Homosexuality

[comfort1st]

Thanks Transformer, and sorry for any misunderstanding. What I was trying to emphasise is that the desire for a sexual relationship may well be as strong in a homosexual couple as in a hetrosexual one. I was countering the argument that that desire is only one of choice.

Modern genetics does, of course, allow us to detect a genetic basis for many characteristics we tend to associate with one gender or the other, and to notice (especially with hermaphrodites) that many of the indicators of one gender are present at the same time as the external genitalia of the other. The problem comes when the internal balance (including factors affecting appearance, voice, hormones, interests, and a whole lot more) is at odds with the external balance (which is the only evidence used to determine a baby’s gender at birth).

Blessings
Steven

 

[Elizabeth502]

***The Church is well aware, as is everyone on this thread, that people are simply born different ***

That is neither supported by science, nor is it Catholic doctrine.

(or, well, homosexuality arises from a complex composite of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors, but close enough)

No, not close enough. Very different.
Further, the environmental factors are, in the opinion of many clinicians, the determining difference between why some become SSA and others do not.

 

[ritthichai]

Just a couple of examples from a great book, Oliver Thomson, A History of Sin (1993):

p. 125 …Pope Gregory III (680-741) imposed 10-year penances for sodomite priests…
…In 769, Pope Stephen IV used torture and blinding to impose his will. In 960, Pope John XII turned the Cathedral of St John Lateran into a brothel…

p. 156 …St Peter Canisius (1521-97) was the Jesuit witch-hunting patron… The new French inquisitor, Nicholas Remy (1530-1616)], burned 800 women in one day…

p. 203 …Throughout this century the [slave] trade persisted, and between 1795 and 1805, 381,000 were transported by ships from three main English ports… The British plantations alone required 10,000 new slaves every year… On the tomb of Foster Cuncliffe, the owner of five slaving ships, was the inscription: ‘A Christian devout and exemplary in the exercise of every private and public duty’.
…When the Jesuit order was suppressed in the Portuguese colonies in 1759, it was the largest single owner of slaves in both Brazil and Angola…

The list of examples of institutionalised sin is depressingly predictable. For me the issue is about civil rights for all, not one of redefining marriage, sacramental or not. I think most Catholics would admit that marriage predates the establishment of any sacrament.

The Church (officially at least) apparently holds that the only purpose of sex is procreation. I hold that the number of Catholics ignoring Humanae Vitae is sufficient testimony from the Church worldwide that the official teaching is both nonsense and damaging. How anyone can genuinely support an organisation that has such a dreadful opinion of sexuality - one of God’s greatest gifts to us all - is beyond me.

Does any human being so hate their humanity that they want to be like the fourth-century patriarch of Constantinople, St John Chrysostom, who railed, “Do you see where marriage took its origin? …For where there is death, there too is sexual coupling; and where there is no death, there is no sexual coupling either.” This nonsense is incredibly insulting to our parents, indeed all our ancestors back to Adam & Eve, who have striven to give us life and shared in the miracle of creation which is a sexual relationship. If such a relationship is somehow denied others, can we genuinely deny others the right to shared intimacy simply because it doesn’t lead to yet another baby in a vastly over-populated world?

May you all find happiness and peace. May you all be well and happy.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

:wink:Greetings Ritthichai.

Whilst I agree with your basic thrust I did have to laugh about your comment that

Is that why the Roman Catholic Church was the last Christian denomination to acknowledge that Gilileo was correct, and took about 400 years to do so fully (ie with the apology)?

Blessings
Steven

Oh, you misunderstood Bl. JPII’s apology. Galileo’s proof of the Earth’s movement was quite silly, a tide once a day (he coincidentally also denounced a fellow astronomer who claimed the tides were caused by the moon as a fool).

 

[fix]

Just a couple of examples from a great book, Oliver Thomson, A History of Sin (1993):

p. 125 …Pope Gregory III (680-741) imposed 10-year penances for sodomite priests…
…In 769, Pope Stephen IV used torture and blinding to impose his will. In 960, Pope John XII turned the Cathedral of St John Lateran into a brothel…

p. 156 …St Peter Canisius (1521-97) was the Jesuit witch-hunting patron… The new French inquisitor, Nicholas Remy (1530-1616)], burned 800 women in one day…

p. 203 …Throughout this century the [slave] trade persisted, and between 1795 and 1805, 381,000 were transported by ships from three main English ports… The British plantations alone required 10,000 new slaves every year… On the tomb of Foster Cuncliffe, the owner of five slaving ships, was the inscription: ‘A Christian devout and exemplary in the exercise of every private and public duty’.
…When the Jesuit order was suppressed in the Portuguese colonies in 1759, it was the largest single owner of slaves in both Brazil and Angola…

The list of examples of institutionalised sin is depressingly predictable.

He is not biased, right?

 

[Cristiano]

He is not biased, right?

No bias at all, just pure objective academic studies.

Sometime people do not differentiate between advertisement and real scholar work, that is the reason why there are so many suckers that fall for infomercials.

 

[Transformer]

the environmental factors are, in the opinion of many clinicians, the determining difference between why some become SSA and others do not.

Naturally they would be, or else identical twins (with their identical genes and identical environment in the womb) would be both gay or both straight nearly 100% of the time.

ritthichai snippet

I think we’re drifting off-topic, ritthichai, but I’ll answer anyway.

You have a list of examples of Catholics, including clergymen, doing terrible things. Catholic clergy have, of course, done terrible things, and no devout Catholic on these forums or in real life is denying it. The Catholic Church is also by far the largest charitable and humanitarian organization in the history of the human race. I’m not at all sure I follow your logic to its conclusion.

The Church (officially at least) apparently holds that the only purpose of sex is procreation.

The Church does not hold anything of the sort. The Church rather holds that procreation is an essential function of sex in all its sacramental significance, and so it is never right to actively destroy the generative function of sex. She does not hold that procreation is sex’s only function.

I hold that the number of Catholics ignoring Humanae Vitae is sufficient testimony from the Church worldwide that the official teaching is both nonsense and damaging.

That is because you are not thinking temporarily. People currently living on earth only make up a tiny fraction of the Catholic Church. The entire Communion of Saints in heaven makes up the much larger part. As Chesterton said, Tradition is the democracy of the dead, keeping the power out of the hands of the small but arrogant oligarchy of people who happen to be walking around.

No Christian, and I mean virtually no Christian, before the 20th century ever held that contraception was anything other than immoral. It was not until 1930 that the Anglican Church permitted it under very limited circumstances, to outcries from all kinds of Christians around the world. Before that century, every Church, every Christian, in the world held that contraception is wrong. The only exceptions of which I am aware are clearly heretical pseudo-Christian sects (i.e., 2nd century gnostics).

So in Christianity you are not in the majority on the topic of contraception, ritthichai. Youare in a tiny and very recent minority.

 

[Inquiringperson]

If someone is gay, should they be proud of that?

 

[ASimon]

If someone is gay, should they be proud of that?

Only if a sizable chunk of society says they should be ashamed of it.

A century from now, when homosexuality is more normalized, I think the idea of gay pride parades will be rather ridiculous. It’ll be like St. Patrick’s Day is now - an excuse for everyone who is Irish, or wants to pretend they’re Irish, to skip work and get drunk.

 

[couponfit]

The problem, Transformer, is that Christian communities of all denominations have a track record of treating homosexual people as if they were/are inherently sinful, even when modern genetics shows the complex relationship between what is considered “male” and what is considered “female”. For centuries these people have been cast out as unworthy of being called Christian.

Even if it is true that the person’s sexuality is not consistent with the ability to procreate, that person is still a child of God, despite sinning because the urge for a sexual relationship is as strong as, or stronger than, that of people who are “ordered”. As such, we are still called on to minister to homosexual people, not to cast them out of the church. If we are followers of Christ, who touched and healed lepers (the outcasts of the day) why do we refuse to do the same for the outcasts of our day?

Please let us also remember that the best person to bring a homosexual person to God is likely to be another homosexual person, because there is an understanding of the physical and spiritual problems well beyond what “normal” people can achieve.

God bless
Steven

This is a beautiful post.

 

[JReducation]

Some people may like this document. It was written by Cardinal Ratzinger.

Here’s a piece that I find very beautiful.

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

One must understand the usage of certain words, such as “disordered”. The document is written in Latin and translated into English. Disordered, in Latin does not carry with it a clinical assessment. In other words, the Church is not calling homosexuality an illness. While medicine is certainly the competency of many Catholics, it is not the competency of the theologian. Therefore, not respectful and respectable theologian would attempt to use diagnostic language and his writings should not be interpreted as being diagnostic, unless he tells you that he both theologian and clinician, which there are some.

Disordered, in Latin is that which is outside of the ordinary. A more appropriate word in English would be deviation. The problem is that in today’s world “to deviate” has taken on a very negative meaning. So, while disordered sounds clinical, deviated sounds evil. There is not good translation into English. It is probably best to describe what the Church is trying to say rather than go solely on the printed word. She is speaking about that which is outside of the ordinary or which is outside of the norm.

When looked at it this way, only a hypersensitive person would be offended. There are many conditions, emotions, behaviors, even character traits that place one outside of the norm, because one is in the minority, not become one is broken or defective.

For example, I’m partially blind. My visual impairment is a disorder. The fact that I’m a partially blind person, does not make me a disordered person. However, I cannot deny that there is something about me that is outside of the norm. Most people use two eyes to do everything. I have never had vision in my left eye. I cannot imagine what that’s like. I have been driving for 44 years with one eye. Is that the ordinary? No. It’s outside of the natural order. Am I outside of the natural order, because I’m in a minority group? No.

The same rules apply to homosexual persons, if we understand the language as it is being used by the Church, not as it’s used in a clinical context.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The problem, Transformer, is that Christian communities of all denominations have a track record of treating homosexual people as if they were/are inherently sinful, even when modern genetics shows the complex relationship between what is considered “male” and what is considered “female”. For centuries these people have been cast out as unworthy of being called Christian.

Even if it is true that the person’s sexuality is not consistent with the ability to procreate, that person is still a child of God, despite sinning because the urge for a sexual relationship is as strong as, or stronger than, that of people who are “ordered”. As such, we are still called on to minister to homosexual people, not to cast them out of the church. If we are followers of Christ, who touched and healed lepers (the outcasts of the day) why do we refuse to do the same for the outcasts of our day?

Please let us also remember that the best person to bring a homosexual person to God is likely to be another homosexual person, because there is an understanding of the physical and spiritual problems well beyond what “normal” people can achieve.

God bless
Steven

Why would it be stronger?

That is neither supported by science, nor is it Catholic doctrine.

No, not close enough. Very different.
Further, the environmental factors are, in the opinion of many clinicians, the determining difference between why some become SSA and others do not.

Science currently seems to be leaning away from there being only one cause.

I am very sorry, but due to compounding weasel words your sentence appears quite vacuous as with the layered usage of many and some the sentence loses any objective meaning.

If someone is gay, should they be proud of that?

Of course they shouldn’t be proud of it, indeed many who grasp the Church’s teaching are quite melancholic to the point of dourness

Only if a sizable chunk of society says they should be ashamed of it.

A century from now, when homosexuality is more normalized, I think the idea of gay pride parades will be rather ridiculous. It’ll be like St. Patrick’s Day is now - an excuse for everyone who is Irish, or wants to pretend they’re Irish, to skip work and get drunk.

St. Patrick’s Day actually celebrates something and it isn’t just Irish pride.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Science currently seems to be leaning away from there being only one cause.

I am very sorry, but due to compounding weasel words your sentence appears quite vacuous as with the layered usage of many and some the sentence loses any objective meaning.

Why do you have to insult people, Dakota? Disagreeing with a statement is one thing. You’re getting heated without sufficient cause, and hurling strong words around.

I never said that there was “one cause.” As you often do to others as well, you have misrepresented what I said.

I responded to someone who made a broad assertion that supposedly “everyone knows.” No. Not only does “everyone” not “know” it; the most current thinking is that the causes are complex, just as the very development of sexuality in the human being is complex. Therefore, such current thinking is actually not “new” at all, but rather a classic understanding of sexuality, which is not a single data point like a “gene” or even, by itself, hormonal configurations. The very understanding of sexuality as dynamic, and environment as the most dynamic element of those three variables mentioned, suggests to the logical thinker who has done a lot of reading on the topic that environment is a major, not a minor element.

You’re not going to find your online authoritative “answers,” Dakota, complete with references, because scientists admit that there is no definitive (single) “cause” of SSA for all those affected by it.

However, assuming that environment can be excluded or minimized would have little credibility in today’s scientific circles. I said that some scientists have concluded that environmental factors are the determining difference for some. That doesn’t mean those factors are always the first cause.

 

[Winstone]

You misunderstand the context of graven images and you also misunderstand the difference of the words worship and venerate. Please talk to a priest and have him help you understand the subject more. Also, look at the catechism.

The misunderstanding probably comes from the multi definitions to worship - veneration - adoration our church gives in particular instances.

Acts 10:25-26, “And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped [proskunei] him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.” The first Pope himself objected to ‘‘worship’’ of himself - shouldn’t we?

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Isaiah 45:20 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.

Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Isaiah 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

We say that the Bible is the word of God - why do we ignore it?

Why do we as members of the Catholic Church allow anything that is likely to cause confusion? I know we get away with idolatory for the sake of art and I don’t mind the beautiful statues and images but I am not sure whether God really is too chuffed!

Thank you for pointing out what you consider to be my misunderstanding of Our Church’s position on such matters. I would just like to add that I as a Roman Catholic accept the ‘liberty’ afforded to me in Our Saviour and to question even long established positions is my right - He also sets me free - nothing else!!!

The question of Worship etc., belongs on another thread - please deal with homosexuality which is more meaningful to me as a homosexual who lives within the panting heart of Rome!

 

[Winstone]

The Church has always condemned slavery as we know it as the ownership of humans is incompatible with their intrinsic dignity.

There is a difference between charging someone interest when they borrow money to pay for food and when they borrow money to expand their factory.

The laws of the Old Testament laws have been abrogated, natural law remains (including the 10 commandments however the Sabbath was moved as it isn’t a precept of natural law).

worship≠veneration

Which avenging angel are you? Sam Harris/Richard Dawkins. When were the laws of the Old Testament abrogated and by whom? Who says by implication that only ‘‘natural law’’ remains? You included the Sabbath as the exception. No self-respecting atheist would include the 1st Commandment as ‘‘natural’’!

The reason why I posed the question on Leviticus is that some but not other commandments on human behaviour have come down to us - why not the rest?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Why do you have to insult people, Dakota? Disagreeing with a statement is one thing. You’re getting heated without sufficient cause, and hurling strong words around.

I never said that there was “one cause.” As you often do to others as well, you have misrepresented what I said.

I responded to someone who made a broad assertion that supposedly “everyone knows.” No. Not only does “everyone” not “know” it; the most current thinking is that the causes are complex, just as the very development of sexuality in the human being is complex. Therefore, such current thinking is actually not “new” at all, but rather a classic understanding of sexuality, which is not a single data point like a “gene” or even, by itself, hormonal configurations. The very understanding of sexuality as dynamic, and environment as the most dynamic element of those three variables mentioned, suggests to the logical thinker who has done a lot of reading on the topic that environment is a major, not a minor element.

You’re not going to find your online authoritative “answers,” Dakota, complete with references, because scientists admit that there is no definitive (single) “cause” of SSA for all those affected by it.

However, assuming that environment can be excluded or minimized would have little credibility in today’s scientific circles. I said that some scientists have concluded that environmental factors are the determining difference for some. That doesn’t mean those factors are always the first cause.

Insult? Weasel words whether intentional or not strip a sentence of meaning like.

Transformer: The Church is well aware, as is everyone on this thread, that people are simply born different (or, well, homosexuality arises from a complex composite of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors, but close enough).

You: That is neither supported by science, nor is it Catholic doctrine.

Me: Science currently seems to be leaning away from there being only one cause.

The problem in this thread line is that Transformer used parenthesizes incorrectly result in you misunderstanding him. His sentence when carefully analyzed appears to claim that there isn’t any one cause to it and that homosexuality has a complex origin. We can not however know exactly what he means until he comes back and clarifies the post.

It appears that sexual fluidity is dependent on the sex and the person; for women it is quite possible for them to change and even end up happily married whereas same sex attracted men appear to be rather incorrigible to many’s chagrin.

Which avenging angel are you? Sam Harris/Richard Dawkins. When were the laws of the Old Testament abrogated and by whom? Who says by implication that only ‘‘natural law’’ remains? You included the Sabbath as the exception. No self-respecting atheist would include the 1st Commandment as ‘‘natural’’!

The reason why I posed the question on Leviticus is that some but not other commandments on human behaviour have come down to us - why not the rest?

When I was there at Trent in the glory of the Counter-Reformation they reaffirmed the abrogation of Old Testament laws and reaffirmed the eternal validity of natural laws. Of the Ten Commandments nine are precepts of natural law and thus are unchangeable and eternal, the tenth is the Sabbath. The Sabbath was moved to Sunday from Saturday. Levitical laws as part of the Old Testament are abrogated, this is why it is no longer wrong to eat shellfish or pork.

 

[kmuestwin]

The misunderstanding probably comes from the multi definitions to worship - veneration - adoration our church gives in particular instances.

Acts 10:25-26, “And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped [proskunei] him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.” The first Pope himself objected to ‘‘worship’’ of himself - shouldn’t we?

We don’t.

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

We know this.

Isaiah 45:20 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.

Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Isaiah 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

That is correct. There is nothing beside the Lord. He is on a different level than us entirely but it is a good and just thing to remember the people who served him and ask them to help us increase in holiness.

We say that the Bible is the word of God - why do we ignore it?

Who is the “we” you refer to? No Catholic ignores the bible.

Why do we as members of the Catholic Church allow anything that is likely to cause confusion? I know we get away with idolatory for the sake of art and I don’t mind the beautiful statues and images but I am not sure whether God really is too chuffed!

There is no idolatry in the Catholic Church. Some people make mistakes but those people operate on their own. The Church gives clear distinctions between veneration and worship.

Thank you for pointing out what you consider to be my misunderstanding of Our Church’s position on such matters. I would just like to add that I as a Roman Catholic accept the ‘liberty’ afforded to me in Our Saviour and to question even long established positions is my right - He also sets me free - nothing else!!!

There is no question that you are wrong. I want you to learn more and reconcile your beliefs with the Church.

The question of Worship etc., belongs on another thread - please deal with homosexuality which is more meaningful to me as a homosexual who lives within the panting heart of Rome!

You brought it on to this thread with the flippant remarks you made about it. I have no dog in a fight about homosexuals think because I follow Church teaching.

 

[JNdoum]

Why is it that so many homosexuals try to define themselves by their homosexuality? I’ve never seen a “straight pride parade,” and it seems silly to me to center your whole life around whom you are attracted to. Not that all homosexuals do this, but for those who do it seems totally ridiculous.

 

[twoangels]

Is homosexuality itself disordered or is it just the act and temptation?

I would say the development of same sex attraction at the very least is derived from the effects of concupscience on our soul. The drive thus is at the very least disordered in the moral sense, similiar to the drive to eat unhealthily. This is where we get into understanding the seven deadly sins. We are all attracted to sin. As such, looking at ourselves and saying “I feel this drive to do this” really doesn’t tell us whether God wants us following that path because we have a fallen nature.

 

[Sk874158]

Ok I’m going to give you 2 answer first is from the Scientific side which is based on fact and concrete evidence that we know !

Science: Homosexuality is one of the three main sexualitys the others are hetrosexual and bisexual. Homosexuality is the attraction to the same sex which is observed In many species of animals including humans, homosexuality is a normal healthy sexuality. 8 percent of the world is believed to be homosexual.Homosexual couples have the same sexual or emotional desires as heterosexual couples Homosexual couples seem to live have happy and fulflilling relationships.

Religious side (oh god here we go ! ) homosexuality is a grave sin and it is wrong because god said so even though you can’t control it it is an abomination yes that’s right just like eating shellfish is ! And anyone who is homosexual is a sinner and will not be allowed into the heaven upon the death and will he handed over to the devil !

Being gay is okay if you need answers to something like this don’t turn to religion all religion is people living their life’s to some 2000 year old book which is clearly fake

BEING GAY IS OKAY no matter what Catholics say !