Homosexuality: Never to be approved + every sign of injustice to be avoided

[Stylteralmaldo]

2357 Homosexuality…Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 …Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided…

This appears to be one of the biggest challenges of our times. How can one express the truth about homosexuality in love while at the same time avoid every sign of injustice?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Expressing the truth is never an injustice. There is no justice in allowing homosexual pairing to engage in their farcical marriages because doing so ignores the truth about marriage, the complementary nature of the genders, and the primary purpose behind sexuality (procreation)

We are not to discriminate against them because discrimination is unjust, but telling them they can’t “get married” isn’t discrimination because, by their nature as two persons of the same gender, they are incapable of being married.

We express the truth that homosexual activities are bad for the soul, but at the same time, having homosexual tendencies does not make a person bad. Trying to help someone’s soul is always an act of love.

 

[Monkey1976]

We know that those who die in a state of unrepentant mortal sin have destined themselves for Hell. We know that Our Lord has taught us that homosexual activity is a grave evil.

Which is more loving - trying to keep a person from Hell, or giving them an express, one-way ticket?

 

[bzkoss236]

2357 Homosexuality…Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 …Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided…

This appears to be one of the biggest challenges of our times. How can one express the truth about homosexuality in love while at the same time avoid every sign of injustice?

You have to differentiate between social injustice and true injustice. It would be truly unjust for us to say that homosexual acts are okay, but obviously society today does not see things this way and would consider it socially unjust to say that homosexual acts are wrong. But we are not of this world. We should not fall victim to social norms that violate absolute truth.

If someone calls you a bigot for your beliefs, just reply kindly in turn; such as saying, “I’m sorry you feel that way”.

 

[edwest2]

2357 Homosexuality…Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 …Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided…

This appears to be one of the biggest challenges of our times. How can one express the truth about homosexuality in love while at the same time avoid every sign of injustice?

I think it’s incorrect to think it’s a “biggest challenge.” First, what is just or unjust? Once you get that across, the answer is simple. Today’s situation is also quite simple: gay/LGBT persons claim they want to be more visible. What has changed since the past? In the past, gay/LGBT persons sought out others who were also gay/LGBT, and what was done in private remained private.

Gay so-called marriage is the current problem. Natural biology tells you that there is only one way to get the next generation of human beings: one man and one woman. That’s it.

We also need to be clear about false accusations which are not based on logic:

1. Homophobia. No one fears gay/LGBT people. In the past, when I learned a co-worker was gay, bisexual, a lesbian or had a sex change, that did not cause me to feel “irrational fear.” I didn’t treat them differently.
2. Bigot. Against who? Nobody needs my permission to live how they want.
3. Intolerant. Of who? If you saw 100 people in a shopping mall, could you pick out the gay one? Of course not. But I guarantee you will be able to pick out the white, the black or the Oriental.

Laws that force people to accept a form of ‘marriage’ that was not normative for human beings for millennia are wrong. We need to realize, for ourselves, that redefining that reality will not be a good for society at large.

Peace,
Ed

 

[manualman]

The challenge is to change the attitude that used to be prevalent about despising both the action AND the person. Gay activists even assert that the two MUST go together, that it is a pipe dream that it can be separated (the interesting consequence of which must mean that they despise US!).

But society has already demonstrating the ability. Nobody applauds alcoholism, do they? But almost nobody despises those who admit to alcoholism either. Once “drunks” were as derided as people. Now we’ve learned to separate the dignity of the person from the self-destructive behaviors they crave. We can do that with homosexual people too. There’s no reason we can’t get there.

 

[Captain_America]

I agree with much of the above.

I dropped out of the BSA because the organization now explicitly shows moral neutrality on a very sad, very serious sin.

Generally speaking, the homosexual wins have come about for several reason:

(a) practical political action by the activists

(b) a public warmed over, neutralized, put to sleep by propaganda

(c) a very careful effort to NEVER be explicit about what the homosexuals do in bed with each other—this would cause disgust, repugnance, etc.

(d) a portion of the public is tired of all the airtime wasted on this issue and just go along with the activists so they’ll finally shut up

(e) a generally shared public difficulty with talking about sex and sexual matters; so people just do not feel comfortable talking about the sodomite perversities and addictions. This has really hindered public deliberation and decision-making.

I suspect most homosexuals know better than the propaganda portrayal.

I suspect in the end the Truth wins.

I believe a backlash is already underway against homosexuals because of all this noise and pushiness. In fact, the closet may have been the very best place for them!

 

[JimG]

2357 Homosexuality…Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 …Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided…

This appears to be one of the biggest challenges of our times. How can one express the truth about homosexuality in love while at the same time avoid every sign of injustice?

Of course, the same statements could have been made with respect to any other disordered sexual desire, or really, about any moral disorder whatsoever. But the statements were made only about homosexuality, and ordinary people reading the twin statements, get a sense of cognitive dissonance. It may manifest itself as the thought, “Okay, the Church says homosexual conduct can never be approved. But we can’t discriminate against them.” Given that, it’s no wonder that some Catholics support gay marriage even as the bishops strenuously oppose it.

That doesn’t mean the two statements are wrong. They are not. But they sure require a lot more elucidation to be understandable to most people.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I believe a backlash is already underway against homosexuals because of all this noise and pushiness. In fact, the closet may have been the very best place for them!

Captain, could you explain yourself here? It looks like some form of pre-emptive “blaming the victim,” but I imagine (by which I mean, I hope) that’s not quite what you mean.

Maybe you can address: what is the nature of this backlash? Is the backlash appropriate and/or good? In what ways would “the closet” (experienced by many homosexuals as an ongoing state of dishonesty conditioned by fear and self-hatred) be preferable to the backlash?

Thanks.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[andrewstx]

Expressing the truth is never an injustice. There is no justice in allowing homosexual pairing to engage in their farcical marriages because doing so ignores the truth about marriage, the complementary nature of the genders, and the primary purpose behind sexuality (procreation)

We are not to discriminate against them because discrimination is unjust, but telling them they can’t “get married” isn’t discrimination because, by their nature as two persons of the same gender, they are incapable of being married.

We express the truth that homosexual activities are bad for the soul, but at the same time, having homosexual tendencies does not make a person bad. Trying to help someone’s soul is always an act of love.

Which homosexual asked you for permission? Is that not just a bit presumptuous? How many homosexuals have you asked for permission for your marriage?

No, I am not a homosexual personally, but I do tire of the lip service given to homosexuality is a disorder but the desire is not in itself a sin only the acts. Practically every thread on this subject descends to nearly hatred while the fact that SSA is not sinful in and of itself is avoided a lot.

I get a feeling this comes from the far right politics most on this board have.

The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, always. But the majority is not everyone and not all are born attracted to the opposite sex. And not everyone with SSA is a promiscuous monster marching in parades near nude.

It’s more fun to “pile up, gang up” on the small minority isn’t it?

As I said, I am not a homosexual but neither am I a far-right person who despises homosexuals and believes all of the negative stereotypes. All I ask for is respect for all as the catechism asks for and is often ignored.

 

[edwest2]

Of course, the same statements could have been made with respect to any other disordered sexual desire, or really, about any moral disorder whatsoever. But the statements were made only about homosexuality, and ordinary people reading the twin statements, get a sense of cognitive dissonance. It may manifest itself as the thought, “Okay, the Church says homosexual conduct can never be approved. But we can’t discriminate against them.” Given that, it’s no wonder that some Catholics support gay marriage even as the bishops strenuously oppose it.

That doesn’t mean the two statements are wrong. They are not. But they sure require a lot more elucidation to be understandable to most people.

It’s all explained here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

The strategy for the gay activists is to make how they live as a “married” couple normative, which means little kids as young as 5 learn that two men or two women can get married. That they are everywhere… uh, yeah? So? Water is wet?

Step one was overturning sodomy laws. For no particular reason?

Step two is to brainwash people that there is a one to one relationship between “married” homosexual persons and heterosexuals. To be blunt: gay married sex is OK. But is that truly the whole picture?

Monogamy?

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

Do I?

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html

And after the long “fight,” what’s happening?

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164783/One-gay-couples-married-New-York-set-to-divorced.html

You would think that homosexual persons would haven taken more time and known a lot more about their idea of “marriage.” I mean gay activists have spent years presenting the idea of how important this is and why it matters so much to everyone 24/7.

abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2013/06/jane-lynch-and-lara-embry-to-divorce/

We need a balanced view going in. The impression gay activists give is that there is no downside to this. My impression was that they would get their license, go home and live like everybody else: go to work, come home, walk the dog.

But once “marriage” is legal, your kids become part of the program and mom and dad cannot opt out their own children, like David Parker:

abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1230620&page=1

Public schools advance the gay agenda.

amazon.com/Beyond-Diversity-Day-Curriculum-Sexualities/dp/074252034X

Peace,
Ed

 

[JimG]

. . . .We need a balanced view going in. The impression gay activists give is that there is no downside to this. My impression was that they would get their license, go home and live like everybody else: go to work, come home, walk the dog.

But once “marriage” is legal, your kids become part of the program and mom and dad cannot opt out their own children, like David Parker:

abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1230620&page=1

Public schools advance the gay agenda.

amazon.com/Beyond-Diversity-Day-Curriculum-Sexualities/dp/074252034X

Peace,
Ed

Of course. But same sex couples are incapable of having children as a result of their union. If they are to have children, it is through having heterosexual relations with another person, or involving a person of the opposite sex in an (immoral) IVF procedure, or by adoption, which the Church regards as abuse of children, since it deliberately, and not through accident, deprives children of two parents.

Consequently, children ought to be a non-issue for same sex couples. But tragically, it is not. Once again, children are the losers here.

 

[mitex]

The Catholic solution to homosexual discrimination and injustice = Never say your homosexual. (Seriously that came from the Vatican; someone needs to find the document where it says that) It states something like discrimination would never happen if homosexuals just don’t reveal themselves.

This just isn’t a Catholic problem. This is a problem with my own Evangelicals as well. They (And Catholics) get so vocally opposed to homosexuality that love, and justice go right out the window.

Someone needs to find a right combination of being biblical (homosexual acts being sinful) and being loving and avoiding injustice.

I know what’s it’s like to be fired from a job for having a homosexual orientation (even though I was celibate). It absolutely is horrible. I know what it’s like to be bullied (even though I was celibate). I know what it is like to be beaten up (even though I was celibate).

And just pushing it under the rug like the Vatican instructed isn’t going to help or make the problem go away.

 

[JimG]

The Catholic solution to homosexual discrimination and injustice = Never say your homosexual. (Seriously that came from the Vatican; someone needs to find the document where it says that) It states something like discrimination would never happen if homosexuals just don’t reveal themselves.

This just isn’t a Catholic problem. This is a problem with my own Evangelicals as well. They (And Catholics) get so vocally opposed to homosexuality that love, and justice go right out the window.

Someone needs to find a right combination of being biblical (homosexual acts being sinful) and being loving and avoiding injustice.

I know what’s it’s like to be fired from a job for having a homosexual orientation (even though I was celibate). It absolutely is horrible. I know what it’s like to be bullied (even though I was celibate). I know what it is like to be beaten up (even though I was celibate).

And just pushing it under the rug like the Vatican instructed isn’t going to help or make the problem go away.

I think that the Church really needs you as a witness to celibate homosexuality.

 

[edwest2]

Which homosexual asked you for permission? Is that not just a bit presumptuous? How many homosexuals have you asked for permission for your marriage?

No, I am not a homosexual personally, but I do tire of the lip service given to homosexuality is a disorder but the desire is not in itself a sin only the acts. Practically every thread on this subject descends to nearly hatred while the fact that SSA is not sinful in and of itself is avoided a lot.

I get a feeling this comes from the far right politics most on this board have.

The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, always. But the majority is not everyone and not all are born attracted to the opposite sex. And not everyone with SSA is a promiscuous monster marching in parades near nude.

It’s more fun to “pile up, gang up” on the small minority isn’t it?

As I said, I am not a homosexual but neither am I a far-right person who despises homosexuals and believes all of the negative stereotypes. All I ask for is respect for all as the catechism asks for and is often ignored.

When I went to the voting booth and same-sex marriage was on the ballot. Why?

When Michigan voted down same-sex marriage, a letter was printed in a major Detroit newspaper that offered a balanced, reasoned argument: “Michigan, the great hate state.”

Little 8 year old Bobby hates gays? 90 year old women in nursing homes hate gays? Get real.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

The Catholic solution to homosexual discrimination and injustice = Never say your homosexual. (Seriously that came from the Vatican; someone needs to find the document where it says that) It states something like discrimination would never happen if homosexuals just don’t reveal themselves.

This just isn’t a Catholic problem. This is a problem with my own Evangelicals as well. They (And Catholics) get so vocally opposed to homosexuality that love, and justice go right out the window.

Someone needs to find a right combination of being biblical (homosexual acts being sinful) and being loving and avoiding injustice.

I know what’s it’s like to be fired from a job for having a homosexual orientation (even though I was celibate). It absolutely is horrible. I know what it’s like to be bullied (even though I was celibate). I know what it is like to be beaten up (even though I was celibate).

And just pushing it under the rug like the Vatican instructed isn’t going to help or make the problem go away.

So what do you propose?

Peace,
Ed

 

[andrewstx]

When I went to the voting booth and same-sex marriage was on the ballot. Why?

When Michigan voted down same-sex marriage, a letter was printed in a major Detroit newspaper that offered a balanced, reasoned argument: “Michigan, the great hate state.”

Little 8 year old Bobby hates gays? 90 year old women in nursing homes hate gays? Get real.

Peace,
Ed

Would I be correct in guessing that respect for all as asked in the catechism will not be forthcoming from you personally?

 

[epan]

Which homosexual asked you for permission? Is that not just a bit presumptuous? How many homosexuals have you asked for permission for your marriage?

No, I am not a homosexual personally, but I do tire of the lip service given to homosexuality is a disorder but the desire is not in itself a sin only the acts. Practically every thread on this subject descends to nearly hatred while the fact that SSA is not sinful in and of itself is avoided a lot.

I get a feeling this comes from the far right politics most on this board have.

The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, always. But the majority is not everyone and not all are born attracted to the opposite sex. And not everyone with SSA is a promiscuous monster marching in parades near nude.

It’s more fun to “pile up, gang up” on the small minority isn’t it?

As I said, I am not a homosexual but neither am I a far-right person who despises homosexuals and believes all of the negative stereotypes. All I ask for is respect for all as the catechism asks for and is often ignored.

Good post. I have been quite astonished by the bigotry on this site which often masquerades as righteousness.

Having said that, it is a very difficult calculus for many people. Sexual morality is an especially difficult topic for many Catholics (apparently). So, it is very challenging to be charitable toward gay people for some.

Benedict was so immersed in the Church’s sex scandals that he was required to speak to the issue of homosexuality more than most popes have been. I am rather curious to hear how the new pope will directly address the current social changes. How will he try to lead in this issue, and strike a balance between popular social change vs. morality (including bigotry and the sexual activity)?

This is not a black and white issue. Sins are committed by bigots of gays. Sins are committed homosexuals. Essentially, lack of charity lowers people who judge others into sin, themselves.

As much as anything else, our society is progressing in a direction of change regarding sexuality at an ever increasing rate. For anyone who claims moral authority on sexual matters, this trend represents a gargantuan and perplexing challenge.

As we see from the judiciary, the legislative, and the electorate, opinions have changed in the popular/social context. The Catholic Church has historically been extremely lethargic to change it’s moral views. But it very definitely has done so over the centuries. This is a point of contention on this site, but also irrefutable for any student of history.

The thing that most interests me with this topic is, just how will the Church adapt? It will adapt, of course. It always has done so. Otherwise, it would not exist today.

 

[JimG]

. . . As much as anything else, our society is progressing in a direction of change regarding sexuality at an ever increasing rate. For anyone who claims moral authority on sexual matters, this trend represents a gargantuan and perplexing challenge.
. . .

There isn’t much doubt about that, although I would not characterize it as “progress.” It began when the Anglican church caved in on the issue of contraception, in 1930, allowing it for married couples for grave reasons. Before that, every Protestant denomination had the exact same teaching on contraception as the Catholic Church—a teaching unchanged for 2,000 years of Catholicism and 450 years of Protestantism.

That change enabled the sexual revolution, which enabled total sexual license, inevitably ‘progressing’ to widespread fornication, cohabitation, divorce, abortion and gay ‘marriage.’ That may be challenging indeed. But if the ‘progress’ is not reversed, we can watch as interested observers as family and civilization crumbles, and then hope to rebuild from scratch, as has been done several times in the past.

But to expect that the Church will change the universal moral code is simply a flight of fancy. It won’t, because it can’t.

 

[edwest2]

Good post. I have been quite astonished by the bigotry on this site which often masquerades as righteousness.

Having said that, it is a very difficult calculus for many people. Sexual morality is an especially difficult topic for many Catholics (apparently). So, it is very challenging to be charitable toward gay people for some.

Benedict was so immersed in the Church’s sex scandals that he was required to speak to the issue of homosexuality more than most popes have been. I am rather curious to hear how the new pope will directly address the current social changes. How will he try to lead in this issue, and strike a balance between popular social change vs. morality (including bigotry and the sexual activity)?

This is not a black and white issue. Sins are committed by bigots of gays. Sins are committed homosexuals. Essentially, lack of charity lowers people who judge others into sin, themselves.

As much as anything else, our society is progressing in a direction of change regarding sexuality at an ever increasing rate. For anyone who claims moral authority on sexual matters, this trend represents a gargantuan and perplexing challenge.

As we see from the judiciary, the legislative, and the electorate, opinions have changed in the popular/social context. The Catholic Church has historically been extremely lethargic to change it’s moral views. But it very definitely has done so over the centuries. This is a point of contention on this site, but also irrefutable for any student of history.

The thing that most interests me with this topic is, just how will the Church adapt? It will adapt, of course. It always has done so. Otherwise, it would not exist today.

Adapt? No.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

The Church is under the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit and is the Bride of Christ.

Peace,
Ed