MERGED: Apologetics on Homosexuality: 75 Qs and As/Defending the Church's Stance on Homosexuality

[paedagogo]

Morality is not subjective. As you have pointed out there is a universal law that everyone seems to follow to a point, regarding morality (murder, stealing, etc). However when it comes to the ends and outs of these things people seem to make it subjective which is a clear signe that you have strayed from the correct path. Something that is objective cannot change its nature and be subjective as well, that would make it a contradiction. This means morality by its very nature is a law that must be observed and followed (like gravity) and that this law is composed of rules. Furthermore morality since it is a law shares the same qualities as the other laws in nature and that is while its applied to nature and governs nature, its source or point of creation is not from something natural but rather something that transcends nature and is thus supernatural. Only something that can transcend a law has the power to create the law.

So we know by logic and reason that the moral law comes from God and that this then points to the need for religion (Which contrary to popular opinion, religion is also not subjective) This means there truly is One, Holy, and Universal true Faith that has been founded by God and guided by God in the mission of teaching and governing His creation and showing them the objective moral law that they need to ascribe to for their own good. This religion is of course the Catholic Faith and the Catholi Church which Christ (God) founded. This is a conclusion that anyone can come to by using logic and reason as well.

God Bless

I think I understand your point. I would counter that even within the Church, learned and much more informed people will disagree with each other on moral issues. In addition, it is not hard to find examples where the Church has changed its own teachings.

So, if we accept as Catholics that there is a universal moral law, which is immutable, this also leaves open the possibility of an imperfect understanding of that law. In that sense, morality as understood by mankind is indeed relative.

My personal belief is that I cannot perfectly know the will or the mind of God. However, I can strive to do so.

My point was really not to refute any moral standard, but to point out the difficulties in the relativism created by cultural and experiential differences. This thread was started with the question as to how to “convince” someone who is coming from a different point of view, not to argue the morality of homosexuality.

It appears to be degenerating to a restatement of the Church’s position. I think we all understand that pretty well, already.

 

[Crumpy]

Yeah, I don’t think we see people hammering common law marriages, fornication, or adultery as much as the homosexual questions.

Homosexual marriages cannot be any worse than homosexuality outside of marriage. . Going to hell is going to hell.

Pray for a cure for homosexuality.

 

[Zsofia_A]

I am struggling with the Church’s opinion on homosexuality so it was really nice to read this, thank you! Awesome job!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

There is now.

A Catholic Answers 75 Questions on Homosexuality
completelybiblical.blogspot.com/2011/04/catholic-answers-75-questions-on.html

Great link! Thank you.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Im sorry to be negative about your blog BUT their is nothing new in what your saying here.
You may be theologically and morally correct but can’t we be positive ; can’t we be more thou shalt rather than thou shalt not.

Can’t you begin more along the lines of.

Q1) What is the Catholic View of a person who is homosexual.
A 1) The Catholic church sees every individual as deserving of respect ; dignity and love and someone who is homosexual is as included in Gods plan for salvation as is everyone else. The Church welcomes homosexuals into the church.

we can deal with the Issues of how they live their lives within the church after it is clear that we want ; value and love them and will do all we can to help them live their lives in a Christlike manner.

I understand what you are doing but remember we have a duty to try and save people and anything we put under the title of Catholicism must reflect Christs love ; forgiveness : hope and the common experiences we will all have when we have to carry our own personal crosses and how the Church will help

Pray a little on the matter and see if you can create a site that **doesn’t comprimise Catholic teaching **but offers hope and welcome to homosexuals too.

[emphasis mine]

Constructive criticism is good, and the point of including an appropriate and charitable preface for homosexual readers of the resource is taken. However, can you point to where in the discussion compromises Catholic teaching / position on homosexuality?
,

 

[Michael_Francis]

Threads merged for relevance of topic.

 

[thirddec]

As I stated there is none just that you should pray to be able to create a site that while being true to catholic teaching starts from a more positive framework and encourages the souls struggling with homosexuality of our love and concern for them so that they can be open and trusting when we discuss how changing their view on certain things and leading their life in certain ways can lead to greater spiritual reward for them. And also that the are part of the common human experience of sin and that their ultimate hope is to stay with the church while they work through the particular issues of their cross. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

 

[dmar198]

As I stated there is none just that you should pray to be able to create a site that while being true to catholic teaching starts from a more positive framework and encourages the souls struggling with homosexuality of our love and concern for them so that they can be open and trusting when we discuss how changing their view on certain things and leading their life in certain ways can lead to greater spiritual reward for them. And also that the are part of the common human experience of sin and that their ultimate hope is to stay with the church while they work through the particular issues of their cross. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

You make a good point, and I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut; especially because, that link is only to a rough draft and I am not technically finished with the product yet. I may yet make substantial changes, perhaps to include some good and more charitable introductory material. That said, the language you want to see is already present in the document in later portions, especially questions 34, 35, and 65:

34. Why are homosexuals called to chastity, and heterosexuals called to married life?

First, not all heterosexuals are called to married life. Some are called to pledge their chastity to God for the entire duration of their life, and during that time they must patiently bear up under the urges of the flesh, which war against that noble calling. Second, it is not as if homosexuals are called to chastity and heterosexuals not; all are called to chastity, but not all in the same way. Those who are called to marry are called to chastity, first, until marriage, and then, once in a marriage, they are called to have a chaste relationship with their wife, which does not mean a non-sexual relationship, but a relationship in accordance with the purpose of our sexuality. And they are also called to have chaste relationships with those to whom they aren’t married. Chaste relationships are those which use our sexuality only for union with one’s spouse, which is meant to be expressed principally by the reproductive act. Any use of sexuality not oriented to finding that union, including uses of the sexual organs with members of the same sex, is a sin, and the temptation to it must be resisted. The hardship involved for homosexuals is enormous, but if they pray they will receive enormous strength, and with it they may discover that the road to sanctification, though difficult, is at least more visible for them than for those who do not know, as homosexuals do, what kind of relationships their calling entails.

35. I am a homosexual; what do you say to me?

I say that no matter what you are, you are called to holiness. You are called to surrender yourself to the will of God, no matter how great the trial. And you are called to patiently bear under temptation, because trials borne patiently can be of great value, if you offer them to God on behalf of another, or even on behalf of yourself. God loves you, and never gives a man a trial beyond his strength; perhaps He permitted you to suffer from same-sex attractions, rather than someone else, because He knew that you would be able to handle the trial, and another man not. Pray to Him for strength to avoid an unchaste relationship with another man or woman; pray to Him for sight to see the dignity in maleness and in femaleness that is violated by same-sex relationships. Get yourself to prayer, for that is your highest help; and receive the grace of the Sacraments of the Church, so that you may grow in holiness.

65. You’re asking homosexuals to change who they are!

No, I am asking homosexuals to be chaste, just as all men and women are called to be, no matter who they are attracted to. That they are attracted to their own sex does not give them license to use their sexual organs in ways contrary to their design, no more than heterosexual attraction gives men and women a license to commit fornication or adultery. The fact of the matter is, one’s sexual desires are always going to be a struggle to contend with, both among the unmarried, who are often tempted to have sex before marriage, and also among the married, who are sometimes tempted to have sex with people who are not their spouse. Homosexuals do not face a different fate than they: they are called to fight against temptations to unchastity, and they can find the strength to do so through prayer and the reception of the Sacraments.

Also, these comments from 66: “But I say their situation is not hopeless. There is a moral way that has truth behind it, and they can feel the call to move toward it. The Church offers them courage; dignity; a sexual meaning that makes sense and explains their conflicting desires. Above all, the Church offers them a road to sanctity, a road to heaven, in which they can boldly take responsibility for their actions, and act as saints are meant to act. Homosexuals do not face a different fate than anyone else. They face the challenge to live out their dignity as men and women created in the image of God; a challenge all men must joyfully take up. It is our highest dignity that we’ve been given freedom to see the good and choose it; all we must do is seek God’s will, and we will find it.”

 

[John21652]

I think I understand your point. I would counter that even within the Church, learned and much more informed people will disagree with each other on moral issues. In addition, it is not hard to find examples where the Church has changed its own teachings.

Such as…?

So, if we accept as Catholics that there is a universal moral law, which is immutable, this also leaves open the possibility of an imperfect understanding of that law. In that sense, morality as understood by mankind is indeed relative.

Relative to what? You state there is an immutable, universal law. next you state there is the possibilty of an imperfect understanding of that immutable, universal law. You statement tells us the immutable, universal law is recognisable, so no matter what degree of understanding of it anyone has, they must, by definition, have discerned that it is immutable and universal. How then can any understanding of an immutable and universal law give rise to moral relativity? It’s not logically possible. No matter how the Law is interpreted, it remains immutable and universal. Therefore its understanding must be complete.

My personal belief is that I cannot perfectly know the will or the mind of God. However, I can strive to do so.

No you can’t and the only way you will ever get close is through a process of descernment, using your God given natural faculties.

My point was really not to refute any moral standard, but to point out the difficulties in the relativism created by cultural and experiential differences.

here you are arguing about something totally different from an immutable and universal law. To arrive at a recognisable immutability and universality, cultural and experienced differences have already been accounted for. If they weren’t, then the universality would not be obvious.

This thread was started with the question as to how to “convince” someone who is coming from a different point of view, not to argue the morality of homosexuality.

The title states “Defending the Church’s Stance on Homosexuality”. The ‘different point of view’ you refer to can only mean a moral relativist position. There is no other.

It appears to be degenerating to a restatement of the Church’s position. I think we all understand that pretty well, already.

The title of the thread actually mentions defending the Church’s position. Of course restating the Church’s position will therefore be a good part of this thread. For you to suggest that to do so means the thread is ‘degenerating’ is an insult to the title of the thread and all those who take up its challenge.

 

[JaredM]

Tell me just this one thing. If God doesn’t want homosexuals to have sex than why does me make them that way?

 

[thirddec]

Tell me just this one thing. If God doesn’t want homosexuals to have sex than why does me make them that way?

Wonderfull question and some in this forum are inclined to answer that God doesn’t make them this way and would use genetics etc to say its all environmental in origin but thats disengenious. In truth most scientist will say that the vast majority of human traits cannot be put down to hereditary or environmental but some sort of mix between the two.

Lets **assume **just for the sake of arguement that some homosexuality could be more inherited than environmental which is what most homosexuals would think ( I have no research to suggest this is what homosexuals think btw) in my opinion. Then we need to accept their framework of reasoning this and work within it if we are to help them. Theres very little milage in my mind of telling them their homosexuals because they were taught wrong in life and they can be untaught.

I did struggle with this question and the best I can come up with is that God makes everyone and none of us are born perfect. We are all predisposed to some failing or another be it averice, anger ; greed ; envy, addiction , lust you know what im saying and we as followers of Christ are called to raise ourself above our baser nature and this is a struggle ( carry our cross ). It is by doing this that we grow spiritually. The particular cross that a homosexual has is that they are unable to express or partake in the expression of love for another individual in a physical way as the majority of us do. That it quite a cross so thats why I quake when I hear too much of the abomination line these discussions when I consider the suffering the must experience.

So why would God deny them this physical expression ? could it be that their calling is to focus on the more spiritual aspects of love. By the denial of the love that leads to marriage are they freer to love more people and work with them on a more spiritual level. I’m not saying they all become Priests but somehow they are freer to become more active in the community in whatever way they are called.

I don’t know, how could I know Gods Will but it is possible.
All I do know is that being a sinner is not a bar from being in the Church otherwise the place would be empty.

I hope this makes sense

 

[meltzerboy]

Perhaps this should be a new thread, but I’ll try it here. Years ago, I learned about a tribe in Papua, New Guinea, in which adolescent boys, as part of a cultural rite of passage, are required to engage in “homosexual” behavior with adult men of the same tribe. The reason is that the elders of the tribe believe that the boys’ ingestion of semen from the adult men makes them strong and brave. The practice is thought to ensure that the boys become heterosexual when they reach maturity. Now, one of my questions is: how do we define homosexuality and homosexual behavior in light of this example? The adolescents supposedly do not have homosexual desire for the men nor vice versa, and neither is the behavior regarded as a lifestyle, but rather an initiation ritual meant to promote heterosexual behavior in adulthood. The Church, I assume, would probably frown on the practice because of the nature of the behavior apart from the intent. However, what should we make of this ritual in terms of other cultures’ definitions and attitudes toward what most of us consider as homosexual behavior?

 

[grannymh]

Tell me just this one thing. If God doesn’t want homosexuals to have sex than why does me make them that way?

Human nature is flawed. This is not the plan of God.

 

[meltzerboy]

Wonderfull question and some in this forum are inclined to answer that God doesn’t make them this way and would use genetics etc to say its all environmental in origin but thats disengenious. In truth most scientist will say that the vast majority of human traits cannot be put down to hereditary or environmental but some sort of mix between the two.

Lets **assume **just for the sake of arguement that some homosexuality could be more inherited than environmental which is what most homosexuals would think ( I have no research to suggest this is what homosexuals think btw) in my opinion. Then we need to accept their framework of reasoning this and work within it if we are to help them. Theres very little milage in my mind of telling them their homosexuals because they were taught wrong in life and they can be untaught.

I did struggle with this question and the best I can come up with is that God makes everyone and none of us are born perfect. We are all predisposed to some failing or another be it averice, anger ; greed ; envy, addiction , lust you know what im saying and we as followers of Christ are called to raise ourself above our baser nature and this is a struggle ( carry our cross ). It is by doing this that we grow spiritually. The particular cross that a homosexual has is that they are unable to express or partake in the expression of love for another individual in a physical way as the majority of us do. That it quite a cross so thats why I quake when I hear too much of the abomination line these discussions when I consider the suffering the must experience.

So why would God deny them this physical expression ? could it be that their calling is to focus on the more spiritual aspects of love. By the denial of the love that leads to marriage are they freer to love more people and work with them on a more spiritual level. I’m not saying they all become Priests but somehow they are freer to become more active in the community in whatever way they are called.

I don’t know, how could I know Gods Will but it is possible.
All I do know is that being a sinner is not a bar from being in the Church otherwise the place would be empty.

I hope this makes sense

It makes a lot of sense, and you obviously have a good mind and heart.

 

[John21652]

Perhaps this should be a new thread, but I’ll try it here. Years ago, I learned about a tribe in Papua, New Guinea, in which adolescent boys, as part of a cultural rite of passage, are required to engage in “homosexual” behavior with adult men of the same tribe. The reason is that the elders of the tribe believe that the boys’ ingestion of semen from the adult men makes them strong and brave. The practice is thought to ensure that the boys become heterosexual when they reach maturity. Now, one of my questions is: how do we define homosexuality and homosexual behavior in light of this example? The adolescents supposedly do not have homosexual desire for the men nor vice versa, and neither is the behavior regarded as a lifestyle, but rather an initiation ritual meant to promote heterosexual behavior in adulthood. The Church, I assume, would probably frown on the practice because of the nature of the behavior apart from the intent. However, what should we make of this ritual in terms of other cultures’ definitions and attitudes toward what most of us consider as homosexual behavior?

meltzerboy comes riding into the debate upon his horse called ‘disinformation’, sired by ‘misinformation’ out of ‘inclination’.

The book he supposes he has read is actually a book by a noted Anthropolgogist by the name of Raymond Case kelly, who is a Professor at The University of Michigan. The book is called Constructing inequality: the fabrication of a heirarchy of virtue amongst the Etoro. Kelly did his anthropological fieldwork amongst the Etoro tribe of papua New Guinea in the 1960s. Kelly’s story can be found .right here.

Now the interesting thing is that this supposed homosexuality is mentioned on gay apologetics web sites across the Internet. Of course they all say the same thing. However, if you care to research the original academic documents on the subject, you get an entirely different picture.

The supposed homosexuality amongst the Etoro was not ‘homosexuality’ as we define it in the west, where same sex acts supposedly define some sort of ‘love’ between people of the same sex. Amongst the Etoro it had to do with their cosmology. The Etoro believed that the essence of life was in male semen and the adoloscents had to ingest semen to make them stronger in spirit and physically. As such, this same sex act act bore no relationship whatsoever with what we in the west call homosexuality. So important was this ‘life essence that childless marriges were a cause of conflict because the Etoro considered that when a women didn’t conceive, that ‘life’s essence’ was wasted. In Kelly’s own words, “Etoro conceptions of the `nature of being’ revolve around life cycle processes,” he says. “The male contribution to procreation is the animating principle while the female contribution is otherwise lifeless flesh. Similarly, men supply game animals that cause a child to grow, while the starch staples women produce only satisfy hunger.” This world view, this cosmology of the Etoro did not involve sodomy, which is the main desire of western homosexuality.

So, it would seem the meltzerboy has either read an entire Ethnography and decided to pull out of it a same sex event that has been construed as supporting and justifying homosexuality, or he has simply read that construction on a gay apologists web site and passed it off as something he learned years ago. Either way, it is a false interpretation of one part of a tribal belief system.

 

[meltzerboy]

meltzerboy comes riding into the debate upon his horse called ‘disinformation’, sired by ‘misinformation’ out of ‘inclination’.

The book he supposes he has read is actually a book by a noted Anthropolgogist by the name of Raymond Case kelly, who is a Professor at The University of Michigan. The book is called Constructing inequality: the fabrication of a heirarchy of virtue amongst the Etoro. Kelly did his anthropological fieldwork amongst the Etoro tribe of papua New Guinea in the 1960s. Kelly’s story can be found right here…

Now the interesting thing is that this supposed homosexuality is mentioned on gay apologetics web sites across the Internet. Of course they all say the same thing. However, if you care to research the original academic documents on the subject, you get an entirely different picture.

The supposed homosexuality amongst the Etoro was not ‘homosexuality’ as we define it in the west, where same sex acts supposedly define some sort of ‘love’ between people of the same sex. Amongst the Etoro it had to do with their cosmology. The Etoro believed that the essence of life was in male semen and the adoloscents had to ingest semen to make them stronger in spirit and physically. As such, this same sex act act bore no relationship whatsoever with what we in the west call homosexuality. So important was this ‘life essence that childless marriges were a cause of conflict because the Etoro considered that when a women didn’t conceive, that ‘life’s essence’ was wasted. In Kelly’s own words, “Etoro conceptions of the `nature of being’ revolve around life cycle processes,” he says. “The male contribution to procreation is the animating principle while the female contribution is otherwise lifeless flesh. Similarly, men supply game animals that cause a child to grow, while the starch staples women produce only satisfy hunger.” This world view, this cosmology of the Etoro did not involve sodomy, which is the main desire of western homosexuality.

So, it would seem the meltzerboy has either read an entire Ethnography and decided to pull out of it a same sex event that has been construed as supporting and justifying homosexuality, or he has simply read that construction on a gay apologists web site and passed it off as something he learned years ago. Either way, it is a false interpretation of one part of a tribal belief system.

John, if you had read my post carefully, you would have understood that I am NOT using this piece of information (or misinformation as you call it) to support homosexuality. Your assumption of my intent is undoubtedly based not on what I just wrote but on our prior discussions about homosexuality. What my real intention is here is to present an alternative meaning of homosexuality as defined by this tribe, which is based on their cultural practice. I was questioning whether this could even be considered homosexual behavior. Since everyone was discussing the Church’s stance on homosexuality, I also posed the question of what the Church might think of such behavior, which is not in line with the way other cultures define homosexuality. In addition, your assumption that I either took this from a gay apologist’s website (which I’m not even familiar with) and passed it off as something I had learned, or pulled this out of an ethnography to support homosexuality, are also not true. I did learn this in a college class many years ago (I don’t recall stating I read a book about the topic); however, you have added some interesting details that I appreciate, such as the name of the specific tribe, which I had not known. Evidently, you don’t view this as homosexual behavior (which is why, you might notice, I wrote “homosexual” in quotation marks). However, what would the Church think about this practice in your view?

 

[John21652]

Would you mind explaining precisely how sexual acts between two men or women cause disease and corrupt the body.

What corrupts the body is temptation and sinning against chastity. You are also making the mistaking of conflating sodomy with homosexuality. Any sexual act performed between two men can equally be performed by a man and a woman.

I really hope that you’ll reconsider your opinion on this.

I don’t see why he should have to reconsider at all. It is you who shoved women into your post when it was obvious you were responding to a male. Most males, me included, can’t help equating homosexuality with male-male sex, with one man shoving his penis up another man’s rectum. If you want to include women in the equation, go for your life, but don’t expect men to change the way they feel about this issue.

One man shoving his penis up someone else’s anus is a recipe for causing* disease and corruption* of the body. It doesn’t matter whether a man or a women owns the anus.

Read here how disease and corruption of the body can occur. There are even some nice littlen pictures to illustrate what this truly ghastly activity does.

More right here about how the body can become corrupted and diseased.

If you search the Internet you can find plenty of material on the extra high levels of internal parasites in homosexual men, Here’s a little sampler for you. I’d provide more links for your convenience, except the subject makes me ill.

Anal cancer risks are much higher amongst anyone who practices anal intercourse.

If you think condom usage will keep the homosexuals safe, then Google “condom failure during anal intercourse” and read statistics that would frighten any sane homosexual into being a very celibate homosexual.

And the poster to whom you responded is right about homosexual acts being done by both men and women. Women so inclined strap on pretend penises so they can penetrate their lesbian lover’s backpassage and they even resort to anal fisting just like the homosexual men. So the same propensity to corruption and disease of the body exists.

All quite sick, actually.

 

[qOcOp]

I think people are missing a huge point and that is there is a difference between acts and and sexuality. While some people will claim that we have no control over what we are (and within reason that is partly true), most people will also agree that the majority of us do have control over what we do (logical exclusions can be people who suffer from mental illnesses, retardation, or diseases like Alzheimers). Furthermore the objective Moral Law created by God Himself and communicated through His Mystical Body, The Holy Catholic Church, forbides ANY and ALL actions and inclinations which do not add to the common good of humanity and the well being of our immortal souls. To knowingly and willingly act on or support any of these things that are contrary to the moral teachings of the Church would be to commit a sin against Charity, and thus a sin against God Himself who is Charity itself.

With that said Homosexuality is considered a grave sin since it does not add to the common good of humanity because it is a love which does not promote and allow the transmission of life. This is why homosexuality is considered a sin against charity since it is a “love” that is selfish and therefore not in union with the message of the Cross which is selflessness and self-sacrifice. In conclusion homosexuality is not in union with the Divine will of God and therefore not beneficial to the common good. This also applies to anyone regardless of sexuality that commits acts contrary to the moral doctrines and teachings of the Church.

 

[Peepers]

These threads on controversial topics are interesting for the insight into the posters as much as the topic itself. There are some who seem to be more generous and loving, and some who seem to be full of hatred or irrational fear. As I read through all of this it made me look into my own heart and ask some questions about how I perceive and how I treat others.

 

[Elizabeth502]

These threads on controversial topics are interesting for the insight into the posters as much as the topic itself. There are some who seem to be more generous and loving, and some who seem to be full of hatred or irrational fear. As I read through all of this it made me look into my own heart and ask some questions about how I perceive and how I treat others.

…in which case, it would probably be more helpful if you cite where specifically you read "hatred [of people, not behaviors]"and “irrational fear.” Then perhaps such posters can benefit from your fraternal correction.