Following Church teaching on homosexuality leads to collateral sin?

[Laurie_Gibson]

Torn - here is a simple answer to you difficulty - join a church that accepts the love which gay people can have for each other. To deny love cannot be right!

 

[CallistusPM]

Tom: Lauri may be right; she offers a positive solution for you, however, HMC states it very simply : Avoid all occasions of sin. It matters not whether you are homo or hetro. Any sexual activity is a sin regardless with whom outside of the sacrament of marriage, and even then, there are many restrictions. Homosexuals cannot marry in the RC Church, ergo, you have no choice within the confines of HMC.
This thread can go on forever but it really boils down to the above facts. The narrow pathway to heaven is not an easy one, especially if we do as He says and pick up His cross and follow Him. This is all harsh reality and life is not a rose garden. There are liberal churches that will offer you a bit of heaven on earth. They will say God is a just, all loving God. Regardless of your status, they argue it is far better for you to be in a church rather than outside looking in. The ball is in your court; the decision is yours to make. I will say that as you grow older, your homosexual tendencies will abate and perhaps you will be grateful that you remained within the church you cherish and love. What you do in the meantime is the main question for you to answer.

 

[antonabe]

Amen."What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and sufferes the loss of his own soul"The liberal churches will certainly provide an escape some may accept Homosexuality,Gay marriage etc but you are in the true Church instituited by Jesus Christ and your reward is waitng for you in Heaven by your persistance in being Chaste.God Bless You and protect you.

 

[Kolbe300]

On one hand, I think we need to apply the same standards to everyone involved in children’s ministries, clergy and lay alike. On the other hand, if someone has a gift or aptitude for teaching children and lives according to Catholic teaching, is their SSA really a valid issue?

It shouldn’t be, no.

However, if pressed for an answer, I’d lean toward applying the same standards to both clergy and lay folks, first, to avoid the appearance of scandal and second, because we’re dealing with children who for the most part aren’t yet capable of understanding the complexities of SSA/homosexuality as it relates to church teaching.

I’m not convinced that the Church’s teaching on SSA are really all that complex. This isn’t brain surgery we’re talking about. High school students, and dare I say most middle school students, should be able to grasp the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. One thing is certain, some of the kids we don’t think are capable of understanding are in fact dealing with homosexuality themselves. They need us to talk about it. And seeing ANY single adult, SSA or not, who lives Catholic teaching is a good thing for them.

Yes, a chaste homosexual/SSA person is living in accordance with Church teachings, we must remember that.

Yes, we must.

I think that such persons might be better off in a different kind of ministry, one other than those that deals with children.

Are we still talking about someone with SSA who is living Church teaching? I guess I just don’t get it. Let’s protect our children from the scandal of someone who is doing the right thing? Let’s keep those who have chosen the right path away from our kids? Lets allow any young person dealing with SSA themselves to be even more convinced that there is no hope for them?

At some point we’ve got to sit back and wonder who exactly we are trying to protect.

 

[antunesaa]

Tom: Lauri may be right; she offers a positive solution for you, however, HMC states it very simply : Avoid all occasions of sin. It matters not whether you are homo or hetro. Any sexual activity is a sin regardless with whom outside of the sacrament of marriage, and even then, there are many restrictions. Homosexuals cannot marry in the RC Church, ergo, you have no choice within the confines of HMC.
This thread can go on forever but it really boils down to the above facts. The narrow pathway to heaven is not an easy one, especially if we do as He says and pick up His cross and follow Him. This is all harsh reality and life is not a rose garden. There are liberal churches that will offer you a bit of heaven on earth. They will say God is a just, all loving God. Regardless of your status, they argue it is far better for you to be in a church rather than outside looking in. The ball is in your court; the decision is yours to make. I will say that as you grow older, your homosexual tendencies will abate and perhaps you will be grateful that you remained within the church you cherish and love. What you do in the meantime is the main question for you to answer.

A fair and frank post. Within the HMC, any sex is only permitted for married heterossexual couples under strict conditions. This will never change until the Judgment Day.

 

[LilyM]

Torn - here is a simple answer to you difficulty - join a church that accepts the love which gay people can have for each other. To deny love cannot be right!

What if that love is adulterous? Pedophelic? Incestuous? Love between a teacher or student, psychiatrist and patient or other illegal/unethical relationship?

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

What if that love is adulterous? Pedophelic? Incestuous? Love between a teacher or student, psychiatrist and patient or other illegal/unethical relationship?

Thanks for the question. They are wrong because they cause unhappiness.

The problem is that gay sex between faithful partners cause them great happiness and hurts nobody. If they had to abstain for many their lives would be devastated.

That, of course, is why many people inside and outside your church wonder if its teachings on this matter are mistaken.

Regards

Laurie

 

[antonabe]

What if that love is adulterous? Pedophelic? Incestuous? Love between a teacher or student, psychiatrist and patient or other illegal/unethical relationship?

Thanks for the question. They are wrong because they cause unhappiness.

The problem is that gay sex between faithful partners cause them great happiness and hurts nobody. If they had to abstain for many their lives would be devastated.

That, of course, is why many people inside and outside your church wonder if its teachings on this matter are mistaken.

Regards

Laurie

The Church will never accept Homosexuality as it is unnatural.The sex act is for the purpose of procreation between Man and Woman and according to scripture Sodomy,Homosexuality, incurred the wrath of God.What is the Happiness you are talking about.Is the happiness of a few minutes more important than everlasting happiness by following the path laid down by Jesus Christ.Your position since you do not have a religion is of course understanable since your thoughts are on the secular aspect.The Catholic Community should pray for people who have similar thoughts as they are following the evil path.The biggest evil the World has to contend today is secularism.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

The sex act is for the purpose of procreation between Man and Woman

In my view its purpose is to express love physically.

I also do not agree with your Natural = Good, Unnatural = Bad, equations. It is natural for me to fight a person who woos the same girl as me - but it is morally wrong. It is unnatural to forgive your enemies - but you think it is right.

Your morality leads you to be blind to manifest goodness that is before your eyes - this moral blindness is an evil thing I am sorry to say.

Laurie

 

[antonabe]

Every organ in one’s body has a function.Your hand is for multiple functions,feet for mobility,sport etc,what is the function of the sexual organs is it for procreation or is it for same sex happiness.The majority in this world think that it is for procreation but a minority think otherwise and I will go for the thinking of the majority.All the problems in this world are not caused by Moral blindness but spiritual blindness.The writing is on the Wall all the time but the people cannot see and their hearts are hard.Materialism has taken root of society and a religous person will say that Satan has taken a foothold on this earth.Morality is a relative term and it can be twisted to a persons advantage.To a Homosexual sex for the purpose of happiness of two partners and procreation is immoral but same sex pleasure is moral.This is the secular world today.

 

[Genesian]

Antonabe, your logic does not follow. Sex organs have multiple functions, procreation, pleasure, and excretion of waste material. The sex act within a marriage has two functions, unitive and procreative. What Laurie is arguing is that the sex act between persons of the same gender can function in the unitive sense. While I believe what the Church teaches, I’m not sure I disagree with him in that respect. I think Church teaching on homosexuality might be in need of repair.

Also, I’m not sure that any homosexual believes that sex between persons of opposite gender for the purpose of happiness and procreation is immoral.

To Torn:
I have been following this thread for a while. I will pray for you. Be strong in your chastity. I understand and agree with your concerns, but that is no reason to throw yourself into sin. Church teaching on homosexuality is something I disagree with because many of my closest friends are gay men, and I personally know several gay couples as loving as any straight married couple, who have raised successful and well-adjusted children, and behave in all aspects as a married couple do. However, I have to swallow my pride and trust that the Church is right, or if she isn’t, that she will change.

 

[Diogenes1]

Laurie,
You are wasting your time arguing with people like this.
Their thinking is so rigid and encrusted that they will never
accept your position.

 

[LilyM]

What if that love is adulterous? Pedophelic? Incestuous? Love between a teacher or student, psychiatrist and patient or other illegal/unethical relationship?

Thanks for the question. They are wrong because they cause unhappiness.

The problem is that gay sex between faithful partners cause them great happiness and hurts nobody. If they had to abstain for many their lives would be devastated.

I’m sure Mary Kay LeTourneau (teacher, had an affair with and children by her student, and whose relationship is thus one of those you’ve condemned above) and her student lover would argue that they were faithful to each other, caused them great happiness and hurt nobody. As I recall, her marriage was over before she began the relationship and his family weren’t terribly upset by the relationship - in fact his mother looked after the childre. So arguably no-one was hurt either.

So should we then revoke the legislation making affairs between students and teachers illegal?

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Lily,

Thanks for your question.

If all that was to be considered was the relationship in question then it would be OK but, of course, we have to consider the wider implications. Teachers, without a rule banning relationships with their pupils, might take advantage of their position of authority. No man,[or couple] is an island and the effect of what we do on others has to be a consideration.

Of course this consideration in the case of faithful gay couples only leads to another reason to accept their relationship! Such couples function much better as members of our society,speaking generally, than if they had to hide their love or deny its expression.

So we now have TWO good reasons to accept their love as morally commendable. I am sure a God of Love, if such there be, would do just that.

Is there anything else you want to say to me?

Best wishes,

Laurie

To continue for a line or two. An honest person would have to admit that there is no moral consideration leading to the condemnation of faithful gay sex except the teachings of your Church based on some medieval reasoning in turn based on Aristotle. You have a choice then: condemn love that is positive and good by all normal standards or reject some medieval reasoning - I know which seems the more sensible.

 

[mgbenner]

Sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful, whether it’s of a homosexual or heterosexual nature. That being said, a straight person living a life of celibacy in accordance with his/her faith doesn’t lie about occasionally (or even frequently) being tempted to sexual sin. A person struggling with homosexual temptation has no reason to have to lie about it either. You’re human. You’re sinful. You’re prayerfully and lovingly trying to live according to your faith while bearing a very heavy cross of temptation. Most importantly though, you are a beloved child of God, who sees and understands your struggle. He will strengthen you to live as you’re called to live. In my opinion, being gay is not a sin. It is a temptation to engage in sexual activity outside of the institution of marriage, where God has sanctioned that this activity is proper and holy. I’m straight. Before I was married, I was tempted by sex. Feeling, acknowledging and openly admitting to the temptation is not sinful. Giving in to it when you know you should not is where the sin happens. Pray for the strength to be open and honest about your struggle with temptation. You may find that not covering it up is how you allow God to use you in a powerful way. My heart is with you, and my prayers are as well. Know you are loved and meant to be just as you are. Thankfully, Jesus loves you too much to let you stay that way.

 

[Diogenes1]

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has been abusing people.
For example, is has been estimated that, at least 500.000 women, were tortured and then
burned to death during the Inquisition.
Joan of Arc was burned to death.
If Galileo had not caved, he would have likely gotten the same treatment.
It wasn’t till fairly recently that Blacks were able to become priests.
Even today women are still second class in the Church.
The Church has It’s collective head in It’s nether region were ANYTHING about
sex is concerned.
Etc., etc.

Why look to an organization with that kind of history for guidance ?

 

[antonabe]

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has been abusing people.
For example, is has been estimated that, at least 500.000 women, were tortured and then
burned to death during the Inquisition.
Joan of Arc was burned to death.
If Galileo had not caved, he would have likely gotten the same treatment.
It wasn’t till fairly recently that Blacks were able to become priests.
Even today women are still second class in the Church.
The Church has It’s collective head in It’s nether region were ANYTHING about
sex is concerned.
Etc., etc.

Why look to an organization with that kind of history for guidance ?

You lack the credentials to participate in this debate.This is the Cattolic Answers forum.We will not take views of people like you seriously but we will certainly pray for you that someday you will see the light.

 

[CallistusPM]

Diogenes1: Me thinks you have ignored the historic fact that during the time of Galileo, Joan of Arc, the Inquisition, etc., there was no separation of church and state. For the most part, the church was the state and the state was the church. Therefore, the church should not totally be held accountable for actions taken by government authority, which authority, I may add, was far from democratic.

 

[Portrait]

The sex act is for the purpose of procreation between Man and Woman

In my view its purpose is to express love physically.

I also do not agree with your Natural = Good, Unnatural = Bad, equations. It is natural for me to fight a person who woos the same girl as me - but it is morally wrong. It is unnatural to forgive your enemies - but you think it is right.

Your morality leads you to be blind to manifest goodness that is before your eyes - this moral blindness is an evil thing I am sorry to say.

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

In common with most normal thinking people you would, I am quite certain, consider beastality to be most unnatural and a failure to conform to accepted standards of morality. Yet in Sacred Scripture beastality is condemned along with homosexuality in the very self-same chapter of the bible (see Leviticus 18: 22-23). Now both of these hideous acts of depravity are equally vetoed and refered to as “abominations” (vs. 26, 27, 29, 30).

Evidently you believe that some basic moral rule is acceptable and applicable in the case of beasteality but not similarly in the case of homosexual acts, but what renders your subjective and biased opinion more correct and authoritative than any other man’s. Thus in the absence of any authoritative point of reference we are in very deep waters indeed for we have no certain and dependable benchmark with which to appraise sinful behaviours. It all boils down to every man doing that which is right in his own eyes. In other words fallen man’s individual arbitrary opinion, which could, of course, be seriously skewed for all manner of subjective reasons, becomes the only yardstick to measure behaviours.

Now since sinful men will always seek to legitimize their actions and rationalize their behaviour (immoral or otherwise), individual opinion is a most unsafe guide when it come to crucial ethical issues involving mortal sin. This uncertainty underlines the importance of having a Divine and hence trustworthy criterion of righteousness with which to guide and inform us as to what is morally permissible and what is not. Without such a standard we are all at sea old chap. Only the Catholic Church provides such an objective, infallible and wholly trustworthy criterion of truth.

The Church informs us as to that which is truly good and wholesome and we can trust its judgement implicitly because it always teaches the truth respecting faith and morals. No man ever has been nor ever will be ‘morally blind’ who listens to the voice of Holy Mother Church.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has been abusing people.
For example, is has been estimated that, at least 500.000 women, were tortured and then
burned to death during the Inquisition.
Joan of Arc was burned to death.
If Galileo had not caved, he would have likely gotten the same treatment.
It wasn’t till fairly recently that Blacks were able to become priests.
Even today women are still second class in the Church.
The Church has It’s collective head in It’s nether region were ANYTHING about
sex is concerned.
Etc., etc.

Why look to an organization with that kind of history for guidance ?

Dear Diogenes,

Greetings and a warm welcome to CAF.

Although the criticisms that you level against the Church are not germane to the thread topic, I believe that they do deserve a reply, albeit briefly. You are of course quite at liberty to discuss them all over on “Apologetics”.

Re. Abuses by the Catholic church

In any society composed of sinful men, there will ever exist some officials who will, alas, seek to abuse their office and to increase their power from motives of personal pride and ambition. That will apply to the leaders of the Catholic Church as much as to any other organisation, secular or religious. Not for one moment would I deny that there have been Catholic bishops and priests who have been guilty of intolerable tyranny and abuse (witness the current child molestation scandal), but they are the exception. The Church should surely be judged by the mass of those who have lived in accordance with her requirements and not by the comparative few whose iniquitous conduct is their own.

The Inquisition

By the Inquisition I shall take it that you are refering to the Spanish Inquisition as this has the worst record and not the Medieval Inquisition or Roman Inquisition. From what source do you derive the figure of 500.000 women tortured and burned to death? How historically accurate is this source?

The Inquisition was a sort of ‘Board of Inquiry’ that was established to trace errors to their source and prevent further dissemenation of them. You need to remember that many of its methods were in keeping with the spirit of those times when it flourished and would be sanctioned by no one today. Now of course their were abuses of it by unscrupulous individuals, but in principle the idea was quite sound.

Re. Joan of Arc

The Catholic Church did not condemn St. Joan but rather cannonized her. A renegade and recalcitrant French bishop, in the service of the English, actually condemned Joan and vilolated the laws of the Church in so doing. Joan died a good Catholic, receiving Holy Communion on the morning of her death.

Re. Galileo

It is idle to speculate what would have been the fate of Galileo, since he was tried under the Roman Inquisition which was the most benign of the three Inquisitions.

Re. Women and the Church

On what evidence do you base your assertion that women are treated as inferiors within the Church?

Women have come a long way since the early and medieval Church. Although it is true that they cannot be ordained to the priesthood, they do have equal rights to be sponsors at Baptism and Confirmation. In Holy Matrimony they are treated and regarded as full and equal partners with their husbands. they can serve on the parish council and finance committees. The Church has women who are canon lawyers, judges and chancellors. The Church has permitted local bishops and priests the option to allow female altar servers at the Mass. Many parishes, like my own, now have altar girls and altar boys. Women treated second class, that is not the Church to which I belong.

Finally, to return to the topic under discussion, the Church’s teaching on moral issues, including homosexuality, is derived from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and will always prove correct no matter who challenges it.

Sorry for the brief treatment of the issues but they really belong to the Apologetics forum.

Warmest good wishes and prayers,

Portrait