conservative Christian teachings on homosexuality have contributed to hatred and violence against the LGBT community. Is this true? Please note that I did say “conservative Christian teachings” and not simply “Catholic teachings” because I want to include conservative Protestant beliefs about homosexuality in this discussion as well but I also don’t want Catholic beliefs to be excluded.

But anyway, is it possible to hold a middle ground of condemning the sin of homosexual unchastity and “gay marriage” while not allowing this condemnation to incite hatred and violence against LGBT people?

 

[JonNC]

Hey everyone. I have heard the argument that conservative Christian teachings on homosexuality have contributed to hatred and violence against the LGBT community. Is this true? Please note that I did say “conservative Christian teachings” and not simply “Catholic teachings” because I want to include conservative Protestant beliefs about homosexuality in this discussion as well but I also don’t want Catholic beliefs to be excluded.

But anyway, is it possible to hold a middle ground of condemning the sin of homosexual unchastity and “gay marriage” while not allowing this condemnation to incite hatred and violence against LGBT people?

There certainly could be small pockets of that effect. Westboro Baptist comes to mind, but I don’t believe it to be a widespread impact. Catholic and conservative non-catholic communions are usually pretty clear that it is sin we oppose, not the sinner since we all fall into that category.

Jon

 

[RPRPsych]

Hey everyone. I have heard the argument that conservative Christian teachings on homosexuality have contributed to hatred and violence against the LGBT community. Is this true? Please note that I did say “conservative Christian teachings” and not simply “Catholic teachings” because I want to include conservative Protestant beliefs about homosexuality in this discussion as well but I also don’t want Catholic beliefs to be excluded.

This is an interesting question. The Catholic position cannot be construed as contributing to hatred or violence, unless one is being wilfully obtuse (as the UCLA is. )

The trouble with a “conservative Protestant position” is that it includes everything from classic Lutheranism and Calvinism (which see it as a grievous sin, but which do not directly endorse violence in any way) to mainstream Evangelical thought (which is quite similar to the Catholic position) to fringe movements such as Theonomy, which advocate (in theory) the use of capital punishment for both those homo- and heterosexual offences condemned in the Old Testament.

It’s also true that some Evangelical leaders have made unfortunate statements, such as “9/11 was due to the gays!” (no, dummy, it was due to Islamic fundamentalist terrorists ) which could be vaguely construed as incitements to violence.

But anyway, is it possible to hold a middle ground of condemning the sin of homosexual unchastity and “gay marriage” while not allowing this condemnation to incite hatred and violence against LGBT people?

Certainly:

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfhomop.htm

 

[meltzerboy]

Hey everyone. I have heard the argument that conservative Christian teachings on homosexuality have contributed to hatred and violence against the LGBT community. Is this true? Please note that I did say “conservative Christian teachings” and not simply “Catholic teachings” because I want to include conservative Protestant beliefs about homosexuality in this discussion as well but I also don’t want Catholic beliefs to be excluded.

But anyway, is it possible to hold a middle ground of condemning the sin of homosexual unchastity and “gay marriage” while not allowing this condemnation to incite hatred and violence against LGBT people?

I suppose the message put forth about and toward gay people depends on the denomination and even the parish within each denomination. In addition to potential hatred and, in the extreme, violence toward gay people, one should not overlook those gays who leave their church due to its stand and become gay activists against church teaching, as well as those who become self-loathing as a result. Compassion on the part of church leaders–without sacrificing their faith’s moral principles–can go a long way toward preventing the above.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Hey everyone. I have heard the argument that conservative Christian teachings on homosexuality have contributed to hatred and violence against the LGBT community. Is this true? Please note that I did say “conservative Christian teachings” and not simply “Catholic teachings” because I want to include conservative Protestant beliefs about homosexuality in this discussion as well but I also don’t want Catholic beliefs to be excluded.

But anyway, is it possible to hold a middle ground of condemning the sin of homosexual unchastity and “gay marriage” while not allowing this condemnation to incite hatred and violence against LGBT people?

We have contributed to it, outright hatred is more the domain of Protestants, but Catholics have definitely contributed too with the clear disgust and disdain many have expressed towards gay people and the choice of language. I’ve seen plenty of Catholics trying to say that unlike fornication homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and therefore a special kind of evil, but the fact is that fornication is also intrinsically disordered and also “unnatural” (in the natural law sense). I’ve also seen Catholics claim that identifying as gay is evil and that gay people have to make themselves not attracted to the same sex via reparative therapy and such.

 

[RPRPsych]

We have contributed to it, outright hatred is more the domain of Protestants, but Catholics have definitely contributed too with the clear disgust and disdain many have expressed towards gay people and the choice of language. I’ve seen plenty of Catholics trying to say that unlike fornication homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and therefore a special kind of evil, but the fact is that fornication is also intrinsically disordered and also “unnatural” (in the natural law sense). I’ve also seen Catholics claim that identifying as gay is evil and that gay people have to make themselves not attracted to the same sex via reparative therapy and such.

Okay, let’s unpack this:

** I’ve seen plenty of Catholics trying to say that unlike fornication homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and therefore a special kind of evil, but the fact is that fornication is also intrinsically disordered and also “unnatural” (in the natural law sense).**

This distinction has been taught since the time of the Early Church Fathers, particularly St. John Chrysostom. Homosexual acts are not “special”; they are simply worse than heterosexual sins because they go against the order of Nature as created by God. (Later theologians would extend the “unnatural” concept to include even unnatural sexual acts performed by heterosexuals, and lump them together under the umbrella of “sodomy”. Note that this does not mean that fornication or adultery are somehow “okay”.

Catholics claim that identifying as gay is evil and that gay people have to make themselves not attracted to the same sex via reparative therapy and such.

To “identify” as gay is to subscribe to LGBTQ ideology, which every Pope from John Paul II to Francis has condemned unequivocally. It is also a denial of one’s entire human personhood. Do I identify as “heterosexual”? No, I am much more than that.

On reparative therapy: the Church has not prescribed anything formal here. All that she has ruled is that those with a homosexual orientation are called to chaste lives. “Reparative therapy” is a worthless umbrella term which includes everything from crude “aversive” therapies to attempts to address early childhood trauma. There is no formal “Catholic reparative therapy” push; this is more of a Protestant concept.

 

[adamhovey1988]

What do you define as a “Conservative Christian”?

 

[meltzerboy]

Okay, let’s unpack this:

** I’ve seen plenty of Catholics trying to say that unlike fornication homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and therefore a special kind of evil, but the fact is that fornication is also intrinsically disordered and also “unnatural” (in the natural law sense).**

This distinction has been taught since the time of the Early Church Fathers, particularly St. John Chrysostom. Homosexual acts are not “special”; they are simply worse than heterosexual sins because they go against the order of Nature as created by God. (Later theologians would extend the “unnatural” concept to include even unnatural sexual acts performed by heterosexuals, and lump them together under the umbrella of “sodomy”. Note that this does not mean that fornication or adultery are somehow “okay”.

Catholics claim that identifying as gay is evil and that gay people have to make themselves not attracted to the same sex via reparative therapy and such.

To “identify” as gay is to subscribe to LGBTQ ideology, which every Pope from John Paul II to Francis has condemned unequivocally. It is also a denial of one’s entire human personhood. Do I identify as “heterosexual”? No, I am much more than that.

On reparative therapy: the Church has not prescribed anything formal here. All that she has ruled is that those with a homosexual orientation are called to chaste lives. “Reparative therapy” is a worthless umbrella term which includes everything from crude “aversive” therapies to attempts to address early childhood trauma. There is no formal “Catholic reparative therapy” push; this is more of a Protestant concept.

I generally agree with everything you say here. The only quibble I have is with the identification issue. Of course people who are heterosexual do not have to identify as such because they have never, or rarely, been oppressed and discriminated against for being heterosexual. On the other hand, gay people–similar to other groups who have suffered discrimination, including African Americans, Jews, Latinos, Catholics, and so on–tend to identify with their gayness since that is the one thing their oppressors have identified them as and the one thing they have been discriminated against for being.

 

[RPRPsych]

I generally agree with everything you say here. The only quibble I have is with the identification issue. Of course people who are heterosexual do not have to identify as such because they have never, or rarely, been oppressed and discriminated against for being heterosexual. On the other hand, gay people–similar to other groups who have suffered discrimination, including African Americans, Jews, Latinos, Catholics, and so on–tend to identify with their gayness since that is the one thing their oppressors have identified them as and the one thing they have been discriminated against for being.

That’s a very valid point.

The trouble with identity politics in general (and it can affect majorities also; how do you think right-wing parties work? By appealing to the “silent majority” who are being “victimized” by “minority appeasement”) is that (a) it leaves those who endorse it, even if they are genuine victims, open to manipulation by unscrupulous forces, and (b) it encourages a sort of exclusivist thinking that often simply makes the barrier between “us and them” stronger and more impenetrable. We see this with Hindus and Muslims in India, especially under the current regime.

In the specific case of LGBTQ identity politics, of course, the issue is complicated (if you are a Catholic or a conservative Protestant) by Church teaching, which would hold that such identity politics are a (passive or active) endorsement of sinful acts and lifestyles.

 

[meltzerboy]

That’s a very valid point.

The trouble with identity politics in general (and it can affect majorities also; how do you think right-wing parties work? By appealing to the “silent majority” who are being “victimized” by “minority appeasement”) is that (a) it leaves those who endorse it, even if they are genuine victims, open to manipulation by unscrupulous forces, and (b) it encourages a sort of exclusivist thinking that often simply makes the barrier between “us and them” stronger and more impenetrable. We see this with Hindus and Muslims in India, especially under the current regime.

In the specific case of LGBTQ identity politics, of course, the issue is complicated (if you are a Catholic or a conservative Protestant) by Church teaching, which would hold that such identity politics are a (passive or active) endorsement of sinful acts and lifestyles.

I agree with your depiction of the inherent dangers of identity politics. Another danger is it tends to limit independence of thought; that is, the follow-the-mob mentality is promoted.

 

[RPRPsych]

I agree with your depiction of the inherent dangers of identity politics. Another danger is it tends to limit independence of thought; that is, the follow-the-mob mentality is promoted.

True. But even then, I don’t think the Church would consider it “sinful” (perhaps “imprudent”) unless the identity in question (not just LGBT, but, say, “pick-up artist subculture” ) actively or tacitly promotes acts that it considered sinful. The Church has always had a tradition of condemning most forms of bigotry, even if that voice was tragically silent from time to time in certain parts of the world.

And now, I’ll stop before someone turns this into a thread about Pope Pius XII.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Okay, let’s unpack this:

** I’ve seen plenty of Catholics trying to say that unlike fornication homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and therefore a special kind of evil, but the fact is that fornication is also intrinsically disordered and also “unnatural” (in the natural law sense).**

This distinction has been taught since the time of the Early Church Fathers, particularly St. John Chrysostom. Homosexual acts are not “special”; they are simply worse than heterosexual sins because they go against the order of Nature as created by God. (Later theologians would extend the “unnatural” concept to include even unnatural sexual acts performed by heterosexuals, and lump them together under the umbrella of “sodomy”. Note that this does not mean that fornication or adultery are somehow “okay”.

Fornication has in fact been condemned as intrinsically disordered, likewise adultery.

Catholics claim that identifying as gay is evil and that gay people have to make themselves not attracted to the same sex via reparative therapy and such.

To “identify” as gay is to subscribe to LGBTQ ideology, which every Pope from John Paul II to Francis has condemned unequivocally. It is also a denial of one’s entire human personhood. Do I identify as “heterosexual”? No, I am much more than that.

On reparative therapy: the Church has not prescribed anything formal here. All that she has ruled is that those with a homosexual orientation are called to chaste lives. “Reparative therapy” is a worthless umbrella term which includes everything from crude “aversive” therapies to attempts to address early childhood trauma. There is no formal “Catholic reparative therapy” push; this is more of a Protestant concept.

When people say they are gay they don’t actually mean ontologically, almost no one speaks ontologically.

NARTH has a substantial fan base on the forum.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I’m sure there have been those who have taken it too far. They are going against the teachings of Christ. Acts of violence against any person, no matter if they’re gay or straight is sinful. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, *“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.”* (CCC 2358)

 

[RPRPsych]

When people say they are gay they don’t actually mean ontologically, almost no one speaks ontologically.

That is correct.

NARTH has a substantial fan base on the forum.

So do Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, heavy metal and EWTN. Neither of whom are relevant to the OP’s question, which is about Catholic / Christian teachings and not the (very fallible) opinions of a few posters on a forum.

 

[po18guy]

No.

Simple broken human hatred does.

 

[JurisPrudens]

Hey everyone. I have heard the argument that conservative Christian teachings on homosexuality have contributed to hatred and violence against the LGBT community. Is this true? Please note that I did say “conservative Christian teachings” and not simply “Catholic teachings” because I want to include conservative Protestant beliefs about homosexuality in this discussion as well but I also don’t want Catholic beliefs to be excluded.

But anyway, is it possible to hold a middle ground of condemning the sin of homosexual unchastity and “gay marriage” while not allowing this condemnation to incite hatred and violence against LGBT people?

In thecountry where I a from, I was not raised as strong believer. Neither were I indoctrinated with any special “anti-LGBT hate”. Neither were people around me. And yet, the hateful and disgustful attitude to open homosexuality prevails there.

Disgust toward unnatural things is natural. When someone has not a strong moral compass in God and does not restrain his emotions, the disgust will convert into hate and aggression.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Hey everyone. I have heard the argument that conservative Christian teachings on homosexuality have contributed to hatred and violence against the LGBT community. Is this true? Please note that I did say “conservative Christian teachings” and not simply “Catholic teachings” because I want to include conservative Protestant beliefs about homosexuality in this discussion as well but I also don’t want Catholic beliefs to be excluded.

Holly3278, there is no such thing as an LGBT person. These are false labels that deceive people into adopting a false self-identity based upon a disordered attraction and/or behavior. As for the LGBT community, certainly people who share this false identity do gather together for the reasons that many groups do- to validate and perpetuate this self-identity, to seek understanding and to seek partners and adventures.

And so, in some sense there is an “LGBT community”- but instead of it providing dignity and legitimacy for its members, as it appears to, when looked upon more profoundly, you will find it akin to a “leper community” or a “bulimic community”. It is a community of deceived people living disordered lives and basking in this false self-identity as individual and community.

As for Christian teaching- The New Testament trumps the old. That’s to say- It does not replace it, but it amends. I can’t see how any Christian or Catholic could come to the honest conclusion that we should hate prostitutes, fornicators or homosexuals, among others, considering how Jesus dealt with sinners.

I don’t see Peter or Paul telling churches that members who do these things need to be stoned. In fact, the process for addressing a misbehaving Christian is clear- it involves going to the church and ultimately letting the person be, but never stoning or otherwise being violent to them! As for pagans- the focus is on converting, not killing them!

So, I don’t think that neither Biblical nor authentic Catholic teaching is to blame. Now, if we talk about Christian and Catholic culture and independent teaching done in some Christian and Catholic churches, then you can point fingers and certainly sins have been committed by many Christians in this regard.

But if you look at the situation overall- It has been incredibly peaceful on the part of Christians! Where are the mass killings or even discrimination against “LGBT(+)” people? Although I do see some bad behavior from some Christians, as I mention above- overall, the more amazing thing is how those championing the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality in our society (and the world) have taken the morally correct teaching of a peaceful (but not pacifistic) religion and managed to stigmatize it and blame it for “hatred and violence” against such homosexuals. It’s a masterful piece of propaganda!

Target the teachings and people in the way of your total free-for-all-anything-goes brand of (im)morality and blame them for the “hatred and violence” they receive from ANY group- including those of another religion which is historically and in the present-day not known for being quite as peaceful.

But anyway, is it possible to hold a middle ground of condemning the sin of homosexual unchastity and “gay marriage” while not allowing this condemnation to incite hatred and violence against LGBT people?

This is not a “middleground”- This is Catholic teaching! And yes, of course it’s possible! But here’s the thing- there will always be people willing to use violent means to carry out their goals. And this includes those championing “LGBT rights”. It’s not less violent just because you use the force of the government to carry out your goal. And they are very willing to, even against the people’s will.

There are misguided souls who do believe in “LGBT rights” and yet do not believe in using force to attain them (and punish the baker, the nuns, etc…). And there are misguided souls who believe in Christian teaching and yet insist on selectively going against it by hating others, which we are told we can not do even with our enemies. And yet other misguided souls are willing to use force to “punish” those who commit the sin of homosexuality, even though they have no authority to do so.

If you want to see a correct Christian response to the whole “LGBT” thing, watch everlastinghills.org/ and blackstonefilms.org/thethirdway/

 

[Lion_IRC]

Do conservative Christian teachings on homosexuality cause hatred and violence against the LGBT community?

In other words can we blame Jesus for stuff.

“If the world hates you, remember that it hated me first.”
‎John 15:17

 

[Sarcelle]

This is an interesting question. The Catholic position cannot be construed as contributing to hatred or violence, unless one is being wilfully obtuse (as the UCLA is. )

The trouble with a “conservative Protestant position” is that it includes everything from classic Lutheranism and Calvinism (which see it as a grievous sin, but which do not directly endorse violence in any way) to mainstream Evangelical thought (which is quite similar to the Catholic position) to fringe movements such as Theonomy, which advocate (in theory) the use of capital punishment for both those homo- and heterosexual offences condemned in the Old Testament.

It’s also true that some Evangelical leaders have made unfortunate statements, such as “9/11 was due to the gays!” (no, dummy, it was due to Islamic fundamentalist terrorists ) which could be vaguely construed as incitements to violence.

Certainly:

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfhomop.htm

 

[Sarcelle]

Holly3278, there is no such thing as an LGBT person. These are false labels that deceive people into adopting a false self-identity based upon a disordered attraction and/or behavior. As for the LGBT community, certainly people who share this false identity do gather together for the reasons that many groups do- to validate and perpetuate this self-identity, to seek understanding and to seek partners and adventures.

And so, in some sense there is an “LGBT community”- but instead of it providing dignity and legitimacy for its members, as it appears to, when looked upon more profoundly, you will find it akin to a “leper community” or a “bulimic community”. It is a community of deceived people living disordered lives and basking in this false self-identity as individual and community.

As for Christian teaching- The New Testament trumps the old. That’s to say- It does not replace it, but it amends. I can’t see how any Christian or Catholic could come to the honest conclusion that we should hate prostitutes, fornicators or homosexuals, among others, considering how Jesus dealt with sinners.

I don’t see Peter or Paul telling churches that members who do these things need to be stoned. In fact, the process for addressing a misbehaving Christian is clear- it involves going to the church and ultimately letting the person be, but never stoning or otherwise being violent to them! As for pagans- the focus is on converting, not killing them!

So, I don’t think that neither Biblical nor authentic Catholic teaching is to blame. Now, if we talk about Christian and Catholic culture and independent teaching done in some Christian and Catholic churches, then you can point fingers and certainly sins have been committed by many Christians in this regard.

But if you look at the situation overall- It has been incredibly peaceful on the part of Christians! Where are the mass killings or even discrimination against “LGBT(+)” people? Although I do see some bad behavior from some Christians, as I mention above- overall, the more amazing thing is how those championing the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality in our society (and the world) have taken the morally correct teaching of a peaceful (but not pacifistic) religion and managed to stigmatize it and blame it for “hatred and violence” against such homosexuals. It’s a masterful piece of propaganda!

Target the teachings and people in the way of your total free-for-all-anything-goes brand of (im)morality and blame them for the “hatred and violence” they receive from ANY group- including those of another religion which is historically and in the present-day not known for being quite as peaceful.

This is not a “middleground”- This is Catholic teaching! And yes, of course it’s possible! But here’s the thing- there will always be people willing to use violent means to carry out their goals. And this includes those championing “LGBT rights”. It’s not less violent just because you use the force of the government to carry out your goal. And they are very willing to, even against the people’s will.

There are misguided souls who do believe in “LGBT rights” and yet do not believe in using force to attain them (and punish the baker, the nuns, etc…). And there are misguided souls who believe in Christian teaching and yet insist on selectively going against it by hating others, which we are told we can not do even with our enemies. And yet other misguided souls are willing to use force to “punish” those who commit the sin of homosexuality, even though they have no authority to do so.

If you want to see a correct Christian response to the whole “LGBT” thing, watch everlastinghills.org/ and blackstonefilms.org/thethirdway/

People who are all to eager to use violence against anyone, even in the name of religion, are just people who are bullies and who have found religion to be an especially useful club to bully others.