How can a loving God create then condemn a homosexual being?

[meltzerboy2]

Indeed, at least in the United States, if one is a straight white Protestant Christian male, it especially would seem that “G-d’s in His heaven and all’s right with the world.” Other groups have had to fight hard for their recognition as human beings with equal rights. And of late the straight white Christian male has had to fight too for recognition and has tasted a bit of the struggle that has plagued other groups of people for decades.

 

[Cabeelibob]

God condemns heterosexual relations in the wrong contexts. True and good relations require unification, which cannot be achieved fully in a homosexual relationship, and openess to procreation, obviously cannot be achieved.

It’s not about homosexual versus heterosexual as I see it, it’s about the purpose of sex and the definition of sexuality and marriage in the Church.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Are you saying that the pollution of estrogen in the environment is somehow related to an increase in homosexuality?

Well, there’s definitely something wrong. Look at things such as:

• the rise in obesity
• lowered sperm count in men
• the increased incidence of autism
• lowered attention span (this may be due to electronic media)

and so on. Maybe it’s in the food and the water.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Come now. Surely you are aware that some of our genes express themselves more strongly than others, and some do not express themselves at all throughout our whole lifetime. There are dominant genes and recessive genes. There are environmental triggers and biological maturational processes. It is not all junk science or pseudoscience (some no doubt is, just as there is junk religion). But let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[meltzerboy2]

All the more reason then for stricter EPA regulations. But that is the topic for another thread.

 

[Kullervo]

They are not condemned. If they don’t live out their homosexuality than there is no reason they would go to hell. They are probably tempted more than normal people to sexual sin, because they can’t have sex with the sex they would like, that’s a handicap, but nobody is condemned for how they were born.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

One thing I have always found beautiful about Catholicism is the utter fairness of it all.

What makes you think that I don’t have a difficult time with it? I have not always perfectly followed the teachings of the Church, nor, being a sinner, do I now. It is easier for me than it used to be, because I have finally made my peace with some things I used to rebel against. Wasn’t a thing easy about it. But I’ve “been there and done that”. And who’s to say that things won’t change in my life? Tragedy happens every day. Obstacles get thrown in your path. You just have to take life as it comes, and try to do what God wants you to do in all things. Sometimes much easier said than done.

I am not a member of Opus Dei, I’m not “on their page” in all things (nor do I have to be), never been associated with them in any way, never will be. But I find some of their practices very useful. One thing I have found fruitful is what they call the “heroic moment”, when you rise promptly at the beginning of the day, make the sign of the cross, and say “serviam” — “I will serve”. Another recommended practice is “forget that you exist”. I fail miserably at the latter, but it’s a good principle to have in your mind.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

“Tikkun olam” means that G-d intentionally created the world with holes needing repair. It is up to mankind to repair the holes in the world by means of the good deeds and works they do for others, their community, their country, their planet. Thus the partnership between G-d and humanity can be maintained, because G-d responds in kind to the good behavior of humans. There is no Fall in Judaism, no original sin. The world was created imperfectly by G-d Himself for a specific reason.

Thank you. I was assuming that world was created like a perfect vase (I think that is the imagery used), then somehow it got broken and has to be put back together. I guess I was close, but no cigar. I’m reminded of Leonard Cohen’s verse, “cracks are how the light gets in”.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Junk science and its perpetrators seek to justify any and all things immoral and/or amoral. Life is too short to read all such bilge, but what they do not say is at least as important as what they do say.

Science, at its core, seeks to understand physical phenomena. That includes genetic and environmental factors that could contribute to certain people being attracted to those of the same sex. Are there common factors, and to what extent are they predictors of such attraction? There’s nothing inherently wrong with pursuing such knowledge.

Where the problem comes in is less with the science and more with the ethics. Does having an unchosen attraction to someone of the same sex mean it is ok to have sex with someone of the same sex? Some say yes and others say no, but science doesn’t answer that question, only seeking an explanation to the attraction. It’s not worth deriding scientists for seeking answers to physical phenomena.

just doesn’t seem very convincing because many of them have far less burdensome “crosses.”

I’m not sure there’s much worth in comparing the relative burden of people’s crosses. Along with the fact that such comparisons are almost always very narrow and unsympathetic, we also have a guarantee that no one will bear more than they’re able (1 Cor. 10:13), which renders any such comparisons moot in the grand scheme of things.

 

[FrancisFan43]

It isn’t. The council of Trent says otherwise:

“Neither fornicators nor adulterers, nor the effeminate nor sodomites shall possess the kingdom of God.”

And here is Saint JPII in Veritas Splendor:

1. A doctrine which dissociates the moral act from the bodily dimensions of its exercise is contrary to the teaching of Scripture and Tradition. Such a doctrine revives, in new forms, certain ancient errors which have always been opposed by the Church, inasmuch as they reduce the human person to a “spiritual” and purely formal freedom. This reduction misunderstands the moral meaning of the body and of kinds of behaviour involving it (cf. 1 Cor 6:19). Saint Paul declares that “the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers” are excluded from the Kingdom of God (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). This condemnation — repeated by the Council of Trent"— lists as “mortal sins” or “immoral practices” certain specific kinds of behaviour the wilful acceptance of which prevents believers from sharing in the inheritance promised to them. In fact, body and soul are inseparable: in the person, in the willing agent and in the deliberate act, they stand or fall together

Furthermore, just because the devil tempts these poor souls with the unnatural vice of the flesh doesn’t mean God made them that way. Just like how a man that gets tempted to go on a murder spree doesn’t mean God made that poor soul that way. God can permit a person to be tempted, but He never wills it. To say that God wills us to be tempted by the devil would be blasphemy. It’s like saying, in the book of Job, God approached satan and asked him to commit that atrocity to Job to see if Job will still love Him afterwards.

So a person suffering from SSA (same sex attraction) is not “born that way”. Just as a man who gets tempered to seduce another man’s wife wasn’t born an adulterer. Like all temptations from the devil, they will go away with a rigorous prayer and fasting schedule.

God would not outlaw the act in Leviticus if He willing made people that way. God would not have obliterated two cities worth of those people if He made each and every single one of them that way. God would not create someone destined for hell. A god that would do such a thing is not God, but a false god.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Your argument is with our Holy Mother Church. The day the Church declares that the psychological genesis is explained as a choice, I will believe what the Church states.

Remember, temptations are not sins. Christ was tempted in every way that we are yet He did not sin (Hebrews chapter 4, CCC 75, GS 22). Some of Christ’s temptations are presented in detail in the Scriptures to assure us that we can overcome temptation.

Temptation is not a sin.

We are born with our own weakness, our own brokenness, due to original sin. God allows us to be made, to be created with original sin and all that it carries, including temptations.

Sexual acts outside of a valid marriage are sinful.

Those with homosexuality are called to chastity the same way hetrosexual person is called to chastity, the same way I am called to chastity, the same way you are called to chastity.

Temptation exists for all of us in some way.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Yet some people appear to bear more than they are able, based on the disproportionately high suicide rates among certain groups compared to those of the general population, including gay youth.

 

[meltzerboy2]

You seem to believe in the “pray-the-gay-away” regimen. Is that correct? The preponderance of scientific evidence indicates this approach does not work. And, moreover, the Church does not believe in it either, and, I would wager, neither does the current Pope.

 

[meltzerboy2]

That is not correct. Higher rates of poverty and discrimination are more likely than mental illness. The suicide rates are highest among African American youth (particularly girls), American Indians, gay youth, and the elderly. No mental illness correlation has been found in any of these groups.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Yes, “it happens in nature” is not at what is meant. I’m very much aware of DNA and genetics are and how those processes work. What matters is what human nature qua human nature is ordered towards and how it’s healthily expressed, which doesn’t always happen. That in itself isn’t a moral issue; morality comes into play with rational choices.

That still doesn’t explain why God would create special burdens and hardships for some people at least partially because of genetic mutations and through no fault of their own. And the most usual reply that l encounter here in CAF is that straight people also have their own “crosses” (they also can’t have sex outside of marriage) just doesn’t seem very convincing because many of them have far less burdensome “crosses.” A straight person can at least have sex within marriage and have an intimate relationship and about 90% of them do get married at least once by the age of 50. Many gay people, on the other hand, have the much heavier burden of being told that they can never have sex or an intimate relationship of the type that married couples do. So, why does God allow innocent people to have mutations that make them prone to sinful acts whereas other mutations only affect their eye color which doesn’t put them into a situation of being more likely to act in a sinful way?

People are born in all different levels of wealth and poverty, and into healthy families and dysfunctional families. Many are born with or develop severe physical and mental health disabilities. Some are born with addictions or predispositions towards addictive behaviors or hyper active sex drives or no sex drives. And you’re questioning why God can be so cruel as to create someone of otherwise sound mind and body who is attracted to the same sex if it’s the case that acting on that attraction is immoral? Quite simply it seems an odd point to stand your ground upon. God certainly permits us to develop in a diversity of ways and our development to be inhibited by numerous factors. That’s just the so called “problem of evil” in general, and I don’t find the case you’re focusing on any more special or confusing than the rest.

We are all born with our crosses. Some crosses are handed to us unexpectedly and suddenly much later in life. The psalms themselves are full of laments for the imbalances in life. That is the way of the world. Christianity doesn’t tell you the world is perfect, it shows you the way through the imperfectness and suffering of the world to become perfect.

The metaphor I have in my mind is that every human being is a fine piece of china, each with it’s own unique pattern of cracks in its otherwise perfect way. Some are cracked more than others, some in different ways. The Christian Way is the way towards wholeness again, and our wholeness and perfection is God’s ultimate end goal in sight for us.

 

[Wesrock]

HomeschoolDad:

Thorolfr:

It’s not the “brokenness of human nature” in my opinion. It’s a result of the way our bodies have been created with a tendency for a certain number of spontaneous errors to occur in the copying of the DNA in our cells. It’s part of evolution.

Those “spontaneous errors” are part of the brokenness. Maybe human nature isn’t the right term. Maybe “human condition” is more accurate.

But I wouldn’t consider the mutation that occurred about 10,000 years ago that makes my eyes blue to be something “broken.” It’s just a matter of chance that one mutation gave me blue eyes but some other ones might have predisposed me to be gay.

Some things are good. Some things are neutral. Some things are privations.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

One thing I have always found beautiful about Catholicism is the utter fairness of it all. Catholic morality applies straight across the board to everyone, there are no exceptions, nobody gets a free pass because they don’t “believe” in it, don’t “like” it, what have you. There is objective morality and it doesn’t change. True, there are mitigating factors, but right and wrong, good and evil, do not depend on what the believer “thinks” about it.

I would like to clarify my comments. When I say that Catholicism is “utterly fair”, I mean that the same things are required of everyone. I did not mean that things turn out fairly in this life for everyone, nor that “well, my life’s pretty good, so this is a nice, fair, cozy little religion for me, and that’s all I care about”. I know that the same demands, made of everyone, weigh more heavily on some people than on others. It would be nice if it didn’t work that way, but it does, and sometimes, it seems unfair.

.

You seem to believe in the “pray-the-gay-away” regimen. Is that correct? The preponderance of scientific evidence indicates this approach does not work. And, moreover, the Church does not believe in it either, and, I would wager, neither does the current Pope.

PTGA is fine if it works, but truth be told, most of the time it does not. Nevertheless, PTGA should be the first thing a person does if they find themselves to be gay, with the understanding that if it doesn’t work, they’re still OK as a person and OK with God.

 

[Cruciferi]

Preach It!

 

[englands123]

God breathed life in to the body. Through the Holy Spirit.

We as an individual make our own choices.

If someone wants to be straight, Gay or a murder… That is their choice.

So please do not insult your Father and our Fr by putting him to the test.

 

[John10]

This is assuming that “gays” are indeed born

That is the million dollar question. The fact is, plain common sense already point us to the obvious. Only the union of a man and a women can create children. That alone is sufficient to prove why marriage must be defended and protected.

Quoting from a Catholic Answers article:

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. Other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them. For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic.

Homosexuality | Catholic Answers Tract