Having close friends that are homosexual

[SpiritMeadow]

He did, and so has His Church, to whom he gave the authority to teach on His behalf. See the verse that was posted earlier where Jesus said he did not come to bring peace, but a sword. He came to bring division between mother and daughter, father and son – and in my case, father and daughter.

I was referring to something Jesus said specifically regarding homosexuality. I know of no such verses, and you have cited to none I see.

It is not my interpretation. Prior to making my decision, I did a lot of reading, and a lot of praying. I discussed the situation on this forum and spoke to a family friend about the matter (he is the rector of the diocesan cathedral and a good friend of the Bishop of our diocese – a very holy and learned man). I spent time in front of the Eucharist praying about what I should do. I read numerous articles about the subject from Catholic Answers (most notably Jimmy Akin – he has several articles on the subject at his blog).

I also called my father’s pastor, a Lutheran woman who has been divorced twice, and spoke at length with her, so I could show to my father that I did not consult only Catholics in this matter. (FTR, she said that while she did not agree with me, I needed to do what I felt God was telling me to do, even if it hurt my father.)

All my prayer, discussion, and research led to the same conclusion – loving someone does not mean condoning them in their sinful actions. That is why Jesus said, “GO AND SIN NO MORE,” (emphasis mine) not “Go and keep doing what you’re doing as long as you’re happy and it makes you feel good.”

Thank you. You have put your conclusion in perspective for me.

See above. I believe it is clear Church teaching.

Could you please point me to the exact location of wherein it states that you are prohibited as a Catholic from attending a wedding that you deem illicit, even when you have clearly stating you are doing so out of love for the person and not in any way supporting the illicit union? I’m sorry, but I’m not particularly clear on what this was in your case. The case opened by the OP regarded a homosexual union. I take it your fathers was not of this type?

When I stand before the seat of judgment some day, I can honestly tell God that I was trying to follow his teachings, as entrusted and promulgated to and by the Catholic Church, to the best of my ability. If I am wrong, then it was not because I knew the teachings of the Church and rejected them. But I do not think I am wrong.

Yes, we all hope to be able to do this I am sure. You may well not be wrong. I thought you were suggesting that your stance on this issue assured you of salvation.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Good Samaritan was in fact about hypocrisy. People claiming to be God fearing completely ignoring someone in need.

To try and convert her from her sinful ways.

I think your idea of what Jesus is teaching is wrong. No where in any of these stories did He not follow the rules of God, which would be impossible for Him to do since he is God. No where did he stand by and watch someone make a mockery of God. (Money Changers in the temple come to mind.)

Wrong. No one is unworthy of Christian friendship, we are all sinners. That doesn’t mean if a friend is leading you away from you faith you should hold on to the friendship. If a friend becomes abusive you leave, and continue to love that person and pray for there soul, but you do not associate with them. This is very much the same thing on a spiritual level.

I don’t recall reading anywhere Jesus telling Mary Magdalene that it was “okay” to be a prostitute and you gotta make a buck somehow. Both repented of their past life and followed Jesus to there salvation.

You misunderstand quite thoroughly my point. the poster suggested that avowed sinners were not entitled to Christian friendship. My examples are examples of Jesus doing exactly the opposite. He befriended those who were sinful and spoke to them. He of course did not endorse their sinfulness. But he acted quite obviously against what was considered the “right” thing to do. Sinners were considered other and to be avoided. This was the point of the story about the Samaritan. One does not deny them Christian charity because they are sinful in terms of their interpretation of God.

If you interpret Jesus’ stories as telling you that you should sever ties with friends because they refuse to agree with your faith dictates, then of course you must do as you see fit. I find on such teachings. On the contrary, Jesus taught that the Pharisees were guilty of constantly placing the formal right behavior over the reason for the rule, and thus missing the mark again and again. This is replete throughout the gospels.

I know of no instance where Jesus turned away from anybody because they didn’t repond correctly. So powerful was his loving and tender regard for them, that apparently everyone seems to have wanted to follow his words. About the only instance is the inference he gave his disciples to preach the gospel and if it wasn’t listened to, to shake the dust from their sandals and move on. He never instructed them to condemn, or speak negatively to those who were not interested btw.

One’s faith would of course be poor indeed if another could lead you from it. But then, how would one know that this was happening. A true blue Catholic, horribly mistaken in their interpretation of what God teaches, would do the same would they not?

 

[Pug]

It begs the question…when you find out that the Church will not condone in any way a person attending a homosexual wedding…what will you do about it?

Will you challenge your faith and honestly ask yourself if you can be in a Church with those views ( and many other views that you don’t agree with, but in the realm of morals, remember the Church claims to be inerrant)

Will you try to understand the position of the Church and then learn to accept it?

I am on the side of thinking it is better to not attend both the ceremony and the reception, but you make a point of interest to me here. If the pope or canon law or something came up with a rule I disliked, I would not consider this a reason to start questioning if I could be in this faith. Trying to understand the position, though, that is something different.

BTW, I tend to think of a prohibition on attending ceremonies in terms of “rules” because of the previous prohibition on attending Protestant worship. The cases are likely not analogous, though. But the one idea does bring the other to mind.

 

[Image_of_God]

Oh no, sadly it was not because of that. Not at all.

According to the Yahwist and the Catholic Church it is. It doesn’t have to be an either/or. It can be all of the reasons.

 

[wanner47]

I was referring to something Jesus said specifically regarding homosexuality. I know of no such verses, and you have cited to none I see.

The reason Jesus did not specifically condemn homosexuality (at least, to our knowledge) is because there was no need to. The Mosaic law and the Levitical laws already did so quite strongly. Note that Jesus was very clear about the laws he was changing: “You have heard it said [this], but I say [this]” was the general formula he used. Had He desired to change the centuries-old laws about homosexuality, He would have said something like, “You have heard it said that those who sleep with men as with women shall be put to death, but I say to you that fornicators should flock freely in the meadows, sleeping with whomever they choose.”

However, He did not. His apostles also spoke out quite strongly against homosexuality when they encountered communities not following the laws about homosexuality (see St. Paul in Romans, for example). If Jesus thought homosexuality was so wonderful, why did his apostle get the teaching wrong?

Thank you. You have put your conclusion in perspective for me.

It wasn’t a decision I came to lightly, especially since my father is famous for holding grudges for decades.

Could you please point me to the exact location of wherein it states that you are prohibited as a Catholic from attending a wedding that you deem illicit, even when you have clearly stating you are doing so out of love for the person and not in any way supporting the illicit union? I’m sorry, but I’m not particularly clear on what this was in your case. The case opened by the OP regarded a homosexual union. I take it your fathers was not of this type?

Let me refer you to some of the articles I read on Jimmy Akin’s blog about the matter. He references the appropriate canons and such.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/marriage_involvement/index.html

My father’s wedding was not a homosexual one. He is a divorced Protestant, and he married a cradle Catholic who had twice been divorced. His marriage to my mother is still valid until proven otherwise, and his wife’s first marriage is also still valid until proven otherwise. Neither were free to marry in the eyes of God, according to Church teaching.

Yes, we all hope to be able to do this I am sure. You may well not be wrong. I thought you were suggesting that your stance on this issue assured you of salvation.

My salvation depends on following the teachings of Christ and His Church to the best of my ability. This includes teachings that are difficult, such as not condoning the sin of family members even when popular society says otherwise. So, yes, in a way my salvation (or rather my path to salvation) is entwined with the situation.

 

[omegabane]

Oh no, sadly it was not because of that. Not at all.

I agree with Image of God on this one - yes it was. Genesis 19:4-7 is quite clear on what the people of Sodom wanted:

Before they went to bed, all the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old–all the people to the last man–closed in on the house. They called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them.” Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, “I beg you, my brothers, not to do this wicked thing.”

That there were other sins of Sodom and Gomorrah is surely true, and the people did cry out to the Lord. As Image of God says, we don’t have to claim that God destroyed the city for just one reason or the other, both played a role.

And remember that St. Paul specifically condemns homosexual relations in his letter to the Romans, as well. Some in this thread have suggested that we are throwing out Christ for Paul, but this is not true. On this day, the Feast of Sts. Peter & Paul, if have heard nothing else from the Church, we have heard that Paul so conformed His life to Christ that it was as if Paul no longer lived, but Christ instead.

Recall that the epistles are Sacred Scriptures and are, as such, inerrant.

 

[onetimeposter]

The reason Jesus did not specifically condemn homosexuality (at least, to our knowledge) is because there was no need to. The Mosaic law and the Levitical laws already did so quite strongly. Note that Jesus was very clear about the laws he was changing: “You have heard it said [this], but I say [this]” was the general formula he used. Had He desired to change the centuries-old laws about homosexuality, He would have said something like, “You have heard it said that those who sleep with men as with women shall be put to death, but I say to you that fornicators should flock freely in the meadows, sleeping with whomever they choose.”

How do you know this…It seems as though you are making an assumption based upon what your Church teaches you, what you believe and the cultural and social influences in your life.

I could write a post about why I think Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality…but that is pointless…because I have no idea and neither do you…you are making an assumption.

 

[omegabane]

How do you know this…It seems as though you are making an assumption based upon what your Church teaches you, what you believe and the cultural and social influences in your life.

I could write a post about why I think Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality…but that is pointless…because I have no idea and neither do you…you are making an assumption.

The man Jesus Christ may not be quoted in the four Gospels as speaking specifically against homosexuality, but we must remember that all of Sacred Scripture contains and is ordered to Jesus Christ. And homosexuality is condemned explicitly in both the Old and the New Testaments.

Also recall that Jesus does speak about marriage when he says, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Mark 10:7-9)

 

[wanner47]

How do you know this…It seems as though you are making an assumption based upon what your Church teaches you, what you believe and the cultural and social influences in your life.

I could write a post about why I think Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality…but that is pointless…because I have no idea and neither do you…you are making an assumption.

My “assumption” is supported by 2,000 years of Church teaching, including St. Paul.

Is yours?

ETA: Jesus didn’t specifically condemn bestiality or incest, either. Do you think those behaviors are acceptable as well?

 

[awfulthings9]

Here’s a post specifically for those who say that the OP should go to the “wedding”. In the following scenarios, would you attend? If not, what is the distinction?

Your very good friend, an artist, has invited all of his friends and family to a showing of his newest work, including a performance piece in which a naked man urinates upon a crucifix. He says he really hopes you can attend and support his work, which has received much criticism. He is Catholic, by the way, but doesn’t want to discuss the message of the controversial piece because it would ruin the observer’s interaction.

Your sister has decided that, no matter what anyone else says, she is going to have an abortion, and you are the only one who knows she is pregnant. However, she is still very scared about the procedure and wants someone to come along to comfort her and pray with her. If you do not go, she will go alone because she does not want others to know her secret.

Your brother belongs to a polygamous cult and has taken a fourteen year old bride. One of five wives. He would like you to come to the ceremony. This is illegal, of course, but this is all the more reason he needs your support.

ps. I suppose it should be stated that Jesus never specifically spoke out against urinating on crucifixes, having abortions, or marrying fourteen-year-old girls.

 

[allhers]

Ok if that’s so then what the heck did gomorrah do wrong? No mention of sexual proclivities. what did the women and children do in Sodom do? There is much more to the story then that.The Lot’s visitors story comes after God has decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah- not before it. Primary reason was an “outcry” from the people., Hebrew meaning - poverty and injustice. check Isaiah and Ezekiel’s take n it. Ezekiel says that the arrogance and lack of concern for the downtrodden was the main cause of the destruction. Attempted rape was punished also- but that was not the primary focus . You gotta love Lot willing to send his virgin daughters to assuage the sexual depravity of his neighbors.-what a guy!

From my understanding of what I read from the Bible, the post above where I sited where to read from the United Stated Conference of Catholic Bishops web site, (post # 47), the story is that Lot was talking to probably his future son’s-in-law, the men who were engaged to his daughters, and the reason Lot was telling them to take his daughters instead is because this would be a “natural thing to do with women if you are a man”, and it would be an unnatural, evil act to let them have their way with the men. Back then when they were “engaged” it was kind of expected that during this period that they could enter into the Marriage act, they didn’t really call it engagement, it was like they were already Married though, (the word escapes me right now), anyway, the point is that it would be an unnatural and evil act to let them have their way with the men. It wasn’t like you portrayed it at all. (as for your question about what did the women and children do that was so wrong, well, even bad things happen to good people, it isn’t always because they have done something wrong too.)

 

[onetimeposter]

My “assumption” is supported by 2,000 years of Church teaching, including St. Paul.

Is yours?

ETA: Jesus didn’t specifically condemn bestiality or incest, either. Do you think those behaviors are acceptable as well?

I won’t dignify that with an answer.

 

[awfulthings9]

I won’t dignify that with an answer.

I’m guessing you don’t have one.

 

[allhers]

I won’t dignify that with an answer.

Why not? Ought not your answer to be, “of course not, those are evil, sinful acts.” Why do so many people have a hard time seeing evil, sinful acts for what they are? (perhaps some people need a good confession/penance). It’s also evil and sinful to commit adultry, homosexual acts, fornification, using artificial birth control, etc…As so many have already pointed out, it is the sin not the sinner we condemn. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[thomfra]

This won’t help the OP and I’m not minimizing his plight, but just to keep things in perspective … try having your best friend from high school marry an abortionist. Then, when you go back to town to visit, the abortionist asks to hold your baby.

At that moment, I gladluy would’ve traded the “abortionist marriage” dilemma for the “gay marriage” dilemma.

What exactly is an “abortionist”. Is a pro choice person, or one that carries out abortions…? Just wondering what you meant by that.

 

[thomfra]

It wasn’t like you portrayed it at all. (as for your question about what did the women and children do that was so wrong, well, even bad things happen to good people, it isn’t always because they have done something wrong too.)

No no no. If something bad happens to it you MUST HAVE DESERVED IT SOMEHOW. You must be GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY. Sorry, I thought I would get in before the others…

Oh…and you are committing a grave mortal sin JUST READING THIS SARCASTIC sentence.

 

[Gamera]

What exactly is an “abortionist”. Is a pro choice person, or one that carries out abortions…? Just wondering what you meant by that.

A person who performs abortions.

 

[awfulthings9]

Here’s a post specifically for those who say that the OP should go to the “wedding”. In the following scenarios, would you attend? If not, what is the distinction?

Your very good friend, an artist, has invited all of his friends and family to a showing of his newest work, including a performance piece in which a naked man urinates upon a crucifix. He says he really hopes you can attend and support his work, which has received much criticism. He is Catholic, by the way, but doesn’t want to discuss the message of the controversial piece because it would ruin the observer’s interaction.

Your sister has decided that, no matter what anyone else says, she is going to have an abortion, and you are the only one who knows she is pregnant. However, she is still very scared about the procedure and wants someone to come along to comfort her and pray with her. If you do not go, she will go alone because she does not want others to know her secret.

Your brother belongs to a polygamous cult and has taken a fourteen year old bride. One of five wives. He would like you to come to the ceremony. This is illegal, of course, but this is all the more reason he needs your support.

ps. I suppose it should be stated that Jesus never specifically spoke out against urinating on crucifixes, having abortions, or marrying fourteen-year-old girls.

Considering most of my questions and challenges have been outright ignored in this thread, and considering one of the strongest “you should go” posters was actively contributing to this thread at just past three in the morning last night, I don’t think that I’m jumping the gun to assume there are no takers on this?

Thomfra? Spiritmeadow?

Seriously, I think it would help put your position into perspective to see how you would respond to the scenarios.

ps. Leaving for a two day camping trip and won’t be back until Tuesday evening, so if someone directs a question or comment my way, I will try to respond as soon as possible when I return.

 

[thomfra]

Here’s a post specifically for those who say that the OP should go to the “wedding”. In the following scenarios, would you attend? If not, what is the distinction?

Your very good friend, an artist, has invited all of his friends and family to a showing of his newest work, including a performance piece in which a naked man urinates upon a crucifix. He says he really hopes you can attend and support his work, which has received much criticism. He is Catholic, by the way, but doesn’t want to discuss the message of the controversial piece because it would ruin the observer’s interaction.

Your sister has decided that, no matter what anyone else says, she is going to have an abortion, and you are the only one who knows she is pregnant. However, she is still very scared about the procedure and wants someone to come along to comfort her and pray with her. If you do not go, she will go alone because she does not want others to know her secret.

Your brother belongs to a polygamous cult and has taken a fourteen year old bride. One of five wives. He would like you to come to the ceremony. This is illegal, of course, but this is all the more reason he needs your support.

ps. I suppose it should be stated that Jesus never specifically spoke out against urinating on crucifixes, having abortions, or marrying fourteen-year-old girls.

Awefulthings9 - where do you come up with these terrible scenarios. By the way - why the name “aweful things”…??

1. Naked Crucifix guy: Dunno - It’s kind of hard to comment on art taken out of context. Obviously some random guy urinating on a crucifix is kind of offensive to those that hold it dear. But for all I know this could be some ancient Latvian orthodox catholic form of worship, the highest honour. It really depends on the intent of the piece I guess. Why is the guy naked again? Would there be free drinks?
2. Sister pregnant, nobody knows: You say she is having the abortion “no matter what anybody says”. How did she fall pregnant? Why does she feel having the abortion is her only option? Is her life in danger? I would need more information.

PS: I get the impression that the “correct” answer on *this *forum is that you just walk away and say “I don’t support you”. “You are going to hell”! Correct? Or should I save the life of an unborn child by locking her up until she gave birth? Please - I’d like your answer on this.

1. Polygamous cult: Is that illegal? I better ring my wives!!!

But seriously - this would be child abuse. So I would probably tell him to scrap the idea or I’d call the cops. However if my brother were also 14 - things might be different. Then I’d probably just take his scateboard away and give him a clip around the ears for good measure.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The reason Jesus did not specifically condemn homosexuality (at least, to our knowledge) is because there was no need to. The Mosaic law and the Levitical laws already did so quite strongly. Note that Jesus was very clear about the laws he was changing: “You have heard it said [this], but I say [this]” was the general formula he used. Had He desired to change the centuries-old laws about homosexuality, He would have said something like, “You have heard it said that those who sleep with men as with women shall be put to death, but I say to you that fornicators should flock freely in the meadows, sleeping with whomever they choose.”

I’m not inclined to presume why Jesus chose not to speak of any particular issue. That is mere speculation. How do you pick and choose what OT laws to follow? Many here would claim that the NT obviates the old, although Jesus did not say this. But certainly we don’t follow a good many of the Levitical laws any more. He didn’t change the pork restrictions then by your analysis. As I said, I don’t think there is a basis for concluding that Jesus didn’t address issues he didn’t want changed. If that we so, we are indeed in trouble, for we have ignored a good many of them.

However, He did not. His apostles also spoke out quite strongly against homosexuality when they encountered communities not following the laws about homosexuality (see St. Paul in Romans, for example). If Jesus thought homosexuality was so wonderful, why did his apostle get the teaching wrong?

I think that Paul referenced it once and perhaps one other.NT writer mentioned it. Whether Paul got it right or not is of course not my decision to make. By your analysis Paul had no right to eliminate the need to abide by Jewish laws for non-Jews. Jesus never spoke to that issue either. Perhaps Paul got that wrong too. It proves nothing.

Let me refer you to some of the articles I read on Jimmy Akin’s blog about the matter. He references the appropriate canons and such.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/marriage_involvement/index.html

Thanks for the references. I take it there is no scriptural reference or CCC or statement directly from any pope?

My father’s wedding was not a homosexual one. He is a divorced Protestant, and he married a cradle Catholic who had twice been divorced. His marriage to my mother is still valid until proven otherwise, and his wife’s first marriage is also still valid until proven otherwise. Neither were free to marry in the eyes of God, according to Church teaching.

Please excuse my ignorance. I still need clarification. Is your father a practicing Catholic? Your mother? I assume your father’s new wife doesn’t practice Catholicism? I am getting the impression that these are all essentially non-Catholics? So aren’t they all non-sacramental? Perhaps I’m missing something. Marriage laws in the Church are complicated. I know what is expected of Catholics. I was unaware they are applied to those outside the faith.

My salvation depends on following the teachings of Christ and His Church to the best of my ability. This includes teachings that are difficult, such as not condoning the sin of family members even when popular society says otherwise. So, yes, in a way my salvation (or rather my path to salvation) is entwined with the situation.

I understand what you are saying here.