Homosexuality Questions

[FightingFat]

I’m constantly struggling with this issue. My instinct tells me Church teaching is sound, but I struggle to explain why when questioned. Can you guys help me work through some stuff? It seems to be all muddled up with my compassionate nature and I have some very intelligent Liberal English friends I would like to give solid answers to. First I need to understand some stuff for myself and I have a few burning issues I want to address:

Homosexuality has been condemned by most cultures throughout history. Why? Because it denigrates family life? Because it damages society somehow? Why do we condemn homosexuality?

Can it be said that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is no business of anyone else? Why or why not?

Why is anti-homosexual doctrine not a form of bigotry? Can we agree that there are no valid reasons for bigotry, be it against a certain race, religion, gender? If so, what makes it OK to be bigoted towards someone who is homosexual?

Is the important question whether or not homosexuality is harmful to society? If so, to what degree is this question essentially rendered moot by the fact that homosexual relationships are consensual?

Is the important question whether or not it is acceptable for group A to impose its own views of normality upon group B? History has shown us that the most appalling genocides have been wrought in the pursuit of a unified “norm”, often by weeding out “errors” - be they gay, Jewish, black, even Catholic. Idealism and utopia are greater cause for mass violence than camp behaviour and a taste for flower arranging. So are we, as Catholics, in actually pursuing the line that all pegs should be square, while seemingly harmless, succumbing to something much more nasty?

Is the debate more to do with what constitutes an imposition/oppression? If Catholic teaching on gender is that we should celebrate the differences between men and women, who are equal, yet different, is it true that arguably the only suffering homosexuals endure is the failure of certain sections of society to afford them the same respect? Living under the constant application of pressure regarding the “validity” of an involuntary sexual inclination from certain sectors of society?

Someone actually asked me today if the RCC (and by inference my good self) considers homosexuality as one of its objectively moral evils?

 

[Biggie]

I take security in the Church’s constant position that all sensuality outside marriage where the possibility of procreation exists is immoral.

This teaching discriminates against the homosexual no more than it discriminates against the fornicator or the concupiscent. This teaching originates in the true nature of the human being, a nature whereby personal sexual gratification is a byproduct, not an end in itself. As a truth about the human being, it predicts that if personal gratification is made an end, the result is the lack of fulfillment of the human being, the ultimate unhappiness of the human person.

One way I view this result of the corruption of sensuality is that the human being becomes a sexual act. No longer is sensuality a proper characteristic of the person, but it becomes the person himself. It assumes an eclipsing role in his life. It describes him.

One cannot compassionately and charitably love another person, and wish for that person the destruction of his very being. Therefore, one can understand another’s homosexuality and the difficulties it might pose for another, one can empathize and communicate but ultimately one cannot speak other than the truth to another.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Well there is a lot here. The basic problem is starting at the back trying to go backup to the front. First things first, The Catholic Church condemns no one ever. Second, the Catholic Church teaches all people are equal. Third homosexual actions are the same as fornication and adultery. Now that sums up the important issues. So let’s look at your questions.

Homosexuality has been condemned by most cultures throughout history. Why? The real answer is oppressed same sex attraction (SSA) which makes some men feel challenged, thus flight or fight. A second issue fits in to a couple of your questions which is –Teaching children proper boundaries about sex.

• Because it denigrates family life?* Only in regard to teaching proper boundaries about sex.

*Because it damages society somehow? *Only in regard to teaching proper boundaries about sex.

*Why do we condemn homosexuality? * Catholics do not “condemn homosexuals”

Can it be said that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is no business of anyone else? Why or why not? Sexual sins whether adultery, fornication, or homosexual are all equal in this answer

Why is anti-homosexual doctrine not a form of bigotry? Because the church does not teach any difference exists between homo and hetero.

• Can we agree that there are no valid reasons for bigotry, be it against a certain race, religion, gender? The church does not teach any bigotry If so, what makes it OK to be bigoted towards someone who is homosexual? *No properly taught catholic is bigoted toward a homosexual

*Is the important question whether or not homosexuality is harmful to society? *Only in regard to teaching proper boundaries about sex, same as adultery, and fornication.

If so, to what degree is this question essentially rendered moot by the fact that homosexual relationships are consensual? Only in regard to teaching proper boundaries about sex, same as adultery, and fornication.

Is the important question whether or not it is acceptable for group A to impose its own views of normality upon group B? We are not group “A” god defined us, we are not self defined

*History has shown us that the most appalling genocides have been wrought in the pursuit of a unified “norm”, often by weeding out “errors” - be they gay, Jewish, black, even Catholic. Idealism and utopia are greater cause for mass violence than camp behaviour and a taste for flower arranging. So are we, as Catholics, in actually pursuing the line that all pegs should be square, while seemingly harmless, succumbing to something much more nasty? *The homos and heteros are treated the same whether adultery, fornication, or homosexual

*Is the debate more to do with what constitutes an imposition/oppression? *The homos and heteros are treated the same whether adultery, fornication, or homosexual

If Catholic teaching on gender is that we should celebrate the differences between men and women, who are equal, yet different, is it true that arguably the only suffering homosexuals endure is the failure of certain sections of society to afford them the same respect? The church teaches they are treated the same, same respect

• Living under the constant application of pressure regarding the “validity” of an involuntary sexual inclination from certain sectors of society?* Same as heteros

*Someone actually asked me today if the RCC (and by inference my good self) considers homosexuality as one of its objectively moral evils? *Same as adultery, fornication, or homosexual

hope that address it

 

[Tietjen]

Homosexuality has been condemned by most cultures throughout history. Why? Because it denigrates family life? Because it damages society somehow? Why do we condemn homosexuality?

From a purely Christian perspective the reason is because God calls it an abomination. (Lev 18:22, 29; Lev 20:13; Rom 1:26; Rom 1:27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10).

Can it be said that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is no business of anyone else? Why or why not?

Yes and no… It is not the business of another human being to go spy on their neighbors and attempt to discover what they do behind closed doors. However, that being said, if the “business” is made public by the two consenting adults, is it humane to keep silent? If you had a neighbor next door and you saw that his/her house was on fire and that they were trapped inside facing death, is it humane to go about one’s business and ignore the situation, thus leaving your neighbor to die? If a person believes that the Bible is in fact True, then how can that person remain silent and thus allow a neighbor to face spiritual death because of the sin of homosexuality?

Why is anti-homosexual doctrine not a form of bigotry? Can we agree that there are no valid reasons for bigotry, be it against a certain race, religion, gender? If so, what makes it OK to be bigoted towards someone who is homosexual?

I don’t see where this is comparable. Homosexuality is an act. I can be against many types of acts… murder, theft, adultery, abortion, etc. These are all verbs and thus actions. Race, religion, gender, age, nationality, etc are not verbs and thus not in the same category. If one were to use the argument that you have presented, then a defense could and would be made against actions such as bestiality and incest. The fact is we ARE allowed to discriminate and be opposed to actions which are anti-life, immoral, or (as in this case) God has pointed out to us as being evil. Notice I say ACTIONS, and not INDIVIDUALS. Hate the sin and love the sinner.

Is the important question whether or not homosexuality is harmful to society? If so, to what degree is this question essentially rendered moot by the fact that homosexual relationships are consensual?

Well, I suppose an argument could (and has) be/en made concerning the harm it causes society; however, I see it (personally) as more of a moral issue. If two individuals were to consent to drink poisoned kool-aid, should I simply say, “cool, that’s up to you.” Society may not hold me liable, but perhaps God would ask me why I didn’t at least attempt to get them to understand the harm that they are causing to themselves.

Is the important question whether or not it is acceptable for group A to impose its own views of normality upon group B? History has shown us that the most appalling genocides have been wrought in the pursuit of a unified “norm”, often by weeding out “errors” - be they gay, Jewish, black, even Catholic. Idealism and utopia are greater cause for mass violence than camp behaviour and a taste for flower arranging. So are we, as Catholics, in actually pursuing the line that all pegs should be square, while seemingly harmless, succumbing to something much more nasty?

Speaking as a member of group A, it is not “my” views but according to the Bible, the views are God’s. Now, the word “impose” is not correct as the Church will not force the views of God on anyone. It does in fact “inform” rather than impose. It does this for love of the person(s). Because as Catholics we believe in God, the Bible, the authority of the Church (binding and loosing) and we submit. I do not believe that you will find the Church declaring a holy war against homosexuals.

 

[Exalt]

Homosexuality has been condemned by most cultures throughout history. Why? Because it denigrates family life? Because it damages society somehow? Why do we condemn homosexuality?

Well, the statement that “homosexuality has been condemned by most cultures” is one that requires some evidence to back it up. As far as I know, none of us are cultural anthropologists. Though I’ve never taken a specific class on homosexuality, the subject has come up frequently in many different cultural/history classes throughout my college career. If I recall correctly, there is strong evidence of culturally-accepted homosexual behavior and/or identities in ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, ancient China, and among North American natives. I’m sure there are many others too.

What is certain is that Christianity certainly condemned homosexuality - as did Islam - due to their common roots in Judaism. When Christianity and Islam spread throughout the world, so did the universal condemnation of homosexuality. I am, of course, not suggesting that Judeo-Christianity was the unilateral cause of the cultural admonishment against homosexuality, but it certainly was not a universal perspective before Christianity and Islam spread throughout the world. Indeed, ancient Indian and Far Eastern cultures were much more ambivalent (or even accepting) when it came to the issue of homosexuality when compared to the Christian and Muslim west, as was pre-colonization America.

 

[Biggie]

What is certain is that Christianity certainly condemned homosexuality - as did Islam - due to their common roots in Judaism. When Christianity and Islam spread throughout the world, so did the universal condemnation of homosexuality. I am, of course, not suggesting that Judeo-Christianity was the unilateral cause of the cultural admonishment against homosexuality, but it certainly was not a universal perspective before Christianity and Islam spread throughout the world. Indeed, ancient Indian and Far Eastern cultures were much more ambivalent (or even accepting) when it came to the issue of homosexuality when compared to the Christian and Muslim west, as was pre-colonization America.

I am not comfortable with the due to. What would indicate Christian prohibitions against sensuality generally or homosexuality specifically is axiomatic as opposed to a conscious understanding of and acceptance of God’s will?

The supposed acceptance of homosexuality in indigenous or ancient cultures, if it in fact existed, should not, I would think, indict Judaeo Christian morality any more than paganism, also widely accepted in those cultures, indicts the monotheism of Judaeo Christianity.

 

[denwiles]

I’m constantly struggling with this issue. My instinct tells me Church teaching is sound, but I struggle to explain why when questioned. Can you guys help me work through some stuff? It seems to be all muddled up with my compassionate nature and I have some very intelligent Liberal English friends I would like to give solid answers to. First I need to understand some stuff for myself and I have a few burning issues I want to address:

Homosexuality has been condemned by most cultures throughout history. Why? Because it denigrates family life? Because it damages society somehow? Why do we condemn homosexuality?

Can it be said that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is no business of anyone else? Why or why not?

Why is anti-homosexual doctrine not a form of bigotry? Can we agree that there are no valid reasons for bigotry, be it against a certain race, religion, gender? If so, what makes it OK to be bigoted towards someone who is homosexual?

Is the important question whether or not homosexuality is harmful to society? If so, to what degree is this question essentially rendered moot by the fact that homosexual relationships are consensual?

Is the important question whether or not it is acceptable for group A to impose its own views of normality upon group B? History has shown us that the most appalling genocides have been wrought in the pursuit of a unified “norm”, often by weeding out “errors” - be they gay, Jewish, black, even Catholic. Idealism and utopia are greater cause for mass violence than camp behaviour and a taste for flower arranging. So are we, as Catholics, in actually pursuing the line that all pegs should be square, while seemingly harmless, succumbing to something much more nasty?

Is the debate more to do with what constitutes an imposition/oppression? If Catholic teaching on gender is that we should celebrate the differences between men and women, who are equal, yet different, is it true that arguably the only suffering homosexuals endure is the failure of certain sections of society to afford them the same respect? Living under the constant application of pressure regarding the “validity” of an involuntary sexual inclination from certain sectors of society?

Someone actually asked me today if the RCC (and by inference my good self) considers homosexuality as one of its objectively moral evils?

Check out a couple of thing to think about.

1. Some say homosexuals are born that way. I say we all all born into sin. And we all have to repent. Hello, we all suffer from original sin at birth.
2. I use to be so hateful toward them. Until 17 years ago I married my wife and her mother is gay. I love my Mother-in-law and her partner, but they also knows my stance. It’s wrong, but we are called to love everyone even our enemies.
3. Let your light shine in Christ before them, but still Love and be friends with them.
4. We preach the Gospel, but the Holy Spirit has to change them, that take a huge burden off of us. We can be an example, but we can’t change them.

 

[thistle]

I’m constantly struggling with this issue. My instinct tells me Church teaching is sound, but I struggle to explain why when questioned. Can you guys help me work through some stuff? It seems to be all muddled up with my compassionate nature and I have some very intelligent Liberal English friends I would like to give solid answers to. First I need to understand some stuff for myself and I have a few burning issues I want to address:

Homosexuality has been condemned by most cultures throughout history. Why? Because it denigrates family life? Because it damages society somehow? Why do we condemn homosexuality?

Can it be said that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is no business of anyone else? Why or why not?

Why is anti-homosexual doctrine not a form of bigotry? Can we agree that there are no valid reasons for bigotry, be it against a certain race, religion, gender? If so, what makes it OK to be bigoted towards someone who is homosexual?

Is the important question whether or not homosexuality is harmful to society? If so, to what degree is this question essentially rendered moot by the fact that homosexual relationships are consensual?

Is the important question whether or not it is acceptable for group A to impose its own views of normality upon group B? History has shown us that the most appalling genocides have been wrought in the pursuit of a unified “norm”, often by weeding out “errors” - be they gay, Jewish, black, even Catholic. Idealism and utopia are greater cause for mass violence than camp behaviour and a taste for flower arranging. So are we, as Catholics, in actually pursuing the line that all pegs should be square, while seemingly harmless, succumbing to something much more nasty?

Is the debate more to do with what constitutes an imposition/oppression? If Catholic teaching on gender is that we should celebrate the differences between men and women, who are equal, yet different, is it true that arguably the only suffering homosexuals endure is the failure of certain sections of society to afford them the same respect? Living under the constant application of pressure regarding the “validity” of an involuntary sexual inclination from certain sectors of society?

Someone actually asked me today if the RCC (and by inference my good self) considers homosexuality as one of its objectively moral evils?

The Church Teaching:

CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

CCC 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them 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.

CCC 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.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I’m constantly struggling with this issue. My instinct tells me Church teaching is sound, but I struggle to explain why when questioned. Can you guys help me work through some stuff? It seems to be all muddled up with my compassionate nature and I have some very intelligent Liberal English friends I would like to give solid answers to. …

Someone actually asked me today if the RCC (and by inference my good self) considers homosexuality as one of its objectively moral evils?

A compassionate nature is a good thing, as are intelligent friends.
You posed a lot of questions that others have addressed. I have a question for you: are your intelligent Liberal English friends familiar with other Catholic Church teachings on chastity beyond homosexuality? The Church teaches against contraception, masturbations, adultery, pre-marital sex, divorce, invitro-fertilization and a whole host of other stuff. Church teachings against homo-sexual acts fit right in with the rest of our teachings.

My husband finds some women attractive who aren’t his wife, and likewise, I find some men who aren’t my husband attractive. Just because one has an attraction doesn’t allow one to act on it. Same-sex attraction is not a sin in and of itself. Lust is a sin. Sexual acts outside of marriage and/or those that separate the pro-creative nature of sex from the sex act are sins.

Since most every adult human faces some temptation towards lust, we can certainly be compassionate towards those anyone tempted to commit sexual sin. Being compassionate does not mean supporting people in their sin. Compassion involves lovingly telling people the Good News. We do not have to live as slaves to our lust. Jesus gives us the grace to overcome temptation and when we fall He forgives those who repent.

I hope your intelligent friends can at least see the consistency of the Catholic Church teachings. Catholic Church teachings hold each of us to high standards, while offering compassion for sinners.

 

[FightingFat]

From a purely Christian perspective the reason is because God calls it an abomination. (Lev 18:22, 29; Lev 20:13; Rom 1:26; Rom 1:27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10).

I concur, but I guess I’m never going to make my point to a non-believer by quoting Scripture eh?

Well, I suppose an argument could (and has) be/en made concerning the harm it causes society; however, I see it (personally) as more of a moral issue. If two individuals were to consent to drink poisoned kool-aid, should I simply say, “cool, that’s up to you.” Society may not hold me liable, but perhaps God would ask me why I didn’t at least attempt to get them to understand the harm that they are causing to themselves.

I am particularly interested in that argument-- what harm exactly has it done to society? Homosexuality has always existed and always gone on so the is the issue actually not “whether or not it is harmful to society”-- because we have no idea what a society without it would be like!!

The question would have to be “is choosing not to suppress homosexual behaviour harmful to society?”. You could argue that you only have to look back a few years and see Turing jumping out of his window to realise society needs a bit less suppression and a few more geniuses like Turing - whatever their orientation.

I ask in all honesty, how do we defend our position that for society’s benefit Turing should’ve spent his time fighting his sexual urges rather than applying his genius to computing?

 

[FightingFat]

A compassionate nature is a good thing, as are intelligent friends.
You posed a lot of questions that others have addressed. I have a question for you: are your intelligent Liberal English friends familiar with other Catholic Church teachings on chastity beyond homosexuality? The Church teaches against contraception, masturbations, adultery, pre-marital sex, divorce, invitro-fertilization and a whole host of other stuff. Church teachings against homo-sexual acts fit right in with the rest of our teachings.

My husband finds some women attractive who aren’t his wife, and likewise, I find some men who aren’t my husband attractive. Just because one has an attraction doesn’t allow one to act on it. Same-sex attraction is not a sin in and of itself. Lust is a sin. Sexual acts outside of marriage and/or those that separate the pro-creative nature of sex from the sex act are sins.

Since most every adult human faces some temptation towards lust, we can certainly be compassionate towards those anyone tempted to commit sexual sin. Being compassionate does not mean supporting people in their sin. Compassion involves lovingly telling people the Good News. We do not have to live as slaves to our lust. Jesus gives us the grace to overcome temptation and when we fall He forgives those who repent.

I hope your intelligent friends can at least see the consistency of the Catholic Church teachings. Catholic Church teachings hold each of us to high standards, while offering compassion for sinners.

Beautiful post gardenswithkids, your wisdom really spoke to me. I have tried to make clear the consistent nature of Church teachings, and in terms of the argument against condoms for example, I feel I have had some success. The reason I am focusing on the concept of homosexuality and homosexual acts in this post is that although I cling to Church teaching on this issue myself, and feel it is innately the correct position, I do struggle with some of the philosophy. In order to properly explain my position, I feel I need to garner some decent philosophy to back up my instincts…I hope that makes sense!

 

[AdriannaJean]

First and most important distinction that MUST be made, homosexual attractions and homosexual actions. The Church does not condemn people with attractions because we are all sinners and we are all drawn to different sins, whether they be fornication (heterosexual), fornication (homosexual) pride or greed. The issue is not whether or not we are tempted, but whether or not we succumb to temptation.

Homosexuality has been condemned by most cultures throughout history. Why? Because it denigrates family life? Because it damages society somehow? Why do we condemn homosexuality?

Not quite. In polytheistic societies (Ancient Greece and Rome) a blind eye was turned to homosexual actions and in some cases even encouraged. I chalk this up to a lack of divine revelation in their religion. There were no 10 Commandments, or rules by which to live your life because their “gods” were off screwing each-other and mortals and far too busy to actually care about the people. All religions that have a hint (or more) of divine revelation have a moral code to live by. Western society has, throughout history, condemned homosexual actions because Western Society was built on Christianity, which condemns homosexual actions. It is not an ignorant world-view of white-supremacists, Christians have divine revelation from God telling us that homosexual actions are immoral. We have no choice but to accept God’s word or else we are not Christians.

Can it be said that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is no business of anyone else? Why or why not?

Yes and no. It is their own business if you have no desire to get anyone but yourself into Heaven. But if you believe that God has given to humanity, through the Bible, an unchangable moral code which condemns homosexual actions, and you love your neighbor enough to try to get him into Heaven, then yes it is your business to try to help your neighbor weed out all immorality in their life and bring them closer to God. Since it is the mission of the Church to get souls into Heaven, it is the Church’s business. However, it is not the atheist’s business.

Why is anti-homosexual doctrine not a form of bigotry? Can we agree that there are no valid reasons for bigotry, be it against a certain race, religion, gender? If so, what makes it OK to be bigoted towards someone who is homosexual?

Yes, we can agree that bigotry in all its forms is evil. Anti-homosexual-attraction doctrine would be a form of bigotry. Anti-homosexual-action doctrine is not. Unless the doctrine includes the unjust treatment of those who commit homosexual actions, it is not a form of bigotry. Saying what is right and what is wrong is not bigoted. It is not ok to be bigoted against a homosexual. It is sinful to do anything but love them as God loves them, which is infinitely.

Is the important question whether or not homosexuality is harmful to society? If so, to what degree is this question essentially rendered moot by the fact that homosexual relationships are consensual?

I do not believe the big question to be whether or not homosexuality harms society. The big question always has been, always will be, and will always need to be, what does God think about it? So it wouldn’t matter what the effects are, good or bad, if God says no, why would we argue that? We are like little children who constantly ask our parents “why” but are not quite old enough to understand all the finer details. Sometimes we have to suffice ourselves with “because I said so.” I’m not saying that this is the case with homosexuality, it has been shown to harm societies and we can see, to a degree, why God says no. I just wonder why we are so self-absorbed that we cannot take no for an answer.

Is the important question whether or not it is acceptable for group A to impose its own views of normality upon group B? History has shown us that the most appalling genocides have been wrought in the pursuit of a unified “norm”, often by weeding out “errors” - be they gay, Jewish, black, even Catholic. Idealism and utopia are greater cause for mass violence than camp behaviour and a taste for flower arranging. So are we, as Catholics, in actually pursuing the line that all pegs should be square, while seemingly harmless, succumbing to something much more nasty?

Normality and morality need to be separated here. Of course it is evil to kill those who disagree with you. But at the same time, it is also evil to not do your best to bring the truth of God to the people who lack it. “The evil of bad men must be feared, but the indifference of good men must be feared much more.” We are not succumbing to something nasty by hoping for and working towards a moral society. If we are, then I would ask whoever questions you for an example of that. Of course there are a few bad apples in every bunch, like the “pro-lifers” who bomb abortion clinics, but the evil actions of a few do not nullify the good actions of the multitudes. And trying, through good means, to bring about a moral society (a good end) can be nothing but good.

to be continued

 

[AdriannaJean]

and it is continued here…

Is the debate more to do with what constitutes an imposition/oppression? If Catholic teaching on gender is that we should celebrate the differences between men and women, who are equal, yet different, is it true that arguably the only suffering homosexuals endure is the failure of certain sections of society to afford them the same respect? Living under the constant application of pressure regarding the “validity” of an involuntary sexual inclination from certain sectors of society?
?

Homosexuals are oppressed. Anyone who denies this is either sincerely in the dark or completely bigoted. But homosexuals are oppressed not by the people who say “God says that homosexual actions are wrong. Live a chaste life through the Grace of God. We are all sinners and we love and welcome you as one of our own.” Homosexuals are oppressed by people whose pride blinds them and makes them think that the homosexual’s sins are greater than their own. Again, with the bad apples in every bunch. Homosexuals are not oppressed by a high standard (chastity), they are oppressed by people who take it upon themselves to punish and shun all of those who miss the mark.

Someone actually asked me today if the RCC (and by inference my good self) considers homosexuality as one of its objectively moral evils?

The Catholic Church does not consider homosexuality an objectively moral evil, it does consider homosexual actions to be an objectively moral evil because it distorts God’s intended use of our sexuality.

A good thing to mention to people who are upset with the Church’s stance on homosexuality is to mention that homosexual actions are on the same “sin-level” as heterosexual fornication, contraception and masturbation. Many people believe the Church has homosexual sex in a category all its own, which causes a lot of distress. It helps to mention that everyone is held to the same bar.

I know how awful it can be to have someone take out all their anger towards the Church out on you. But it does help to remember, that most of their anger comes out of misunderstanding of what the Church really believes rather than what it does believe.

 

[AdriannaJean]

I am particularly interested in that argument-- what harm exactly has it done to society? Homosexuality has always existed and always gone on so the is the issue actually not “whether or not it is harmful to society”-- because we have no idea what a society without it would be like!!

Not quite true, I heard somewhere that Orthodox Jews have either less than 0.1% homosexuality or it might even be 0.

 

[FightingFat]

Not quite true, I heard somewhere that Orthodox Jews have either less than 0.1% homosexuality or it might even be 0.

I’d love to see a source for that Adrianna Jean! Also, do you think that’s because they’re not gay…Or because they would be ostracised if they admitted they were gay?

I mean if something exists and we are simply repressing it, does that do anything more than compound the problem?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’d love to see a source for that Adrianna Jean! Also, do you think that’s because they’re not gay…Or because they would be ostracised if they admitted they were gay?

I mean if something exists and we are simply repressing it, does that do anything more than compound the problem?

The interesting thing is what psychologists and psychiatrists say about repressed same-sex-attraction, which is that is “gay hate”. So it would seem the mechanism to oppress same-sex-attraction, is same-sex-attraction!

 

[StevenFrancis]

First I need to understand some stuff for myself and I have a few burning issues I want to address:

I’m sure you’ve already read the Church’s official teaching, but just in case:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them 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.

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.

So, with this in mind, let’s look at your questions:

…condemned…family life?

Homosexuality is in fact, by it’s very nature, closed to life, family or otherwise. Because of the cultural openess to homosexuality, and the abandonment of chastity in general brought about largely by the sexual revolution of the 60’s and 70’s, and the devaluation of human life in general which traces it’s roots back to the introduction of easily obtained contraception, this problem is grave.

…condemn…?

Because it is wrong both morally, as in the Judeo/Christian ethic, as well as most other faith traditions, and contrary to natural law. And you are correct. It is homosexuality which we condemn. Not persons who experience SSA. In fact the condemnation is not for persons at all, but rather acts.

…consenting adults …Why?..Not?

Yes and no. In a practical sense you’re right. Christians could quite easily just assume there are folks violating chastity, and say prayers in private also. The problem is the sexual revolution prompted the unchaste to bring their proclivities into the public eye in a big way, and try to move indecency and immorality into the realm of civil rights, more or less forcing a loud public debate.

…Agree …bigotry,…?

Yes

…OK …bigoted…?

It is NOT okay to be bigoted towards SOMEONE who is experiencing SSA. As explained by the Church teaching, it is also NOT wrong to disapprove of homosexual acts. We do disapprove of homosexual acts, and that is okay. That does not make Christians somehow bad persons either. It makes them morally correct.

…harmful to society?

I don’t think that’s it. That is part of it, I suppose, however there is more to it. It is a love for our brothers and sisters and a desire to see all experience closeness to God which is best obtained by living in imitation of Christ to the best of our ability, and to want to strive to do better.

…degree …consensual?

I don’t believe this is part of the issue. It doesn’t really come into it. Then you just have two (or more) people willing to commit the same sin, and given to more impetus to justify it among themselves. In other forms of immoral behavior we refer this syndrome as co-dependency and enabling.

…acceptable… group A…?

No. Any Christian who is legitimately following Church doctine loves his brothers and sisters in this world as he loves himself. We should pray for them in their struggle, but it is also not in out power to say that it is simply not a struggle anymore, and actually root them on either. We should considerately point out that what they are doing is in error, offer them help, if they’ll accept it, and if not, then pray for them and let them know you love them, and care for them, and are there for them should they ever decide to accept the disordered nature of their acts. .

History…pegs… square?

See, this is just kind of inciteful language. There is truth to what you’re saying, of course. That’s what makes this type of statement dangerous. It’s kind of A=A, so B. It’s not an axiomatically derived conclusion. It is a statement based on extrapolated circumstantial evidence, and then added to a conclusion which doesn’t follow the same root or logic. This is a tool of activism, and comes from the errant philosophy grounded in moral relativism.

…debate …imposition/oppression?

No

Catholic teaching…same respect?

No.

…pressure …“validity”…society?

It is acknowledged that SSA can be involuntary, and there should be no more pressure applied to the person with SSA than to a contemporary, unmarried, heterosexual person coping with Christian chastity by choice in order to please the Lord. The Christian doctrine comes from a place of love. Not hate or discrimination.

…RCC (and by inference my good self) …moral evils?

Yes it does on the one hand, but SSA? No. I fear that throughout your questions, you’re considering both concepts under the same hat. I am trying to correct that as a believing member of my Church, (and yours too, yes?) Hope this helps with your friends across the pond.

Peace my friend,

Steven

 

[StevenFrancis]

and it is continued here…

Homosexuals are oppressed. Anyone who denies this is either sincerely in the dark or completely bigoted. But homosexuals are oppressed not by the people who say “God says that homosexual actions are wrong. Live a chaste life through the Grace of God. We are all sinners and we love and welcome you as one of our own.” Homosexuals are oppressed by people whose pride blinds them and makes them think that the homosexual’s sins are greater than their own. Again, with the bad apples in every bunch. Homosexuals are not oppressed by a high standard (chastity), they are oppressed by people who take it upon themselves to punish and shun all of those who miss the mark.

The Catholic Church does not consider homosexuality an objectively moral evil, it does consider homosexual actions to be an objectively moral evil because it distorts God’s intended use of our sexuality.

A good thing to mention to people who are upset with the Church’s stance on homosexuality is to mention that homosexual actions are on the same “sin-level” as heterosexual fornication, contraception and masturbation. Many people believe the Church has homosexual sex in a category all its own, which causes a lot of distress. It helps to mention that everyone is held to the same bar.

I know how awful it can be to have someone take out all their anger towards the Church out on you. But it does help to remember, that most of their anger comes out of misunderstanding of what the Church really believes rather than what it does believe.

Very good post. This is what I hope I’m saying in the one I just did as well.

 

[tuviskazinai]

I think I understand your predicament, OP. The gay marriage question is the hardest issue to discuss with non-Catholics. One can talk about abortion on strictly secular grounds…AIDS in Africa, one can quote hard, scientific studies which show that condom distribution alone does not work…etc. But how does one talk about homosexuality and gay marriage opposition without bringing in theology? Personally, I have been really frustrated by the Church’s continual inability to address this problem fully. I am in love with the Catholic Church – don’t get me wrong – but on this one all they do is stick to the talking points…“marriage has always been between a man and a woman” (it’s not that simple), etc. And their reasoning is often so weak that this question keeps me up nights thinking about it.

I personally have found these two articles by Stanley Kurtz (who, as far as I know, is not Catholic) to be extremely helpful in understanding the stakes of the gay marriage debate:

nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp
weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp

They are written from an entirely secular, yet conservative, point of view and raise a lot of excellent questions. They also can be supplemented quite beautifully by the Church’s teachings on sexuality, if your friends are – at that point – willing to go there.

That said, they may also be interested to read a more liberal take on things from within the Church:

yawningbread.org/apdx_2004/imp-141.htm

It’s a Jesuit historian’s explication of the history of marriage and of Church teaching on sexuality (hetero- and homo-). I am not sure whether I agree with the author’s support of same-sex marriage legislation, but what’s important is that as a history lesson, his article is extremely rewarding. It’s good to understand the ample context of debates on this question so that we can sort through the good and the bad arguments (and there are many bad arguments) against gay marriage.

Just in my opinion, of course!!

Peace,
+AMDG+