Homosexuals in the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter timrohr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LCMS_No_More said:
:hmmm: I see dudes on motorcycles in the first picture. The second picture is a bishop who is also one of the dudes in the first picture. A bishop riding a motorcycle in civvies makes him homosexual?
Click to expand...
Even Jesus loves bikers.
 
Just a note: I work in a maximum security juvenile institution. We have a sex offender program for juvenile (ages 13 to 21). None of our offenders are homosexual. Most have many many victims. It is very true that one must be on the alert for the pedophile - and they come in many guises. Homosexuality is not a conversion nor is it a choice. Neither is being trans sexual or a hemaphrodite. There are many sad things in this world - and these people (they are still human beings) need support and compassion. Pedophiles need to be removed from society. Leave it to God to judge.
 
Our God is so loving and inclusive that he wants everyone to follow him and take up their Cross and surrender *any *selfish sexual desires for the greater good i.e. a chaste lifestyle

Our God loves active homosexuals so much that he asks them to take up their cross and ‘lay down their life’ for their Friend. This is inclusivity…the narrow way is OPEN to all…This is the LIBERATING Way of Christ Crucifed…and its vocation is Freedom…but it is hard to take up the Cross…but those who pray can succeed and these few(?) will be rewarded greatly in Heaven.

I can not judge displays of outward affection which are effeminate. These may be innocent. I would ask for reverence and silence however. Surely in Church we should focussing our gaze vertically rather than horizontally. 🤷
 
LCMS_No_More said:
:hmmm: I see dudes on motorcycles in the first picture. The second picture is a bishop who is also one of the dudes in the first picture. A bishop riding a motorcycle in civvies makes him homasexial?
Click to expand...
No, of course not! I was agreeing with dragonlady9947’s point (in post #76) that prejudice against people on the way they may appear can lead to very wrong conclusions.
 
John_of_Woking said:
Our God loves active homosexuals so much that he asks them to take up their cross and ‘lay down their life’ for their Friend. This is inclusivity…the narrow way is OPEN to all…This is the LIBERATING Way of Christ Crucifed…and its vocation is Freedom…but it is hard to take up the Cross…but those who pray can succeed and these few(?) will be rewarded greatly in Heaven.
Click to expand...
I have a hard time reconciling the nature of a supremely loving Father who feels our every pain that would create us, intentionally give us a cross and expect us to nail our selves to it (‘lay down their life’ for him). I do not believe He created us to Suffer and Die.

I also believe that he loves us First, completely and unconditionally as a result we can not “BUY” rewards. We should make our choices of sacrifices based on True love of the Father not considering or expecting the “rewards”, I do not believe God works on a barter system.

God Bless
 
Cherry5 said:
I have a hard time reconciling the nature of a supremely loving Father who feels our every pain that would create us, intentionally give us a cross and expect us to nail our selves to it (‘lay down their life’ for him). I do not believe He created us to Suffer and Die.

I also believe that he loves us First, completely and unconditionally as a result we can not “BUY” rewards. We should make our choices of sacrifices based on True love of the Father not considering or expecting the “rewards”, I do not believe God works on a barter system.

God Bless
Click to expand...
God indeed wants us to be happy and to flourish. He loves us unconditionally for sure. He even comes looking for us when we go a-wandering.

Now, Theodicy is a tricky subject. :confused:

A measure of suffering often precedes happiness. Suffering is hard humanly to comprehend. As a selfish human (and a man to boot) I know that selfless acts involve suffering. That is why I shy away from them. But having washed the dishes and cleaned up after me I know the rewards (not getting nagged by the wife?👍) are worth it. The medicine may be painful but the healing happens. Like trying to adjust our eyes to the new-day light (granted a simplistic analogy!:D)

With respect to the bartering system God’s mercy indeed seems to be greater than his Justice. We deserve nothing. He gives us everything. Even forgiveness of sins! The laws of the Church are nothing but laws of love. The fences our Good Lord builds to protect us overselves. (Memo to self) Give up sin…that way leads to ruin. Virtue leads to happiness.

God Bless and Pray for me… a selfish (very) sinner
 
lutherlic said:
No, of course not! I was agreeing with dragonlady9947’s point (in post #76) that prejudice against people on the way they may appear can lead to very wrong conclusions.
Click to expand...
Understood! 🙂

I should have caught on to it myself, looking back. :o

Excellent point. 👍
 
moondogbarks said:
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…
Click to expand...
Interesting views on the sin of homosexuality.
Your right , we should not be judging others. (Mt.7:1-5)
Heb. 10: 26 has always been a very frightening passage concerning what happens when we keep going back to the same sin when we know full well it is wrong. The bible refers to this as vomit. do you recall the story?
However, Jesus came to save us all for this very reason. Some are weaker than others.
After reading Heb.10:26 we have no such excuse, do we? (It covers all sins)

God bless,
bluelake
 
bluelake said:
Interesting views on the sin of homosexuality.
Your right , we should not be judging others. (Mt.7:1-5)
Heb. 10: 26 has always been a very frightening passage concerning what happens when we keep going back to the same sin when we know full well it is wrong. The bible refers to this as vomit. do you recall the story?
However, Jesus came to save us all for this very reason. Some are weaker than others.
After reading Heb.10:26 we have no such excuse, do we? (It covers all sins)

God bless,
bluelake
Click to expand...
Do enjoy your vomit Bluelake!
 
I started this thread and found the replies as varied as the replies I get in local discussions. However, for the most part, most saw my concern as being judgmental against homosexuals. That’s the easy out. Kind of funny to see all those “repliers” judging me of being judgmental. The fact is of course that it’s the Church, not I, who says that homosexuality is “objectively disordered”. (CCC) The Church makes that judgment. But then there comes the practical application.

And since homosexuality, for most, is a matter of self-disclosure, and not an identifiable immutable characteristic (like race or gender), short of walking up to someone and asking them if they’re homosexual, parents are forced to make choices for their children on observable behaviors. Perhaps some of you think that the more charitable thing to do would be to ask someone straight out about his or her gender identity or sexual orientation rather than make quiet judgments (about the behavior, not the person) for the good of one’s children.

People are welcome to be who they want to be and identify with whatever gender they choose. I work every day with people who are quite openly gay. I realize they are seeking happiness just like we all are. As a Catholic of course, I believe that chastity is the only way to real sexual happiness and I would witness that to them at the first invitation.

But the real issue is the situation at church, which very few replies seemed to address. So I’ll restate the issue. I must attend Mass under pain of mortal sin. I don’t get to choose to avoid uncomfortable situations like I might in the secular sphere. I have to go to Mass. My children have to go to Mass. Placing persons of demonstrable questionable sexual identity or, as in some cases, very demonstrable (flamboyant is the word) questionable sexual identity, in a position of visible authority (lector, EMOHC, or catechism teacher) places parents (some) in a position of choosing what’s best for their kids.

Some of you jumped to the conclusion that I was inferring that homosexuals are automatically child molesters. So perhaps a different example will help. Placing my 11 year old daughter under the authority of a an 18 year old woman with a tattoo on her fairly exposed left breast (real situation by the way), without some consideration as to the “teacher’s” personal morals and how my daughter might be affected, would be irresponsible for me as a parent.

Parents, because they are “forced” (that’s how the purveyors of sacramental preparation classes frame it) to deposit their kids into a CCD class, where the personal morals of the person who will teach the child about something that will effect his or her eternal salvation or eternal damnation, is a matter of injustice to the parents.

It’s funny. It’s probably quite common for most of the people who have posted on this thread to be quite concerned about your childrens’ friends. You would be an irresponsible parent if you weren’t. Therefore, you make “judgments” on people’s characters all the time based on what they look like, say, act, etc. But when it comes to talking about homosexual behaviors, something the Church quite clearly calls “objectively disordered”, it’s suddenly off limits.

My suspicion is that most people who have a problem talking honestly about the “objective disorder” of homosexuality are themselves morally compromised. Two pages later in the Catechism, the Church actually lets homosexuals off the hook (somewhat) because where as homosexuality is “objectively disordered” and homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered”, contraceptive acts between married people are called “intrinsically evil”. Look it up.

I’m sure I’m not making any friends with this one.
 
timrohr said:
The fact is of course that it’s the Church, not I, who says that homosexuality is “objectively disordered”. (CCC) The Church makes that judgment. But then there comes the practical application.

My suspicion is that most people who have a problem talking honestly about the “objective disorder” of homosexuality are themselves morally compromised.
Click to expand...
The Church is very clear that homosexuality is objectively disordered, but it is not always clear what the Church means by the phrase “objectively disordered.” This excerpt of a Church document gives some insight (the entire document can be found at vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html):🙂

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.”

This shows us that homosexuality being “objectively disordered” means that it is an inclination to do what may never be done (sodomy), but “ the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin.”
timrohr said:
And since homosexuality, for most, is a matter of self-disclosure, and not an identifiable immutable characteristic (like race or gender)…
Click to expand...
I have studied homosexuality a lot. People who identify themselves as homosexual usually experience SSA (same-sex attraction) long before they identify as homosexual. SSA can sometimes be reduced in individuals, but sometimes it may not.

Also, be mindful that not every guy who is flamboyant or feminine is homosexual. I’m sure you know that, but I’m sure that many men have been hurt by people thinking that they are homosexual.
 
Let me try to get this argument straight:

  1. *]All “homosexuals” are gender nonconforming
    *]All gender nonconforming persons have screwed up moral views
    *]No person who has screwed up moral views is welcome in the Catholic Church, competent to teach CCD, etc
    *]Therefore, no “homosexual” is welcome in the Catholic Church, competent to teach CCD, etc.

    If this is the argument, it’s wrong in all three of its premises. The first one is false because not all “homosexuals” are gender nonconforming. While, of course, there are butch lesbians and feminine gay men, there are also femme lesbians and masculine gay men. The second premise is even worse than the first: the factors that go into gender conformity are very various, so there’s no telling just what the moral views of a gender nonconformist are. Finally, the mere fact that a person is Catholic entitles him or her to the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, simply belonging to the Church predisposes one to accept Her teaching authority, and if, in addition, one has received the necessary training to lead CCD classes, it becomes all the more difficult to hold screwed up moral views.

    Now, much of the badness of the above argument came from its being about “homosexuals” rather than gender nonconformists. So the real question is, “What is so freaky about children being exposed to masculine women and feminine men?” There are three possible responses here:

    1. *]Children who are exposed to gender nonconformity will become “homosexual”
      *]Children who are exposed to gender nonconformity will fail to conform to their gender
      *]The world will come to an end or some other Bad Thing will happen

      The first response is patently incorrect: we simply don’t know what causes homosexuality. The second is again incorrect: the factors that go into gender are (as I said above) very various, but biology, early parent-child relationships, and peer interactions seem to be predominant influences, so the “risk” posed by a single gender nonconforming teacher is minimal at worst.

      Finally, if anyone is still concerned about the sort of instruction his or her child receiving in CCD, why not start taking an active role in your kid’s education? For example, when your kids come back from class, testing their knowledge of what they learned is a great way to check that they’re not slacking off and that what their teacher is presenting is sound. Or why not start discussing Church documents or apologetic works with them? A couple hours a week spent reading and talking through the Compendium of the Catechism would no doubt help immensely to get the fundamentals of the faith into your child’s head.
 
Excellent response to this other persons paranoia frame of thought. I suggest a therapist might be in order to help her understand her contradictory way of thinking and views of what the church has to say.

It is clear she is hiding behind what the church (CCC) says about this subject matter that she is so paranoid about and exposing her children to these alleged immoral catholic Christians that are involved in teaching CCC or serving as Eucharistic Ministers, etc., that she is truly talking from her own point of view and not the Catholic church’s point of view.

However, she still slips in some arrogant, judgmental, hateful and discriminatory talk quite clearly! Then, then she turns things around and blames her point of view on what the “Church” says about this subject matter, when it is all coming from her and her only!

Regardless, whether she pays attention to your well said response she might learn something or else she can hide her kids in a dark cave where they will be safer from this horrible and evil world!

Hypocrites like this get so used to being side tracked from their own personal walk with Christ that they contradict themselves when they begin to reflect merciless and hateful intents towards other Christians that they do not know anything about or where they are coming from or appear like based on what clothing they chose to wear, appear like or for merely for the stances they maintain that may be questionable if whether they are like this or like that that this woman is so intimidated about!

Maybe she needs to keeps her eyes off this other woman’s tattooed breasts, repent, go to confession and act more Christ like! Be loving and merciful!

We are all called to be one church and serve one God no matter what! This woman seems to be in spiritual desolation than in contemplation with Christ.
 
All “homosexuals” are gender nonconforming
All gender nonconforming persons have screwed up moral views
No person who has screwed up moral views is welcome in the Catholic Church, competent to teach CCD, etc
Therefore, no “homosexual” is welcome in the Catholic Church, competent to teach CCD, etc
Click to expand...
I’m curious, chrysostim83, from which post did you extract this argument? Or is it your own strawman construction?

Everyone is welcome in the Catholic Church. CCC makes that very clear.

However, people who are clearly, obviously, and publicly living in opposition to the Church’s teachings should not be in positions where they are responsible for teaching. I would include in that group: people who are publicly in favor of abortion, adulterous heterosexuals, people living an open homosexual lifestyle, people living together and having sexual relations before marriage, heretics, schismatics, and I could add more. All of these people are welcome in the Church, but I wouldn’t welcome any of them to teach.

A person with SSA who lives chastely would probably be a great example and teacher. This person has a cross to bear far more difficult than many can imagine. A person who chooses to disobey Church teachings and have affairs with someone other than their spouse would not be a good example and teacher.

OP referred to
demonstrable questionable sexual identity or, as in some cases, very demonstrable (flamboyant is the word) questionable sexual identity
Click to expand...
. timrohr, what do those terms mean? If someone’s sexual identity is “questionable,” does that mean that you are not sure if they are a man or a woman? Or you are not sure they are homosexual? If you are not sure, I would suggest that you assume the best and not judge based on appearance alone. If the person is clearly and obviously living a homosexual lifestyle, I agree that they shouldn’t be teaching CCD. But if they seem a little too masculine or feminine for your tastes, I think you are perhaps a bit off base by suggesting that they not hold positions of responsibility. If you have doubts about a particular CCD teacher, with whom you deposit your children, why don’t you schedule a sit-down with that person and talk about a wide range of church teachings?

timrohr, you have a problem with persons of “questionable sexual identity” serving as lector or EHMC. Does this mean that a man who seems a bit effeminate, or a woman who seems a bit masculine, should not serve in those positions? Who gets to judge what is over the line? You? A person openly living a lifestyle in opposition to Church teachings shouldn’t be serving as a lay minister, agreed. Perhaps you have seen something more blatant and obvious than just an effeminate appearance?

moondogbarks, this
Maybe she needs to keeps her eyes off this other woman’s tattooed breasts, repent, go to confession and act more Christ like! Be loving and merciful!
Click to expand...
is really not very charitable, is it? Nor is it very helpful to a civil discussion.
 
The strawman was an attempt to specify some of the suppressed premises of post #91.

First, it was clear that timrohr thinks the usual stereotypes of gay persons are reliable, and this is only what the first premise expresses.

As to the second premise, it seemed like the only possible source of scandal from butch women and feminine men would be their allegedly screwed up moral views. Maybe timrohr wants to say that it is a sin for a woman to have a mullet or for a man to have a limp wrist—that would be an interesting perspective to take, but it hardly explains how gender nonconformity is a source of scandal since the particular sins involved are pretty unattractive.

The conclusion followed logically from the premises, so it’s a waste of time to point out that the Catechism contradicts it: I know perfectly well to what extent gay persons are welcome in the Church.

In any event, I was definitely intending to amend my response. It was way too harsh, for one thing. And since I had argued that our fellow Catholics always deserve the benefit of the doubt, it was unfair of me not to try to give timrohr that same benefit. Moreover, a careful reader will notice that while I said the third premise was false, I did not present an argument that it was. I have to agree that heretics and murders and the like should not teach CCD.

I won’t retract the rest of what I wrote: try as I might, I fail to see how the mannerisms popularly associated with homosexuality could be scandalous. Young children won’t perceive the association, so there will be no scandal; older children might perceive the association, but they’ll also think “homosexuals” are disgraceful, so again there will be no scandal. Either way, timrohr is good to go.
 
The Church is for sinners - that’s why there is a strict teaching regarding homosexuality and why we must avoid and condemn this sin. We are not loving the sinners as Christ taught us if we make excuses by saying “it’s none of my business” or “it’s their choice” or whatever. That is not what Christ taught us to do - He taught us to go and make disciples of all nations, and part and parcel of being a follower of Christ is renouncing sin, including homosexuality.

Not warning someone that the bridge ahead is washed out may lead to their demise, for which we would be at least partly accountable. Not warning gays of the dangers of homosexuality (both temporal as well as spiritual) will not lead to any better.

Part One and Part Two of “Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture” by Joseph Gudel

Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals by Frank Joseph

The further we stray from Church teaching, the more harm comes into society. The Church was right to oppose this from the very beginning and is right to oppose homosexuality now.
 
Moreover, a careful reader will notice that while I said the third premise was false, I did not present an argument that it was
Click to expand...
Perhaps a strawman argument that is so convoluted as to require this sort of explanation, should be avoided, for fear of confusing both the friend and the opponent. 🙂
 
Yes. Like others who feel strongly about being fair to gay Catholics, I should have kept my mouth shut.
 
Forgot to add “Homosexual Theology” by Kerby Anderson; while seemingly not a Catholic he still gives a very reasonable and Scriptural analysis of homosexuality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top