Is it time we welcome the gay community to ours?

[Brendan]

What is SSA? I do not know anyone outside these forums who uses that term.

It is the term used by psychologists.

[psychology.org.au/publications/(name removed by moderator)sych/samesex/](https://www.psychology.org.au/publications/(name removed by moderator)sych/samesex/)
sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144551.htm
responseability.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/4798/Same-Sex-Attraction-and-Mental-Health.pdf

 

[Starrsmother]

It’s a kind of a newer term–I’d never hard it until I joined ENCOURAGE which is a support group for family and friends of gays, lesbians and transsexuals, etc. It supposedly implies that there is the attraction–but not necessarily the acting on it part. If you are living the lifestyle I believe that’s called SSP (the “P” is for “practicing”) Frankly, I’ve never ran into anyone with SSA or SSP who didn’t come right out and label themselves as “gay” or “lesbian” or whatever–some gays even seem to take pride in calling themselves “queer” I’ve noticed–and I figured that would be a real no-no… Everytime I just about get the lingo down, someone changes it.

 

[esieffe]

The church has always welcomed the gay community. But they are subject to the same regulations as every other catholic must fulfill…purity. If the church made an exception to this then it would be remiss in carrying out the mission of Jesus to sanctify them but every catholic as well.

But they are still welcome to come to our spiritual hospital.

That is my view.

Good answer!

 

[esieffe]

Besides, even if you don’t accept the Gospel and the Apostles and Scripture, homosexuality is disgusting! Why would you want to keep company with it?

The Pope recently talked about the “purest” problem in the church. Love and salvation was the life work of Jesus, not this type of vitriolic judgement. Are there not chaste single heterosexuals in the church right now? Of course. Why should gay folk be any different? There may even be chaste gay couples, I have no idea.

Think about heterosexual couples who don’t want more than one or two children. Lets assume our couple are devout Catholics. No contraception etc. What do you have? A chaste couple.

 

[CrossBro]

Saint Paul told us not to associate with the sexually immoral, in that category he includes homosexuals.

 

[JRKH]

Saint Paul told us not to associate with the sexually immoral, in that category he includes homosexuals.

This is true…However - if a person has SSA but is chaste - is s/he a homosexual?

Peace
James

 

[Starrsmother]

This is true…However - if a person has SSA but is chaste - is s/he a homosexual?

Peace
James

Of course a person with SSA who is living chastly is homosexual–in that he or she is attracted to members of the same sex–the definition of homo vs hetro–anything.

St. Paul or no St. Paul–Jesus suggested that we judge not that we be not judged in the same exact measure. And, I’m referring to the post right above yours (not yours here) as it obviously caught my attention, but I’m not going to even go the extra step of acknowledging it by posting twice-- I believe Jesus is a higher authority than even St Paul if push comes to shove and I’ll listen to Jesus every time first–and Pope Francis seems to agree on that issue too.

Among the many issues I have suggested–even to my own lesbian daughter–is the fact that someone’s sex life does not even need to come up or be discussed in routine conversation. If I were a young single woman instead of a 62 year old old-bat, and I went out on a Friday night and had sex in the back seat of my boyfriend’s Camaro with him, it is NONE of anyone else’s business–unless I am stupid enough to make it their business. It’s between me, my boyfriend, God and the priest I go to confession to. God did not ask any man or woman out their to judge me. Where homosexuals go so wrong in my opinion–and believe me when I say that I’ve gone down this very road with my own kid–is that they somehow think their sex life should be different than my sex life. They try to make themselves a special and protected class–which is a sign of insecurity in my opinion. As such, they wear what should be a private matter between themselves, their partner, God and a priest on their name tags. And of course, by doing so, they elicit judgment from every holier than thou, sanctimonious individual out there (like the poster above who quoted from St. Paul) who should be more concerned with pulling the railroad tie out of their own rear end than trying to decide whether there is a splinter in the homosexual’s eye. Now don’t get me wrong–I am not trivializing the sin of living as an active, practicing homosexual. I am not. Also, don’t think that my own lesbian daughter doesn’t tell me how wrong and bigoted I am when I point out to her that nobody with half a life should even have the time to THINK about someone else’s sex life. If gay individuals would simply do what heterosexual individuals do and shut up about their sex life–at least 50% of all the news stuff that keeps the press so busy screaming discrimination these days could be avoided.

Moreover, if two men–or two women who shared a house, walked into a Catholic church together, and some nut-case stood up and yelled “Homosexuals! Stone them!” I think that person should be excommunicated on the spot–or in Texas where I’m from, shot-- but only in the knee (LOL!)–but whatever–you get my point… NO person has the right to judge another person to be a sinner! Conversely, gays cause at last half the problem themselves–and that includes my own daughter–and I’ve told her so–not that she listens. None the less, as Catholics, we should reach out to everyone–whether they are a leper or a fortune teller or a pagan or whether they are having premarital sex, extra marital sex, or even Anthony-Weiner-sex --all with love and prayer and hope that God will somehow use us to bring their souls to Him. THAT, not judging–is our obligation.

 

[JRKH]

Of course a person with SSA who is living chastly is homosexual–in that he or she is attracted to members of the same sex–the definition of homo vs hetro–anything.

Exactly - - BUT this is where we need to be careful in how we define and use the terminology. I think it is probably why the term SSA came about - to give greater clarity.
St Paul says this in 1 Corinthians 6…
9Don’t you know that wicked people won’t inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals, 10or thieves, those who are greedy or drunk, who use abusive language, or who rob people will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11That’s what some of you were! But you have been washed and made holy, and you have received God’s approval in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
In verse 9 and 10 he gives a rather scathing indictment of sinful behavior including the word “homosexuals” - Yet in verse 11 he places these things in the past tense. "What some of you were (not are).

As I was reading the above passage the thought occurred to me. Paul refers to thieves. It made me wonder. If a person was prone to stealing - and acted on that propensity, he would be a thief. If he reformed and resisted that propensity…Is he still a thief? Likewise if a person has been an adulterer but is now reformed (though still troubled by the urge) - are they still an adulterer?
I think generally we would say - no he is not - So the question could be asked - in light of Paul’s writings above - if a person has a propensity toward homosexuality - but has reformed - been “washed and made holy” to use Paul’s words…should we continue to label those who are our brother’s and sisters in Christ and living chaste lives as homosexual?

Obviously the above gets into the issue of the usages of terms and how we understand and apply them…Which is something that we all need to consider carefully when discussing such matters.

St. Paul or no St. Paul–Jesus suggested that we judge not that we be not judged in the same exact measure. And, I’m referring to the post right above yours (not yours here) as it obviously caught my attention, but I’m not going to even go the extra step of acknowledging it by posting twice-- I believe Jesus is a higher authority than even St Paul if push comes to shove and I’ll listen to Jesus every time first–and Pope Francis seems to agree on that issue too.

You raise a very good point here. The principle and manner by which we judge others will be the principle and manner by which we will be judged.
This is something that we all too often forget I’m afraid…

Peace
James

 

[TimothyH]

I am glad to see some in this online community welcoming to those who are gay such as myself. I am coming into the Church and I have been asked by those who are gay and have left the church why on earth would I come into it.

It makes me sad those that don’t feel like I should come into the Church. I am truly blessed that my parish and my priest love me for me not my sexuallity. They know I am gay. A bunch of 60-90 year old Italian men and women are happy and excited for me to be coming into the Faith. I am thankful I have that kind of support and not those who would turn me away at the door.

We need to love and care for one another. Not tear each other apart.

Your last sentence is perfect. Sublime. Welcome home.

I know a woman who lives as a man and desires a sex change operation. I was able to articulate authentic Catholic teaching on homosexuality from the Catechism and the person was stunned.

---

This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. ***

It really is beautiful teaching and the person asked why they had never heard that, and why individual Catholics don’t see to know that.

-Tim-

-Tim-

 

[SinnersAnonymus]

Gay people are welcome, but the sin of gay sex is not approved

Single straight people who have pre-marital sex are welcome, but the sin of pre-marital sex is not approved

People who masturbate are welcome, but the sin of masturbation is not approved

Thieves are welcome, but the sin of theft is not approved

Sinners are welcome, but sins are not approved.

Love the person, but not the sin. For some reason we keep grouping the two together. I am not perfect and I mess up but I do not identify myself in the context of my sins. It is like saying we need to accept gossipers into the church. The person yes, but leave the gossip at the door.

I know some gay Catholics and I do not see how being gay overwhelms their personhood. They try to abide by church teachings of celibacy and I applaud them for it. As people they are wonderful. I do not see them as gay anymore then I would see one of my friends as a masturbator. I see a person seeking a real relationship with God and sacrificing close human intimacy in order to do it.

God Bless

 

[Brendan_64]

This is true…However - if a person has SSA but is chaste - is s/he a homosexual?

Peace
James

Yes, in the same way that a person attracted to the opposite sex, but is chaste, is a heterosexual.

CCC 2357 to 2359 do not refer to SSA they refer to homosexuality. It is clear that the catechism regards homosexuality as the condition of being attracted to the people of the same sex.

This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

[/INDENT]

It really is beautiful teaching and the person asked why they had never heard that, and why individual Catholics don’t see to know that.

Probably because, sadly, it doesn’t fit well with the prejudices of some of the laity within our Church.

 

[CrossBro]

This is true…However - if a person has SSA but is chaste - is s/he a homosexual?

Peace
James

I have always been taught that the Church distinguishes between a “gay lifestyle” and a “homosexual orientation”.

Whenever I hear the word “gay” it means a perpetual sin lifestyle (ie no repentance). Whenever I hear the term homosexual orientation I think more in lines of struggle.

 

[Captain_America]

I agree with the above.

Unfortunately, the term “gay community” strongly suggests that community members are fine with their condition. It’s a bit, then, like saying, “let’s have the Swinging Community enter the church”. It suggests that there be no moral consideration of the community’s hobby.

 

[CrossBro]

I agree with the above.

Unfortunately, the term “gay community” strongly suggests that community members are fine with their condition. It’s a bit, then, like saying, “let’s have the Swinging Community enter the church”. It suggests that there be no moral consideration of the community’s hobby.

I guess they have the right to be “gay”, even though I disagree that the lifestyle does no harm not only to themselves but to others and society as well.

They do not have the right to demand acceptance in my religion though, anymore than they feel I don’t have the right to put that video camera in their bedroom.

They can go anywhere they like, run up and down the street in San Francisco naked if it pleases them, so why the obsession with demanding that I follow their rules and accept them instead of following God’s commandments and my own moral conscience ? if they want in the Church then the rules are spelled out.

 

[shelby_sun]

I do not know the intentions of the original poster but the post seems like more propaganda to conform to liberal ideas. Too many people are trying to change the Church from within to be lax on serious moral issues of the day. I always think and am not 100% sure, but do the freemasons play a part in this? If I am wrong I appologize. Homosexual acts are one of the four sins that ‘cry out to heaven.’ People with same sex attraction are welcome but they have to want to be chaste and do Gods will. If people are repentant as all of us have the opportunity the Church is welcoming with open arms. The problem is those that have bad intentions and come into the Church to lobby it with their own agenda and not Gods agenda. Also being a bad judge is one who judges evil to be good and good to be evil. I believe that is in the book of James.

One needs not repent that they are homosexual, only the sinful acts they have committed. Where is it stated that homosexual acts are “one of the four sins that cry out to heaven”?

Maybe the OP should not have said the homosexual community so not to lead some to think of the those who are trying to change the churches views, but rather focus on individuals that have struggled with society’s view of them and their place in the church.

There is no more time for this kind of attitude in the Church. It has driven to many good people away. It seems we don’t put this much focus on adulterers, thieves, child abusers, etc. but we know many of them are at mass every Sunday. Ironically, it is some of those sinners that are the most outspoken about keeping homosexuals out of the church.

 

[Brendan_64]

if they want in the Church then the rules are spelled out.

If membership of our Church was conditional on not breaking the rules then our Church would be empty. Our Church is a Church full of sinners.

Our pews are packed full of adulterers, fornicators, masturbators, thieves, liars, wife-beaters and much more. Ought we to expel these people from our Church for not following the rules?

 

[CrossBro]

If membership of our Church was conditional on not breaking the rules then our Church would be empty. Our Church is a Church full of sinners.

Our pews are packed full of adulterers, fornicators, masturbators, thieves, liars, wife-beaters and much more. Ought we to expel these people from our Church for not following the rules?

Yes.

And I would like to point something out to you here that you seemed to have missed. The question when it comes to the “gay lifestyle” is the one of repentance and scandal.

As for adulterty, John Paul II made it clear that a homosexual relationship was indeed more grave a sin then a sexual relationship between members of the opposite sex because a homosexual relationship could never be made a sacrament whereas a heterosexual one could. We detest our sins because they offend God, not to how they relate to us. God is the victim in adultery and when the Church speaks of adultery it includes any sex act outside the context of marriage.

So, if you are trying to state that all sins are equal, you are wrong according to the Church.

Peace.

 

[Brendan_64]

So, if you are trying to state that all sins are equal, you are wrong according to the Church.

Are you trying to claim that being a homosexual (or being in a state of grave sin as a result of homosexual activity) excludes a person from belonging to our Church? If so then you are wrong according to the Church.

And in your post above are you saying that adulterers, fornicators, masturbators, liars, wife-beaters, thieves etc. should be expelled from our Church? If so then your view is very wrong, according to the Church. Our Church is not in the business of purging itself of sinners, quite the reverse. Our Church exists for sinners.

 

[shelby_sun]

Yes.

And I would like to point something out to you here that you seemed to have missed. The question when it comes to the “gay lifestyle” is the one of repentance and scandal.

As for adulterty, John Paul II made it clear that a homosexual relationship was indeed more grave a sin then a sexual relationship between members of the opposite sex because a homosexual relationship could never be made a sacrament whereas a heterosexual one could. We detest our sins because they offend God, not to how they relate to us. God is the victim in adultery and when the Church speaks of adultery it includes any sex act outside the context of marriage.

So, if you are trying to state that all sins are equal, you are wrong according to the Church.

Peace.

What if the opposite sex people having sex are married to other people. Not only are they going against having sex outside marriage, they are also breaking the commitment of their marriage vows. Now which one is worse.

This is the knit picking that Pope Francis is trying to get away from, which sin is worse. So is an adulterer worse than a thief or a liar? Where is there a list of which sin is worse than another. Do you sit there in church decide who has committed a grave sin that someone else?

 

[CrossBro]

Are you trying to claim that being a homosexual (or being in a state of grave sin as a result of homosexual activity) excludes a person from belonging to our Church? If so then you are wrong according to the Church.

I did not say that, look at my previous post where I responded to someone that the Church makes a distinction between the homosexual orientation and a gay lifestyle.

A homosexual orientation in and of itself may not be sinful unless it is acted upon.

The gay lifestyle is one in which a person leads of lifestyle in which they do not intend to admit it is wrong or change. That is called perpetual sin and scandal.

Hope that answers your question.

And also note that my comments are speaking on what the Church teaches, not on what I am trying to claim.