Homosexuality

[JimG]

Telling a person they can never live out who they are is basically condemning them to a life of misery.

So, do we condemn a pedophile to a life of misery if he can never act on his sexual inclinations?
Do we condemn a compulsive adulterer to a life of misery if he can never act on his inclinations?
Do we condemn a bully to a life of misery if he can never “live out who he is?”

No, of course not, because our inclinations, sexual or otherwise, are not who we are. We are human beings, children of God, having a variety of temptations and disordered desires. A married man has attractions to other women, but he has decided to forgo acting on those desires in the interest of marital fidelity. A professional jewel thief has a disordered desire to steal expensive jewelry, but he will give up acting on that desire in order to live a morally ordered life.

We are human persons, not bundles of desires.

 

[Nelka]

Americans sue at the drop of a hat.

Absolutely right! In fact they would sue because the hat was dropped.

In England a couple were sued because they didn’t want a gay couple sharing a bed/bedroom in their B&B, they ended up having to sell up and received many death threats from gay people.

express.co.uk/news/uk/445530/Christians-told-to-pay-gay-men-over-B-B-ban

 

[McCartney]

Absolutely right! In fact they would sue because the hat was dropped.

In England a couple were sued because they didn’t want a gay couple sharing a bed/bedroom in their B&B, they ended up having to sell up and received many death threats from gay people.

express.co.uk/news/uk/445530/Christians-told-to-pay-gay-men-over-B-B-ban

That hat was not dropped. It was burned.

 

[Galbin]

Galbin, the bible speaks against homosexuality in the New Testament also. Further, the Church - which Jesus gave authority to teach on earth - teaches that homosexual acts are sinful. I understand you feel compassion for those enduring SSA and you want them to be happy. But on what basis do you conclude that the Church is in error?

Because I have heard priests, nuns and other religious folks speak out against this doctrine. Also because God made them who they are. Also because Jesus never directly addressed homosexuality. I have read quotes from the NT regarding gayness, but never a direct quote from Jesus. I’ve been informed that apparently it was said in the Gospel that there would not be enough room to record everything Jesus said. Fair enough! However, if homosexuality were such a dreadful mortal sin, I still think it would have been recorded that he said.

Finally, I always think “Who am I to judge”? This is why I do not agree with the DP. When I watch a documentary about a serial killer who sneaks into women’s bedrooms and kills them, or the horrible case of the barista killer I understand the human urge to want to kill him for his actions. However, the Bible says, “Thou shall not kill”, so we must suppress these human desires for revenge. Nobody but God has the right to take a life. And Jesus came to re-interpret the OT; for instance he said that we should not give “an eye for an eye”, that instead we should “turn the other cheek”. Also, The Church has changed its opinions on many matters over the years. We no longer pay Indulgences, for example!

If you are interested in OT law, you may be interested to research some of the seemingly “strange” provisions you’ll find in Leviticus or Deuteronomy etc. The laws you will find derived from very particular religious customs at the time. For example, Linen was regarded as a cloth to be used in holy ceremonies and for holy purposes. Mixing it with a secular cloth like Wool was considered inappropriate. But these are laws - which can be changed. Church laws change in our time too. But matters of faith and morality do not.

Yes, I know. And we could also say that their provision against homosexuality was also strange.

I’m sure you don’t mean to say that a person is entirely summed up by the direction of their sexual desires? This is but one (albeit significant) facet of the person.

Keep in mind that the cause of SSA is unknown. But - just for the sake of this debate - what if the cause (for one individual) was found to be an adverse hormonal condition that arose in the mother’s womb, caused by certain drugs. Would this have any bearing on your view that the person should feel (morally) free to live out/act on the same sex attractions? - that is - is the means through which the SSA arose at all relevant to your view?

How should a person (heterosexual) who desires to be married behave in the event that they have not found a spouse after many years? Would you say they are free to take the opportunity of finding “love” where they can, in order to satisfy their emotional and physical needs, at least for a time? Would denying themselves these relationships be failing to live out who they are?

Their reason for being gay would have no impact on my views, nope. Why would it? I do however think that gay ppl are extremely unlucky given the stigma and judgements made against them.

The difference between a gay person and a single heterosexual person is that the gay person is told they can NEVER have a fulfilling sexual relationship, otherwise the Church says they are committing a dreadful sin. **Whereas the single person always has the possibility of meeting someone. **Also, even if they do not find the one they can still date. There are also plenty of great online dating sites. If they do not ever meet someone, at least they will never have had hope cruelly taken away from them the way the Church takes away the possibility of gay ppl ever meeting someone they can have a sexual relationship with.

In some countries, tax laws provide a financial benefit to couples who are married. In other places, this is nil, or minimal, and the only substantive benefits flow when there are children (and marriage may or may not be a prerequisite).

Well, taxes are a thorny issue no matter what. I’m not happy that the government gave me zero when I lost my main self employed contract, while my BIL who has never worked gets his money every month. Governments will ever ever make anybody happy with taxes. If I lived in the US I’d be a lot more unhappy about my tax dollars paying for abortions than if they were used to give tax breaks to gay couples. I also support anything that gives tax breaks for childcare and child welfare.

 

[Galbin]

This directly addresses your misunderstanding of Scripture and erroneous reading of Catholic position and teaching. Please read it carefully.

Any Catholic who believes as you do or agrees with you is in need of correction.

Interesting article. Still hasn’t changed my mind. Also, last time I checked in with my local priest I was allowed to hold these views. I simply will not allow bigotry in my heart.

 

[Galbin]

So, do we condemn a paedophile to a life of misery if he can never act on his sexual inclinations?
Do we condemn a compulsive adulterer to a life of misery if he can never act on his inclinations?
Do we condemn a bully to a life of misery if he can never “live out who he is?”

A married man has attractions to other women, but he has decided to forgo acting on those desires in the interest of marital fidelity. A professional jewel thief has a disordered desire to steal expensive jewellery, but he will give up acting on that desire in order to live a morally ordered life.

We are human persons, not bundles of desires.

The difference is that all of those actions hurt someone else. I know you’ll say gayness hurts society and the family unit, but it really doesn’t. There are plenty of other people out there having kids. Humans won’t die out.

 

[Galbin]

A few comments from a non-Catholic:

I wish I saw as much energy directed towards preventing other sins like greed and sloth as I see directed towards preventing homosexuality. Why is this issue such a lightning rod? There are a lot of sins out there that aren’t getting their fair share of indignant preaching.

I also wish there were reason for homosexuality being labelled immoral. It seems to me that the main reason is that it is a “sin” or something of which God disapproves. But I believe morality should be based on the harm that an act causes. I see harm in theft, adultery, murder, greed, etc. I can see no harm in two people lovingly engaging in a homosexual act. Is it really immoral if nobody is hurt by it? (Also the reason I am perplexed by the graven images commandment.) I don’t believe the foundation for an ethical system should be “because God disapproves.” Unless there’s a reason that God disapproves, I remain unconvinced. (The natural law/procreation argument fails to persuade me.)

Lastly, I have to say that I’m also not convinced by the “hate the sin, love the sinner” position. I don’t doubt the sincerity of those that say it, but it seems an easy cop-out in this case. I never hear people say that they love the child molester or the serial killer.

Yep, where are the threads here about the big corporations that are all about take, take and no employee’s rights? Oh yes I know, it is because greed is okay (lest we all forget about Jesus evicting the sellers in the Temple), but gayness is not. I also agree that the difference between gayness and other issues is that gayness does not involve hurting the other person, the way abortion, rape, incest and paedophilia do. I also think the “hate the sin, love the sinner” is unconvincing. That’d be like me trying to seriously suggest that I have as much love and respect for a serial killer as I do for a gentle and loving nun. I hate the fact that they murder and thus this bleeds onto my perspective of them as a person.

I’m kinda tired of arguing about this all on a variety of threads to be honest. In summation, I am with the Church on most issues. However, I simply cannot get on board with their condemnation of gay realtionships. And I think we Catholics should be a lot more concerned with sins that seriously hurt people, such as abortion which murders millions of people every single day.

Blessings to everyone.

 

[christus_vincit]

I’m kinda tired of arguing about this all on a variety of threads to be honest. In summation, I am with the Church on most issues. However, I simply cannot get on board with their condemnation of gay realtionships. And I think we Catholics should be a lot more concerned with sins that seriously hurt people, such as abortion which murders millions of people every single day.

1.) Do you believe that the Catholic Church is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals?

2.) The Church has always explicitly condemned the homosexual act as disordered. That being the case, how / why do you disagree with the Church’s teachings regarding the sinful nature of the homosexual act. Are you a better judge of matters of faith and morals than the Holy Spirit?

By dissenting from the Church regarding the issue of homosexuality, you essentially usurp the role of God and make yourself the final authority on morality.

 

[nangaidheal]

I want to tell you, I am a homosexual man and the Church loves me. The only reason why the church forbids “gay masses” is because we are all equal before Gpd and we are all sinners not just Gay people.

In the Churches eyes, our identity will never be found in who we sleep with, the created human needs a higher expression than lust.

I dont say that being chaste is easy, but I can say that when I yearn for the closeness of another man I can partake of the Eucharist. For this is where my body touches the body of Jesus - it is here that I am truly transformed and here only here do I feel truly completely loved and absorbed. This is the higher expression.

The church allows me to exchange lustful feelings for the transformation of our Lord in the Eucharist.

So to all those claiming inequality I would say look again at the Eucharist for in it lies our whole identity. Thats a very different thing from human lust for the same sex.

 

[Rau]

Because I have heard priests, nuns and other religious folks speak out against this doctrine. Also because God made them who they are. Also because Jesus never directly addressed homosexuality. I have read quotes from the NT regarding gayness, but never a direct quote from Jesus. …if homosexuality were such a dreadful mortal sin, I still think it would have been recorded that he said.

Galbin - Why would you choose the words of a few religious over the long-standing position of the Church - the Popes + all the Bishops? You note that Jesus did not personally speak on homosexuality - this is something you know because the Church (as the custodians of Scripture) have made known to you. Are you also aware of the words of Jesus in giving teaching authority to St Peter and his successors. Do these words not count?

You say “God made them” (to be homosexual). Yet, below you acknowledge that your views on the right to engage in homosexual acts would not change even if you knew that a medical “accident” (my hypothetical was: hormonal problem caused by drugs during pregnancy) had caused the SSA. So you are saying it does not matter how the condition comes about - if one is attracted to the same sex - it must be OK to indulge!

Finally, I always think “Who am I to judge”? This is why I do not agree with the DP. When I watch a documentary about a serial killer who sneaks into women’s bedrooms and kills them, or the horrible case of the barista killer I understand the human urge to want to kill him for his actions. However, the Bible says, “Thou shall not kill”, so we must suppress these human desires for revenge. Nobody but God has the right to take a life. And Jesus came to re-interpret the OT; for instance he said that we should not give “an eye for an eye”, that instead we should “turn the other cheek”. Also, The Church has changed its opinions on many matters over the years. We no longer pay Indulgences, for example!

We are not judging anyone - that is for God. We are discussing what is and is not the Truth. What is and is not moral. The Teaching Authority of the Church. These are objective things. Whether an individual is damned or saved - that is “judging” - and not for us.

The Bible does say “Thou shalt not kill”. This you know because the Church, as Custodian of the Scriptures, has told you. Yet, you reject other Truths brought to you in the same way. You say (correctly) that Jesus corrected elements of the old Mosaic law (though earlier you blamed the Church (wrongly) for picking and choosing from the OT)!

“Indulgences” - like doing “penance” are part of practice and ritual. These things change continually - look at the wording changes in the Mass, or rules concerning fasting and abstinence. **But teachings about the Faith and Morals don’t change. They have not changed. **

Their reason for being gay would have no impact on my views, nope. Why would it? …
The difference between a gay person and a single heterosexual person is that the gay person is told they can NEVER have a fulfilling sexual relationship, otherwise the Church says they are committing a dreadful sin. **Whereas the single person always has the possibility of meeting someone. **Also, even if they do not find the one they can still date. There are also plenty of great online dating sites. If they do not ever meet someone, at least they will never have had hope cruelly taken away from them the way the Church takes away the possibility of gay ppl ever meeting someone they can have a sexual relationship with.

Undoubtedly, SSA may present a great burden. But so do many other conditions on earth eg. an infertile couple who want a baby - and for whom IVF is not permitted by the Church - isn’t that cruel?; the quadriplegic - who has no prospect of a “normal” life; the prisoner, and so on.

It seems your reasoning - at the most fundamental level - is that homosexual acts are fine because they are wanted by the participants to make them happy. I accept your view stems from a compassion and sympathy for the individuals concerned.

***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,(*) 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.

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.

() Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10

 

[Rau]

Interesting article. Still hasn’t changed my mind. Also, last time I checked in with my local priest I was allowed to hold these views. I simply will not allow bigotry in my heart.

It is not bigoted to believe that homosexual acts are wrong. If it were, then it would not be possible to view any act as wrong and avoid bigotry. Bigotry involves viewing another with fear, distrust or hatred.

I do not know what your priest was attempting to say to you, but you can only do your best to understand and follow Church teaching. No-one can expect more than that.

 

[Rau]

The difference is that all of those actions [paedophilia, adultery, bullying…]hurt someone else. I know you’ll say gayness hurts society and the family unit, but it really doesn’t. There are plenty of other people out there having kids. Humans won’t die out.

I understand that you view the (apparent) absence of harm to anyone as differentiating homosexual acts from other (wrong) acts. How do you feel about the following - are they morally wrong?:

• Lust;
• Masturbation;
• Sex outside (“pre-”) marriage;
• Pornography;
• Prostitution.

It is often argued that these harm no one.

 

[Galbin]

It is not bigoted to believe that homosexual acts are wrong. If it were, then it would not be possible to view any act as wrong and avoid bigotry. Bigotry involves viewing another with fear, distrust or hatred.

I do not know what your priest was attempting to say to you, but you can only do your best to understand and follow Church teaching. No-one can expect more than that.

Because the inference is that I will go to hell for having the audacity to believe in gay rights. It is only a stoke of luck that I was born with a heterosexual attraction and thus am allowed fair access to the marriage sacrament (and kids if I am lucky enough to ever conceive). I am also allowed to be sexual, which is a basic biological urge like hunger and thirst.

As for why I believe what I do, well I read the Bible. Not from Church doctrine. Even if I had never entered a Church in my life, I could still read the Ten Commandments. And I can get on board with almost all controversial doctrines such as abortion, contraception, sex before marriage etc. However, denying gay people the sacrament of marriage is a very sad thing indeed in my opinion. I mentioned the words of a few other religious people because I am saying that it’s not just me who feels this way. I would never use the term, “indulge” because living out your sexuality in a sacrament (if the Church allowed gay marriage) is not an indulgence.

 

[Rau]

Because the inference is that I will go to hell for having the audacity to believe in gay rights. It is only a stoke of luck that I was born with a heterosexual attraction and thus am allowed fair access to the marriage sacrament (and kids if I am lucky enough to ever conceive). I am also allowed to be sexual, which is a basic biological urge like hunger and thirst.

As for why I believe what I do, well I read the Bible. Not from Church doctrine. Even if I had never entered a Church in my life, I could still read the Ten Commandments. And I can get on board with almost all controversial doctrines such as abortion, contraception, sex before marriage etc. However, denying gay people the sacrament of marriage is a very sad thing indeed in my opinion. I mentioned the words of a few other religious people because I am saying that it’s not just me who feels this way. I would never use the term, “indulge” because living out your sexuality in a sacrament (if the Church allowed gay marriage) is not an indulgence.

If you drew an inference that hell awaits those that struggle to believe a teaching of the Church, you make an error. The obligation on you is to try to follow.

Galbin - the “Bible” is a product of the Church! It has gathered documents and testimony, decided what belongs and what does not, and translated for centuries, and it - the Church - brings you the Bible. Church ‘doctrine’ is what follows from the Bible and from the traditions handed on from the apostles. I think you have simply substituted your interpretative capacity for that of the Church’s. This is how breakaway churches formed. I note also that you reject some things in the Bible because they are not a direct quote from Jesus. How is that to be explained, other than as a result of a desire to seek support for what you would like to be true?

 

[JimG]

Just a note about marriage as a sacrament. Marriage is a sacrament when it is between baptized Christians. Marriages between non-baptized persons are valid natural marriages and the Church does recognize them.

The Church does not prohibit same sex marriage because it is sinful but because it is impossible. Two persons of the same sex are not correct matter for the sacrament. It would be like trying to celebrate the Eucharist using mashed potatoes and gravy instead of bread and wine. Or celebrating baptism using syrup instead of water.

Marriage vows imply the possibility of marital relations, and marital relations are possible only between man and woman. Whatever a same sex couple might do, it is not marital and can never be; thus it can never be a marriage. Sexual complementarity is not just an afterthought; it is of the essence of marriage. This has been recognized throughout the history of civilization until now.

 

[churchatheist]

Your impression of what gets preached is slanted by what gets reported in the media. That, of course, would be the controversial topics - the ones that sell newspapers. Unless you have spent a significant amount of time attending mass yourself, you cannot really say what gets preached and in what proportion.

My username is churchatheist because I make a habit of going to church even though I’m an atheist. I like to hear things straight from the horse’s mouth. I would agree with you that much preaching from the pulpit is about other things: love and charity and the like. But in the public forum, the Catholic Church reduces itself to essentially a two-issue institution: Abortion/Contraception and Homosexuality. I agree that the media wanting to sell newspapers has a hand in it, but Catholic institutions themselves direct much of this debate. I often listen to Catholic radio in the car, and an enormous amount of its airtime is dedicated to those two issues.

You have stated your definition of morality. Others have a different definition. A word means whatever the person speaking wants it to mean. But if he hopes to be understood, he would do well to use the same definition that the listeners are using. Since you are an atheist, it is no surprise that you think it is of no consequence what God wants. We who believe in God think it is of overwhelming consequence what God wants of us.

But my point is, shouldn’t you agree with the moral boundaries dictated by your God/religion? If God were to claim that eating pork were sinful or wearing clothing of mixed fibers, wouldn’t an appropriate response be “Why”? We should not allow ourselves to be subject to moral systems that are arbitrary or mysterious. We should use our own judgment to determine morality, and hopefully that will agree with religious guidelines. And indeed I think we do, which is precisely why we (as Jesus did) ignore precepts about harvesting on the sabbath and the like. It doesn’t conform to our own ethical standards. For nonbelievers, the stance that God dislikes something therefore it is wrong is clearly problematic; my point is that it should be problematic for believers as well. We should not quake at the arbitrary whims of a mercurial dear leader.

So now you put yourself in a position to judge the sincerity of people. Only God knows what is in a person’s heart.

My statement was not about the sincerity of people but about the persuasiveness of the argument. Nearly every Catholic in this thread responded to the OP with some form of this argument. I take them at their word, and I believe that they are kind people who do not hate homosexuals. I know many Catholics who are kind and loving towards homosexuals and the OP fails to understand that this is a reality. The many people who posted in response were trying to explain that. But I want to encourage people who use the “hate the sin, love the sinner” argument to reconsider it. Do you hate the jihad but love the jihadist? Seriously: how many people who stand up say “I love those 19 9/11 terrorists”? If you have utter hatred for the one and only defining characteristic of a person, to say you love them but hate the only thing you know about them seems to me like a semantic game, a distinction without a difference. An easy way of sticking to your moral indignation without coming off as prejudicial or hateful.

 

[Rau]

My username is churchatheist because I make a habit of going to church even though I’m an atheist. I like to hear things straight from the horse’s mouth. I would agree with you that much preaching from the pulpit is about other things: love and charity and the like. But in the public forum, the Catholic Church reduces itself to essentially a two-issue institution: Abortion/Contraception and Homosexuality. I agree that the media wanting to sell newspapers has a hand in it, but Catholic institutions themselves direct much of this debate. I often listen to Catholic radio in the car, and an enormous amount of its airtime is dedicated to those two issues.

I think the best pulpit from which to gauge the “horse’s mouth” is in fact the Catechism:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Not much space in the Catechism devoted to the matters you list, but what is there is clear and definite. You are right to point to the media as playing a significant part in setting the public agenda, as do special interest groups who are seeking societal change. And you may well be right that the Church does a mediocre job in communicating via the mass media. But, there should be no surprise that the Church reacts to the promoting of these topics - millions of murders per year by abortion, corruption of the family (not through homosexual relations per se, but by the follow-on demands for “marriage” and acquisition of children by surrogacy, and so on.) And much of the Church’s public ministry is conducted by way of positive acts on the ground - social welfare, charitable activities and the like, not through the mass media.

But my point is, shouldn’t you agree with the moral boundaries dictated by your God/religion? If God were to claim that eating pork were sinful or wearing clothing of mixed fibers, wouldn’t an appropriate response be “Why”? We should not allow ourselves to be subject to moral systems that are arbitrary or mysterious. We should use our own judgment to determine morality, and hopefully that will agree with religious guidelines. And indeed I think we do, which is precisely why we (as Jesus did) ignore precepts about harvesting on the sabbath and the like. It doesn’t conform to our own ethical standards. For nonbelievers, the stance that God dislikes something therefore it is wrong is clearly problematic; my point is that it should be problematic for believers as well. We should not quake at the arbitrary whims of a mercurial dear leader.

Were the source of the moral guidelines an earthly politician, I could not agree more. But - given the source is God, we feel inclined to extend Him the benefit of any doubt. If our own judgement is enough to safely determine morality, what need of a God (or His Church) to teach us?

I mean no disrespect here, but it seems to me that, from your perspective, your line of reasoning is perfectly logical, since, for an atheist, nothing exists which is outside the reach of human creation, experience or reason.

… But I want to encourage people who use the “hate the sin, love the sinner” argument to reconsider it. Do you hate the jihad but love the jihadist? Seriously: how many people who stand up say “I love those 19 9/11 terrorists”? If you have utter hatred for the one and only defining characteristic of a person, to say you love them but hate the only thing you know about them seems to me like a semantic game, a distinction without a difference. An easy way of sticking to your moral indignation without coming off as prejudicial or hateful.

Reconsider it (and revise it…) to what? Is there no wrong?

No single characteristic fully defines any person, even if that person is consumed by that issue like a fever. The fever is not the person. I recall a former Pope showing great love to the one who tried to murder him. Alas, we mostly fall well short of that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But my point is, shouldn’t you agree with the moral boundaries dictated by your God/religion? If God were to claim that eating pork were sinful or wearing clothing of mixed fibers, wouldn’t an appropriate response be “Why”? We should not allow ourselves to be subject to moral systems that are arbitrary or mysterious. We should use our own judgment to determine morality, and hopefully that will agree with religious guidelines. And indeed I think we do, which is precisely why we (as Jesus did) ignore precepts about harvesting on the sabbath and the like. It doesn’t conform to our own ethical standards. For nonbelievers, the stance that God dislikes something therefore it is wrong is clearly problematic; my point is that it should be problematic for believers as well. We should not quake at the arbitrary whims of a mercurial dear leader.

It hardly seems necessary to add to Rau’s fine response to this point, but I will do so anyway.

Scripture tells us that God’s law is “written in our hearts”. This would tend to support your point, the idea being that humans have been created with an inner understanding of right and wrong that is in accord with God’s law. Therefore every question about right and wrong should be discoverable by introspection alone. But as we all know, this inner understanding is far from perfectly realized in each individual. So what do we do when our feelings about a question are different from God’s law? To follow your advice, we would immediately discard the word of God and follow only our own initial response. We believe this is a mistake. We recognize that our human feelings are all too unreliable as a primary guide to what is right and what is wrong. We try to give more weight to taking God’s word (through scripture and through the Church) as instruction for forming our conscience. This requires a good dose of humility. This humility was well-modeled for us in Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane. Even though He was divine himself, He still had a desire (that “this cup could pass”) that He was willing to let God the Father overrule. He said “not as I will, but as You will”. If Jesus can put his immediate feelings in subjugation to his heavenly Father, I think we can do the same. It all comes down to which source of morality is primary and which source is supporting and secondary.

As an analogy, consider the relationship between a parent and a young child. The child wants to do something that the parent knows is dangerous. The parent would like the child to understand why the child must not do it, but the child is too young to understand. So the parent asks the child to just trust him. If we see ourselves as children of God, we should also accept the possibility that God knows better than we do. Trust in God means making an effort to conform our will and sense of right and wrong to His.

It may be hard to understand, but God is not just the reporter and educator on what is right, as if right and wrong was something that existed before God did. God is the author of right and wrong. Once you understand that perspective, you can see why we place our own personal feelings about an issue in second place.

 

[Captain_America]

My username is churchatheist because I make a habit of going to church even though I’m an atheist. I like to hear things straight from the horse’s mouth. I would agree with you that much preaching from the pulpit is about other things: love and charity and the like. But in the public forum, the Catholic Church reduces itself to essentially a two-issue institution: Abortion/Contraception and Homosexuality. I agree that the media wanting to sell newspapers has a hand in it, but Catholic institutions themselves direct much of this debate. I often listen to Catholic radio in the car, and an enormous amount of its airtime is dedicated to those two issues.

But my point is, shouldn’t you agree with the moral boundaries dictated by your God/religion? If God were to claim that eating pork were sinful or wearing clothing of mixed fibers, wouldn’t an appropriate response be “Why”? We should not allow ourselves to be subject to moral systems that are arbitrary or mysterious. We should use our own judgment to determine morality, and hopefully that will agree with religious guidelines. And indeed I think we do, which is precisely why we (as Jesus did) ignore precepts about harvesting on the sabbath and the like. It doesn’t conform to our own ethical standards. For nonbelievers, the stance that God dislikes something therefore it is wrong is clearly problematic; my point is that it should be problematic for believers as well. We should not quake at the arbitrary whims of a mercurial dear leader.

My statement was not about the sincerity of people but about the persuasiveness of the argument. Nearly every Catholic in this thread responded to the OP with some form of this argument. I take them at their word, and I believe that they are kind people who do not hate homosexuals. I know many Catholics who are kind and loving towards homosexuals and the OP fails to understand that this is a reality. The many people who posted in response were trying to explain that. But I want to encourage people who use the “hate the sin, love the sinner” argument to reconsider it. Do you hate the jihad but love the jihadist? Seriously: how many people who stand up say “I love those 19 9/11 terrorists”? If you have utter hatred for the one and only defining characteristic of a person, to say you love them but hate the only thing you know about them seems to me like a semantic game, a distinction without a difference. An easy way of sticking to your moral indignation without coming off as prejudicial or hateful.

Hate the sin; treat the sinner like all us sinners and this guy, too.

Also, it’s a bit fat to say the church is only 2 issue. That’s not really looking at reality.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I disagree it is not sinful. I myself as a transsexual woman will ask you this, " who would choose this?" Read Ephesians 2:10 Where the Holy Scriptures tell us the way we are is because God had a plan for us beforehand. “You are God’s handwork.”

That doesn’t mean we are necessarily meant to be happy on Earth, see the case of Job.

Hi Galbin, if your interested check out the link under my signature. No Catholics are not to hate anyone but teach the truth in love about this subject. You love your children but you would never give them raw meat and steak knives to play with.

Funnily enough if you give children saws that are appropriately sized, teach them how to use them and safety rules they are safe with them.

I have never defined myself as a heterosexual. I am married I have three children, but I have never defined myself according to that. Yet some people do define themselves according to sex. Why? You have so many pursuits, so many things which define you, and so many more things to offer, why should the definition of oneself be sex?

Heterosexuals never talk about their sexuality they merely introduce their spouse, show off wedding photos, casually mention they are going out for date night. When a gay person does that they are “flaunting” their sexuality and “defining” themselves by their sexuality.

Sexuality is about more than just sex, in some ways it describes how we interact with others on fundamentals levels.

RIGHT ON!!! I am a transgender Catholic. I honestly do not know much about gay marriage, because I’m not in their place. But they do have the right to be happy. Just as I’ve chosen this path contrary to Church Teaching. When Jesus walked the earth He reached out to the marginalized, if He was here now He would probably reach out to the LGBT people.

Transitioning, even SRS isn’t against Church teaching per se, where you’d encounter theological issues is with joining the clergy or getting married. While it is unfortunate to not be able join the clergy or get married, transitioning at least makes life livable.