Homosexuals and celibacy

[Hadrianus]

And I don’t think it is either prudent or charitable (at large) to suggest that there can be no, has been no, comprehensive therapy which has as a byproduct a change in sexual orientation, among many by-products. Not all therapy results make it into research. A very key element of psychotherapy is the relationships we form with others, as well as the relationships we reject. All of those relationships reflect a self-concept, and affect a self-concept, and thus are crucial to the goal of genuine integration as opposed to compensation. To proclaim on CAF that anyone who has merely read “evidence” of so-called reparative therapy knows the universe of outcomes for therapy not so-called, is misleading this readership and the general pubic.

But charity requires interest in relieving the expressed pain of our brothers and sisters, and by extension, then, interest in solutions. It also requires an active interest in the possible restoration to a naturally ordered wholeness, which in the teachings of the Roman Church, homosexual attraction does not represent. The Church is not indifferent to the suffering of its members, the misguidance of its members, and the sin of its members.

Elizabeth502, I think we differ on what we view as prudentially advisable. I am looking at it in the very practical sense that we must consider if a given individual with SSA really will benefit from an expensive and time consuming therapy which has such a tiny success rate. If someone is motivated to try it, I would say yes, there is no reason they shouldn’t
attempt it, but otherwise given all the factors I think it is better that he adopt a more sacramental approach in leading a life of celibacy strengthened by grace.

I suspect also that you hold a higher view of “naturally ordered wholeness” than I do. Personally, I think there is a strong tendency to Pelagianism even among orthodox Catholics. The reality on the other hand is that human nature is deeply damaged by its fallen condition, so much so that by our own natures we cannot merit eternal salvation.
This is the same whatever someone’s sexual attractions are. Therefore for someone to spend years of therapy to attempt to alter something that the probabailities show cannot be altered strikes me as a waste of time and energy better spent on developing a deeper spiritual and sacramental life. Of course, the Church is not indifferent to the condition of its members which is precisely why she dispenses the sacraments and has a rich tradition of spirituality leading to union with God. At the same time she looks at advances in the secualr sciences with interest, but cannot by her nature really have an opinion on them until they have demonstrated their worth in a specific area.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The reality on the other hand is that human nature is deeply damaged by its fallen condition, so much so that by our own natures we cannot merit eternal salvation. This is the same whatever someone’s sexual attractions are. Therefore for someone to spend years of therapy to attempt to alter something that the probabailities show cannot be altered strikes me as a waste of time and energy better spent on developing a deeper spiritual and sacramental life. Of course, the Church is not indifferent to the condition of its members which is precisely why she dispenses the sacraments and has a rich tradition of spirituality leading to union with God. At the same time she looks at advances in the secualr sciences with interest, but cannot by her nature really have an opinion on them until they have demonstrated their worth in a specific area.

Again, you seem to have glossed over a point I made earlier – to wit, we are all broken. This is both from the viewpoint of the fields of secular psychology and psychiatry, and also from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church. I have met very few people who have not at some point in their lives visited a professional in the field, either for a previously unaddressed personal or family problem, for an unresolved internal conflict, for a temporary crisis (mild or extreme), or even for improvement in overall self-knowledge. It is hardly just for sexual situations or for extreme situations.

The Church’s position is that we should all be as humanly and spiritually whole as possible, including if psychologists can help us get there and are even indispensable to helping us get there. It’s just that she also realizes that the spiritual journey must accompany our human journey, and that the more we do both, the healthier and holier we will become. It’s also really critical not to confine your understanding of “the Church’s positions” to official documents, let alone merely the Catechism. The Catechism is overall not a pastoral document but a theological one. If a troubled parishioner visits a priest, the priest is mostly likely not going to refer him to the Catechism but, depending on the problem, offer counseling to the limits of what is ethically and practically in the pastor’s sphere to provide, and additionally suggest professional resources if indicated. Just because you don’t see “official positions” published, does not mean that individual pastors, lay ministers, bishops, Catholic professionals, etc., don’t have opinions on the kinds of programs and therapies that best conform to the Church’s world view of the dignity of the individual and the urgency of healing of whatever stands in the way of union with God.

So no, I don’t find it to be a waste of time or money when approached simply with the view toward wholeness and healing of whatever ails us. Very often an individual approaches therapy either not knowing why he or she is unhappy, restless, or conflicted, or that individual is focused on one problem when another deeper one needs to be uncovered & addressed.

 

[Hadrianus]

Again, you seem to have glossed over a point I made earlier – to wit, we are all broken. This is both from the viewpoint of the fields of secular psychology and psychiatry, and also from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church. I have met very few people who have not at some point in their lives visited a professional in the field, either for a previously unaddressed personal or family problem, for an unresolved internal conflict, for a temporary crisis (mild or extreme), or even for improvement in overall self-knowledge. It is hardly just for sexual situations or for extreme situations.

The Church’s position is that we should all be as humanly and spiritually whole as possible, including if psychologists can help us get there and are even indispensable to helping us get there. It’s just that she also realizes that the spiritual journey must accompany our human journey, and that the more we do both, the healthier and holier we will become. It’s also really critical not to confine your understanding of “the Church’s positions” to official documents, let alone merely the Catechism. The Catechism is overall not a pastoral document but a theological one. If a troubled parishioner visits a priest, the priest is mostly likely not going to refer him to the Catechism but, depending on the problem, offer counseling to the limits of what is ethically and practically in the pastor’s sphere to provide, and additionally suggest professional resources if indicated. Just because you don’t see “official positions” published, does not mean that individual pastors, lay ministers, bishops, Catholic professionals, etc., don’t have opinions on the kinds of programs and therapies that best conform to the Church’s world view of the dignity of the individual and the urgency of healing of whatever stands in the way of union with God.

So no, I don’t find it to be a waste of time or money when approached simply with the view toward wholeness and healing of whatever ails us. Very often an individual approaches therapy either not knowing why he or she is unhappy, restless, or conflicted, or that individual is focused on one problem when another deeper one needs to be uncovered & addressed.

I am not belittling therapy; merely counselling caution. Personally I incline to the attitude that people are usually benefitted most by simple talk therapy, in that by being allowed to express their feelings in a non critical environment they are often freed from much interior pain. We live in an extremely individualist society in which human relations generally are shallow and insecure. This accounts for much of the problems of contemporary people generally, and especially of the young. So no, I am not knocking therapy in itself.

As to the pastoral perspective I would simply say that we come back to prudential decisions taken with regard to given individuals. Informed pastors can and do disagree on many points of pastoral care depending upon many factors. On the question of “official positions” I must politely but firmly disagree. The official position of the Church on any subject is that which is published by the competent authority. Individual pastors, bishops, Catholic professionals may have opinions on any number of subjects and on what they consider to be the most appropriate response to the Church’s official positions, but these themselves are not official positions. Once again I wish to underscore this point. There is always a great danger in exalting the views of even learned scholars and trained professionals as the position of the Church on any subject. The Magisterium of the Church is protected by Divine Providence, but individuals are not.

 

[Lrabbitt]

Any genital expression of sexuality outside the bond of Holy Matrimony is intrinsically disordered, including homosexual expression, masturbation, extramarital infidelity and fornication. Orientation is a completely separate matter and applies to hetero and homosexuals alike. Behavior is the index of sin. Our orientation we cannot help. Pray for Grace. Pray for purity. Tough it out. Offer all desire to our Good and Gentle Jesus so that He might purify and transform us.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The official position of the Church on any subject is that which is published by the competent authority. Individual pastors, bishops, Catholic professionals may have opinions on any number of subjects and on what they consider to be the most appropriate response to the Church’s official positions, but these themselves are not official positions. Once again I wish to underscore this point. There is always a great danger in exalting the views of even learned scholars and trained professionals as the position of the Church on any subject. The Magisterium of the Church is protected by Divine Providence, but individuals are not.

But pastors are not limited to “official positions”! You don’t seem to understand that. Because some human method has not been “officially” declared such-and-such, does not prevent the priest, bishop, monsignor, cardinal, or Pope, from suggesting therapies that are most congruent with the philosophy and the theology of the Roman Church. Some are more appropriate than others. That doesn’t have to be spelled out in any official document for a pastor to understand that. Big example: most pastors, cognizant of the sometimes misdirected use of Eastern philosophies and schools of healing by the American public, including by Catholics, will tend these days not to suggest a lot of Eastern approaches to healing – or what is often called generically, “The Healing Arts.” Because some of these spring from Eastern spirituality, and others invite the patient/seeker into that spirituality. The Church avoids such syncretism and such confusion/overlap of spiritualities.

 

[Hadrianus]

But pastors are not limited to “official positions”! You don’t seem to understand that. Because some human method has not been “officially” declared such-and-such, does not prevent the priest, bishop, monsignor, cardinal, or Pope, from suggesting therapies that are most congruent with the philosophy and the theology of the Roman Church. Some are more appropriate than others. That doesn’t have to be spelled out in any official document for a pastor to understand that. Big example: most pastors, cognizant of the sometimes misdirected use of Eastern philosophies and schools of healing by the American public, including by Catholics, will tend these days not to suggest a lot of Eastern approaches to healing – or what is often called generically, “The Healing Arts.” Because some of these spring from Eastern spirituality, and others invite the patient/seeker into that spirituality. The Church avoids such syncretism and such confusion/overlap of spiritualities.

Agreed. I have nowhere said that pastors should be limited only to official positions, especially in areas in which there is no official position. Sit libertas! I am sorry if I was not clear.

 

[BigE]

1. Thanks for replying, BigE. I appreciate your honesty.
2. I find your agreement with #1 very tough to align with NL and thus with Church teaching, but I can understand why, if you hold that, you would also conclude that a physically monogamous sexual relationship between them would be morally acceptable.
3. But the #1 is a significant hurdle that personally I find no support for, and thus cannot in conscience support the ‘morality’ of even monogamous homosexual relationships from a Catholic perspective.
4. I appreciate your comments on #5, and is a point that you and I agreed to earlier as well.
5. I think it’s important, as I and at least two other posters said, to provide a welcoming path for those with SSA seeking to stay in communion with orthodox Catholicism, but that of course would prohibit #1. And there’s the problem: The Church and those who identify with her need to be clear on a unified message: otherwise some will receive the message that active homosexuality is perfectly in keeping with Catholic morality, while others will receive a very different message.
6. And if homosexual activity should be morally acceptable in the eyes of the Church, why cannot monogamous fornication, or monogamous technical adultery be acceptable (for example, such as for a divorced person whose annulment was denied)? This was the point of my developing the options. It seems to me we have to be careful of directly or indirectly assuming exceptions to morality based on (a) subjective classifications of relationships, (b) denial of marital status for any reason.
7. It seems to me that your affirmation of #1 would also imply (perhaps?) disagreement with the concept of limitations on sexual practices. Again, then, the problem becomes: where does one draw the line? Incest? Bestiality? Because if suddenly sodomy is acceptable, lots of other practices should logically be acceptable as well, including for heterosexual relationships, despite alternative behavior not being acceptable heterosexually. The Church does try to be consistent in the moral code.

1. I appreciate the discussion too. This is actually the mode I best learn from (debate).
2. I find the definition of Natural Law to be somewhat tricky and arbitrary. So something not aligning with what someone else has defined as NL does not bother me (conscience wise).
3. Other than the Church’s interpretation that God doesn’t like it - what is at all evil about two committed, monogamous, consenting adults of the same sex being in love and showing their love for each other? I don’t see it. (vs murder, stealing, lying etc etc)
4. Agree. ALL, NEVER, ALWAYS…are words that very rarely ever work…
5. CCC1790.
6. If that’s the problem, then attach the word “marriage” to the homosexual relationship and demand the same level of monogamous committment as with heterosexual marriage. Then the Church could be consistent in it’s application. If “marriage” is too emotional a word, then let’s give that homosexual committment a different name but demand the same level of devotional and sacrificial love. I think this problem of consistency comes from the churches definitions, not the homosexuals.
7. Yes of course there should be limits to sexual practices. Your examples of incest and beastiality do not involve two loving consenting adults committed to each other. It is this type of committed and sacrificial love where I draw the line, and it is no different than where we draw the line for heterosexual couples IMHO.

As always, I appreciate your insights and thoughts E. You are a gift to the church.

 

[maria_teresa]

To All,

For those of you advocating NARTH, and supposed ‘newer’ therapies (whatever that means, please indicate if you can), could you please tell those of us who are gay who’s interested in giving this therapy for free … certainly not NARTH, which is a for-profit, secular group. Who, today, certainly not me, has the funds to pay these folks 3-5 years of therapy money … money, literally in the thousands of dollars … with the no guarantee of real ‘change’, except I’ll feel better about myself, maybe.

If the Catholic Church is so interested in getting us ‘fixed’, why doesn’t she provide the funds necessary for those of us willing to pursue this?

Blessings,
maria_teresa

 

[Adam1986]

To All,

For those of you advocating NARTH, and supposed ‘newer’ therapies (whatever that means, please indicate if you can), could you please tell those of us who are gay who’s interested in giving this therapy for free … certainly not NARTH, which is a for-profit, secular group. Who, today, certainly not me, has the funds to pay these folks 3-5 years of therapy money … money, literally in the thousands of dollars … with the no guarantee of real ‘change’, except I’ll feel better about myself, maybe.

If the Catholic Church is so interested in getting us ‘fixed’, why doesn’t she provide the funds necessary for those of us willing to pursue this?

Blessings,
maria_teresa

Hi, if I read your post correctly, then you’re gay? I just wanted to say I’m gay to and while you may be misguided and think that your orientation can change; it’s can’t. You will always be gay because that’s how God made you. God doesn’t make any mistakes.

I know that you think your life would be easier if you were straight. I actually agree, it would. But we can’t change our orientations just like straight people can’t.

Also the Catholic Church does not want to fix us. The Church says we are fine as we are.

I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I don’t want to see you waste your time and money on therapy that CAN NEVER WORK.

Also if you were to go through years of therapy and spend thousands of dollars and then are still gay, that would be very sad and could cause you to go into a deep depression.

So stay strong and realize you are gay because God wanted you to be gay. He makes no mistakes.
:hug1:

 

[InSearchofGrace]

To All,

For those of you advocating NARTH, and supposed ‘newer’ therapies (whatever that means, please indicate if you can), could you please tell those of us who are gay who’s interested in giving this therapy for free … certainly not NARTH, which is a for-profit, secular group. Who, today, certainly not me, has the funds to pay these folks 3-5 years of therapy money … money, literally in the thousands of dollars … with the no guarantee of real ‘change’, except I’ll feel better about myself, maybe.

If the Catholic Church is so interested in getting us ‘fixed’, why doesn’t she provide the funds necessary for those of us willing to pursue this?

Blessings,
maria_teresa

The Church calls its members to chastity and holiness, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, based on sacred scripture and tradition.

If you are interested or are motivated enough to leave a chaste life notwithstanding your homosexual / lesbian orientation, you can contact the nearest Courage chapter to you.

There is obvious bitterness in your post, as well as possible misunderstanding of the mission of the Church with respect to its members who suffer SSA. You can read CAF’s Church Teaching on Same-Sex Issues and Homosexuality Tract.

May you find peace.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

1. I find the definition of Natural Law to be somewhat tricky and arbitrary. So something not aligning with what someone else has defined as NL does not bother me (conscience wise).

This is problematic to me – your view, because NL is so fundamental to the moral theology precepts of the church. To toss this aside as open for personal interpreation is problematic on its face, to me.

1. Other than the Church’s interpretation that God doesn’t like it - what is at all evil about two committed, monogamous, consenting adults of the same sex being in love and showing their love for each other? I don’t see it. (vs murder, stealing, lying etc etc)

You should know the answer to that question by now.
Secondly, the phrase “other than the Church’s interpretation” is also problematic, because unlike Protestants, we do as Catholics regard the Church’s interpretation as authentic. So if the Church’s position on homosexuality is not authentic, where do you draw the line on the number of other matters that can also be called into question on the basis of individual Catholics disagreeing with Church interpretation?

1. CCC1790.

My question/comment addressed the need for unity, not controversy. CCC 1790 pertains to variations depending upon individual conscience, rather than the consistency by which those with SSA can join/rejoin the Church body actively, knowing where the boundaries are morally and sacramentally, yet experiencing equally that their SSA does not make them second-class citizens when it comes to membership in the body of Christ. Again, none of us is allowed to engage in forbidden sexual practices at will, under cover of 1790, because to do so would give exceptional permission for breaking with moral precepts. If gay Catholics are allowed to break moral precepts, then nothing should prevent a divorced person from remarrying/cohabitating (being actively sexual) under the same conscience exception. Some may object to this on the basis of personal knowledge of cohabitators who flaunt their lifestyle, but the difference is: The Church is not making an ambiguous, let alone an affirmative statement, as a Church, or even as a parish, that divorced cohabitation is consistent with sacramental participation. It counsels the divorced person to correct the situation juridically, or to abandon the illicit relationship. An ambiguous message about any lifestyle (including homosexual) introduces the problem of scandal. That result is far more likely to create disunity in the Church over this issue, and resentment of gays by those segments who are not being provided such exceptions to moral precepts. That would be in opposition to the goal of integrating those with SSA into the worshipping, participating Body. (Thus, not charity)

1. If that’s the problem, then attach the word “marriage” to the homosexual relationship and demand the same level of monogamous committment as with heterosexual marriage. Then the Church could be consistent in it’s application. If “marriage” is too emotional a word, then let’s give that homosexual committment a different name but demand the same level of devotional and sacrificial love. I think this problem of consistency comes from the churches definitions, not the homosexuals.

The definition of marriage cannot be broadened to include homosexual unions, for all the reasons that are essential to the Church’s definition of marriage and the essential elements of marriage, which are two genders, not one.

1. Yes of course there should be limits to sexual practices. Your examples of incest and beastiality do not involve two loving consenting adults committed to each other. It is this type of committed and sacrificial love where I draw the line, and it is no different than where we draw the line for heterosexual couples IMHO.

But the Church forbids anal sex and consummated oral sex even for heterosexually married Catholic couples. It would be intrinsically contradictory to allow it for couples of the same gender. And “if [heterosexuals] do it anyway,” as many suggest, it still has not been approved by the church as within the unitive prerogatives of marriage.

As always, I appreciate your insights and thoughts E. You are a gift to the church.

Those are kind words. Thanks for the compliment.

 

[BigE]

1. This is problematic to me – your view, because NL is so fundamental to the moral theology precepts of the church. To toss this aside as open for personal interpreation is problematic on its face, to me.

2a) You should know the answer to that question by now.

2b) Secondly, the phrase “other than the Church’s interpretation” is also problematic, because unlike Protestants, we do as Catholics regard the Church’s interpretation as authentic. So if the Church’s position on homosexuality is not authentic, where do you draw the line on the number of other matters that can also be called into question on the basis of individual Catholics disagreeing with Church interpretation?

1. My question/comment addressed the need for unity, not controversy. CCC 1790 pertains to variations depending upon individual conscience, rather than the consistency by which those with SSA can join/rejoin the Church body actively, knowing where the boundaries are morally and sacramentally, yet experiencing equally that their SSA does not make them second-class citizens when it comes to membership in the body of Christ. Again, none of us is allowed to engage in forbidden sexual practices at will, under cover of 1790, because to do so would give exceptional permission for breaking with moral precepts. If gay Catholics are allowed to break moral precepts, then nothing should prevent a divorced person from remarrying/cohabitating (being actively sexual) under the same conscience exception. Some may object to this on the basis of personal knowledge of cohabitators who flaunt their lifestyle, but the difference is: The Church is not making an ambiguous, let alone an affirmative statement, as a Church, or even as a parish, that divorced cohabitation is consistent with sacramental participation. It counsels the divorced person to correct the situation juridically, or to abandon the illicit relationship. An ambiguous message about any lifestyle (including homosexual) introduces the problem of scandal. That result is far more likely to create disunity in the Church over this issue, and resentment of gays by those segments who are not being provided such exceptions to moral precepts. That would be in opposition to the goal of integrating those with SSA into the worshipping, participating Body. (Thus, not charity)
2. The definition of marriage cannot be broadened to include homosexual unions, for all the reasons that are essential to the Church’s definition of marriage and the essential elements of marriage, which are two genders, not one.
3. But the Church forbids anal sex and consummated oral sex even for heterosexually married Catholic couples. It would be intrinsically contradictory to allow it for couples of the same gender. And “if [heterosexuals] do it anyway,” as many suggest, it still has not been approved by the church as within the unitive prerogatives of marriage.

Those are kind words. Thanks for the compliment.

1. What then is unnatural about something that God created and seems to have always existed in both the human and animal world?

2a) I really don’t understand it. What IS evil about homosexuality within a committed, monagamous loving relationship?

2b) Are you advocating that someone “in good conscience” can not disagree with a Church teaching outside of those divinely revealed infallible truths (ie - I tend to draw my lines with the Nicene Creed)

1. I’m not sure I get your point. 85% of Catholics use some form of contraception. Many divorced Catholics who have not gotten an annulment and fully participate in the Church. Many priests and theologians have publicly disagreed with Church stance on married priests, women priests and homosexuality. So exactly what does unify us all?
2. Why can’t it? Using the definition I disagree with to claim I am wrong seems circular to me.
3. Where are those teachings BTW? And I’m not surprized - if someone has a problem on the church’s teaching regarding homosexuality - then those other teachings would surely follow.

 

[Hadrianus]

1. What then is unnatural about something that God created and seems to have always existed in both the human and animal world?

2a) I really don’t understand it. What IS evil about homosexuality within a committed, monagamous loving relationship?

2b) Are you advocating that someone “in good conscience” can not disagree with a Church teaching outside of those divinely revealed infallible truths (ie - I tend to draw my lines with the Nicene Creed)

1. I’m not sure I get your point. 85% of Catholics use some form of contraception. Many divorced Catholics who have not gotten an annulment and fully participate in the Church. Many priests and theologians have publicly disagreed with Church stance on married priests, women priests and homosexuality. So exactly what does unify us all?
2. Why can’t it? Using the definition I disagree with to claim I am wrong seems circular to me.
3. Where are those teachings BTW? And I’m not surprized - if someone has a problem on the church’s teaching regarding homosexuality - then those other teachings would surely follow.

Don’t want to break into someone else’s debate, but just want to point out that Natural Law in Catholic usage does not refer to that which exists in nature, but rather to that which accorde with right reason and is according to St Thomas the participation of human reason in the divine eternal law. All sin is contrary to Natural Law, and most of the 10 Commandments are part of it.

The use of the term ‘unnatural’ really has the sense of “unbiological” of course not everything which is unbiological or unnatural is sinful. But things which are contrary to Natural Law are.

 

[Elizabeth502]

1. What then is unnatural about something that God created and seems to have always existed in both the human and animal world?

2a) I really don’t understand it. What IS evil about homosexuality within a committed, monagamous loving relationship?

1. Why can’t it? Using the definition I disagree with to claim I am wrong seems circular to me.

All answered in the 43-page paper submitted in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy by Professor Robert George et al., published in December 2010 and also available on CAF. The positions he espouses are completely in keeping with Catholic thought, and in fact the bishops have referred to his positions. Fortunately, Prof. George is also philosophically based in his understanding, just as the RCC is, which is why he understands (and espouses) the position.

1. Where are those teachings BTW? And I’m not surprized - if someone has a problem on the church’s teaching regarding homosexuality - then those other teachings would surely follow.

From Humanae Vitae:

“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11)

(In additional documents the Church has spelled out the obvious prohibitions against acts other than intercourse, while not prohibiting foreplay. However, neither of the two acts I mentioned are limited to foreplay in the Church’s definitions of each act ultimately open to life.)

Many priests and theologians have publicly disagreed with Church stance on married priests, women priests and homosexuality.

Three very different topics. Optional priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma or doctrine. It is a practice, not a teaching about fundamentals. It falls in the realm of practice (just like previous Lenten practices, previous Eucharistic fasts, etc.), and is therefore not a fixed teaching. The RCC’s teaching on homosexuality is so fundamental to its integrated view of personhood, gender, complementarity, relationality, marriage, and natural law that it would not be a topic that lends itself logically to conscience conflicts. And remember, as discussed on the previous Conscience threads, paragraph 1790 in the CCC is not something that can be casually recalled for such fundamental doctrinal aspects on a wholesale basis. It is in there, as we discussed, for exceptional and rare cases of true and unusual conflict, especially when a unique situation arises in which two competing goods or two competing evils might present themselves hypothetically, requiring the individual Catholic to weigh an informed conscience with a specific instance of a moral dilemma in which his conscience would persist in persuading him to oppose a teaching.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Don’t want to break into someone else’s debate, but just want to point out that Natural Law in Catholic usage does not refer to that which exists in nature, but rather to that which accorde with right reason and is according to St Thomas the participation of human reason in the divine eternal law. All sin is contrary to Natural Law, and most of the 10 Commandments are part of it.

The use of the term ‘unnatural’ really has the sense of “unbiological” of course not everything which is unbiological or unnatural is sinful. But things which are contrary to Natural Law are.

Thanks for the theology lesson, but I knew that. I don’t know why you keep bringing this up, Hadrianus. Might you have an agenda? I know what natural law is.

 

[mjdvike]

Am not interested in the ‘debate’ regarding whether homosexuality can be ‘fixed’ or ‘repaired’ or ‘treated with psychotherapy.’

The only point that I want to make is that the homosexual act is the sin. Homosexuality, per se, is not a sin. The heterosexual act - when not entered into by a married couple - is also a sin. The only sexual act which is not is the marital sexual act.

Catechism 2nd edition Sections 2357-2359.

As far as I am concerned, this is the teaching of the Church. By definition - and as a Catholic - I am bound to agree with it. Way too many Catholics walking around thinking their way of thinking is a higher authority than the Magisterium.

“Homosexual acts…under no circumstances can be…approved.”

“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.”

That is exactly the same call to chastity for unmarried heterosexuals.

There is no reason at all why homosexuals should be permitted to engage in sexual activity outside of sacramental marriage. There is no reason at all why heterosexuals should be permitted to engage in sexual activity outside of sacramental marriage. These are sins for which there is no gray area.

The only way that homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals can participate in the sacraments is if they are NOT actively engaged in a sexual relationship with anyone. That is, they are not in a state of mortal/grave sin.

The same standard that applies to me (a single heterosexual) applies to any homosexual. We all have to deal with living our Christian lives in the reality of our situation - and not try to bend the Church to accept what I ‘want’ to do, what I ‘should’ be able to do - according to ‘my’ criteria. That is not the way that following Christ works.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Addressed to BigE:

On the triplicate matter, of which I addressed one component (married priests), on the other two I have also registered many comments on CAF, but since my answer to this is far more straightforward than previous demands by others for recapitulating expositions of arguments, I don’t mind restating my opinion on opposition to the 2 unaddressed matters.

If I, as a woman, or I, should I have SSA (which I don’t), and should I be so passionate about some moral necessity for activating a female priesthood, or actively liiving an unchaste homosexual lifestyle, I would never torture myself (and others) so much as to remain a practicing Roman Catholic. I don’t see the point. The RCC has announced no change on either issue, nor the likelihood of either changing in the foreseeable future (our lifetimes). I would in fact leave the RCC and practice another Christian faith, such as the Episcopal/Anglican church traditions. I have acquaintances who have done so. It’s putting oneself in an impossible position to pretend to be in accord with the Church on such a fundamental issue, when one really is discordant. Conscience does not require one to stay with a faith tradition one is opposed to, so if the issue is a harmonious conscience, the problem is that actually cannot be reconciled with such a large body of belief on sexuality that the Roman Church holds.

It would be very similar (parallel in weight) to a Catholic affirming the universal right to elective abortion as a (post) contraceptive – as a wholesale belief on his or her part, and on the basis of blanket “conscience.” It cannot be reconciled with core teachings.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
If I, as a woman, or I, should I have SSA (which I don’t), and should I be so passionate about some moral necessity for activating a female priesthood, or actively liiving an unchaste homosexual lifestyle, I would never torture myself (and others) so much as to remain a practicing Roman Catholic. I don’t see the point. The RCC has announced no change on either issue, nor the likelihood of either changing in the foreseeable future (our lifetimes). I would in fact leave the RCC and practice another Christian faith, such as the Episcopal/Anglican church traditions. I have acquaintances who have done so. It’s putting oneself in an impossible position to pretend to be in accord with the Church on such a fundamental issue, when one really is discordant. Conscience does not require one to stay with a faith tradition one is opposed to, so if the issue is a harmonious conscience, the problem is that actually cannot be reconciled with such a large body of belief on sexuality that the Roman Church holds.

It would be very similar (parallel in weight) to a Catholic affirming the universal right to elective abortion as a (post) contraceptive – as a wholesale belief on his or her part, and on the basis of blanket “conscience.” It cannot be reconciled with core teachings.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Fran65]

If I, as a woman, or I, should I have SSA (which I don’t), and should I be so passionate about some moral necessity for activating a female priesthood, or actively liiving an unchaste homosexual lifestyle, I would never torture myself (and others) so much as to remain a practicing Roman Catholic. I don’t see the point. The RCC has announced no change on either issue, nor the likelihood of either changing in the foreseeable future (our lifetimes). I would in fact leave the RCC and practice another Christian faith, such as the Episcopal/Anglican church traditions. I have acquaintances who have done so. It’s putting oneself in an impossible position to pretend to be in accord with the Church on such a fundamental issue, when one really is discordant. Conscience does not require one to stay with a faith tradition one is opposed to, so if the issue is a harmonious conscience, the problem is that actually cannot be reconciled with such a large body of belief on sexuality that the Roman Church holds.

Spot on. :clapping:

 

[BigE]

Addressed to BigE:

On the triplicate matter, of which I addressed one component (married priests), on the other two I have also registered many comments on CAF, but since my answer to this is far more straightforward than previous demands by others for recapitulating expositions of arguments, I don’t mind restating my opinion on opposition to the 2 unaddressed matters.

1. If I, as a woman, or I, should I have SSA (which I don’t), and should I be so passionate about some moral necessity for activating a female priesthood, or actively liiving an unchaste homosexual lifestyle, I would never torture myself (and others) so much as to remain a practicing Roman Catholic. I don’t see the point. The RCC has announced no change on either issue, nor the likelihood of either changing in the foreseeable future (our lifetimes). I would in fact leave the RCC and practice another Christian faith, such as the Episcopal/Anglican church traditions. I have acquaintances who have done so. It’s putting oneself in an impossible position to pretend to be in accord with the Church on such a fundamental issue, when one really is discordant. Conscience does not require one to stay with a faith tradition one is opposed to, so if the issue is a harmonious conscience, the problem is that actually cannot be reconciled with such a large body of belief on sexuality that the Roman Church holds.
2. It would be very similar (parallel in weight) to a Catholic affirming the universal right to elective abortion as a (post) contraceptive – as a wholesale belief on his or her part, and on the basis of blanket “conscience.” It cannot be reconciled with core teachings.

1. Then I think you sell our Catholic faith far, far short. The beauty of it’s liturgy, it’s spirituality, the sacraments, the saints, our Blessed Mother, it’s great theologians, its history, apostolic tradition, and on and on. The depth, width, and breadth of our faith, along with the infinate nature of God and the graces he bestows on it make sexual issues such a small part of the equation IMHO. At least for many Catholic SSA I would assume.
2. I do not see the same weight. The objective evil of abortion is much more obvious to me than two people of same sex in a loving and committed relationship.