Homosexuals in the Church

[Slayd]

I’m not sure if I have a right to comment on this as I have not completed RCIA and such but here I go.

I am a woman just starting a chaste lifestyle and I’m terribly confused about all of this. I don’t see where anyone has a right to condemn someone by the way they hold their body, or the way they use their hands when they speak, or even the way they walk (effiminate men). I have known many men who act in this way who are loving husbands with wonderful wives and children. If condemning someone on these things is true does that mean that I can condemn someone who I feel laughs too loudly, or sings off key at mass or even a woman who wears a pair of tight jeans to mass. To me that seems a little crazy. Now I agree that public displays of affection have no place in church, but I also think that goes for everyone gay or straight. And I also understand keeping children away from harmful things because they are children and do not know any better. I personally would guard my friends’ children with my life. But please don’t think the SSA is contagious. Has this person ever made a move to harm your children? I doubt it. It’s not for us to judge or condemn someone when we don’t know what happens when they get home behind closed doors, that is between them and God. If someone was worried about themselves or their children being around other sinners then I would assume they would have to stay locked in their own homes and never venture out to places like walmart, the grocery store, gas stations etc. Like I said I may or may not have a right to say anything but there does seem to be a lot of focus on homosexuals in this forum and I felt I had to speak up.

 

[crazzeto]

Thanks for your perspective Slayd, for the record it is not appropraite to condem some one for the way they hold their body. To be perfectly honest, I think some are a little too sensitive to the sin of homosexuality. Unfortunetly I think such people fail to grasp how there is really very little difference between hetro-sexual fornication (particularly with the usage of contraseptives) and homosexuality. These people seem not to look for the philisophical problems with the sex act, and rather just focus on the fact that it’s two people of the same sex.

Yes it’s a problem that two people of the same sex would engage in intercourse, but not just because they’re two people of the same sex alone. If I have premarital sex with contraception, I’m commiting very much the same kind of sin.

 

[PaulinVA]

However, you’ll see homosexuals at parishes here that do behave in overtly homosexual ways. I’ve known of parishes with liturgical directors, musicians, or young adult group leaders that are homosexual and quite open about it.

Again, it’s their choice and lifestyle. Maybe I’m still adjusting to seeing its progression into society

There is attraction, and there is jumping into a lifestyle and living it no matter what.

If someone is battling attraction and is chaste, I have no problem. If someone lets you know they are “gay”, and it means they “date” people of the same sex, then they should not be on a parish payroll or allowed to volunteer.

It’s just the same as if I said I steal money and won’t stop, or I’m in an adulterous relationship and won’t stop and want everyone to know. I would not be qualified to be on a parish payroll, either.

 

[TurboVW]

I’m not sure if I have a right to comment on this as I have not completed RCIA and such but here I go.

I am a woman just starting a chaste lifestyle and I’m terribly confused about all of this. I don’t see where anyone has a right to condemn someone by the way they hold their body, or the way they use their hands when they speak, or even the way they walk (effiminate men). I have known many men who act in this way who are loving husbands with wonderful wives and children. If condemning someone on these things is true does that mean that I can condemn someone who I feel laughs too loudly, or sings off key at mass or even a woman who wears a pair of tight jeans to mass. To me that seems a little crazy. Now I agree that public displays of affection have no place in church, but I also think that goes for everyone gay or straight. And I also understand keeping children away from harmful things because they are children and do not know any better. I personally would guard my friends’ children with my life. But please don’t think the SSA is contagious. Has this person ever made a move to harm your children? I doubt it. It’s not for us to judge or condemn someone when we don’t know what happens when they get home behind closed doors, that is between them and God. If someone was worried about themselves or their children being around other sinners then I would assume they would have to stay locked in their own homes and never venture out to places like walmart, the grocery store, gas stations etc. Like I said I may or may not have a right to say anything but there does seem to be a lot of focus on homosexuals in this forum and I felt I had to speak up.

This subject isn’t so much about PDA in church as it’s about seeing homosexual behavior in church.

Timrohr I’m sure isn’t locking himself in his house and away from all things homosexual. However, I think he means to say that he’s reached a limit as to how much homosexual behavior he wants to see in front of his family in his parish.

And Crazzeto, you make sense about the heterosexual fornication vs homosexual intercourse topic. Although I think that’s a separate topic within itself, I’ve had that debate with several buddies of mine in promiscuous hetero relationships…

 

[zab]

The issue raised by this thread is conflicting. If the church loves all including homosexuals then they have a right to be there then their presence has to be tolerated even if it makes some uncomfortable. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether such persons are living chaste lives. It is also difficult, if not impossible to determine whether straight persons are living chaste lives. I don’t know what can be done that isn’t being done. A priest can’t stand up and announce that before Mass begins that all persons who are practicing homosexuals or using artificial birth control should leave. A church can’t ask parishioners to inform on others who may be leading sinful lives by engaging in immoral sexual behavior. People can’t be excluded because of personality traits as effeminate men or masculine women - this is all a very slippery slope. The best I can say is that if a parent feels his children are being subjected to improper displays, he should remove them.

I am not sure what the OP was referring to when he said that his children “had to endure questionable public displays of affection.” But he may have a legitimate concern. Our diocese and most dioceses have programs in place in which all employees and volunteers who have access to children and/or elderly and disabled parishioners must attend classes on safe environment. These classes include instruction on sexual harrassment. If an employee or volunteer has been told that they are not comfortable being hugged or touched in anyway, then they should heed that warning regardless if it was an innocent touch or not. If they persist in their behavior towards that person they could be guilty of sexual harrassment. And this pertains to all employees and volunteers no matter what their sexual orientation is.

 

[hellopeople]

On March 17, a caller called into Catholic Answers and asked what could be done about the growing presence of homosexuals in the Church. Unfortunately, her question was misunderstood by the hosts and their answer, I thought, was a little dismissive.

What she was really asking about, and if she wasn’t - I’ll ask it, is what can be done about those who are either practicing homosexuals or at minimum “giving cause for scandal” who are in positions of authority or prominent ministries within the Church.

I recently went through an inquisition of sorts by some of our local clergy for raising the question. I was given the standard “we should not judge”, etc.

That’s fine. I’m old enough not to judge. My children are not. What they see is someone on the altar, in charge of a youth group, teaching CCD, etc., who at least appears to be gay in his dress, mannerisms, etc.

He may very well be living a chaste life style, just as I, if I was single, could be living with a woman but not engaging in sex, could in fact be chaste, but at the same time “giving cause for scandal” - a sin that is little referenced today.

My children also have had to endure questionable public displays of affection between these persons of questionable sexual orientation at Mass, and at parish functions.

As a parent I also have to be concerned about allowing my child to be in the care of such a person who openly displays homosexual mannerisms should they be in a group or class where he is the person in charge.

In short it’s an act of injustice to parents and children to put persons of questionable sexual orientation when that questionable sexual orientation is known to the pastor and is publicly noticeable.

Homosexuality is in fact “objectively disordered” whether or not one is in fact engaged in homosexual acts. We cannot know whether a person who displays noticeable homosexual mannerisms is actually engaged in homosexual acts. It is not our business.

But it is our business to protect our children from possible harm and as parents we must “err on the side of caution”. It seems though that church authorities put “open mindedness” and “benefit of the doubt” on the opposite side of caution and don’t even seem to entertain the question “what about the children?”.

That said, I want to make a general comment about CA Live. I’ve listened to it for 10 years, and it appears that some of the hosts may be “getting weary in well-doing”. It happens to all of us. But I can definitely see a harmful trend, for the hosts, for the listeners, and for the entire ministry if it is not remedied.

So you presented your point of view to priests and they dismissed it and said you shouldn’t judge. Then you decided to (in your mind, not mine) go over their heads and talk to the super Catholic brigade at CAF so you could feel better about your opinions.

 

[hellopeople]

Nor should practising homosexuals be priests which has resulted in the scandal of hebephilia(Canadian terminology)or ephebophilia(American terminology) NOT paedophilia.

Don’t forget CHILD RAPIST.

 

[Major_Tom]

Homosexuals are sinners just like the rest of us. However, we as christians are called to repent. praciticing homosexuals should not be receiving the eucharist.
See Rom.1:26-32

bluelkae

Don’t forget adulterous married heterosexuals. To be consistent, would you (or any other posters), attempt to have them removed from the congregation with the same zeal as the homosexuals?

 

[jegow]

It is such a shame how one can claim to be a Christian and believe they are righteous enough to justify their hatred, judgement, discrimination and prejudice based on their misinterpretations of scripture or simply to abuse the word of God to put themselves in a position to say such a thing about people they deem to be sinners as if we are all not born sinners.

Now, the bible or Gods word does not teach us to be this way with each other. It teaches us to reflect on our own lives, actions and what we should do to reach eternity in the Kingdom of Heaven. This includes to love one another as Jesus loves us!

It is easy to take what the bible says out of context to simply suite one’s ignorant, selfish and arrogant ways of thinking.

If homosexuality is such a threatful sin, especially with homosexuals that are obvious or seem obvious, then I suppose the so called Christians that claim this way of thinking to be righteous are divine and without sin? What does the bible say about which sin is the greater sin if this is the case? And why should anyone outcast a homosexual practising or not if unmarried heterosexuals that shack up or live together and they do are obviously engaging in fornication and premarital sex don’t seem to be put in the same category of hatred towards being a bad impression on society, children or the church?

We need to focus on our own lives, our own journey in following Christ and in our own spiritual conversion and leave casting stones to the ones that do not sin! We are all in this thing called life together and we cannot do this without each other just as we are all ONE and ONE church of Christ!

Jesus loves us all and we are not privileged to decide who is or is not fit to be part of our Lord’s house of worship! On the other hand eventually we will all be directly judged by our Lord Jesus Christ and only by him so careful with the judgement calls it is not ours to make! Now this is made very clear in scripture.

Pay attention to your own life and be accountable for your own mistakes, sins, bad thoughts and ill intentions and strive to repent, change and to go through a spiritual conversion with Christ and the rest will follow if you truly believe and trust in God. Then God will then hopefully enable you to follow our Lord Jesus Christ for all the right reasons!

Following Christ was not intented to be hard or difficult. It is supposed to be full of joy, love, trust, forgiveness and patience, etc…

I think you misread the original post that started this thread. As I read it, timrohr did not make a derogatory comment about anyone. Living out homosexuality as a lifestyle is a sin and it does merit concern - not just for the Church but for the souls that choose to live that. I understood that timrohr was making a comment about what should be done in the case where people in authority (i.e. priests) are sending confusing signals as to what type of person they are.

I agree, we need to focus on our lives. While that is true it does not exempt us from focussing on the lives of others around us. Such as being responsible for your family, taking note of the things that they are exposed to, being able to try you best at keeping them from harm (both physical and spiritual). Remember, Jesus said that what we do not do for the least of his brothers we do not do for him.

 

[LilyM]

I’m confused too. We need to spell out exactly what sort of ‘questionable displays of affection’ or ‘effeminate mannerisms’ we are talking about here.

You have no call to ban things like the way one walks, the pitch of voice and the like - those things are darn near impossible for people to change, and no-one should be expected to have to go to such extremes to cater for the few who might wrongly judge one’s sexual orientation based on them.

‘Public displays of affection’? What does that mean? A kiss on the cheek, be it male to male, female to female or between genders, is fine and again you have no call to ban that. It’s not called the KISS of peace for nothing, after all - it used to be a LITERAL kiss that everyone, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, equally indulged in. In many parts of Europe EVERYONE kisses EVERYONE on the cheek to this day.

Unless you’re saying people are tongue kissing, groping each other in Church or actually having sex in the pews, I don’t know what you can possibly be objecting to. None of which I have ever seen in a church in all my born days, by the way. And I live in Sydney Australia which also has a large and extremely visible gay population - and furthermore in an area of Sydney in the inner city which is basically Gay Central, so if it were happening anywhere it would be here.

 

[Benadam]

The question requires first and foremost an explanation of what effeminism is and who ‘the effeminite’ are in the apostles mind. Untill that is discussed, this discussion will go on and onymous.

 

[timrohr]

I would have to say that if anyone is engaging in public displays of affection that is uncomfortable to you and your children then you should first speak to the person involved. If he refuses to listen, speak to your pastor about it. If the pastor refuses to listen, write to your bishop. Stop useing the word “questionable”. If it is uncomfortable to you then you should tell him and he should respect your wishes regardless if he is doing anything wrong or not.

So I would need to be almost a full time policeman if I throw in inappropriate (scandalous) dress, irreverence to the Blessed Sacrament, the questionable character of “eucharistic ministers”, etc. The fact is, and I think you know it, is that we have these problems in the first place because many pastors are either lazy, intimidated, or even “warm” to those who offend the more conservative among us. I’ve done the person, pastor, bishop, and even nuncio thing. The only thing left is to keep moving my family. They come first.

 

[timrohr]

It is such a shame how one can claim to be a Christian and believe they are righteous enough to justify their hatred, judgement, discrimination and prejudice based on their misinterpretations of scripture or simply to abuse the word of God to put themselves in a position to say such a thing about people they deem to be sinners as if we are all not born sinners.

Now, the bible or Gods word does not teach us to be this way with each other. It teaches us to reflect on our own lives, actions and what we should do to reach eternity in the Kingdom of Heaven. This includes to love one another as Jesus loves us!

It is easy to take what the bible says out of context to simply suite one’s ignorant, selfish and arrogant ways of thinking.

If homosexuality is such a threatful sin, especially with homosexuals that are obvious or seem obvious, then I suppose the so called Christians that claim this way of thinking to be righteous are divine and without sin? What does the bible say about which sin is the greater sin if this is the case? And why should anyone outcast a homosexual practising or not if unmarried heterosexuals that shack up or live together and they do are obviously engaging in fornication and premarital sex don’t seem to be put in the same category of hatred towards being a bad impression on society, children or the church?

We need to focus on our own lives, our own journey in following Christ and in our own spiritual conversion and leave casting stones to the ones that do not sin! We are all in this thing called life together and we cannot do this without each other just as we are all ONE and ONE church of Christ!

Jesus loves us all and we are not privileged to decide who is or is not fit to be part of our Lord’s house of worship! On the other hand eventually we will all be directly judged by our Lord Jesus Christ and only by him so careful with the judgement calls it is not ours to make! Now this is made very clear in scripture.

Pay attention to your own life and be accountable for your own mistakes, sins, bad thoughts and ill intentions and strive to repent, change and to go through a spiritual conversion with Christ and the rest will follow if you truly believe and trust in God. Then God will then hopefully enable you to follow our Lord Jesus Christ for all the right reasons!

Following Christ was not intented to be hard or difficult. It is supposed to be full of joy, love, trust, forgiveness and patience, etc…

It’s not I who have labeled homosexuality as “objectively disordered” and homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered” and “acts of grave depravity”. It’s the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Par 2357) i.e. the Teaching Magisterium of the Church. So you need to take your argument elsewhere: Rome.

 

[RobbyS]

I agree.

What exactly is a “noticeable homosexual mannerism”?

There is such a thing as the homosexual culture. Cultivated manners, movements, speech. Habits peculiar to the group. Gay characters on television present these usually in a comic way, the message being that these are nice if silly people. Either that or they are portrayed as “just like us,” except they like boys rather than girls. It is the reverse of the old notion of the homosexual as a perverted person, or the tormented person in the closet. Anyway, if you see someone acting gay in a Church setting, his trying to send a message: I am who I am, and if you don;t like it you are a prude/bigot.

 

[timrohr]

Jesus sat with prostitutes and the most corrupt of the society (symbolized by the tax collectors)

the Church is not for the righteous, for heaven is already theirs. the Church is for sinners

Got no problem with that. But he said “go and sin no more”. They may have. However, the problem we’re discussing is whether or not persons who are known to be homosexual, prostitutes, adulterers, etc., should now be in charge of teaching my children CCD, even if they have privately changed their behavior. They confessed to the priest, not to me.

 

[LilyM]

There is such a thing as the homosexual culture. Cultivated manners, movements, speech. Habits peculiar to the group. Gay characters on television present these usually in a comic way, the message being that these are nice if silly people. Either that or they are portrayed as “just like us,” except they like boys rather than girls. It is the reverse of the old notion of the homosexual as a perverted person, or the tormented person in the closet. Anyway, if you see someone acting gay in a Church setting, his trying to send a message: I am who I am, and if you don;t like it you are a prude/bigot.

So which precise manners, movements and speech, being non-sexual in nature, indicate that one is homosexual? As opposed merely to being effeminate, which of course is not in the slightest bit sinful. As there are effeminate heterosexuals as well, of course, and plenty of far-from-effeminate homosexuals?

Why are the behaviours that aren’t sexual in nature, but are considered effeminate, to be targeted, given that it is wholly and solely homosexual ACTS (and not effeminate ones) that are sinful?

 

[Benadam]

The mannerisms we are discussing project a response once exclusively experienced by women but doesn’t define feminism. It was exaggerated to attract men and became an accepted norm. It is displayed in it’s extreme form in the roaring twenties Las Vegas dancing girls and prostitutes. It has become a norm of our culture so embedded that it is mistaken as the primary definition of feminity. It is not. It is a response ordered toward a woman’s husband.

The body language that expresses femaleness visibly was not always a norm in public. It was originally body language attached to a woman’s natural effection towards her husband and not an expression the defined femininity as it does today.

For it to define a man’s identity is an extreme distortion of it’s proper order. For it to define a man who is acting in persona christi is a grave insult to Him. The ignorance that shroud’s our culture in regards of what it is to be a human male or female decreases the gravity of the insult to probably little or nothing.

 

[csuliman]

Being a homosexual is NOT a sin. How can something you are born with be a sin. The only argument that makes sense is to say that homosexual acts are sinful- i.e. acting on your homosexual nature (even though I disagree with this). So there is no reason to throw homosexuals out of the Church.

The idea that it is the homosexuals who are the basis of the rape and molestation of children is completely absurd. Homosexuals are no more likely to be sexual criminals than are heterosexuals.

Finally, the idea that a man acting “effeminate” is disgraceful is also ridiculous. For God’s sake our Pope walks around in dresses and Prada slippers!! Would you accuse him of being too effeminate and disgraceful???

 

[LilyM]

The mannerisms we are discussing project a response once exclusively experienced by women but doesn’t define feminism. It was exaggerated to attract men and became an accepted norm. It is displayed in it’s extreme form in the roaring twenties Las Vegas dancing girls and prostitutes. It has become a norm of our culture so embedded that it is mistaken as the primary definition of feminity. It is not. It is a response ordered toward a woman’s husband.

The body language that expresses femaleness visibly was not always a norm in public. It was originally body language attached to a woman’s natural effection towards her husband and not an expression the defined femininity as it does today.

For it to define a man’s identity is an extreme distortion of it’s proper order. For it to define a man who is acting in persona christi is a grave insult to Him. The ignorance that shroud’s our culture in regards of what it is to be a human male or female decreases the gravity of the insult to probably little or nothing.

WHAT body language? WHAT mannerisms? I am pleased to say I am unacquainted with roaring twenties Las Vegas dancing girls and prostitutes, so you’ll have to be more specific if you hope to be understood.

Since being effeminate is so obviously wrong, you should have no problems providing many concrete and specific examples of ‘effeminate’ body language and ‘effeminate’ mannerisms.

 

[RobbyS]

So which precise manners, movements and speech, being non-sexual in nature, indicate that one is homosexual? As opposed merely to being effeminate, which of course is not in the slightest bit sinful. As there are effeminate heterosexuals as well, of course, and plenty of far-from-effeminate homosexuals?

Why are the behaviours that aren’t sexual in nature, but are considered effeminate, to be targeted, given that it is wholly and solely homosexual ACTS (and not effeminate ones) that are sinful?

Well, think a minute. I said this is group behavior, and it is cultivated so that one can be recognized as a member. Most of the time it is not the stereotypically “fey” behavior and speech patterns affected by comic like Robin Williams. It will be sexual only if they are trying to attract someone. They “dance” differently than do normal couples. but they have their ways. They can also behave like you or me when they want to, just as you and I would perhaps try to fit into another cultural group. Just as in the case of you and I not all our very thing by any means is determined by sex.