Is it time we welcome the gay community to ours?

[SMGS127]

But we welcome a rapist in the Church in spite of his/her sins, not because of them. We wouldn’t have an active evangelization program to invite unrepentant rapists to Mass.

Except unrepentant rapists do deliberate harm to others for self-satisfaction. Unrepentant homosexuals do not do deliberate harm to others, nor do they force others into involvement in their sin; the other person willingly commits it as well. Neither believes it is a sin, nor do they wish anything but love for the other. There are significant differences. So yes, I would support an active evangelization program for a group of people characterized by misguided love that I wouldn’t support for a group of people characterized by intentional evil.

 

[Corki]

Except unrepentant rapists do deliberate harm to others for self-satisfaction. Unrepentant homosexuals do not do deliberate harm to others, nor do they force others into involvement in their sin; the other person willingly commits it as well. Neither believes it is a sin, nor do they wish anything but love for the other. There are significant differences. So yes, I would support an active evangelization program for a group of people characterized by misguided love that I wouldn’t support for a group of people characterized by intentional evil.

I disagree. People who are unrepentantly living a homosexual lifestyle are doing so deliberately. They are harming others and they are forcing others to be involved in their sins. They may wish love for each other but they are wrong in how they go about it. If love was the only thing they were pursuing, they would not confirm their partners in sin nor would they seek to have others in the community (including the Church community) affirm that sin.

 

[SMGS127]

I disagree. People who are unrepentantly living a homosexual lifestyle are doing so deliberately. They are harming others and they are forcing others to be involved in their sins. They may wish love for each other but they are wrong in how they go about it. If love was the only thing they were pursuing, they would not confirm their partners in sin nor would they seek to have others in the community (including the Church community) affirm that sin.

You’re misunderstanding the LGBT movement completely. They do not seek affirmation of their sin; they seek to be left alone completely. Legalization of gay “marriage” isn’t about public affirmation. It’s about being able to live their lives how they want to.

And considering that active gays don’t believe what they are doing is sin, then they most certainly could be only pursuing love. You are trying to impose a decidedly Catholic worldview on a decidedly non-orthodox Catholic population. If they recognized it for the sin it was, sure, but they don’t. Rapists do.

 

[Catolico65]

Except unrepentant rapists do deliberate harm to others for self-satisfaction. Unrepentant homosexuals do not do deliberate harm to others, nor do they force others into involvement in their sin; the other person willingly commits it as well. Neither believes it is a sin, nor do they wish anything but love for the other. There are significant differences. So yes, I would support an active evangelization program for a group of people characterized by misguided love that I wouldn’t support for a group of people characterized by intentional evil.

You have made a lot of incorrect assumptions:

1. Unrepentant homosexuals do harm to themselves and others, they go hell (per the New Testament).
2. Homosexuals do force others into their sin by promoting their depravity as much as possible and especially to the young as we are seeing all over the US now.
3. The Bible clearly tells us we all have a conscience, so the practicing homosexual is quite aware of his sin. For this reason they must rely on their community for justification to mitigate their guilty conscience. This desire of self justification is also manifested by funding studies in the hope of finding a biological solution and criticizing anyone that converts to heterosexuality. The ironic thing is that we now know homosexuality is temporary for the majority of people and thus not biological.

I agree we should evangelize them but the worse thing we can do is tell them what they want to hear instead of what the Bible and Church dogma teach us.

 

[SMGS127]

You have made a lot of incorrect assumptions:

1. Unrepentant homosexuals do harm to themselves and others, they go hell (per the New Testament).
2. Homosexuals do force others into their sin by promoting their depravity as much as possible and especially to the young as we are seeing all over the US now.
3. The Bible clearly tells us we all have a conscience, so the practicing homosexual is quite aware of his sin. For this reason they must rely on their community for justification to mitigate their guilty conscience. This desire of self justification is also manifested by funding studies in the hope of finding a biological solution and criticizing anyone that converts to heterosexuality. The ironic thing is that we now know homosexuality is temporary for the majority of people and thus not biological.

I agree we should evangelize them but the worse thing we can do is tell them what they want to hear instead of what the Bible and Church dogma teach us.

First off, I never said gays don’t do harm. I said they don’t do DELIBERATE harm.

Secondly, they do not force anyone into their sin. People follow their own temptations into the sin, and gay relationships are consensual.

Thirdly, a conscience can be badly calloused by one’s parents or community growing up. So it is quite possible that a gay person could have their conscience calloused by having extremely permissive parents (by viewing the religion as allowing for a Protestant idea of “primacy of conscience”) or extremely controlling/abusive parents (by viewing their actions as invalidating the religion).

 

[Corki]

You’re misunderstanding the LGBT movement completely. They do not seek affirmation of their sin; they seek to be left alone completely. Legalization of gay “marriage” isn’t about public affirmation. It’s about being able to live their lives how they want to.

And considering that active gays don’t believe what they are doing is sin, then they most certainly could be only pursuing love. You are trying to impose a decidedly Catholic worldview on a decidedly non-orthodox Catholic population. If they recognized it for the sin it was, sure, but they don’t. Rapists do.

That may have been true 30 years ago but no one in the LGBT movement is satisfied with being left alone these days. They insist on complete normalization of their sinful lifestyle, nothing less than total acceptance and agreement. Marriage is a public act. A person or organization doesn’t push for **public recognition **of their own version of marriage because they want to be left alone.

 

[Tarpeian]

You implied that Catholics didn’t care about adding numbers to the flock. That is, frankly, heretical.

The Great Commission tells us to make disciples of all men. It doesn’t tell us that all men are already disciplines. So, no, a person who is living in sin is not already a discipline. But it is our duty to witness to them, to make them disciples (if we can).

And, no, telling someone they are sinning is not witnessing to them. The Gospel tells us how to witness. If we do not care about witnessing to others, we are not truly Catholic.

I did not mean to convey that idea in my post. However adding numbers to the flock simply for the sake of adding numbers has never been a mandate of The Church. In fact I would argue that is part of the problem. One can simply turn on the television and see the number of Catholic’s in the public square and see they are Catholic in name only.

Our Lord asked St. Paul, “why persecutest thou me?” Now I agree telling someone they are sinning might not be the best way to witness (depending on the variables) but to say its not a form of witnessing is false. I myself would not use that approach. I tend to be abrasive when it comes to sharing The Faith, especially in a society that so readily claims ignorance. Knowing my many character flaws, I try to witness by action and not words.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[ishii]

You’re misunderstanding the LGBT movement completely. They do not seek affirmation of their sin; they seek to be left alone completely. Legalization of gay “marriage” isn’t about public affirmation. It’s about being able to live their lives how they want to.
.

I totally disagree. If you look at the high profile cases in the news of late, you will find that it is not just about being left alone. It is about challenging rules and traditions. Look at the vice principal who got married: he knew that he signed a contract that would prevent him from getting married to a man. Now there is a big protest against the catholic church to have him reinstated. And the mayor of Seattle - who also is gay and married joined the protest at St. James cathedral in Seattle. Its not about being left alone at all - its about the secular left co-opting or using the issue of gay rights to challenge the authority of the Church and ram the secular culture down our throats - and being forced to affirm marriage between two men. Individual gays might well just want to be left alone, but the gay lobby, in conjunction with the secular left is about transforming our culture.

Ishii

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Do you mind answering my original question, why is homosexual sex morally wrong? It causes literally no problems in society. .

Okay let me ask you a question and make a statement and let’s see if you can answer and affirm it with a straight face:

Is all heterosexual sex moral? Because it causes literally no problems in society.

Now a thoughtful person will realize that even heterosexual sex cannot be so unqualifiedly promoted. There are endless situations in which even heterosexual sex causes enormous “problems in society”. There are many instances where it is obviously “morally wrong”. It would be tedious to list them.

But since you honestly seem so given in to the brainwashing and social engineering being delivered to us for the last 20 years, let’s just point out the obvious problems with homosexual sex:

1. It is fruitless. It does not contribute to society in the form of new members of society, usually an overall good thing.
2. It is risky. It is notorious for spreading diseases and even very grave ones.
3. Even absent 2., in the case of anal penetration, it is damaging to your body and, of its very nature, always dangerous for your health.
4. Because of and in the cases of 3., it is also clearly irrational and therefore an unnatural act that is ultimately degrading of the individuals involved.
5. Moreover because of 1., it has absolutely no positive or useful significance to society as such, because it is a highly individualistic act. It does not potentially rearrange the social fabric the way heterosexual sex can and does (by consanguinity and rearranging blood relationships or families).

As even the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell noted, the only obvious reason why society and the government concerns itself with people’s sexual relations and activities is because of children. The only other instance might be because of something like public health, say, or for promoting society’s overall welfare and stability. It is, therefore, only interested in things like sex or marriage insofar as it relates to the possibility of children and new members of society. This also gives away the bogusness of homosexual pseudo-“marriages”.

So yeah, I can think of a few reasons immediately off the top of my head how homosexual sex can and does cause problems in and for society.

I can also produce arguments proving that homosexual “sex” is itself actually a misnomer and a fiction and that only intercourse between a man and a woman devoid of any contraceptives or contraceptive acts is actually and truly sex, but I digress.

 

[Catolico65]

Do you mind answering my original question, why is homosexual sex morally wrong? It causes literally no problems in society. It’s either I’m missing something, or this is just ongoing, unwarranted prejudice.

In this world of relativism everything is ok isn’t it?

However, for Christians we know God created man for a purpose. The male body was not designed to make love to the male body and absolutely nothing good comes from it, on the contrary it corrupts completely.

Also, the Bible teaches people are given over to homosexual desires because of their arrogance and personal corruption. This is not the case for children who are confused easily, who btw are now being corrupted by the gay lobby who push their agenda.

Also, in my experience many years discussing the topic with homosexuals I can say I’ve never met one who defended homosexuality that was not arrogant and untruthful. It is true what St. Paul says and we Christians should take heed.

 

[esieffe]

One can simply turn on the television and see the number of Catholic’s in the public square and see they are Catholic in name only.

For argument sake, let’s assume that is true for a moment. If all the “community” seeks is religious institutional acceptance, and that seems to be the overall hypothesis of this thread, why not stick with a softer target, one that has proven to be more accommodating, such as the Anglican or Methodist Churches? The CC will never change doctrine regarding this… sooooo it stands to reason that SS folks that want to be a part of the CC are ready to do so according to the same principals and doctrine the rest of us do. This is logic.

Touchdown Atlanta!!

 

[JB_Dugan]

You shouldn’t be. The Scripture clearly teaches two things: (1) That we should not distort the gospel, by lying about the teaching of the Church, and (2) That we should do everything in our power to make the gospel beautiful.

The primary teaching of Scripture is the good news of SALVATION and how to attain it.

The gospels are beautiful in themselves. No need to enhance or detract. As a wise theologian once said about preaching: “There is no need to let your mouth rupture God’s words.”

The good news is that – if we do not distort the gospel – it will automatically be beautiful. The gospel is not fundamentally a teaching about sin. It is a teaching about the love of Christ that conquers sin. We do not obtain God’s love by freeing ourselves from sin. We FIRST receive God’s love, and then we have the power to cease sinning.

Yes, God loves us and through His Church we are taught about sin and through His grace we gain the power to resist temptation. Whether we cease sinning or not is up to our free will and our love of God.

Read the Church Fathers. Read Augustine. Read Saint Francis. There is an almost unbroken tradition of translating the gospel into a language that people can connect with, a language that people feel loved by. If modern catechists don’t get that, I suppose it explains why the Church in America is in such bad shape.

I have read Augustine, Aquinas, and St Francis is a favorite. But I remember that they are not the Magisterium.

When did I ever suggest I would teach something that isn’t doctrine? You can make something appealing without changing its nature.

That’s true, you never suggested that you would teach against doctrine.

But that leaves me wondering how you would make the Church’s teachings about homosexuality appealing to an open active homosexual…

Well, I wasn’t planning on telling them the Church said gay sex was OK.

I am sure you were not…but do you tell them that…“homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." ?..And…
therefore, as good Catholic homosexuals, they are required to live a life of celibacy

If you do, I wonder how many would want to return to the Church…or how many would even consider our Faith.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That’s true, you never suggested that you would teach against doctrine.

But that leaves me wondering how you would make the Church’s teachings about homosexuality appealing to an open active homosexual…

You seem to assume that homosexuals are only interested in having gay sex all the time. That’s just utterly false. Heterosexuals are open to teachings that involve chastity – why wouldn’t homosexuals be?

I am sure you were not…but do you tell them that…“homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." ?..And…
therefore, as good Catholic homosexuals, they are required to live a life of celibacy

If you do, I wonder how many would want to return to the Church…or how many would even consider our Faith.

Sure, I’d be willing to mention all these things – though they’d probably already know much of it, though not the details. But I wouldn’t start there. I’d start by showing them Jesus’s love and mercy, and telling them about His love and mercy in my own life. Any other starting place would make me, to some degree, a Pharisee.

Many homosexuals grew up believing that God does not love homosexuals. That would be the center of my ministry to them, then – to show them that God loves me and cares for me, even though I am attracted to men.

 

[Captain_America]

Wanted to be Post Number 350 on this still-kicking, Lazarus thread.

Oy! Soon all the cows will go home!

 

[Catolico65]

But that leaves me wondering how you would make the Church’s teachings about homosexuality appealing to an open active homosexual…
.

God never compromised His law with the Jews.

Jesus didn’t tell us to compromise the Gospel, He said to preach it.

In other words the Church is called to preach the Gospel to the “open active homosexual” and it is dependent on the person if they are interested in receiving it.

 

[JB_Dugan]

You seem to assume that homosexuals are only interested in having gay sex all the time. That’s just utterly false.

But they do (occasionally) engage in disordered un-natural acts (gay sex?)

Heterosexuals are open to teachings that involve chastity – why wouldn’t homosexuals be?

Because, without a doubt, the vast majority of homosexuals would not be willing to give up their “gay sex (?)”

Sure, I’d be willing to mention all these things – though they’d probably already know much of it, though not the details. But I wouldn’t start there. I’d start by showing them Jesus’s love and mercy, and telling them about His love and mercy in my own life. Any other starting place would make me, to some degree, a Pharisee.

Many homosexuals grew up believing that God does not love homosexuals. That would be the center of my ministry to them, then – to show them that God loves me and cares for me, even though I am attracted to men.

That’s well and good, Prodigal, but I hope they understand that returning God’s love is going to require a rather sever sacrifice on their part.

 

[Tarpeian]

For argument sake, let’s assume that is true for a moment. If all the “community” seeks is religious institutional acceptance, and that seems to be the overall hypothesis of this thread, why not stick with a softer target, one that has proven to be more accommodating, such as the Anglican or Methodist Churches? The CC will never change doctrine regarding this… sooooo it stands to reason that SS folks that want to be a part of the CC are ready to do so according to the same principals and doctrine the rest of us do. This is logic.

Touchdown Atlanta!!

If “SS folks want to be a part of the CC,” because they believe and accept all Holy Mother teaches then we should welcome them into the fold. In fact I fail to see how one with SS tendencies can live a chaste life without The Church.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[esieffe]

If “SS folks want to be a part of the CC,” because they believe and accept all Holy Mother teaches then we should welcome them into the fold. In fact I fail to see how one with SS tendencies can live a chaste life without The Church.

Pax,
Tarpeian

I agree, on both counts!

 

[Catolico65]

Now that we know that homosexuality is not biological in origin (just like the Bible told us) we need to recruit these practicing homosexuals and explain to them the don’t have to carry this horrible burden for the rest of their life. Unfortunately, the liberal press and government is making that difficult for us but we need to be good soldiers and continue the fight.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The primary teaching of Scripture is the good news of SALVATION and how to attain it.

The gospels are beautiful in themselves. No need to enhance or detract. As a wise theologian once said about preaching: “There is no need to let your mouth rupture God’s words.”
.

I had this exact thought when I read PS said we need to make the Gospel Attractive. I have just been busy with Holiday stuff that I cannot make every single point. But I had wanted to address this as well. The Gospel has been the same for 2000 years. When John the Baptist went around telling people to repent he did not do so wondering how many would not hear him, or be turned off by some kind of “judgement” The fact is that God’s message has not changed and it was given to us as whole and sufficient. Anything else is just muddying the waters.