Homosexuality and Tolerance

[rossum]

Marriage isn’t just a government contract, but a sacrament in our church.

Not exactly. The Catholic Church does not recognise a marriage between two divorced people, while a Government Contract does. They are legally married in the eyes of the state, but not in the eyes of the Church. Their marriage is not a sacramental marriage, but is instead adultery.

Since there are already civil marriages that are not sacramental marriages, then same-sex marriages are just another form of non-sacramental civil marriage.

1. There’s a huge difference between what Western society tolerates vs what God tolerates.

The problem I have is that there are a lot of gods (and a lot of different versions of those gods) all of whom tolerate different things. Some gods cannot tolerate the eating of shellfish, pork, beef or of any meat. Some gods cannot tolerate foreskins or men shaving. Some gods cannot tolerate women who do not wear head coverings and ankle-length skirts.

rossum

 

[kozlosap]

You’re one of those Catholics who think you have the right to re-write the guidelines of the church. First, TRUE Catholics do NOT believe in the homosexual lifestyle…and Catholics have never believed in sex outside of marriage as being “ok”…so where did you get your information and why bother saying you’re Catholic if you don’t want to follow the guidelines the church has set up? We can’t just change religion to accommodate ourselves.

True Catholics do not presume to tell other Catholics who are true and who are not true, May I humbly suggest you run to the ophthalmologist and have them remove that huge log from your eye.

 

[Amandil]

Not exactly. The Catholic Church does not recognise a matriage between two divorced people, while a Government Contract does. They are legally married in the eyes of the state, but not in the eyes of the Church. Their marriage is not a sacramental marriage, but is instead adultery.

According to the Constitution the only authority that the State possesses is by permission of the people therein, not merely by the fact that the “state” exists.

Therefore the state cannot assume to posit as “rights” ideas that the people therein do not permit.

And any so-called “law” proposed by a state must necessarily be in accord with divine law so as to be properly considered “law” in any true sense.

“Governments” has previously and repeatedly passed “laws,” which under that pretense were considered “valid” merely because they came from the state, which resulted in the dehumanization and slaughter of millions of people based upon arbitrary concerns.

The “government” or the state is not the “end-all” in regards to what is legally or morally licit. It’s the “thousand Scotsman” fallacy.

Since there are already civil marriages that are not sacramental marriages, then same-sex marriages are just another form of non-sacramental civil marriage.

The only marriages that are objectively true are sacramental marriages. Even marriages between a man and a woman that are not fully done in the Church are still sacramental due to the fact that the couples are the ministers of the sacrament and that they do call God as witness to their union.

Neither is the ceremony itself what seals the marriage, it’s the consummation which accomplishes that, which is impossible for any homosexual couple to do.

The problem I have is that there are a lot of gods (and a lot of different versions of those gods) all of whom tolerate different things. Some gods cannot tolerate the eating of shellfish, pork, beef or of any meat. Some gods cannot tolerate foreskins or men shaving. Some gods cannot tolerate women who do not wear head coverings and ankle-length skirts.

rossum

There are not “a lot of gods”. There is only one God.

Finally. Your signature is quite funny. Its a self-contradictory statement.

Because if nothing is true, then neither can that little phrase (that nothing is true) be true.

It commits intellectual suicide.

 

[Amandil]

True Catholics do not presume to tell other Catholics who are true and who are not true, May I humbly suggest you run to the ophthalmologist and have them remove that huge log from your eye.

Wrong. I suggest that you go back and read Matthew’s gospel, chapter 18, verse 15 and following.

There’s such a thing referred to as “fraternal correction”.

By the fact that we profess the Creed at Mass, and that we receive the Eucharist, we literally swear an oath, we call God as witness, to our profession as Catholic Christians.

That means that we must, by covenant command, submit ourselves to the teachings and the authority of the Church.

Those who receive the Eucharist while openly dissenting against one or more of the Church’s teachings are in fact “eating and drinking a judgement upon themselves.”

They are reviling Christ and separating themselves from His body.

 

[rossum]

According to the Constitution the only authority that the State possesses is by permission of the people therein, not merely by the fact that the “state” exists.

The Catholic Church is a worldwide organisation. The US Constitution does not have authority worldwide. Homosexuals are not confined to the US, nor is marriage, nor is same-sex marriage, nor is divorce.

And any so-called “law” proposed by a state must necessarily be in accord with divine law so as to be properly considered “law” in any true sense.

Complete and utter rubbish. Perhaps in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but false in the vast majority of countries. How many countries enforce attendance at the state church on Fridays or Saturdays or Sundays?

There are not “a lot of gods”. There is only one God.

Ah, but which one? My local Rabbi talks about YHWH. My local imam talks about Allah. My local Hindu guru talks about Vishnu. How do I know which one is right?

Your signature is quite funny. Its a self-contradictory statement.

Indeed. It is intentionally so. I suggest that you read some Nagarjuna to get a handle on it.

Because if nothing is true, then neither can that little phrase (that nothing is true) be true.

Things may be true, but they are not ultimately true. My sig is a statement about ultimate truth, not about ordinary truth.

It commits intellectual suicide.

It is a finger pointing at the moon.

rossum

 

[Coatimundi]

Whew! After reading through three pages of comments, my mind is reeling.

I think some of us are straying a bit far afield from the OP’s questions, so I am going to return to them.

So that’s why I am here. I want to learn more about Catholicism objectively and secularly so I can reduce my resentment and appreciate my Catholic roots, and there are a few of things I want to start with.

For people who are Catholic and also accepting of homosexuality, how did you come to have this opinion and how do you reconcile it with Catholic teachings?
For people who put science above the bible yet still manage to be religious, how do you balance both?

Catamg, I am not sure if you are aware, but the Catholic Church condemns unjust discrimination against persons who are homosexual. We are all sinners, and the failings of someone who is gay is no worse than the failings of someone who isn’t. God imbued every one with human dignity, and nothing can lessen that.

The Church does, however, reject homosexual behavior. I realize that most persons who are gay or lesbian find this to be a stumbling block Similarly, most gay and lesbian individuals reject the distinction which the Church makes between having a homosexual attraction and acting upon that attraction. I am not trying to justify the Church’s position, I am simply acknowledging it.

As for your second question, many people have already pointed out that the Catholic Church rejects the notion that there is a conflict between science and faith. To their responses, I would add that human understanding is imperfect and incomplete. This applies both to science and it applies to our reading of the Bible. There are dogmas which have been revealed by God, and these will never change. However, most of the Bible falls outside of these dogmas and we continually refine our understanding of those verses.

Similarly, the doctrines of the Church are refined with time. I hasten to say that doctrines themselves do not change. However as human culture changes, the meanings of words and phrases change, and so does our understanding of the world. Consequently, doctrines occasionally need to be re-formulated so that the truth contained in a given doctrine is preserved and understood.

There is no conflict between faith and science, and any appearance of a conflict is due to our imperfect understanding. As such, we shouldn’t sweat the details, as our understanding is incomplete.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Whew! After reading through three pages of comments, my mind is reeling.

I think some of us are straying a bit far afield from the OP’s questions, so I am going to return to them.

Catamg, I am not sure if you are aware, but the Catholic Church condemns unjust discrimination against persons who are homosexual. We are all sinners, and the failings of someone who is gay is no worse than the failings of someone who isn’t. God imbued every one with human dignity, and nothing can lessen that.

The Church does, however, reject homosexual behavior. I realize that most persons who are gay or lesbian find this to be a stumbling block Similarly, most gay and lesbian individuals reject the distinction which the Church makes between having a homosexual attraction and acting upon that attraction. I am not trying to justify the Church’s position, I am simply acknowledging it.

As for your second question, many people have already pointed out that the Catholic Church rejects the notion that there is a conflict between science and faith. To their responses, I would add that human understanding is imperfect and incomplete. This applies both to science and it applies to our reading of the Bible. There are dogmas which have been revealed by God, and these will never change. However, most of the Bible falls outside of these dogmas and we continually refine our understanding of those verses.

Similarly, the doctrines of the Church are refined with time. I hasten to say that doctrines themselves do not change. However as human culture changes, the meanings of words and phrases change, and so does our understanding of the world. Consequently, doctrines occasionally need to be re-formulated so that the truth contained in a given doctrine is preserved and understood.

There is no conflict between faith and science, and any appearance of a conflict is due to our imperfect understanding. As such, we shouldn’t sweat the details, as our understanding is incomplete.

I’ve only ever seen conservatives deny a difference between being attracted to the same sex and engaging in gay sex, those denying a difference always seem to think both are sinful.

 

[migueltojose]

I’ve only ever seen conservatives deny a difference between being attracted to the same sex and engaging in gay sex, those denying a difference always seem to think both are sinful.

“Gozer the Traveller will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldronaii the Traveller came as a very large and moving Torb. Then of course in the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex supplicants they chose a new form for him, that of a Sloar. Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you.”

 

[Kevin_B]

Logic… I think that is quite a logical ‘bridge too far’ from “sex is not all about procreation” to “therefore homosexuality is OK”…

Sex is not about sex. “Sex” is a derivative of unitive love between a married man and woman and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Open to life. Abraham’s wife Sarah was “sterile” too.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church handles the topic rather deftly, brilliantly and beautifully. Admittedly, it is often misconstrued.

It’s also logically indefensible. Either:

A) Sex is 100% about procreation, in which case having sex with a woman who is currently fertile would be sinful, or

B) Sex is not 100% about procreation, in which case condoms, for instance, would be just as acceptable as NFP.

There is no logical bridge which leads to the Church’s position. The only possible explanation is that they came to their decision first (condoms and homosexuality are immoral), then derived the logic from that. I mean, they basically say “sex is about procreation except when we say it isn’t” which is just absurd.

I don’t see any reason why sex cannot be the derivative of unitive love between a married man and man and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is just as “open to life” as a marriage between a sterile man and woman.

You’re one of those Catholics who think you have the right to re-write the guidelines of the church. First, TRUE Catholics do NOT believe in the homosexual lifestyle…and Catholics have never believed in sex outside of marriage as being “ok”…so where did you get your information and why bother saying you’re Catholic if you don’t want to follow the guidelines the church has set up? We can’t just change religion to accommodate ourselves.

You have lost about 85% of your legitimacy with the term “homosexual lifestyle”. There is no homosexual lifestyle. The only difference between me and a homosexual is that I am attracted to women while they are attracted to men. There are nerdy homosexuals, partying homosexuals, sexually active homosexuals, chaste homosexuals. There are homosexuals literally of every race, creed, gender, age, and nationality. Saying “they homosexual lifestyle” is like saying “the male lifestyle” or “the white person lifestyle” or “the American lifestyle”. Or, heck, even “the heterosexual lifestyle”. It means absolutely nothing. I am an American white male, and yet my lifestyle is 100% different from, say, Peyton Manning, another American white male.

True Catholics are only required to follow the Church in matters of faith. Whether you choose to follow them in other matters is your prerogative, as long as you recognize no one is forced to. Whether or not two men can go to a justice of the peace and sign a document is in no way a matter of the Catholic Faith, therefore, I am not required to follow the Church’s opinion on the matter.

You are no different than those who accused Galileo of being Un-Catholic for saying the Earth isn’t at the center of the universe. You don’t understand Catholic teaching at all. You think the Church is infallible in all matters, and it just isn’t. It never even claims to be.

Not exactly. The Catholic Church does not recognise a marriage between two divorced people, while a Government Contract does. They are legally married in the eyes of the state, but not in the eyes of the Church. Their marriage is not a sacramental marriage, but is instead adultery.

Since there are already civil marriages that are not sacramental marriages, then same-sex marriages are just another form of non-sacramental civil marriage.

Thank you. If it is a sin to vote for someone who does not support making same-sex marriage illegal, then it is just as much of a sin to vote for someone who does not support making divorce and remarriage illegal. Which means no Catholic should have voted for any politician in the last 30 years or so.

Either
A) The Civil law for marriage has to follow the Catholic law for mariage 100%, or
b) they don’t follow each other at all.

There is no logical explanation for how you can have it follow somewhat but not all the way. Did God say that?

“Thou shalt vote to make same-sex marriage illegal, but thou doesn’t really have to make divorce legal if thou doesn’t really want to”

Of course not. Ergo, it is a human decision, not a God decision, that voting for same-sex marriage is wrong.

 

[Luker]

True Catholics do not presume to tell other Catholics who are true and who are not true, May I humbly suggest you run to the ophthalmologist and have them remove that huge log from your eye.

That “Log” you refer to is what we call our Catholic Guidelines…There isn’t ANY place for the homosexual lifestyle in the Catholic Faith…Why should any of us listen to someone who makes a joke out of what we believe as Catholics? You don’t like someone telling you you’re wrong? Tough ****.

 

[Coatimundi]

Kevin, I appreciate you bringing a thoughtful discussion to this thread. I disagree with some of your points, and look forward to talking about things bit more

.

It’s also logically indefensible. Either:

A) Sex is 100% about procreation, in which case having sex with a woman who is currently fertile would be sinful, or

B) Sex is not 100% about procreation, in which case condoms, for instance, would be just as acceptable as NFP.

There is no logical bridge which leads to the Church’s position. The only possible explanation is that they came to their decision first (condoms and homosexuality are immoral), then derived the logic from that. I mean, they basically say “sex is about procreation except when we say it isn’t” which is just absurd.

Egg salad is about more than eggs. It involves mayonnaise, mustard, spices etc. However, we still need to prepare the eggs according to a set of rules e.g. boil the eggs,dice them, etc. If we don’t follow the rules, we wind up with a mess.

Similarly, sex is about more than procreation. However, this doesn’t mean there aren’t rules that need to be followed. The prohibition of condoms and other contraceptives is based upon the requirement that sex be open to life. Being open to life is a requirement of the procreative aspect of sex. The requirement is not a rule which was arrived at and then needed to be justified, in the same way that boiling an egg was not determined in advance and then needed to be justified.

.

I don’t see any reason why sex cannot be the derivative of unitive love between a married man and man and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is just as “open to life” as a marriage between a sterile man and woman.

A celebrated series of lectures given by Pope John Paul II is commonly known as his theology of the body. They helped me understand this part of Church teaching.

Our unitary human nature was lost when God divided Adam into male and female. At that point, Adam needed Eve to be complete. And Eve needed Adam for completeness as well. Sex, as well as marriage, was created by God to promote this re-union of our separate male and female natures. This reuniting involves more than sex and marriage. The reunion involves the daily task of loving and listening and understanding one another which brings our male and female selves together so that we may become whole again. Sex, and marriage, are vehicles to help us accomplish this.

 

[kozlosap]

That “Log” you refer to is what we call our Catholic Guidelines…There isn’t ANY place for the homosexual lifestyle in the Catholic Faith…Why should any of us listen to someone who makes a joke out of what we believe as Catholics? You don’t like someone telling you you’re wrong? Tough ****.

Reread Kevins response to your ascertations. Gay human beings are no different than the rest of us, we all sin and want to be forgiven. Maybe you should look at the CCC since you are so intent on demeaning gay individuals. Following His Holiness, Papa Francis would be a great place to begin. Concentrate on living and helping your neighbor instead of condemning those different than yourself.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Reread Kevins response to your ascertations. Gay human beings are no different than the rest of us, we all sin and want to be forgiven. Maybe you should look at the CCC since you are so intent on demeaning gay individuals. Following His Holiness, Papa Francis would be a great place to begin. Concentrate on living and helping your neighbor instead of condemning those different than yourself.

I think Luker’s use of the term “Homosexual Lifestyle” is inaccurate and not really what he meant to imply. I think a better term would be Homosexual behavior or to be more explicit…sodomy.

Also:

“Gay human beings are no different than the rest of us,”

Then

“Concentrate on living and helping your neighbor instead of condemning those different than yourself”

A little contradictory, don’t you think?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

“Gozer the Traveller will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldronaii the Traveller came as a very large and moving Torb. Then of course in the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex supplicants they chose a new form for him, that of a Sloar. Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you.”

 

[Amandil]

The Catholic Church is a worldwide organisation.

Never said that it wasn’t.

The US Constitution does not have authority worldwide.

Never said that it did.

Homosexuals are not confined to the US, nor is marriage, nor is same-sex marriage, nor is divorce.

Which has no bearing on objective morality regarding truth or the objective immorality of homosexuality or divorce.

Complete and utter rubbish. Perhaps in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but false in the vast majority of countries. How many countries enforce attendance at the state church on Fridays or Saturdays or Sundays?

Non-sequitur. Instead of asking me what I meant by “divine law” you jumped to a preconceived conclusion and then asserted your false polemic.

Ah, but which one? My local Rabbi talks about YHWH. My local imam talks about Allah. My local Hindu guru talks about Vishnu. How do I know which one is right?

The God of Israel is the only God. Hinduism is pantheistic and thus false. The god of Mohammedism is a farce.

Buddhism doesn’t follow a god at all.

How to know which one is right is easy, when you open your eyes.

Indeed. It is intentionally so. I suggest that you read some Nagarjuna to get a handle on it.

No need. I know that Buddhism is rather illogical in general in that it rejects western notions of Truth. It generally causes more confusion than it solves.

Things may be true, but they are not ultimately true. My sig is a statement about ultimate truth, not about ordinary truth.

That’s a self-contradiction in itself. Any truth has to have a source, and there cannot be Truth and at the same time not be Truth.

Basically you want to have your cake and at the same time eat it.

 

[Rau]

For people who are Catholic and also accepting of homosexuality, how did you come to have this opinion and how do you reconcile it with Catholic teachings?

Could you elaborate, in as much detail as you can, what you understand by the phrase “accepting of homosexuality”?

 

[rossum]

The God of Israel is the only God.

Fine. I’ll pop down to my local Synagogue and talk to the Rabbi. Perhaps I’ll see you there?

rossum

 

[epan]

This is a difficult topic for the Church. We all know of the child molestation which went on for decades (perhaps centuries), and which was covered up. The most recent revelations which received media attention were of the 300 page report by several bishops alleging involvement with male prostitutes by Vatican clergy. Coincidentally, or not, this report coincided with the resignation of pope Benedict, which was an unprecedented act in the history of the papacy.

So, consider everything said here against the actions which we know of. Words are one thing. Behavior is another.

Apologists will dismiss the actions of leaders as not being representative of some standard. Yet, if the very leadership cannot toe the line, then there can be little expectation that the followers will do so. This is, perhaps, the most troubling truth regarding the Church.

 

[tskrobacz]

The church is Pro-Life. Life from conception to natural death and everything in between that promotes life and spiritual, mental and physical health. Anything that is not strictly ordered towards life is understood as incongruent with the generous and creative nature of God and his creation. Thus masturbation, casual sex with contraception, homosexual relations, beastiality, etc are all departures from God’s will in the eyes of the church. Catholic tradition holds that the 4 great distractions from surrendering to God’s will instead of our own ego are wealth, power, pleasure and honor.

 

[Luker]

The church is Pro-Life. Life from conception to natural death and everything in between that promotes life and spiritual, mental and physical health. Anything that is not strictly ordered towards life is understood as incongruent with the generous and creative nature of God and his creation. Thus masturbation, casual sex with contraception, homosexual relations, beastiality, etc are all departures from God’s will in the eyes of the church. Catholic tradition holds that the 4 great distractions from surrendering to God’s will instead of our own ego are wealth, power, pleasure and honor.

Great Post! There are no variations from God’s plan that are acceptable. Those who want to continue to believe Gays are no different than the rest of us are wrong…Sexual relations are meant for husband and wife, MAN AND WOMAN. Anything other than this is not in accordance with God’s Plan or the guidelines of the CATHOLIC CHURCH. There’s no other way to say it.