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

[Ender]

I thought the Church considers SSA ‘intrinsically disordered,’ or, more particularly, the temptation to engage in gay sex, although the temptation is not sinful; whereas homosexual acts are sinful. Isn’t that the distinction?

Based on the passage Rau cited, I would agree: both the inclination and the action are (objectively/intrinsically) disordered.*2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. **This inclination, which is *objectively disordered…

***2357 …tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”
*The question is: if the inclination is (considered by the church to be) disordered, what is the argument against her saying so?

Ender

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I agree that not every cuddle is sexual, which seems to be consistent with my point about case by case. The context you describe is not one involving romantic feelings or SSA.

That I have never planned to do certain things doesn’t mean I haven’t been tempted by thoughts of doing so. I love my friends too much to do anything of the sort, even if most of them are godless heathens.

 

[o_mlly]

I don’t agree. If, as we are led to believe, these laws are made by God not man why would they ‘mitigate’ rather than dictate. I don’t agree with that hypothesis at all

The post did not contain an hypothesis. It did contain an analogy. As regards slavery, once abolished, there is no longer a need to have laws designed to mitigate the evils of the practice. Consider what Jesus said about divorce which the Mosaic Law allowed to a “stiff-necked” people.

Matthew 19:
7 They said to him,** “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” **
8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

Of course, your are free to disagree with Catholic teaching — the Church proposes, she does not impose. What is proposed is the truth.

 

[PatrickKennedy]

The post did not contain an hypothesis. It did contain an analogy. As regards slavery, once abolished, there is no longer a need to have laws designed to mitigate the evils of the practice. Consider what Jesus said about divorce which the Mosaic Law allowed to a “stiff-necked” people.

Matthew 19:
7 They said to him,** “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” **
8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

Of course, your are free to disagree with Catholic teaching — the Church proposes, she does not impose. What is proposed is the truth.

But my point is the passage in Leviticus is quoted always in relation to homosexuality but other moral precepts contained in Leviticus are easily explained away. There has to be some consistency here

 

[scapularkid8]

I imagine the adulterer could say the same thing.

Your response to him would be…what?

Yes the adulterer could be over the moon, but the adulterer already entered an agreement and broke it willingly, and was fully within his own choice to act that way in clear violation of a personally-agreed vow. I don’t know any gay person who woke up and said “This day I vow I am no longer straight. I am gay and that is my fully-aware and informed personal decision in violation of Church teaching.”

Not even close to parallel.

 

[Rau]

Yes the adulterer could be over the moon, but the adulterer already entered an agreement and broke it willingly, and was fully within his own choice to act that way in clear violation of a personally-agreed vow. I don’t know any gay person who woke up and said “This day I vow I am no longer straight. I am gay and that is my fully-aware and informed personal decision in violation of Church teaching.”

I found that a bit hard to follow. I get that the adulterer also breaks a human vow. Substitute “fornicator” if you prefer.

But anyway, which Church teaching is being violated in your post?? Or do you use the expression “I am gay” synonymously with “I am / will engage in same sex sexual relations”?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes the adulterer could be over the moon, but the adulterer already entered an agreement and broke it willingly, and was fully within his own choice to act that way in clear violation of a personally-agreed vow. I don’t know any gay person who woke up and said “This day I vow I am no longer straight. I am gay and that is my fully-aware and informed personal decision in violation of Church teaching.”

Not even close to parallel.

So we are agreed, yes, that someone being completely over the moon about a particular activity is…irrelevant as to whether the activity is moral or not?

Because what was being asserted earlier was that a gay man engaged in homosexual activity was “very happy, thank you very much”.

And the implication was: how can what I am doing be wrong when I am so happy?

 

[Good_Tidings]

That I have never planned to do certain things doesn’t mean I haven’t been tempted by thoughts of doing so. I love my friends too much to do anything of the sort, even if most of them are godless heathens.

Do I detect a little sarcasm here? lol

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Do I detect a little sarcasm here? lol

Not really, the last sentence means “I love my friends and so I would not engage in grave matter with them even those who not Christians”. I was joking a bit with “godless heathens” but many of them are atheist, i.e. godless and not Christian, i.e. heathen.

 

[Rosebud77]

Not really, the last sentence means “I love my friends and so I would not engage in grave matter with them even those who not Christians”. I was joking a bit with “godless heathens” but many of them are atheist, i.e. godless and not Christian, i.e. heathen.

Odd how folk object to the word “heathen”!

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Odd how folk object to the word “heathen”!

Use the word heathen correctly and get vilified, note that the terms “gay agenda” and “gay lifestyle” are horrible perversions of English, useless save to find conspiracies where there are none and to other* people and you get pilloried for supporting the gay agenda.

*a sociological term to refer to identifying people or groups as an out group, the “them” in the “us v. them” mentality

 

[o_mlly]

Do conservative Christian teachings on promiscuity cause hatred and violence against the heterosexual community? No, apparently not in Hollywood. How many movies contain gratuitous scenes depicting (and normalizing) fornication or adultery?

Do Catholic teachings on hatred and violence cause hatred and violence in any community? No. From the Catechism:

2303 Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."96

2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.103

 

[PatrickKennedy]

Do conservative Christian teachings on promiscuity cause hatred and violence against the heterosexual community? No, apparently not in Hollywood. How many movies contain gratuitous scenes depicting (and normalizing) fornication or adultery?

Do Catholic teachings on hatred and violence cause hatred and violence in any community? No. From the Catechism:

2303 Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."96

2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.103

That’s the teaching. I think the question was about the practice

 

[o_mlly]

That’s the teaching. I think the question was about the practice

Since the teachings denounce hatred and violence, we can dismiss the “Christian teaching” as a cause for what it explicitly condemns.

If the OP witnesses the practice of hatred and violence against any community, LGBT or not, then the cause lies elsewhere. Anyone committing such acts against persons must cite some other authority than the Church.

 

[Rosebud77]

Since the teachings denounce hatred and violence, we can dismiss the “Christian teaching” as a cause for what it explicitly condemns.

If the OP witnesses the practice of hatred and violence against any community, LGBT or not, then the cause lies elsewhere. Anyone committing such acts against persons must cite some other authority than the Church.

Trouble is that the mildest words get misinterpreted by the gays as hatred… Walking on eggshells can be very wearing

 

[Strydersroom]

Trouble is that the mildest words get misinterpreted by the gays as hatred… Walking on eggshells can be very wearing

Hello, I have experienced these “mild words” on these boards this summer:

Homosexual marriage is not valid, but rather a blasphemous mockery of “real” marriage.
Homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children.
Homosexual acts (whatever those are) are an intrinsic evil that cries to heaven.
The above are an abomination against God.
Homosexual couples will eventually collapsed and their relationships are doomed.
Sodomy should be illegal.

I don’t think I misinterpreted any of that, and in my opinion all of the above could easily get interpreted as hatred, and thus definition of homophobia.

 

[Ender]

…Sodomy should be illegal.

I don’t think I misinterpreted any of that, and in my opinion all of the above could easily get interpreted as hatred, and thus definition of homophobia.

This is where we’re headed: when “X should be illegal” constitutes hate speech and should be outlawed we will have entirely lost our right to debate anything.

Ender

 

[Rau]

Hello, I have experienced these “mild words” on these boards this summer:

Homosexual marriage is not valid, but rather a blasphemous mockery of “real” marriage.
Homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children.
Homosexual acts (whatever those are) are an intrinsic evil that cries to heaven.
The above are an abomination against God.
Homosexual couples will eventually collapsed and their relationships are doomed.
Sodomy should be illegal.

I don’t think I misinterpreted any of that, and in my opinion all of the above could easily get interpreted as hatred, and thus definition of homophobia.

You know that the Catholic Faith teaches that sexual acts between person of the same sex are always wrong (=“Intrinsically evil”). Isn’t it true that those who “interpret” such a statement as “hate speech” are the only ones (objectively) introducing “hate” into the debate?

 

[Rosebud77]

You know that the Catholic Faith teaches that sexual acts between person of the same sex are always wrong (=“Intrinsically evil”). Isn’t it true that those who “interpret” such a statement as “hate speech” are the only ones (objectively) introducing “hate” into the debate?

again!!!

 

[PatrickKennedy]

Gay people aren’t usually spoken about with any respect on this forum. They are often spoken about simply as ‘homosexual PERSONS’ in the legalistic language of the Catechism or disordered. Rarely are the lived experiences of gay people given any credence. Gay people will say that the Bible has been used to reinforce discrimination and often violence but the retort is often that it shouldn’t, but of course that does not mean that it doesn’t happen. Face it folks it does.