Gays

[JSSebastianoP]

I think that theory has some validity. Sexual sin is sexual sin, regardless of whether it’s hetersexuals fornicating or commiting adultry or masturbation or that of homosexual sin. Perhaps it’s not a great idea to try to split hairs and try to decide what type of sin is “worse”, in terms of sexual sin.

Heterosexual fornication is one sin; homosexual fornication is two. That’s as far as thos sins can be compared. masturbation is completely awful.

I’m sure most people here don’t approve of divorce, but how often do you see divorced Catholics treated like homosexuals? You don’t, because there are more of them. They’re treated with compassion, they’re not called perverts, deviants or disordered.

Like I just said above, there is a difference here. heterosexual sins are at least properly-ordered.

What I am saying is that we Catholics have allowed other critical aspects of our faith to slide in order to expend energy condemning homosexuals-whether they’re having sex or not.

Well - we shouldn’t be condemning anybody - pointing out any type of scandal is always a good thing. In the same way we should look down upon cohabitation of heterosexuals.

And like others have said, perhaps the reason for homosexuality being so frowned upon right now is the cultural situation. The councils in the early years were about GOD because we had Islam and Nestorianism - Papal authority was a hot-button issue around the time of the schism.

Pax.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Yes, I do see that-but when the subject comes up I also see homosexuality placed in the same sentence with things like pedophilia, bestiality, rape and just recently communism! I’ve not seen divorce, adultery, ABC or any other sin placed in that company. All sins are signs of a disordered nature, but I’ve not seen the word “disordered” attributed to any other group than homosexuals. Not divorced Catholics, not people who use ABC, and not people who have had abortions. Many sins can lead to psychological problems and physical illnesses, but again I’ve only seen those lists applied to homosexuals. Many sins can lead to miserable lives, but only homosexuals are told that they are “destined” to live such lives.

The language used about gay people is VERY different from the language used about those who commit other sins.

 

[manualman]

Heterosexual fornication is one sin; homosexual fornication is two. That’s as far as thos sins can be compared. masturbation is completely awful.

Hetero fornication is usually two sins as well. 1. Fornication, 2. contraception.

Still looks like a tie to me. Both are deadly sins, isn’t it rather silly to argue about which makes you spiritually “deader?!”

I agree with mkingdom in part. It is plain old human nature to pick a problem YOU don’t personally have and exaggerate it until it is worse than the problems you DO have. Kinda like kids who call others names to make themselves feel better.

It doesn’t mean we should back off what we believe, we just need to keep perspective and resist our fallen impulse to step on others to make ourselves feel better. That’s easy to say, but hard to do in a world that practically DEMANDS total polarization on the issue: choose role, gay apologist or gay basher? Refuse to accept false dilemmas!

 

[Newbie2]

Gay marriage wasn’t, but there were clearly gay people-because they’re mentioned in those other 7 references. Yet, we have no recorded condemnation of homosexuality from Jesus. We do however have record of Him condemning hypocrites, the money changers ripping off the faithful in the Temple, false prophets, swearing, lust (He doesn’t say “just gay lust”, so that means everyone), divorce, doing good deeds to impress others, abusing others in words or deeds, lying, hatred, being selfish, forgetting the poor and a host of other things-why if homosexuality is SO evil did He not bring it up?

As for abortion-Jesus did condemn murder. Abortion as we know it today definitely did not exist during his day, so you could say the same thing about abortion as you’re trying to say about gay marriage.

I could, but I won’t, because that’s about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read here. It’s the weak formulaic argument that “Jesus never said X so X is OK”.

Let’s not try to separate “gay sex” from “gay marriage”, OK, because that’s even more ridiculous.

Jesus didn’t specifically say a lot of things, at least not that were remembered and written. He left us his Church to help us figure it all out.

If homosexuality is condemned by St. Paul, it doesn’t count, right? (as Timbo points out:thumbsup

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Hetero fornication is usually two sins as well. 1. Fornication, 2. contraception.

Still looks like a tie to me. Both are deadly sins, isn’t it rather silly to argue about which makes you spiritually “deader?!”

I agree with mkingdom in part. It is plain old human nature to pick a problem YOU don’t personally have and exaggerate it until it is worse than the problems you DO have. Kinda like kids who call others names to make themselves feel better.

It doesn’t mean we should back off what we believe, we just need to keep perspective and resist our fallen impulse to step on others to make ourselves feel better. That’s easy to say, but hard to do in a world that practically DEMANDS total polarization on the issue: choose role, gay apologist or gay basher? Refuse to accept false dilemmas!

Thank you, that’s exactly the point I’m trying to make. Language matters, and it sends a message to those who are listening.

Choosing to remain in the Catholic church as a gay person is a very difficult thing. I was gone for years, and the language I heard was a big part of the reason I stayed away. If the goal really is to get gay people to come to the Church, to find Jesus and to sin no more-then the message we send to gay people is critically important. Telling people “we hate the sin, but love the sinner” and in the next breath sticking homosexuals in the same box with people who sleep with children and animals sends a very conflicting message. “Yeah, we love you, but we really think you’re exactly like pedophiles and crazy farmers.” Telling people that homosexuality is a sin, while virtually remaining silent on sins that get a lot more press in the actual Bible sends a message too. “we know homosexuality was only mentioned 7 times and Jesus never brought it up at all, but we know He really meant to say that homosexuality was worse than all those sins He did mention.”

There is a middle ground between gay basher and gay apologist. I was lucky enough to meet clergy members who had a really good handle on that balance. They were able to convince me of the need to follow Church teaching without making me feel like I was some kind of disordered freak who would always be on a lower tier of the “saved” because of my orientation no matter what I did.

The reason I talk to people about being gay is because I want more gay people to make the choice I made. I want them to feel welcome and loved in the Catholic church, and I want to help Catholics who truly care about gay people. I truly believe that most folks have no idea how the language they use sounds to a gay person, they’re just repeating things they’ve heard by others with different motivations.

 

[daeve]

Gay marriage wasn’t, but there were clearly gay people-because they’re mentioned in those other 7 references. Yet, we have no recorded condemnation of homosexuality from Jesus. We do however have record of Him condemning hypocrites, the money changers ripping off the faithful in the Temple, false prophets, swearing, lust (He doesn’t say “just gay lust”, so that means everyone), divorce, doing good deeds to impress others, abusing others in words or deeds, lying, hatred, being selfish, forgetting the poor and a host of other things-why if homosexuality is SO evil did He not bring it up?

As for abortion-Jesus did condemn murder. Abortion as we know it today definitely did not exist during his day, so you could say the same thing about abortion as you’re trying to say about gay marriage.

Precisely because lust is since for everyone. All people are called to chastity, married or not, gay or straight. Sex outside of marriage is a sin for everyone. Specifing between people of the same gender isn’t necessary because it’s always outside of marriage.

The Church does specify that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman, and one to a customer. As a divorced woman, I’m as excluded from marriage as much as two men or two women are.

 

[daeve]

So who decided which pieces of Leviticus still apply to us? Why, out of ALL that legalism do we only have the condemnation of homosexuality? We follow the 10 Commandments, where you find the same instruction as Lev 26:1, but no condemnation of homosexuals there either.

I’m sure most people here don’t approve of divorce, but how often do you see divorced Catholics treated like homosexuals? You don’t, because there are more of them. They’re treated with compassion, they’re not called perverts, deviants or disordered. You don’t see Catholics who use ABC treated like homosexuals either. People will tell them they’re wrong, but they’re not condemned the way homosexuals are. People who commit adultery aren’t condemned the way homosexuals are.

I’m not saying that homosexual acts aren’t sinful according to the Church, or that the Church should change Her position on that. What I am saying is that we Catholics have allowed other critical aspects of our faith to slide in order to expend energy condemning homosexuals-whether they’re having sex or not.

Some Catholics do that I’m sure, although not among the people I know. But that is not the teaching of the Church. What the Church teaches and what some people do are not always the same thing. The Church allows divorce, but not remarriage. Remarried Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion, just like active homosexuals. People using artificial birth control may not receive Communion. Although is the person with the Eucharist may not know who fits into those categories, all are living in grave sin and may not receive Communion.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Some Catholics do that I’m sure, although not among the people I know. But that is not the teaching of the Church. What the Church teaches and what some people do are not always the same thing. The Church allows divorce, but not remarriage. Remarried Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion, just like active homosexuals. People using artificial birth control may not receive Communion. Although is the person with the Eucharist may not know who fits into those categories, all are living in grave sin and may not receive Communion.

That’s exactly my point. There are a number of sins that can separate us from the Church, but how many people really know that all those groups are in the same status as an active homosexual? I’m betting not that many-considering how many people who say they are practicing Catholics use ABC and how long the Communion lines are every weekend.
How many times are these folks condemned in the same way that homosexuals are-even though under Church teaching their reality is no different?

What Church teaching is on all these issues and how people treat those people is very different.

 

[manualman]

mkingdom isn’t attacking us here guys. He’s advocating a balanced emphasis that allows the good news to be heard over the condemnation of sin.

I don’t think he’s saying “Well Jesus never condemned it, therefore it isn’t wrong.” Are you? Doesn’t sound like it to me. His point is that we have to be sure that BOTH the truth AND love (charity) are themes the world hears from believers. Now where have I heard those words in combination lately?..

 

[daeve]

That’s exactly my point. There are a number of sins that can separate us from the Church, but how many people really know that all those groups are in the same status as an active homosexual? I’m betting not that many-considering how many people who say they are practicing Catholics use ABC and how long the Communion lines are every weekend.
How many times are these folks condemned in the same way that homosexuals are-even though under Church teaching their reality is no different?

What Church teaching is on all these issues and how people treat those people is very different.

I don’t know how to assess whether people know what the Church teaches or not, but anyone who understands the concept of mortal sin or grave sin should realize it. At other times in history divorce was condemned. When I was a kid, the nuns told us it would be a sin to see the movie The Parent Trap because it condoned the acceptability of divorce. One of the girls in my class had a step-mother. The birth mother was in a mental institution and the father remarried. They were all but shunned. The step-mother wasn’t allowed to be a room mother or even come to anything at the school. My own grandmother was so scandalized when my sister got divorced, she told my mother she didn’t this little sister should hang out with her best friend…after all, she’s “divorced”…like she was tainted. This was only about 20 years ago.

Things change, but slowly. I believe there are many Catholics like myself, who realize that gay people have a cross to bear, and it will be hard for them to remain Catholic. It’s hard to think of not being with someone for the rest of your life. I’m getting older, and think about that a lot. I don’t really want to spend my “golden years” alone either. But that’s where I am.

And there are going to be people who hate you because of who you are, not how you behave. Poor wording, but the best I can find right now. I hope you read my meaning rather than my prose.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m going to make an effort to pull together the two threads in this conversation, to give us something we can agree on.

To begin with, there is a difference between things that are disturbing and things that are sinful. Acting sexually on homosexual desires is sinful, but the sin is not what disturbs people. Many decent Catholics are disturbed by the very idea of homosexuality: they just don’t know what to do with it. This are not wrong in this – you cannot control what makes you feel disturbed or awkward. When these people act on this feeling, however, by throwing suspicious glances at gay people or saying disparaging comments (thereby *not *speaking the truth in love), they sin. The sin of being self-righteous and judgmental is just as harmful to the soul as the sin of sex out of wedlock.

Some people do not do such things, but are willing to voice their opinions that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful. This is a better option, although it still leaves something to be desired.

The best response considers the situation from the point of view of the person with same-sex attractions: as he grows up, he finds in himself desires that confuse him. He wonders why God would make him this way, or at least allow him to turn out this way. And yet, he cannot simply reject these desires without rejecting an aspect of himself. He believes that acting out on these desires is sinful, and yet he does not have the character to find the fullness of his sexuality in Christ yet. He is extremely vulnerable to rejection, and – if he becomes honest about his struggle – he is extremely likely to be rejected by someone in the Church.

This is a hard situation.

This isn’t a person who needs stern teachings about mortal sin. He knows that, but it doesn’t help him not sin. He needs love. He needs protection from a world full of promiscuity. He needs guidance.

You might have guessed: I was once this person. And I have done what many conservative Catholics would want; I have discovered that my sexual desires are not the center of my life. I have gotten married to a beautiful woman, and I have three wonderful children. In some ways, my path is easier because I am attracted to the opposite sex, but I could very well have rejected this path and lived a homosexual lifestyle. If I had done so, I would not have been beyond the reach of grace.

We all need to be very wise about how we think about this issue. It is not *simply *a matter of sin, although sin is often involved. Most importantly, we need to check in our pride at the door.

 

[passus]

The Catholic Medical Association states that homosexuals are not born that way.

Because the Catholic Medical Association sounds like a completely objective, un-biased, and otherwise legitimate source for that kind of information?

They’re wrong, I promise.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

mkingdom isn’t attacking us here guys. He’s advocating a balanced emphasis that allows the good news to be heard over the condemnation of sin.

I don’t think he’s saying “Well Jesus never condemned it, therefore it isn’t wrong.” Are you? Doesn’t sound like it to me. His point is that we have to be sure that BOTH the truth AND love (charity) are themes the world hears from believers. Now where have I heard those words in combination lately?..

That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. I’ve never said that Church teaching on homosexual acts is incorrect or should change. What I have said is that Catholics place an emphasis on the sin of “being homosexual” that first of all is NOT Church teaching, and secondly is out of proportion when we look at what the Gospels show us that Jesus prioritized.

The best response considers the situation from the point of view of the person with same-sex attractions: as he grows up, he finds in himself desires that confuse him. He wonders why God would make him this way, or at least allow him to turn out this way. And yet, he cannot simply reject these desires without rejecting an aspect of himself. He believes that acting out on these desires is sinful, and yet he does not have the character to find the fullness of his sexuality in Christ yet. He is extremely vulnerable to rejection, and – if he becomes honest about his struggle – he is extremely likely to be rejected by someone in the Church.

This is a hard situation.

This isn’t a person who needs stern teachings about mortal sin. He knows that, but it doesn’t help him not sin. He needs love. He needs protection from a world full of promiscuity. He needs guidance.

I’m with you here, and your story mirrors mine-until you make the orientation change. Lord knows, I’ve tried to do that, prayed for it and even tried faking it until I made it-but in the end all that brought me was depression and self-loathing. In fact, it was my confessor who told me that he was concerned that my drive to be “normal” was having severe psychological effects and recommended a counselor. Through the patience of that counselor, my confessor, friends and God I’ve been able to work through the issue and accept myself as I am. I want other gay people to find that acceptance, without being condemned for it. You can be gay and not sin, just like you can be straight and not sin. Single straight people aren’t assumed to be sinning, yet many Christians assume gay people are sinning just because we have not “renounced” our orientation. It took me nearly half my life to stop trying to be something I’m not, to stop hating myself for not being “normal” and to return to the Church. It saddens me to think about how many gay people will NEVER be able to do this, simply because of the words others use.

 

[Newbie2]

Thank you, that’s exactly the point I’m trying to make. Language matters, and it sends a message to those who are listening.

Choosing to remain in the Catholic church as a gay person is a very difficult thing. I was gone for years, and the language I heard was a big part of the reason I stayed away. If the goal really is to get gay people to come to the Church, to find Jesus and to sin no more-then the message we send to gay people is critically important. Telling people “we hate the sin, but love the sinner” and in the next breath sticking homosexuals in the same box with people who sleep with children and animals sends a very conflicting message. “Yeah, we love you, but we really think you’re exactly like pedophiles and crazy farmers.” Telling people that homosexuality is a sin, while virtually remaining silent on sins that get a lot more press in the actual Bible sends a message too. “we know homosexuality was only mentioned 7 times and Jesus never brought it up at all, but we know He really meant to say that homosexuality was worse than all those sins He did mention.”

There is a middle ground between gay basher and gay apologist. I was lucky enough to meet clergy members who had a really good handle on that balance. They were able to convince me of the need to follow Church teaching without making me feel like I was some kind of disordered freak who would always be on a lower tier of the “saved” because of my orientation no matter what I did.

The reason I talk to people about being gay is because I want more gay people to make the choice I made. I want them to feel welcome and loved in the Catholic church, and I want to help Catholics who truly care about gay people. I truly believe that most folks have no idea how the language they use sounds to a gay person, they’re just repeating things they’ve heard by others with different motivations.

That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. I’ve never said that Church teaching on homosexual acts is incorrect or should change. What I have said is that Catholics place an emphasis on the sin of “being homosexual” that first of all is NOT Church teaching, and secondly is out of proportion when we look at what the Gospels show us that Jesus prioritized.

I’m with you here, and your story mirrors mine-until you make the orientation change. Lord knows, I’ve tried to do that, prayed for it and even tried faking it until I made it-but in the end all that brought me was depression and self-loathing. In fact, it was my confessor who told me that he was concerned that my drive to be “normal” was having severe psychological effects and recommended a counselor. Through the patience of that counselor, my confessor, friends and God I’ve been able to work through the issue and accept myself as I am. I want other gay people to find that acceptance, without being condemned for it. You can be gay and not sin, just like you can be straight and not sin. Single straight people aren’t assumed to be sinning, yet many Christians assume gay people are sinning just because we have not “renounced” our orientation. It took me nearly half my life to stop trying to be something I’m not, to stop hating myself for not being “normal” and to return to the Church. It saddens me to think about how many gay people will NEVER be able to do this, simply because of the words others use.

Good posts.

I think in part that more than a few Catholics have been “conditioned” by societal pressures to accept homosexuality lock, stock and barrel and may tend to respond with , although theologically correct, a response that could be more pastoral.

 

[AndyF]

Two separate issues, friend.

So-called “gay marriage” apparently wasn’t a social issue at that time in history.

Oh, and we don’t leave it alone. That why there’s really no such thing as divorce in the Catholic church; it’s a social matter. Either there was a marriage for life or the marriage never occurred.

Jesus never said anything about abortion either, did he?

Good points.

Marriage is a ceremony where special graces are imparted to a man and a woman. If the criteria defined by God isn’t met, then the category isn’t Marriage, it’s something else. If the type of bond is repugnant to God, then ceremony that covenants it with the prince of this world would worsen their case.

If the same sex couple endeavor to consummate their contract in ceremony, and we know God wouldn’t preside, then by their desire they invoke something else to preside. Since everything else is created, then who(what?) does that leave?

The result is they attend a cult ritual, not a marriage.

There will never be approval for this act to the end of time, even if 40 million Catholics gave their approval in petition. Don’t know what is so hard to understand.

Andy

 

[NoWhereMan]

We/they don’t?

Nice. But what about the cash that would roll in if homosexuals were celebrated in the RCC? After all, the radical homosexual advocates tell us in the business world that LGBT clients have oodles of dollars to spend and that we should cater to them (a curious thought, methinks, as how one treats a “gay” customer differently than a “straight” customer).

I don`t know why the Church condemns gays when probably over half of the Clergy across the world is gay, maybe not practicing, but look at how many were in the past.

 

[Holly3278]

Being gay is not a sin. Acting on your homosexual tendencies is a sin.

 

[mumbly_peg]

Good points.

Marriage is a ceremony where special graces are imparted to a man and a woman. If the criteria defined by God isn’t met, then the category isn’t Marriage, it’s something else. If the type of bond is repugnant to God, then ceremony that covenants it with the prince of this world would worsen their case.

If the same sex couple endeavor to consummate their contract in ceremony, and we know God wouldn’t preside, then by their desire they invoke something else to preside. Since everything else is created, then who(what?) does that leave?

The result is they attend a cult ritual, not a marriage.

There will never be approval for this act to the end of time, even if 40 million Catholics gave their approval in petition. Don’t know what is so hard to understand.

Andy

Marriage has been around long before your religion which you are inserting into the act. You might not think that gay marriage will be a national reality soon but your wrong. Besides it’s not like anyone is forcing you to have a gay marriage. It’s funny that Catholics voice so loudly against gay marriage yet everything about it has nothing do do with them. There won’t be any gay weddings in Catholic churches and most Catholics won’t be getting married to their gay lovers. Why do you Catholics think you have the right to tell a legal adult that they can’t marry another legal adult? You still have the right to think it’s a sin but you don’t have the right to step on another persons civil rights. Just because Christians have usurped marriage does not mean they or their churches are the authority on it. You can go pray about it if you want, but in days to come there will be legal gay marriage. Better make sure you don’t accidentally get one.

 

[Sister_MaryPoo]

I think it’s so funny how this continues to be debated. Marriage originally was 2 things:

1. It was a way for a man to ensure paternity of a child by having exclusive sexual access to the woman, and thus reducing the chances of cuckoldry.
2. It was a way for the king or ruler to produce more workers (or peons) to work for him and pay him taxes.

Obviously the first reason doesn’t work, as marriage doesn’t prevent adultery. The second reason is why institutions such as the Church are so against same sex marriage. Without the possibility of procreation, there is no chance of getting a larger flock of sheep. Plus gay sex is just icky, right?

Marriage is an ancient custom that has been warped and shaped over time to follow the needs of the culture. It wasn’t really until the 20th century that people really had the idea of marrying for love.

 

[CWBetts]

Marriage has been around long before your religion which you are inserting into the act. You might not think that gay marriage will be a national reality soon but your wrong. Besides it’s not like anyone is forcing you to have a gay marriage. It’s funny that Catholics voice so loudly against gay marriage yet everything about it has nothing do do with them. There won’t be any gay weddings in Catholic churches and most Catholics won’t be getting married to their gay lovers. Why do you Catholics think you have the right to tell a legal adult that they can’t marry another legal adult? You still have the right to think it’s a sin but you don’t have the right to step on another persons civil rights. Just because Christians have usurped marriage does not mean they or their churches are the authority on it. You can go pray about it if you want, but in days to come there will be legal gay marriage. Better make sure you don’t accidentally get one.

There will never be gay marriage. You can call it a wedding, and say you are married, but that does not make it a marriage. I could say I was a leprechaun, but that wouldn’t make it so.