Gays and catholics

[fix]

I guess my question was, since God did create nature, wouldn’t HE have a specific purpose for it?

Yes, but we live in a fallen world. There is original sin and the effects from it. So, we have things like blindess at birth. That happens for any number of reasons. Do we say that is part of God’s plan because it occurs? No, we do not because that is not how humans were originally designed to be.

If homosexuality existed in nature, which God created…why would God create something in nature that would lead people astray like that?

He did not ordain it, He permits it. There is a difference. He created a man and a woman. There are all types of deviations that may occur, but that does not mean He ordained it.

And, when we talk about natural law we are talking about natural moral law.

This is from the CCC:

1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8

 

[Brendan]

with that gene you can make “corrections” you can provide a tool to get people off of that.

Yes, that tool is called sobriety and there are support groups for that (AA)

if that was the case in homosexuality, would such “corrections” be justifiable then? If it was seen as a gene that predisposes people to it. That’s I think one of the ways I was trying to head with my poorly worded question.

Yes, the tool is called chastiy and there are support groups for the ( RCCourage)

And again, just because you have a gene that has a predisposition towards something does not automatically guarantee that you’re going to become that (like an alcoholic, schizo, whatever). Science has proved that such tendencies are not purely biological…it’s nature and nurture combined.

That is correct, and likewise, if same sex attraction is the result of a genetic pre-disposition, then it too is just a predisposition that can be avoided .

Either way, like alcoholism, the moral solution is to forgo the immoral act entirely and we, as Catholics, are called to assist our affected brethren with prayers and support in that endevor. Likewise, we are no more called to support homosexual acts then we are called to give free whiskey to alcoholics.

 

[East_and_West]

My question is, since the Church concept on homosexuality is pretty much based on the Natural Law Theory…if there was science-based and universally accepted evidence that there is a “homosexuality” gene in the human DNA strand, would the Church change its stance?



An easy understanding of Natural Law Theory

The word “natural” in the term “Natural Law” does not refer to anything and everything that occurs in nature apart from supernatural intervention. Just because something happens or feels right does not mean it is morally justifiable. When we talk about the natural law, we mean that which is PROPER to a beings nature. In the case of a human being we might ask what is proper to a preson’s nature with regard to sexuality. It is clear that the nature of sex is procreate and to serve a unitivie function. If one removes the possibility of procreation, then one is not treating sex according to its “nature” (i.e. not just what happens in nature but what is proper for sex according to its purpose). Even if there was a mutated gay gene, it would not mean that those who engage in homosexual sex are acting with the purpose of sex in mind as they purposely remove the possibility of procreation from the realm of sex.
Now is procreation an absolute necessity? No. There are couple who are incapable of concieving, but it is clear for the anatomy of a human preson that sex between members of the opposite sex is proper to the nature of sex and sex with memebers of the same sex is not.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

It could be said that opposite sex attracted people are ‘tuned to do so’ by genetic makeup…and by the very same token same sex attracted people are ‘tuned to do so’. However the laws of Chastity are the same for both.
Because I am tuned to opposite sex attraction, does not thereby mean I am free in matters of opposite sex sexual matters.

The difficulty for same sex attracted people is that it would mean a lifetime of Chastity and something that they may not feel called to at all. This is the moral area that is very murky waters indeed.
Opposite sex attracted people can at least seriously consider a vocation to marriage…a call to marriage. Same sex attracted people are precluded from this and according to our moral laws must, whether they are aware of the call or not, commit themselves to lifelong Chastity. This can be a very heavy sentence indeed for those ssa people not aware of any call to lifelong Chastity. Indeed there is even a movement in The Church which considers ssa people should not enter religious life and hence make a vow of Chastity. This is a terribly overwhelming, even cruel,sentence for ssa people.

Where sin per se enters the picture, the “full consent” requirement re venial and mortal sins is to some degree or other, and perhaps very much, reduced. Hence the is the necessity to have “full consent” to sin in the first place present? This is where research is yet to fully inform, for one moral theology, on cause of same sex attraction…as to proven full certainty of cause.

Barb

 

[petri]

…
So when God said keep the sabath holy we can go to church and not go to the office, or ignore and reject what God says. Why should God tell me I can not work on Sunday? I really need to get this stuff done. God won’t punish me. You can’t expect me to believe that God cares if I go to the office on Sunday and get a few things done.

God does not really expect me to believe that if healthy young people have sexual relations that they will ruin their lives and end up in hell. They might get a deadly disease and destroy their chances of having a normal healthy marriage and family, but God does not expect them to be virgins until they marry. How old fashioned and unrealistic.

Yep, and sexual perverts are normal. Anyone who says they are abnormal and disordered or doing evil is judgmental. God made them that way and they can not control themselves. There is no such thing as deviancy. Anyone who says they need help and can be cured is hateful and judgmental. They should be convicted of the heinous crime of hate speech.

Hello, GF, I am confused with these paragraphs from you compared with what you write in the other comments. You don’t agree with Church teachings about Sunday and premarital life (I mean the first 2 paragraphs)?
How do you mean it with those deviancies? There are conditions which simply are deviancies - those people may have problems controlling themselves or be without control but how can you say that is normal or that somebody who proposes (or commands - e.g. a court in some instances) help or treatment is hateful? There are conditions which are even dangerous for the society if such a person is freely living among the others.

Have a nice day there!

 

[Genesis12345]

Gottle of Geer:
"…but that does not mean all mortal sins have the effect of destroying communion with the Church**"**

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: # 1469
" This sacrament reconciles us with the Church. Sin damages or even breaks FRATERNAL COMMUNION. "…it does not simply heal the one restored to ecclesial communion, but also has a revitalizing effect on the life of the Church which suffered from the sin of one of her members. Re-established or strengthened in the communion of saints, the sinner is made stronger by the exchange of spiritual goods among all the living members of the Body of Christ…"

So, Gottle, all mortal sins destroy communion with the Church.

Commit to the Lord your way; trust in him, and he will act. Psalm 37:5

 

[Corki]

Hello, GF, I am confused with these paragraphs from you compared with what you write in the other comments. You don’t agree with Church teachings about Sunday and premarital life (I mean the first 2 paragraphs)?
How do you mean it with those deviancies? There are conditions which simply are deviancies - those people may have problems controlling themselves or be without control but how can you say that is normal or that somebody who proposes (or commands - e.g. a court in some instances) help or treatment is hateful? There are conditions which are even dangerous for the society if such a person is freely living among the others.

Have a nice day there!

I think he was being facetious.

 

[manicpanicer]

Ok…I never imagined this would turn out as big as it is now …I think I got most of it. Correct me if I am wrong:

1. Homosexual people are not evil, their actions are.
2. They are the same as us, just a different form of sin.
3. We should not judge them.

Those were the basics.

 

[davidv]

Ok…I never imagined this would turn out as big as it is now …I think I got most of it. Correct me if I am wrong:

1. Homosexual people are not evil, their actions are.
2. They are the same as us, just a different form of sin.
3. We should not judge them.

Those were the basics.

I would modify these slightly:

1. …their sinful actions are.
2. …same as us (as humans, created by God)…
3. …not judge them,** but should judge their actions.**

 

[NonCatholic]

Ok…I never imagined this would turn out as big as it is now …I think I got most of it. Correct me if I am wrong:

1. Homosexual people are not evil, their actions are.
2. They are the same as us, just a different form of sin.
3. We should not judge them.

Those were the basics.

1. All people have a sinful nature in thought, word and deed.
2. Any sexual desire outside of marriage is sinful according to Scripture.
3. They are already judged as we all are…we need a Savior.

 

[Solo1959]

1. Any sexual desire outside of marriage is sinful according to Scripture.

Would that be better phrased, Any sexual contact/behavior outside of marriage is sinful according to Scripture? I think desires are equal to temptations which are not sins unless acted upon.

 

[Dale_M]

Would that be better phrased, Any sexual contact/behavior outside of marriage is sinful according to Scripture?

If you were born in 1959, surely you remember Jimmy Carter’s 1976 interview with Playboy magazine where he quoted Matthew 5:26 - “But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

 

[Solo1959]

If you were born in 1959, surely you remember Jimmy Carter’s 1976 interview with Playboy magazine where he quoted Matthew 5:26 - “But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

I believe that this concept exemplifies the impossibility of righteousness and salvation outside of the grace of God. Yes, I do recall that quote. And it is true. Not to be too simplistic, but, flesh and blood man is going to sin. Flesh and blood is not perfect. We are corruptible. We stink when we don’t bathe, we tire and require sleep, we go to the bathroom, and eventually we will die. To the credit of only a few of us, we hear and listen to God when He calls us. And fewer still are always (frequently? often?) obedient.

Outside of Jesus Christ and His Church, I am lost. Everything, my thoughts, my actions, my omissions, are all sins.

 

[YipYupYep]

I believe that this concept exemplifies the impossibility of righteousness and salvation outside of the grace of God. Yes, I do recall that quote. And it is true

Outside of Jesus Christ and His Church, I am lost. Everything, my thoughts, my actions, my omissions, are all sins.

Very well said.

 

[ewahawaii]

Newbie2;4207252:

We are guilty. The fix is not getting the guilty aquitted. It is getting them pardon.

Let’s assume that Christians of all ages, and Moses and Abraham were right, that God sees homosexual practices as abhorent and they cause damage to the souls of human beings. If the spirit of our age says the opposite, how is it helpful to people who are caught in this sin, to tell them they are in no danger?

Sometimes people need to be told things they do not want to hear. You can’t help a drunk in denial by telling him he does not have a problem. There are behaviors that are self destructive. We have to know what they are in order to avoid them.

Do not take crack cocaine. Do not use drugs to get high. They will destroy you. There are people who claim that is not so. They glamorize a destructive lifestyle. People need to be told the truth if they are going to avoid peril, or escape it.

I agree. As Catholic/Christians we have a responsibility to uphold the teachings of the church. I have been to retreats where they have speakers giving talks on matrimony and sin/reconciliation. They don’t mention things like same-sex marriage or abortions in their talk. When I asked why, they answered (in so many words) “we don’t wanna offend anybody and discouraged more people from attending upcoming retreats”.

I’m thinking, “so what if it hits a nerve with some people?” It does not change the facts that killing an unborn child or engaging acts of same-sex marriage goes is a sin.

Reminds me of how Jesus was ridiculed and criticized when saying to the crowd, “I am the Bread come down from heaven. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have life eternal”. Then the people quarreled among themselves saying, “gee, is this man saying we have act like cannibals to have everlasting life?” Jesus never gave in spite of this and continued loving the people.

We also have the responsibility to spread the good news of the Love of God. This includes pointing out the abominations seeking to destroy that love. Satan knows his best weapon is deception of our minds. We must continue to evangelize in spite of adversity in today’s society. And yes, we also emphasize that we love the sinner and hate the sin.

Aloha!

 

[erigby27]

The difficulty for same sex attracted people is that it would mean a lifetime of Chastity and something that they may not feel called to at all. This is the moral area that is very murky waters indeed.

Whether someone “feels” called to something has only a little to do with whether they are actually called to it. GOD calls people to certain vocations. If a person has so separated themselves from God that he does not hear His call, that does not mean He is not calling him.

Whether or not a person with SSA “feels” called to celibacy is irrelevant. All homosexual people are called to lives of celibate chastity. I’m taking this right out of the catechism.

Another example: many people feel called to Holy Orders. These people must undergo rigorous screening by the Church before taking vows and joining, however. It is the Church’s position that God makes the call to Holy Orders ]through the Church. Therefore if the Church determines that this person is not actually called to Holy Orders (even though he may “feel” so called), then he is NOT called.

God has called homosexual people to lives of celibate chastity similarly through the Church. I guess if they feel otherwise called, that they are hearing the call of sin.

This is not to say that homosexual people are inherently more sinful than heterosexual people, though their cross is indeed a heavy one to bear in a culture that begs them to sin. We all hear the call of sin, and God wants all of us to listen closely for HIS call as opposed to the call of His adversary.

By pointing out that homosexual actions are disordered and that homosexual people are called to celibate chastity we are not judging or condemning. We are just stating facts. We do homosexual people a service by pointing out their error.

Spiritual Works of Mercy:
Convert the sinner
Instruct the ignorant
Counsel the doubtful
Comfort the sorrowful
Bear wrongs patiently
Forgive injuries
Pray for the living and the dead

 

[AndyF]

Well, I know this might be a hard one (or not), but are homosexuals evil? I have herd that their actions are evil, but if you look it from a “normal” persons view, then you just would see 2 persons in love…so is it wrong or is it something else

They are not anything implying an unchanging condition, so they are not “Gay”. They are suffering from a spiritual affliction just as someone would be in committing the sinful acts of stealing. The type of sin differs in that the devil tempts the lower appetites and suggests pleasure from these acts. He can cause the person to feel pleasure in it even if he would normally find the acts repulsive.

The acts build on themselves. The initial temptation may be curiosity and the person may feel some degree of repulsion or guilt. Having ignored the first subtle warning signs, he is weakened further for the next round of temptations. Each degree accepts a little more and weakens him proportionally.

So we are talking about a sin or affliction because God says it is by telling us it is wrong, indicating that it is an object presented to the free will. Our obligation is to assist this person to become reighteous member of society and to come out of his position, just as it is for anyone in any sinful state. This means that since he visualizes a false identity we may not get assistance from him, or we may find he is hostile to change. Regardless, and in a therpeutic way we help. So we make sure we don’t slander his name behind his back or pass on information that would hurt his recovery, and so on.

“Love”. An evil act can never beget love. We are witnessing the manifestation of altered perception.

Andy