Laws against homosexuality?

[One_point]

Weller, regarding your comment on communion and sin. Surely you are not suggesting that unrepentant sin of whatever degree is equal to or better than a forgiven sin? You seem not to understand or accept basic Christian principles, so your objections come off rather puzzling. A mass murderer who has genuinely repented of his sin is no longer a mass murder in God’s eyes. As far as the East is from the west, so God puts our forgiven sins from us…and his own memory. He no longer remembers them. That is the meaning of mercy. So to your eyes, that man is worse than a person still living in sin, but the church follows God’s view. The church has no right to deny absolution or communion to a repentant sinner no matter how grievous his previous sins may have been. That sinner dying with Christ seemed like the scum of the earth to the mobs watching them, but we know he was probably holier than most or all in that crowd, saving the obvious (Jesus, Mary etc) because Jesus declared him good enough to enter Heaven that day. That is the logic of the church. If you hold on to a sin because in your own mind you have judged that God is wrong to consider it a sin and then argue that you deserve communion because that “terrible person” in comparison to you in your eyes has also received and yet you are unwilling to do what that person did to be reconciled, that is pride, not repentance. There are many good divorced and remarried Catholics who are living in obedience to the church and willing to follow the proper channels to put themselves in good standing in the church and sometimes this is a hard thing and requires lots of sacrifice. That is humility. God regardeth humility.

 

[weller2]

Hi One point,

Indeed – I am pointing out that in Catholicism, the amount of damage done by an act is completely unrelated to the severity of a canonical sanction that act carries. For example, killing one person via abortion is excommunicable, but killing millions by operating a death camp is not (cf. Rudolf Hoess).

Regarding repentance, the mechanics of canon law in divorce context is such that it can put people in no-win situations. For example, say that you are abandoned by your partner through no fault of your own, and you decide to remarry. Once you have made this error, you have two bad choices:

• you can remain faithful to your new spouse, however, as the Church will never recognize your new marriage, you are effectively barred from receiving sacraments until death.
• you can dump your new spouse and children, go to confession, and live the rest of your life in chastity (or return to your first spouse). In other words, you will cause untold amount of damage, but you will return to good standing.

 

[weller2]

In fact, I just read through the entire thread, and only one poster made me unsure of how they felt about homosexual conduct, and even then I believe they acknowledge that it is contrary to natural law.

Um… you’re talking about me? I acknowledge homosexuality is contrary to natural law – I just don’t agree that civil legal system should be based on natural law.

 

[Brendan_64]

Hi One point,

Indeed – I am pointing out that in Catholicism, the amount of damage done by an act is completely unrelated to the severity of a canonical sanction that act carries. For example, killing one person via abortion is excommunicable, but killing millions by operating a death camp is not (cf. Rudolf Hoess).

Regarding repentance, the mechanics of canon law in divorce context is such that it can put people in no-win situations. For example, say that you are abandoned by your partner through no fault of your own, and you decide to remarry. Once you have made this error, you have two bad choices:

• you can remain faithful to your new spouse, however, as the Church will never recognize your new marriage, you are effectively barred from receiving sacraments until death.
• you can dump your new spouse and children, go to confession, and live the rest of your life in chastity (or return to your first spouse). In other words, you will cause untold amount of damage, but you will return to good standing.

It’s not about Canon Law, it’s about the Church’s teaching on sin.

1. Yes marriage is for life, regardless of the circumstances, unless the Church declares that the marriage is null and void.
2. Sex outside marriage is considered to be a mortal sin.
3. Any person in a state of mortal sin is forbidden to receive Communion (divorced and 'remarried people are not discriminated against here).
4. To receive absolution for a mortal sin a person needs to repent at confession and with that resolve to try not to sin again (which would seem to be not possible if a person is living in a state of adultery and intends to go back to living in that state).

So what is the Church to do? State that adultery is not a mortal sin? Accept divorce and remarriage as valid? Abolish mortal sin?

 

[SMGS127]

Um… you’re talking about me? I acknowledge homosexuality is contrary to natural law – I just don’t agree that civil legal system should be based on natural law.

Well I was referring to you, but as I said, I suspected that you recognized homosexuality as contrary to natural law by the manner of your posts. I’m glad I was correct. So that means that this thread has literally been ten pages written entirely by orthodox Catholics. And yet we’re being accused of violating Church doctrine by arguing for a more practical approach.

 

[Avdima]

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.

Awesome post.

 

[Corki]

You might want to check into that some more.

For a modern day reference, see the catechism:

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”

It’s not really fair to quote only part of a CCC paragraph. The rest of that paragraph is:

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

There are circumstances where a person might have minimum culpability for masturbation just as there are instances where homicide can be without culpability (such as self-defense). This does not minimize the gravity of either act. There are no circumstantial qualifies for homosexual behavior or certain other grave offenses (adultery, abortion, heresy to name a few).

 

[Rau]

There are no circumstantial qualifies for homosexual behavior or certain other grave offenses (adultery, abortion, heresy to name a few).

Not documented, but I think it likely that culpability always varies from individual to individual and circumstance to circumstance.

 

[SMGS127]

Not documented, but I think it likely that culpability always varies from individual to individual and circumstance to circumstance.

Yes. It is possible to not be fully knowledgeable with homosexual behavior. While we have natural law written in our hearts, it is possible to have culpability reduced below the level of mortal sin for same sex behavior due to cultural influences. Just as masturbation can be venial sin, so can same sex relationships or sex with members of your own gender. It all depends on circumstances. But both are always intrinsically disordered acts of grave matter.

 

[djames99]

It depends. If the Catholic was extolling his own principles then it could be taken lightly. If he is extolling the principles of the first Catholic who happened to be God, then that is an entirely different matter.

The same sequence of predictable events will play out if one chooses to offend God. This is why God wishes us not to sin because he wants us to enjoy our life and join him.

If I steal, then yes, people will(unjustly) poke fun at me and ridicule me and pose some social restriction on me. These are uncharitable but completely expected, because the choice drew the line of conditions of my life, and now places me in the prince’s circle of associates. Each kind searches his own to associate with.

If I choose to murder, then I can expect ostracizing and social rejection and prison time,etc.

It is amazing. Everyone knows the old saying, “If you don’t want to do the time, don’t do the crime”, in terms of civil law. But if the lawmaker is God, no one wants to do the time(temporal now, possibly worse to come later) if his laws are broken.

But there is also absolute evidence this behavior is simply a ruse that puts all arguments to rest. Those who have led this life for decades have decided to give God’s word a try just for benefit of the doubt. They devoted themselves to the Rosary while dropping out of this attraction, and have now not even the slightest inclination to deviant behavior and went on to lead a life of Holy Matrimony and begot children of their own. Their family is a model for Catholic living, and now this little group enjoys the warmth of the rays of graces showered on them daily.

It’s not going to work. It’s not going to go away because it can’t. How can we gauge proper conduct from the experiences of this secular world?, you can’t. Every manner of sinful persons are successes in this world, have a life in the sun on white sandy beaches, continue to gain wealth, go on to adopt children from the prince’s associates who set up possibilities to do so. The same pattern repeats itself. Each kind searches his own to associate with.

The reference to this in Leviticus is good news. In so few words God tells us how he feels about this behavior. Combined to the fact we know he loves us and would not trick us, then what else can it be but a trick by something else?. Combined with the fact Lucifer was instrumental in creating nature, which involves our mental machinery of our intellect, then it is even more evident has to what is going on.

Don’t shoot the messengers.

 

[Corki]

Not documented, but I think it likely that culpability always varies from individual to individual and circumstance to circumstance.

That’s why I chose those three examples. The possible circumstances where an individual might have reduced culpability are incredibly extreme.

Adultery - IF the first spouse was assumed to be dead but in fact was alive and the remaining spouse remarried or IF one spouse suffers amnesia and forgets he/she is married and then gets married again.

Direct abortion - IF the woman is forced into getting an abortion, her culpability is less but the culpability doesn’t diminish, it just passes to the one who forced her.

Heresy - since heresy has knowledge and intent are built into the definition, the only possible qualifier would be if the person went insane.

 

[Brendan_64]

There are circumstances where a person might have minimum culpability for masturbation just as there are instances where homicide can be without culpability (such as self-defense). This does not minimize the gravity of either act. There are no circumstantial qualifies for homosexual behavior or certain other grave offenses (adultery, abortion, heresy to name a few).

There are circumstances which may reduce the culpability of all sins.

From CCC 1860 “The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders”.

Feelings and passions will certainly come very much into play with regard to offences such as homosexual acts. If someone is suffering from deep-seated homosexual inclinations to such an extent that they are deeply, sexually attracted to members of the same sex, then the feelings and passions that they will have to struggle against will be very great indeed.

This is specifically recognised in CCC 2358 “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”.

There are indeed extremely strong feelings and passions that a homosexual will have to battle against in order to try to remain chaste. Such a battle against these feelings and passions will indeed reduce culpability.

 

[weller2]

It’s not about Canon Law, it’s about the Church’s teaching on sin.

Oh, but I know that. Thanks for the reminder though.

That does not change my point – the pecularities of Catholic doctrine mean that canonical sanction for an act is completely divorced (pun intended) from the amount of damage caused by this act. A mass murderer is better off than someone who was abandoned by a previous partner and simply loves his/her new family and refuses to abandon it.

And you guys want to use Church doctrine as a basis to write civil law.

 

[Thorns]

Oh, but I know that. Thanks for the reminder though.

That does not change my point – the pecularities of Catholic doctrine mean that canonical sanction for an act is completely divorced (pun intended) from the amount of damage caused by this act. A mass murderer is better off than someone who was abandoned by a previous partner and simply loves his/her new family and refuses to abandon it.

And you guys want to use Church doctrine as a basis to write civil law.

No, people want to use logic and reason as a basis to write civil law.

Why is that such an insane concept?

 

[Thorns]

. That’s a standard argument for criminalising something – society usually doesn’t criminalise things which only hurt the perpetrator.

Ahem. Yes it does. Ever hear of prostitution?

 

[Rau]

There are circumstances which may reduce the culpability of all sins.

I agree. And the factors that apply to determine culpability are many and beyond human ability to assess. Hence, God alone judges culpability.

 

[Brendan_64]

Oh, but I know that. Thanks for the reminder though.

That does not change my point – the pecularities of Catholic doctrine mean that canonical sanction for an act is completely divorced (pun intended) from the amount of damage caused by this act. A mass murderer is better off than someone who was abandoned by a previous partner and simply loves his/her new family and refuses to abandon it.

And you guys want to use Church doctrine as a basis to write civil law.

The reception of the Eucharist is on the condition that one is free from mortal sin. Absolution of mortal sin is on the condition that the sinner repents his sin and is intent on trying to sin no more.

Your argument is flawed.

A murderer who turned up to Confession confessed his sin and then said that he intended to commit more murders would not be absolved from his sin, would not have received absolution, and would not be permitted to receive the Eucharist.

An adulterer who went to confession, confessed his sin, but said that he didn’t intend to stop committing adultery would not be absolved from his sin, would not have received absolution, and would not be permitted to receive the Eucharist.

Absolution depends on a person repenting. Any sin (even the most heinous of crimes) can, and are forgiven, but only if the sinner repents and resolves to try to sin no more.

As the Church does not accept divorce and remarriage it can only view remarriage after a divorce as being adultery. So how can it permit people in this state to receive the Eucharist?

Since you view the sanction as being unreasonable, tell me how you expect the Church to act? Apart from changing it’s doctrines on either divorce, mortal sin, or the Eucharist, what other solutions have you to offer us on this?

 

[Rau]

No, people want to use logic and reason as a basis to write civil law.

Why is that such an insane concept?

Were it that simple, it would not be. Secular laws are aligned to widely held views of morality and other things. A portion of catholic morality is plainly logical and is widely accepted. Eg. Murder is unlawful. Other elements, say, contraception, have a finely crafted reason to them, but rest on principles that are not accepted by a great many people. Arguing for laws to forbid contraception would seem to be several steps to far.

You might like to comment further here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=862448

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

It depends. If the Catholic was extolling his own principles then it could be taken lightly. If he is extolling the principles of the first Catholic who happened to be God, then that is an entirely different matter.

The same sequence of predictable events will play out if one chooses to offend God. This is why God wishes us not to sin because he wants us to enjoy our life and join him.

If I steal, then yes, people will(unjustly) poke fun at me and ridicule me and pose some social restriction on me. These are uncharitable but completely expected, because the choice drew the line of conditions of my life, and now places me in the prince’s circle of associates. Each kind searches his own to associate with.

If I choose to murder, then I can expect ostracizing and social rejection and prison time,etc.

It is amazing. Everyone knows the old saying, “If you don’t want to do the time, don’t do the crime”, in terms of civil law. But if the lawmaker is God, no one wants to do the time(temporal now, possibly worse to come later) if his laws are broken.
**
But there is also absolute evidence this behavior is simply a ruse that puts all arguments to rest. Those who have led this life for decades have decided to give God’s word a try just for benefit of the doubt. They devoted themselves to the Rosary while dropping out of this attraction, and have now not even the slightest inclination to deviant behavior and went on to lead a life of Holy Matrimony and begot children of their own. Their family is a model for Catholic living, and now this little group enjoys the warmth of the rays of graces showered on them daily.**

It’s not going to work. It’s not going to go away because it can’t. How can we gauge proper conduct from the experiences of this secular world?, you can’t. Every manner of sinful persons are successes in this world, have a life in the sun on white sandy beaches, continue to gain wealth, go on to adopt children from the prince’s associates who set up possibilities to do so. The same pattern repeats itself. Each kind searches his own to associate with.

The reference to this in Leviticus is good news. In so few words God tells us how he feels about this behavior. Combined to the fact we know he loves us and would not trick us, then what else can it be but a trick by something else?. Combined with the fact Lucifer was instrumental in creating nature, which involves our mental machinery of our intellect, then it is even more evident has to what is going on.

Don’t shoot the messengers.

Sadly lots have families have been seriously screwed up because one of the parents was “cured” only they weren’t really. Then there are the people who are devout and the feelings never go away.

 

[weller2]

A murderer who turned up to Confession confessed his sin and then said that he intended to commit more murders would not be absolved from his sin, would not have received absolution, and would not be permitted to receive the Eucharist.

An adulterer who went to confession, confessed his sin, but said that he didn’t intend to stop committing adultery would not be absolved from his sin, would not have received absolution, and would not be permitted to receive the Eucharist.

But of course! You are now restating what I said: in Catholicism, severity of sanction is not based on the severity of sin, but on other factors, such as repentance (or lack thereof).

So you cannot really use Catholic doctrine on sin as the basis of a civil legal system, because you’ll end up executing adulterers (or homosexuals) and letting murderers walk free.