Is lack of the ability to procreate the sole reason homosexual activity is a sin?

[VanitasVanitatum]

If even a priest felt the Church’s position on gays was damaging (hate the sin, love the sinner), don’t you think it may be time to revisit the policy?

Not really the policy is fine. The only thing lacking would be a more mindful approach and eloquence when it is put to practice, but that’s their fault not the Catechism or Church teaching.

 

[Codex]

Wow. This thread is still kicking. Gay catholic here and it’s interesting to see all these perspectives. Gay culture definitely dose not stand to represent the many that they say they represent. While yes there are many interested in sex there are just as many people looking for love and partnership. These are the souls that have more of a chance of getting saved because Christ is love. That is how I found my way to the Catholic Church and celibacy. If you only knew how many of them could be saved you all wouldn’t push so hard against those that come out. Just because I found Christ doesn’t mean I have miraculously morphed into a straight man. I am gay and will be for the rest of my life. It’s not a choice. Whether or not to act on those instincts is.

 

[humbleseeker]

The church did oppose the civil recognition of marriage in the civil court. I think it still declares that a civil gay marriage is not valid whereas it doesn’t publicly call non catholic straight marriages not valid.

Patty, thank you for your very civil reply. I will respond with an article from Fr. Longenecker because he gives a better explanation of the Catholic position in regards to your first point:

https://www.googleadservices.com/pa...=2ahUKEwiBjNO2z53oAhWChOAKHdqzC5QQ0Qx6BAgLEAE

“We can admit that if the law allows they may establish a civil union and live together.”

This is my personal opinion and I don’t feel it goes against Church teaching to extend the same civil rights under marriage to gay couples that heterosexual couples enjoy.

I agree with your second point and think that those conditions are fair.

 

[Kindnessmatters]

Understood…the post is asking whether that is the “only reason” so I offered the broader Catholic perspective on licit sexual behaviour ad he started out conceding your point.

 

[humbleseeker]

Codex, thank you for your witness. I’m honored that you are part of the Catholic Church.

 

[Thorolfr]

While yes there are many interested in sex there are just as many people looking for love and partnership.

And many gay men do find love and partnership with another man. And even those who appear mostly to be interested in sex are probably also looking for love but don’t know how to find it.

 

[Pattylt]

an article from Fr. Longenecker

I understand the Catholic position. I feel the Church has every right to define marriage for Catholics. The Church also had every right to oppose amendments that called for civil marriage amongst gays but they lost that battle. Most gays do not care if the Church recognizes a civil marriage within the Church walls nor do they want the Church to perform sacramental marriage. They do want to be recognized as civilly married…because they are and here is where it gets murky. The church still speaks out against gay marriage by declaring it invalid. The church does not speak out about Jewish marriages being invalid nor any other type of marriage between non Catholics.

I think what gays object to is what I just wrote. They don’t expect you to consider their marriage valid in the eyes of the church but quit with only focusing on gay marriage. If you are going to publicly call gay marriage invalid, then also call other marriages invalid in public, too. Be consistent. Claiming to love the sinner and hate the sin doesn’t feel true when you just isolate gay marriage for condemnation. The church actually condemns all non catholic marriages as not a sacramental marriage but only seems to ever mention homosexual ones. That’s where the problem lies.

I’ve never met a gay man or woman that actually wants to make the church recognize or marry them…there’s probably one or two out there, but they want to be recognized as being civil married because they ARE civil married. That’s all…

 

[AlNg]

However, challenges to the accuracy of the Bible are not new

You said that God was the author of the Bible? Why did the author say that David killed 700, but then later on change his mind and say it was 7000?

 

[humbleseeker]

If you are going to publicly call gay marriage invalid, then also call other marriages invalid in public, too.

Marriage has always been defined by the Church as a union between one man and one woman(form), raised to a sacrament by Christ in his Church. For a marriage to be recognized valid by the Catholic Church it has to contain the proper form, man and woman. A marriage between two men or two women is therefor invalid because it doesn’t fall under the Church’s criteria of marriage. The other marriages you described would, I think(not a canonical scholar), be considered valid(right form)but illicit(non-sacramental).

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The church actually condemns all non catholic marriages as not a sacramental marriage but only seems to ever mention homosexual ones.

That’s because they are recognized as a natural union as opposed to a sacramental marriage and that’s allowed.

 

[jantonov]

. . . . No form of homosexual contact is acceptable. Otherwise there would be laws regulating man-man relationships.

 

[jantonov]

@VanitasVanitatum

That is not true. The catholic church recognizes the sacraments of the orthodox church.

Maybe this forum is bogus, after all.

 

[o_mlly]

Just because I found Christ doesn’t mean I have miraculously morphed into a straight man. I am gay and will be for the rest of my life. It’s not a choice. Whether or not to act on those instincts is.

We (not just Catholics) are under the test. Will we deny our body’s perverse appetites and pick up our crosses? With Christ, it is possible; without Christ, “you can do nothing” (John 15:5).

Homosexuality is just one kind of cross among many. Whatever your cross is, pick it up. He will carry it for you, just ask Him.

 

[Gorgias]

If you are going to publicly call gay marriage invalid, then also call other marriages invalid in public, too.

It’s not the case that “all other marriages” are invalid.

The church does not speak out about Jewish marriages being invalid nor any other type of marriage between non Catholics.

That’s because, if they’re between a man and a woman, the Church doesn’t consider them invalid. In fact, a marriage between a non-Catholic Christian man and a non-Catholic Christian woman is not only valid, it’s sacramental in the eyes of the Church!

The church actually condemns all non catholic marriages as not a sacramental marriage

Not true.

 

[Pattylt]

Ok, I stand corrected. Marriage between heterosexual non Christians is a natural marriage. Does that mean it’s valid in the eyes of the church. Catholics like to use various wording for different areas so just when I think I understand something…BAM… you hit me with a left shot!
Thanks for the correction…even though I’m still confused. We seem to have natural, invalid, illicit and sanctified…so four types of marriage?

 

[Gorgias]

Ok, I stand corrected. Marriage between heterosexual non Christians is a natural marriage. Does that mean it’s valid in the eyes of the church.

Yes, it does, at least presumptively, and all other things notwithstanding.

We seem to have natural, invalid, illicit and sanctified…so four types of marriage?

No. There are two types of valid marriages: sacramental (i.e., those between validly baptized Christians) and natural (i.e., those in which at least one spouse is not a validly baptized Christian).

 

[Pattylt]

Ok. So when is a marriage invalid and illicit? Or are some people just using the terms inaccurately?

Thanks for answering my questions!

 

[Gorgias]

So when is a marriage invalid and illicit? Or are some people just using the terms inaccurately?

“Validity” speaks to whether the sacrament occurs (when it’s a sacrament). Things that affect validity include valid consent, impediments, and (for Catholics) adhering to the proper form of marriage.

“Liceity” speaks to whether the norms were followed in the celebration of the marriage. It’s possible for a sacrament to be valid but nevertheless illicit. (It would still be considered a valid marriage, however.)

Does that help?

 

[Pattylt]

Almost!

Validity” speaks to whether the sacrament occurs (when it’s a sacrament). Things that affect validity include valid consent, impediments, and (for Catholics) adhering to the proper form of marriage.

How about non Christians? The sacrament never happens for them, correct?

Liceity” speaks to whether the norms were followed in the celebration of the marriage. It’s possible for a sacrament to be valid but nevertheless illicit . (It would still be considered a valid marriage, however.)

Can you give me an example of not following the norms? Not in a church? Not in a Catholic Church? Not by a Priest or Deacon?

Thanks again! Love the learning…

 

[Gorgias]

How about non Christians? The sacrament never happens for them, correct?

Correct. Those who are unbaptized do not participate in sacraments. In the context of a marriage, this means that if a Christian marries an unbaptized person, then their marriage can be valid but not sacramental.

Can you give me an example of not following the norms? Not in a church? Not in a Catholic Church? Not by a Priest or Deacon?

The proper “form” – which applies to a Catholic person (even if they’re marrying a non-Catholic!) – includes a wedding in a building of the Catholic Church (i.e., a church, chapel, etc), officiated by a Catholic priest or deacon, in a Catholic service (Mass or nuptial service).