Homosexuality And Original Sin

[Rau]

BRAVO! There are few others on CAF that have tried to get your points across at one time or another, but you have done an awesome job of doing so! If we are told that it is important to have a well formed conscience, but then are belittled for not believing 100% that the use of ABC is a mortal sin or that gay individuals are intrinsically disordered, what is the use in having our own well formed conscience?

What point? That there are many persons acting contrary to church teaching?

Doubts are entirely acceptable and no one is belittled for them. They are human. We know the Church has teaching authority from God and are asked to submit to it.

Oh, no person is “intrinsically disordered”. It is sexual acts between two persons of the same sex that are so described. Have you not even read the teaching?

 

[bjryman]

Robert, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 First Edition was NOT well thought out on this subject.

On September 8, 1997, Pope John Paul II promulgated the Second Edition of the English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Because the First Edition needed 103 changes (corrections/amendments) to the English text. This was to ensure that it harmonized with the official Latin text that was promulgated by Pope John Paul II on the same date.

The words “They do not choose their homosexual condition.” were removed because they opposed Catholic teachings. As such, Catholic and non-Catholic who are quoting those words, are using an old Catechism that is outdated and which contains errors. They should throw away that version of the Catechism and get a copy of the Second Edition to ensure that what they quote is in harmony with Catholic doctrines and teachings.

---

You note a KEY problem that the Church has had historically regarding Tradition teachings and interpretations. Once so stated, it becomes difficult to retract. You use the term in your post about “errors” in a published, santioned document.

Pope Paul “pulled” the discussion about priestly celibacy and artificial birth control from the agenda of the Vatican II council as it looked very much that the Bishops were going to change (i.e. update) the teaching views on those subjects. It was assumed that a special commission would be assigned to update these issues. Instead, quietly a bit later they were simply restated.

Vatican II in great part arose from the results of a rigid Roman Empire, and Medival Ages Church taking on ever more broad interpretations of a wide variety of issues and stating them to be “fact”. Eastern Church had/has core disagreements with this entire approach and where it all ended. Vatican II specifically was a process used to return the Church to pre-Roman times for its core…without getting all tangled up in possibility that in the past there just might have been an error or two.

If one reads the excellent Vatican II book by Mr. O’Malley, the issues within issues becomes clear. Now the Church in modern times must address what is truly a reasonable update of teachings, even if some of those updates may require admitting certain claims of the past are not quite true.

The entire set of teachings on human sexuality no doubt is one that may fall into this category.

Of course, the Church can just assume that what Pope Benedict stated about the modern Church will become ever smaller until it reaches its core “purity of truth”, could be the other default future.

I for one choose to walk my own pathway to holiness as urged by Vatican II Fathers, and to use my own, well informed conscience to prepare to stand before God on my judgement day regarding many of these controversial subject.

This is especially true regarding Dogma versus All Other Teachings

 

[Rau]

The words removed were removed because they made no contribution to the moral issue in question. Further, the “First” Edition text is deficient in that it makes one thinks the etiology of homosexuality is settled though it is not.

Contrary to Zoltan’s post, the removed statement (to the effect that homosexuals do not choose their condition) is not contrary to ANY church teaching, though it may well be contrary to positions Zoltan himself has expressed here from time to time. This was thrashed out earlier in the thread.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

---

You note a KEY problem that the Church has had historically regarding Tradition teachings and interpretations. Once so stated, it becomes difficult to retract. You use the term in your post about “errors” in a published, santioned document.

Pope Paul “pulled” the discussion about priestly celibacy and artificial birth control from the agenda of the Vatican II council as it looked very much that the Bishops were going to change (i.e. update) the teaching views on those subjects. It was assumed that a special commission would be assigned to update these issues. Instead, quietly a bit later they were simply restated.

Vatican II in great part arose from the results of a rigid Roman Empire, and Medival Ages Church taking on ever more broad interpretations of a wide variety of issues and stating them to be “fact”. Eastern Church had/has core disagreements with this entire approach and where it all ended. Vatican II specifically was a process used to return the Church to pre-Roman times for its core…without getting all tangled up in possibility that in the past there just might have been an error or two.

If one reads the excellent Vatican II book by Mr. O’Malley, the issues within issues becomes clear. Now the Church in modern times must address what is truly a reasonable update of teachings, even if some of those updates may require admitting certain claims of the past are not quite true.

The entire set of teachings on human sexuality no doubt is one that may fall into this category.

Of course, the Church can just assume that what Pope Benedict stated about the modern Church will become ever smaller until it reaches its core “purity of truth”, could be the other default future.

I for one choose to walk my own pathway to holiness as urged by Vatican II Fathers, and to use my own, well informed conscience to prepare to stand before God on my judgement day regarding many of these controversial subject.

This is especially true regarding Dogma versus All Other Teachings

Good luck on your journey.

The Catholic Church claims to be an instrument of God that can infallibly discern objective truth; truth that is independent of the church’s opinion or wishes. If the church says something is true, and then changes its mind and says it was wrong, then the church logically cannot be infallible.

From my extensive studies and reflection, I have found that every religion on Earth, save the Catholic religion, has fatal logical flaws that must mean they are wrong. I have found no such flaw in the Catholic Church. There are numerous issues that were not explicitly defined in the bible or by the early apostles. There have been long debates to discern the truth. Some sides in these debates were wrong. It was the church as a whole that discerned the truth, and in most instances, the incorrect side humbly submitted to the church.

I accept as a matter of faith that the Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church founded by my Lord incarnate, Jesus Christ. I accept this rationally and logically. I have inspected each doctrine and found it perfectly internally consistent. I acknowledge as a matter of intellectual honesty that the church is led by very intelligent philosophers who are never going to allow any deviation from this perfect consistency. It is by faith alone that I ascribe this to divine guidance rather than greed and lust for power.

 

[bjryman]

Good luck on your journey.

The Catholic Church claims to be an instrument of God that can infallibly discern objective truth; truth that is independent of the church’s opinion or wishes. If the church says something is true, and then changes its mind and says it was wrong, then the church logically cannot be infallible.

From my extensive studies and reflection, I have found that every religion on Earth, save the Catholic religion, has fatal logical flaws that must mean they are wrong. I have found no such flaw in the Catholic Church. There are numerous issues that were not explicitly defined in the bible or by the early apostles. There have been long debates to discern the truth. Some sides in these debates were wrong. It was the church as a whole that discerned the truth, and in most instances, the incorrect side humbly submitted to the church.

I accept as a matter of faith that the Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church founded by my Lord incarnate, Jesus Christ. I accept this rationally and logically. I have inspected each doctrine and found it perfectly internally consistent. I acknowledge as a matter of intellectual honesty that the church is led by very intelligent philosophers who are never going to allow any deviation from this perfect consistency. It is by faith alone that I ascribe this to divine guidance rather than greed and lust for power.

And I assume that you realize that your last two paragraphs are 100% subjective conclusion made by you personally as you continue to fine tune your informed conscience.

I, using similar tools of research, introspection, prayer and the like have come to the conclusion that the Church clearly understands, in the aggregate, that there are rules and teachings that are questionable, and that our brothers in Eastern Right and Protestant Churches have some good, credible points of view.

Vatican II was not allowed to deeply engage in three main topics, two of which are Priest Celibacy and Artificial Birth Control. Pope Paul pulled them from the agenda. It had become clear that the majority of the Bishops were inclined to update the teachings in a way that could cause the “thread of consistency” to be stretched thin.

The Curia also held sway in the end to the central core control of Vatican, as just enough of the Curia members resided on key councils to prevent what the majority of Bishops wanted to see changed from happening. Even when over 80% of Bishops (over 2,100) were leaning in one direction, the Curia maintained enough control to halt that progress.

So, I come away with a wonder for how much was accomplished at Vatican II, how great the work truly was…yet also, with an understanding that some of the key issues of dispute remain as they are today only by pulling them out of the debate.

As a matter of fact, there are some who conclude that if the Catholic Church does not continue down a proper pathway for implementing Vatican II policies without losing the ultra conservative monarchial management of the Church, that future generations may undo do much of the work. Yes, even if that means a much smaller, more myopic but committed “people of God” remain.

Finally, I too have Faith in Christ’s message of Salvation to me, and his instructions to walk down my personal pathway to holiness. This involves service to my family, my parish community, my local secular community in His name. I love and embrace the Sacraments as the best outward sign of God’s grace…what a joy they are

The rest of the rules and such…not so much, and very cautious about absolute statements.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

And I assume that you realize that your last two paragraphs are 100% subjective conclusion made by you personally as you continue to fine tune your informed conscience.

That is true. I must mention that my conclusions are 100% correct.

I, using similar tools of research, introspection, prayer and the like have come to the conclusion that the Church clearly understands, in the aggregate, that there are rules and teachings that are questionable, and that our brothers in Eastern Right and Protestant Churches have some good, credible points of view.

While not exactly on the right path, you are entitled to your own opinion.

Vatican II was not allowed to deeply engage in three main topics, two of which are Priest Celibacy and Artificial Birth Control. Pope Paul pulled them from the agenda. It had become clear that the majority of the Bishops were inclined to update the teachings in a way that could cause the “thread of consistency” to be stretched thin.

As I remember the years leading up to Vatican II, I recall that subjects like Priest Celibacy and Artificial Birth Control were a hot topic among American Catholics at the time. A time of “Flower Power” and “Free Love” etc. These subjects were never a consideration of Pope John XXIII. If they were on the agenda, he would have pulled them. Not Pope Paul.

The Curia also held sway in the end to the central core control of Vatican, as just enough of the Curia members resided on key councils to prevent what the majority of Bishops wanted to see changed from happening. Even when over 80% of Bishops (over 2,100) were leaning in one direction, the Curia maintained enough control to halt that progress.

As well it should. Since most of the Bishops were acting like uncontrolled children during debates.

So, I come away with a wonder for how much was accomplished at Vatican II, how great the work truly was…yet also, with an understanding that some of the key issues of dispute remain as they are today only by pulling them out of the debate.

If any issues were pulled from debate it was done so because dogma and infallible teachings of the Church are not up for debate.

As a matter of fact, there are some who conclude that if the Catholic Church does not continue down a proper pathway for implementing Vatican II policies without losing the ultra conservative monarchial management of the Church, that future generations may undo do much of the work. Yes, even if that means a much smaller, more myopic but committed “people of God” remain.

Apparently you have a problem with conservative monarchical management ???

Finally, I too have Faith in Christ’s message of Salvation to me, and his instructions to walk down my personal pathway to holiness. This involves service to my family, my parish community, my local secular community in His name. I love and embrace the Sacraments as the best outward sign of God’s grace…what a joy they are

The rest of the rules and such…not so much, and very cautious about absolute statements.

Good for you…but…

Please do not get involved in RCIA. There is enough misinformation and “personal opinions” dumped on those folks already.

 

[Rau]

As I remember the years leading up to Vatican II, I recall that subjects like Priest Celibacy and Artificial Birth Control were a hot topic among American Catholics at the time.

I thought Priest celibacy was a discipline only, not a teaching (as is male priests only). So no great moral issue there. As for ABC, it has been taught from the beginning as wrong. How could anyone, let alone Bishops, go about arguing for a reversal of teaching? Or was the argument more subtle eg. The pill is not contraception?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I thought Priest celibacy was a discipline only, not a teaching (as is male priests only). So no great moral issue there. As for ABC, it has been taught from the beginning as wrong. How could anyone, let alone Bishops, go about arguing for a reversal of teaching? Or was the argument more subtle eg. The pill is not contraception?

Right. Priest celibacy is a discipline. Its is not a revelation or or dogma. It could be changed but I doubt it. Pope John Paul II made it clear that the Church simply has no authority to allow priests to marry.

As I remember Priestly celibacy was not a big concern back in the 1960’s. Most priests admitted that they were simply too busy for a family anyway.

I do remember there was a lot of talk about birth control before Vatican II. It was ASSUMED that Vatican II would address the subject and grant some sort of approval.

 

[Rau]

Right. Priest celibacy is a discipline. Its is not a revelation or or dogma. It could be changed but I doubt it. Pope John Paul II made it clear that the Church simply has no authority to allow priests to marry.

As I remember Priestly celibacy was not a big concern back in the 1960’s. Most priests admitted that they were simply too busy for a family anyway.

I do remember there was a lot of talk about birth control before Vatican II. It was ASSUMED that Vatican II would address the subject and grant some sort of approval.

JPII has said the Church has no authority to ordain women. Can you quote him in respect of celibacy?? Note that there are married persons who have been ordained Catholic priests, typically after conversion from Anglicanism.

While people may have “assumed” a change to ABC, were there actually Bishops arguing to reverse consistent Church teaching?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

JPII has said the Church has no authority to ordain women. Can you quote him in respect of celibacy?? Note that there are married persons who have been ordained Catholic priests, typically after conversion from Anglicanism.

While people may have “assumed” a change to ABC, were there actually Bishops arguing to reverse consistent Church teaching?

Right again, Rau. I was thinking “women”. And yes there are ordained Catholic priests with families who were former Anglican ministers as well as some of the Eastern Rite priests.

But the Roman Catholic Church does not allow priests to marry after ordination. It could change because it is a discipline. But it would not need a Council to make that change.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Right again, Rau. I was thinking “women”. And yes there are ordained Catholic priests with families who were former Anglican ministers as well as some of the Eastern Rite priests.

But the Roman Catholic Church does not allow priests to marry after ordination. It could change because it is a discipline. But it would not need a Council to make that change.

AFAIK the Church cannot allow priests to marry, notice how the Orthodox do not despite most of their priests being ordained as married men.

 

[RyanBlack]

Right again, Rau. I was thinking “women”. And yes there are ordained Catholic priests with families who were former Anglican ministers as well as some of the Eastern Rite priests.

But the Roman Catholic Church does not allow priests to marry after ordination. It could change because it is a discipline. But it would not need a Council to make that change.

The tradition of forbidding priests to marry after ordination is not limited to the Roman Church–it is universal among the apostolic churches. Holy Orders are a canonical impediment to marriage. In the case of priests, dispensation from this canonical impediment is reserved to the Holy See.

 

[bjryman]

That is true. I must mention that my conclusions are 100% correct.

While not exactly on the right path, you are entitled to your own opinion.

As I remember the years leading up to Vatican II, I recall that subjects like Priest Celibacy and Artificial Birth Control were a hot topic among American Catholics at the time. A time of “Flower Power” and “Free Love” etc. These subjects were never a consideration of Pope John XXIII. If they were on the agenda, he would have pulled them. Not Pope Paul.

According John O’Malley’s Vatican daily summary, it was Paul, in the middle of the second or third session ( I forget now) who pulled item. And yes, the Bishops brought to the sessions the more recent happenings within their own regions, a major reason why Paul thought that the subject should not be discussed at the time.

As well it should. Since most of the Bishops were acting like uncontrolled children during debates.
Ahhhh, well there you go because you describe what happens naturally in a collegial gathering. Of course, the minority ot the Bishops spoke as you, and truly believed the Church was at risk for allowing such dialog at all. You demonstrate that the debate is far from over

If any issues were pulled from debate it was done so because dogma and infallible teachings of the Church are not up for debate.

Priestly Celibacy and Artificial Birth Control were not dogma. In fact, on the former the Eastern Rite Participants were very strong in their debate. And today the Church is allowing married priests from other rites…but celibacy remains for new priests…for now.

Apparently you have a problem with conservative monarchical management ???

I am a conservative by nature. Yet, the monarchial management of the Middle Ages Church was far more severe then that of the earlier Church. The Church assumed the Roman Empire way of “preaching and teaching” the truth. Vatican II clearly recognized that issue and underlying all its actions was a change in that approach

Good for you…but…

Please do not get involved in RCIA. There is enough misinformation and “personal opinions” dumped on those folks already

**Ahh…see, you assume the worst again. I signed up to teach RCIA exactly according to the current instructions of the local Catholic Church to which I belong. I use all the handouts, agendas, support rubrics noted in the RCIA manual, etc. We DO NOT offer personal opinions…if fact we open each season with that comment so there is no misinterpretation.

That is my responsibility as a Catholic Catechist…or I should change religions. But, I am also following my own pathway to holiness as taught by our Church and have made my own conclusions that I quietly work with daily. Sorry, but innocent Fait is not within me to accept…informed conscience as our Church encourages is my path. **

.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That is my responsibility as a Catholic Catechist…or I should change religions. But, I am also following my own pathway to holiness as taught by our Church and have made my own conclusions that I quietly work with daily. Sorry, but innocent Fait is not within me to accept…informed conscience as our Church encourages is my path.

Your informed conscience may differ from mine. Therefore, in the case of being a responsible catechists it is best to impart ONLY the teachings of the Church.

 

[bjryman]

Your informed conscience may differ from mine. Therefore, in the case of being a responsible catechists it is best to impart ONLY the teachings of the Church.

EXACTLY Zoltan. For the record in these posts…I ALWAYS adhere to our Church’s doctrine, of course also as adjusted some by my local Monsignor/Pastor as part of my physical ministry at Our Lady of the Greenwood, Greenwood IN, USA.

Separately, I strive to have a broader dialog with folks like those in this forum, like the four seminars I attended last month at Benedictin Monastary in Beech Groove IN on Vatican II presented by a Monk who was there. And by special small discussion groups organized by our church staff to engage in reading a multiplicity of periodical and publications about Christian and Catholic faith.

In my mind, doing this enriches the walking down the pathway to holiness. I do respect those who question nothing of the Church since childhood…I consider them to be practicing “innocent” Faith. That’s just not in my personality makeup.

So thanks to those here who allow me to postulate, consider, challenge. I find it extremely rewarding

 

[JimG]

There is not the slightest chance that the Church will change its teachings on homosexual sin or any other sexual sin. Yes, that is my opinion. Neither will it change its teaching on contraception.

 

[Rau]

…I do respect those who question nothing of the Church since childhood…I consider them to be practicing “innocent” Faith. That’s just not in my personality makeup…

Such persons are exceptionally rare. Questioning and doubts are commonplace and natural on one’s “walk to holiness”. However, outright rejection of the Church’s teaching authority, let alone teachings based on Scripture and taught continuously by the Magisterium, is a concern.

 

[bjryman]

Such persons are exceptionally rare. Questioning and doubts are commonplace and natural on one’s “walk to holiness”. However, outright rejection of the Church’s teaching authority, let alone teachings based on Scripture and taught continuously by the Magisterium, is a concern.

Agree, but I recognise that the Magisterium does change its teachings. Vatican II is just one example. The things they changed were not of Dogma, but changing anything is still a change. Thus changing the altar layout, engagement of Laity, etc…were changes. They were changes from the High Middle Ages to the 1960s and meant for beyond. The changes actually reached back to the pre-Constantine church.

Those are facts. As such, it is not at all out of place to suggest that there may be others as the Church continues to adjust, update, etc.

 

[David_Goliath]

Zoltan:

Some people are gay. Get over it.

 

[petras52]

I believe our sexuality is not a choice and in my mind it raises troubling questions that test my faith…according to the bible and the church, practicing homosexuality is not allowed…the bible says be fruitful and multiply…since God can do anything. why then would he ever allow such an attraction that he created to ever exist in the first place?.. it seems likes he’s playing a cruel joke with some people…yes, most of us have crosses to bear but one is different…