Homosexuality And Original Sin

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Do you have any support for your interpretation of the catechism (priest, scholar, anyone…) other than your own reasoning? I’ve never heard any Catholic authority interpret the Catechism in this manner.

I really was not interpreting the Catechism. I was agreeing with it when I said: “While I have no argument with that…”

It is the responsibility of the Bishops to interpret the Catechism. Not Zoltan.

However since my ability to reason exceeds that of most humans…IF I did interpret the Catechism based on my own reasoning…it would be absolutely correct.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Perhaps I should have quoted more than just his last post, but it seems very clear from his comments on this thread that he believes the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual orientation is chosen. I would say that assertion conflicts with Catholic teaching, certainly as I have understood it.

The Catholic Church does not teach that homosexuality is chosen. It does not teach that it is innate either. Science, on the other hand, has no credible evidence that it is innate …therefore it must be acquired.

And what is this “emphasis on chastity” really about? Is the catechism really so unclear about it? Is the argument, “well, I guess I can’t disagree with all that talk of compassion, yada, yada, but shouldn’t we just eliminate that part in order to put the emphasis on chastity? That’s the part of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality that’s actually important.”

To be clear, it is my OPINION that the Church needs a little more “Fire and Brimstone” in relation to its teachings. Since Vatican II the emphasis has been on compassion, understanding, acceptance and following one’s conscience. Essentially the Church is “soft selling” salvation. Catechists revise Church teaching to be more “pastoral”, What are the results?

• More Catholics deeply in need of religious education. REAL religious education…not “how I feel about things”
• Catholics leaving the Church in record numbers because of confused understanding
• The growth of Cafeteria Catholics who chose what doctrines and teaching they wish to follow.
• Record numbers of Catholic couples shacking-up before marriage

I could go on but I hope you get the idea…the “soft soap” is not working…there is a HELL.

 

[Thorolfr]

Science, on the other hand, has no credible evidence that it is innate …therefore it must be acquired.

That is not a valid conclusion. Just because no solid evidence of a genetic origin has yet been found, this does not mean that there is no genetic component. There is a lot that we don’t know yet about what all the millions of different segments of our DNA do. It is also not necessarily an either/or situation. Sexual orientation could be determined by both genetic and environmental factors not just one or the other.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That is not a valid conclusion. Just because no solid evidence of a genetic origin has yet been found, this does not mean that there is no genetic component. There is a lot that we don’t know yet about what all the millions of different segments of our DNA do. It is also not necessarily an either/or situation. Sexual orientation could be determined by both genetic and environmental factors not just one or the other.

If it can be acquired, we dare not allow homosexuality to be legitimized. If there remains any shadow of doubt as to the cause of homosexuality, we must err on the side of protecting our children. We must actively discourage them from viewing homosexuality as safe and normal, when in fact it is demonstrably neither safe nor normal.

It bears noting here that normalcy is** functioning according to nature or design**. Normalcy is not based on popular opinion.

One more thought:

If science were to identify a biological or genetic cause of homosexuality, that day would begin the “race for the cure"…and that would be the end of homosexuality.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

That is not a valid conclusion. Just because no solid evidence of a genetic origin has yet been found, this does not mean that there is no genetic component. There is a lot that we don’t know yet about what all the millions of different segments of our DNA do. It is also not necessarily an either/or situation. Sexual orientation could be determined by both genetic and environmental factors not just one or the other.

Don’t forget prenatal causes other than genetics such as hormonal exposure.

 

[Rau]

…Science, on the other hand, has no credible evidence that it is innate …therefore it must be acquired.

Well Zoltan, you disappointment me! That statement is utterly devoid of logic. There was a time when man had no evidence of all manner of things about the world. The lack of evidence did not reveal the reality though - the discovery of it did.

And by the way, science is not looking to confirm or disprove “innateness” of any sexual orientation - it seeks to understand causes.

 

[HelenRose]

This is something that I’ve never quite understood. Catholics tend to say that people aren’t born with homosexual tendencies. And yet, due to original sin, everyone is born with a natural inclination to sin - to lie, to use violence, to commit adultery, to murder. So why can’t someone be born with a natural inclination to homosexuality as well?

I have no idea whether or not a person is born with same sex attraction or not because it has never been proven one way or another. As of yet no one knows the reason why this occurs.

As far as I know there has been no discovery in genetics to explain the situation.

It is possible that in some cases there is an over abundance of either man or female hormones in the womb when a child is being form.

I strongly suspect that it is a combination of many different causes. None of which scientists or lay people understand.

We will probably never know because it is politically incorrect to even suggest that there may be a way to understand the cause.

I often wonder what the opinion of the more strident homosexuals would be if science were to discover a specific gene that causes same sex attraction. Would they be in favor of women aborting these children in the same way that women abort children with Downs Syndrome?

 

[JimG]

I doubt that we will anytime soon see the day when a doctor announces to the expectant mom and dad: “It’s a boy, and he’s gay!”

 

[HelenRose]

I doubt that we will anytime soon see the day when a doctor announces to the expectant mom and dad: “It’s a boy, and he’s gay!”

If a child has Down Syndrome and a parents asks a doctor will tell them.

The right to life for a Down Syndrome child is just as valid as a child with same sex attraction.

If it would be wrong to abort or be told that an unborn child is gay it is equally wrong to be told and abort a child with Down Syndrome.

 

[Rau]

If a child has Down Syndrome and a parents asks a doctor will tell them.

The right to life for a Down Syndrome child is just as valid as a child with same sex attraction.

If it would be wrong to abort or be told that an unborn child is gay it is equally wrong to be told and abort a child with Down Syndrome.

No one suggests otherwise. But should one day an unborn be known to be gay, it is likely that some parents would find that motivation to abort.

 

[Thorolfr]

No one suggests otherwise. But should one day an unborn be known to be gay, it is likely that some parents would find that motivation to abort.

The only reason that some parents might abort a gay child is if they have been taught that being gay is a bad thing

 

[HelenRose]

No one suggests otherwise. But should one day an unborn be known to be gay, it is likely that some parents would find that motivation to abort.

Yes, unfortunately. And it is for this reason that there will not be any real drive or desire to research and find out the real reason for same sex attraction. We do not know and will probably have to continue to pretend to know that those who deal with same sex attraction are born with that condition. It is stated as fact. However, no one knows. There may be other reasons that are not considered.

 

[Rau]

The only reason that some parents might abort a gay child is if they have been taught that being gay is a bad thing

No, that’s self-serving. They may have observed the challenges it presents to parents and the child, and they choose to avoid it. Doesn’t make it a moral choice.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Well Zoltan, you disappointment me! That statement is utterly devoid of logic. There was a time when man had no evidence of all manner of things about the world. The lack of evidence did not reveal the reality though - the discovery of it did.

And by the way, science is not looking to confirm or disprove “innateness” of any sexual orientation - it seeks to understand causes.

Then I guess I will just have to sit back and wait till science “understands” the cause. Until then I will stick with the “evidence” provided by thousands of homosexuals who have admitted that they chose the lifestyle.

 

[Rau]

Then I guess I will just have to sit back and wait till science “understands” the cause. Until then I will stick with the “evidence” provided by thousands of homosexuals who have admitted that they chose the lifestyle.

Not in question. Did they choose their sexual inclination though? And how does one choose NOT to be attracted to the opposite sex? I know I can’t!

And Zoltan, it’s not very scientific to accept all evidence which supports your view and reject all evidence that opposes it.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Not in question. Did they choose their sexual inclination though?

No. They were born with a natural inclination towards the opposite sex.

And how does one choose NOT to be attracted to the opposite sex?

That is the deep and ponderous question…we are all asking

I know I can’t!

Good! Neither can I. A person does not choose a natural attraction.

And Zoltan, it’s not very scientific to accept all evidence which supports your view and reject all evidence that opposes it.

I am eagerly awaiting some.

 

[JimG]

If a child has Down Syndrome and a parents asks a doctor will tell them.

The right to life for a Down Syndrome child is just as valid as a child with same sex attraction.

If it would be wrong to abort or be told that an unborn child is gay it is equally wrong to be told and abort a child with Down Syndrome.

Of course you are right that it would be wrong to abort a child for such a reason, and I would never suggest otherwise. My point was simply that it is unlikely that anyone will be able to predict affective behaviors prenatally. I doubt that one could predict a child sexual preferences any more than one could predict his musical preferences.

 

[Rau]

I am eagerly awaiting some.

Why do you reject the word of good and faithful Catholics who find their same sex attraction “a trial” (as the Catechism States) ?

 

[bjryman]

Catholics tend to say a lot of things, but from the catechism:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

It is not the tendency that is the sin. It is the behavior.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

The future is yet to be written on this topic. I sense, the above quotes aside, that the average Catholic does not know the true Church position today on Gays…that they are the result of naturally occuring genetic makeup. Sooner or later, the real debate about this being and Extraordinary lifestyle, which as established by God through the mystery of the human race evolution, and is therefore an acceptable, but not perfect lifestyle.

Same comment could be made regarding the REAL church teachings about salvation elements inside other Christian religions. The discussions from Vatican II and the evolution of them thereafter have yet to come to full fruition

 

[Rau]

The future is yet to be written on this topic. I sense, the above quotes aside, that the average Catholic does not know the true Church position today on Gays…that they are the result of naturally occuring genetic makeup.

. Actually, no one knows this. There are no such definitive research results.

Sooner or later, the real debate about this being and Extraordinary lifestyle, which as established by God through the mystery of the human race evolution, and is therefore an acceptable, but not perfect lifestyle.

What is the “this” to which you refer?

See also post #6.