Laws against homosexuality?

[stephe1987]

Only a very small percentage of people were burned at the stake because of direct Church involvement (Inquisition). Most punishments were much lighter and they didn’t really like burning people at the stake, that was a last resort. Of course their were individual Catholics (including popes) who supported killing heretics; they viewed heresy as a sort of “spiritual death” that was worse than a murderer because it endangered the soul rather than the body. It is better to be dead in heaven than alive on the path to hell and leading more souls to hell by their heresy. But historically most “heretics” were burned because of secular authority, if the person didn’t agree with whatever religion the monarch was they would be burned. That is one of the reasons why people in America wanted religious freedom, so people didn’t keep getting killed if they disagreed with the current monarch’s particular denomination.

And yes, sometimes people did blaspheme because they wanted to be on the religious courts instead of the secular ones because they knew their chances of severe punishment was greatly reduced; the Church gave the person an opportunity to repent, called in witnesses, the person was allowed to give a list of enemies and they didn’t give as much weight to the testimony of their enemies (or in the rare cases of torture–which they had rules about which kinds were allowed–the information given during torture was also given little weight), etc.

Yes, there are “good” and “bad” Catholics in every age (we are all sinners and fall short of what God expects of us), but current history books, television and movies are based on a specifically anti-Catholic and in general anti-Christian view of history.

Laws against homosexual behavior are very difficult to enforce. The only laws that can be enforced are laws against unions and adoption because those require secular approval (paperwork must be filed to get benefits or custody). The government cannot monitor what goes on in everyone’s bedroom. Of course, there are laws against things like prostitution and in those cases people can report prostitutes to the police; I guess people can report sodomites to the police in those cases, but there will always be secret circles that the police doesn’t know about.

 

[godisgood77]

I’m assuming by some of the replies that many haven’t read the article that was linked…we are talking about making public showing of affection a crime… Not heinous, immoral acts of sodomy… Someone help me understand how this is not overreaching government intervention, please! Legislating morality to the nth degree is not in anyone’s best interest… Zero.

 

[markomalley]

Based on your view, would you support burning or exterminating heretics if the Church supported such a proposition? They have, in the past, forced secular authorities to adopt that stance.

Burning or exterminating may be a bit severe, but I have no problem with punishment of those who are heretics in the external forum after appropriate warning.

(Note: to be a heretic one must first be a Catholic…so that inherently excludes Protestants, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.)

I have no problem with particularly severe penalties being prescribed for those who intentionally teach heresy as orthodoxy.

The Church’s penalties are ecclesial, so any severity of punishment would not include punishment proper to the State (such as imprisonment, executions, etc.), but if the legislator of a Catholic State chose to put civil penalties on an individual convicted of the crime of heresy…that would be appropriate. Again, burning at the stake might be a bit severe in these days.

If you think I’m being overly neanderthal about this, consider the souls of the people who this heretic may have led astray. You can see this in our day in a huge way. How many people believe that it is totally correct and proper to question the teaching authority of the Church at any place where they deem fit. How many people have been thrown into the pit of Modernism, indifferentism, or, for that matter, Americanism?

Heresy is very akin to murder…except in this regard: with murder, the person’s body is rendered permanently inoperative; the person’s soul is as intact as it was prior to the homicide. With heresy, unless the damage is rectified, the stakes are eternal for those whom the heretic influences.

 

[godisgood77]

Should we jail those who masturbate? Seems like a good thing to clog up the courts with…. How about those who covet? We should probably tar and feather those degenerates…let’s not forget adulterers or fornicators… They need to be locked up. Come to think of it, we should definitely make it a top priority to make laws to inflict temporal punishment for any sin of the flesh… Clearly the law system is lacking in number of pages…we need weight (literally) in our law books!!!

 

[markomalley]

sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/57543268-80/gay-church-catholic-bishops.html.csp

Came across this article this morning…

I, for one, think it is quite unfortunate that government would intrude in to private life to the point of making laws like the ones referenced in the article. I find it disturbing that our Church would come out in praise of such a set of laws which clearly lead to violence.

If we look at this on a broader scale, we would have to compare and see similarities between legislation like the abortion promoting HHS mandate to the anti-gay laws that are popping up in Africa. Both attempt to legislate morality and both infringe on liberty and freedom of an individual to choose their path. In the case of the HHS mandate and individual is being forced to pay to morally objectionable acts - against their conscious, like abortion and related drugs. In the case of the anti-gay laws, an individual is not allowed to freely exercise their right to their own conscious. The Church is acting hypocritical by condemning government overreach in one cast and praising it in another…

I pray that our Church leaders get it right and apply the conscientious objection consistently.

I read the bill. The verbiage that is apparently offensive to you is: “The public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly is prohibited.”

I wish they would have been more specific in their verbiage. The way I interpreted it was that they were using delicate language to say that they didn’t want public sex. But I could imagine that one could read it to mean that two men or two women may not hold hands. I don’t know enough about Nigerian culture or Nigerian jurisprudence to know if the term has specific meaning to Nigerians (and if it does, what it means in cultural context).

Frankly, it would have been nice had they followed the format of the Ugandan law. That was a model of specificity.

Oh, by the way, I have no problem with them banning public sex by homosexuals (or, for that matter by heterosexuals). I have no problem with them banning provocative sexual conduct (even if it isn’t “public sex”, per se) by homosexuals. I don’t think that a Nigerian mother should have to worry about shielding her child’s eyes from that stuff.

10 years penalty is probably a bit severe…but, again, I am not there so I don’t know whether that is relatively consistent with the remainder of their body of law.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I read the bill. The verbiage that is apparently offensive to you is: “The public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly is prohibited.”

I wish they would have been more specific in their verbiage. The way I interpreted it was that they were using delicate language to say that they didn’t want public sex. But I could imagine that one could read it to mean that two men or two women may not hold hands. I don’t know enough about Nigerian culture or Nigerian jurisprudence to know if the term has specific meaning to Nigerians (and if it does, what it means in cultural context).

Frankly, it would have been nice had they followed the format of the Ugandan law. That was a model of specificity.

Oh, by the way, I have no problem with them banning public sex by homosexuals (or, for that matter by heterosexuals). I have no problem with them banning provocative sexual conduct (even if it isn’t “public sex”, per se) by homosexuals. I don’t think that a Nigerian mother should have to worry about shielding her child’s eyes from that stuff.

10 years penalty is probably a bit severe…but, again, I am not there so I don’t know whether that is relatively consistent with the remainder of their body of law.

You’re not actually serious, are you?

 

[markomalley]

You’re not actually serious, are you?

I might think that the severity of penalty is a bit severe, but I have no problem with sanctions.

As I said above, though, a lot has to do with cultural context. I certainly don’t want to be accused of being a cultural imperialist, so I wouldn’t want to impose my views on that culture…particularly when the basic moral point they are making is sound (regardless of what you think of how they try to impose that moral point).

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I might think that the severity of penalty is a bit severe, but I have no problem with sanctions.

As I said above, though, a lot has to do with cultural context. I certainly don’t want to be accused of being a cultural imperialist, so I wouldn’t want to impose my views on that culture…particularly when the basic moral point they are making is sound (regardless of what you think of how they try to impose that moral point).

Do you really think gay people are going to engage in sex in public in a country where being suspected of being gay leads to things like “corrective rape”, physical violence, constant harassment, etc.? They’d be beaten to death and the crowd would cheer, including the cops, too bad that’s not a hypothetical and that pair wasn’t even doing it in public.

 

[markomalley]

Do you really think gay people are going to engage in sex in public in a country where being suspected of being gay leads to things like “corrective rape”, physical violence, constant harassment, etc.? They’d be beaten to death and the crowd would cheer, including the cops, too bad that’s not a hypothetical and that pair wasn’t even doing it in public.

In that case, it shouldn’t be a problem, should it?

Seriously, these countries in Africa see a growing problem with cultural imperialism from the “developed” West. I don’t have any Nigerians as close enough friends where I would feel comfortable discussing this with them, but I am very close with a couple of Ugandan families and have discussed the similar Ugandan bill with them when it first came out…and that, exactly, is the concern. They are desperately concerned that this cultural rot that has corrupted the developed world will spread and infect their society as well.

And, as I’ve discussed before (in regards to the Ugandan bill) and have said above, while the penalties seem to me to be a bit excessive to accomplish what they’re trying to do, I can’t fault them for taking a firm stand on the subject.

Again, consider the words from the CDF back in 1986:
There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing…

…when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase…

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

In that case, it shouldn’t be a problem, should it?

Seriously, these countries in Africa see a growing problem with cultural imperialism from the “developed” West. I don’t have any Nigerians as close enough friends where I would feel comfortable discussing this with them, but I am very close with a couple of Ugandan families and have discussed the similar Ugandan bill with them when it first came out…and that, exactly, is the concern. They are desperately concerned that this cultural rot that has corrupted the developed world will spread and infect their society as well.

And, as I’ve discussed before (in regards to the Ugandan bill) and have said above, while the penalties seem to me to be a bit excessive to accomplish what they’re trying to do, I can’t fault them for taking a firm stand on the subject.

Again, consider the words from the CDF back in 1986:
There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing…

…when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase…

Um, people are being arrested on* suspicion* of being gay, not even engaging in sexual acts.

Do keep in mind that in 1986 being gay wasn’t a crime in the Catholic world and sodomy also wasn’t a crime in the vast majority of it. Also that the Holy See under Pope Benedict XVI urged the repeal of laws criminalization of homosexuality.

 

[markomalley]

Um, people are being arrested on* suspicion* of being gay, not even engaging in sexual acts.

Do keep in mind that in 1986 being gay wasn’t a crime in the Catholic world and sodomy also wasn’t a crime in the vast majority of it. Also that the Holy See under Pope Benedict XVI urged the repeal of laws criminalization of homosexuality.

See the text I bolded above. I haven’t seen those calls. Perhaps you can give me a link or two.

On edit: I would also appreciate it if, when you provide such a citation, to provide it from the dot va domain or, at least, from a reliable Catholic source…not from an MSM source, particularly one years and years after the fact.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

See the text I bolded above. I haven’t seen those calls. Perhaps you can give me a link or two.

On edit: I would also appreciate it if, when you provide such a citation, to provide it from the dot va domain or, at least, from a reliable Catholic source…not from an MSM source, particularly one years and years after the fact.

Certainly

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 2, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Contrary to the way the media paints the picture, the Holy See is against the discrimination of homosexuals, clarified a Vatican spokesman.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, said this in response to Italian press reports on an interview with Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations. The archbishop told a news agency that the Holy See would not support an expected French proposal for a U.N. resolution to decriminalize homosexuality. The prelate explained that the initiative could include at the same time the imposition of homosexual marriage in national law.

Father Lombardi clarified that refusal to support the proposal does not imply support for discrimination against homosexuals.

“Obviously no one wants to defend the death penalty for homosexuals, as some would insinuate,” he said.

“The well-known principles of respect for the fundamental rights of the person and the rejection of all unjust discrimination – recognized clearly by the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself – evidently exclude not only the death penalty, but all violent or discriminatory penal legislations in relation to homosexuals,” the spokesman stated.

Paragraph No. 2358 of the Catechism affirms: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. 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.”

Now then, Father Lombardi continued, the proposed resolution from France does not seek solely the “decriminalization of homosexuality.”

He explained: "Rather it moreover introduces a declaration of political value that could result in systems of control, according to which, every norm – not only legal, but also related to the life of social or religious groups – which does not place every sexual orientation on exactly the same level could be considered as contrary to respect of human rights.

“This could clearly become an instrument of pressure or discrimination against those who, just to put a very clear example, consider marriage between a man and a woman to be the fundamental and original form of social life, and as such, [believe] that it should have a privileged place.”

Furthermore, the priest noted, the Vatican is hardly alone in rejecting the possible resolution.

“It is not coincidence that less that 50 member states of the United Nations have adhered to this proposal,” he said, “while more than 150 have not. The Holy See is not the only one.”

zenit.org/en/articles/vatican-opposes-discrimination-against-homosexuals

Fr. Lombardi Clarifies Holy See’s Position on Decriminalisation of Homosexuality

(02 Dec 08 - RV) The Catholic Church never has and never will support the violation of human rights or any form of unjust discrimination against the human person.
That was the message at the heart of a statement released today by Director of the Vatican Press Office, Fr Federico Lombardi in response to press reports regarding an interview given by Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Vatican’s permanent observer at the United Nations in New York, to a French news agency, following a proposal led by the French president Nicolas Sarkozy to decriminalise homosexuality.
In the statement Fr. Lombardi points out that Archbishop Migliore’s interview, read in it’s entirety, is clear; no-one can or wants to defend the death penalty for homosexuals, as some people aim to insinuate.
The statement continues that the well-known principals of respect for the fundamental rights of the person and the refusal of all forms of unjust discrimination – which are also clearly enshrined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church – not only exclude the death penalty, but all forms of penal legislation that are violent or discriminatory towards homosexual persons.
However Fr Lombardi continues that Archbishop Migliore’s concerns were regarding another issue, not the decriminalisation of homosexuality per say, but the introduction of a declaration of political value, which could result in control mechanisms according to which, norms (not only legal, but also relative to the life of social and religious groups) that do not place each sexual orientation on the same level, would be considered contrary to respect for human rights.
The statement concludes that this clearly could become a means to put pressure on or discriminate against those who – to give a very clear example – consider marriage between a man and a woman the fundamental and original form of social life.
Fr. Lombardi concludes that less then 50 member states of the United Nations have backed the proposal in question, while 150 have abstained. The Holy See is not alone.

en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2008/12/02/fr._lombardi_clarifies_holy_sees_position_on_decriminalisation_o/en1-249433

 

[buffalo]

Opposing those behaviors -Yes absolutely. Doesn’t change the fact that gov’t shouldn’t legislate morality and the Church shouldn’t support gov’t overreach in any case.

The Church should support moral laws that reflect the Divine law.

 

[markomalley]

Certainly

zenit.org/en/articles/vatican-opposes-discrimination-against-homosexuals

en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2008/12/02/fr._lombardi_clarifies_holy_sees_position_on_decriminalisation_o/en1-249433

Thanks.

But these articles are talking about the Vatican’s opposition to a measure in the UN to universally decriminalize homosexuality (and, in turn, homosexual conduct).

See this NY Times article.

I will stipulate that the Church under Pope Benedict XVI did not call for the imprisonment of people for having same sex attractions. And the Church would oppose the death penalty even for those who commit sodomy with a member of the same sex.

However, I have never read anything from the Church saying that She calls for the decriminalization of homosexual activity.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Thanks.

But these articles are talking about the Vatican’s opposition to a measure in the UN to universally decriminalize homosexuality (and, in turn, homosexual conduct).

See this NY Times article.

I will stipulate that the Church under Pope Benedict XVI did not call for the imprisonment of people for having same sex attractions. And the Church would oppose the death penalty even for those who commit sodomy with a member of the same sex.

However, I have never read anything from the Church saying that She calls for the decriminalization of homosexual activity.

The Vatican’s opposition wasn’t that the measure moved to universally decriminalize it, it was that it went much further.

The statement concludes that this clearly could become a means to put pressure on or discriminate against those who – to give a very clear example – consider marriage between a man and a woman the fundamental and original form of social life.

Contrary to the way the media paints the picture, the Holy See is against the discrimination of homosexuals, clarified a Vatican spokesman.

 

[Eugenius]

Much talk of legislating morality, but none about converting hearts.

 

[markomalley]

Much talk of legislating morality, but none about converting hearts.

Any suggestions about converting the hearts of practicing homosexuals?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Any suggestions about converting the hearts of practicing homosexuals?

Love them as if they are human beings? (because they are human beings)

 

[SMGS127]

Any suggestions about converting the hearts of practicing homosexuals?

1. Get all Catholics to stop using highly offensive terms like “f****t,” “d**e,” “the gay lifestyle,” “homosexualists,” etc. (and yes, they are used by Catholics enough for gay Catholic youth to associate the religion with those words), and replace them with language that the gay community uses (gay/bi/lesbian).
2. Get all Catholics to stop lofting up Protestant hate groups such as the FRC that enact decidedly anti-Christian means of calumny and slander to try to achieve a Christian end. The ends do not justify the means in Catholicism.
3. If you have a problem with specific instances in media or what have you, discuss those specific instances. Do not use overarching language such as the non-existent “gay lobby.” Instead, discuss specific groups you have problems with, if any.
4. Take the time to actually learn about the gay community. Be sure to explain what the Church finds immoral, but do not look past all the good the gay community does (protects its members from violence/evictions/job losses, tries to find homes for homeless kids kicked out by their parents, caters to the homeless community with food and warm blankets, encourages gay kids not to despair).
5. Emphasize the Catholic Church’s belief in their dignity as persons. Explain that their attractions are not sinful at all. Explain that they need not change their attractions. Quote the Catechism’s emphasis on treating gay people with “compassion, respect, and sensitivity.”

While we must be firm on our moral values, we must always treat our gay brethren with love and respect, no matter if they are in active sin or not. Following these five helps to emphasize both points of the Church. We are not a “dead faith,” a faith without charity. We must always include faith, hope AND charity in evangelization.

 

[Jeanne1184]

“I think people should be allowed to do anything they want. We haven’t tried that for a while. Maybe this time it’ll work.” (George Carlin)