New Poll: Do you think Homosexual Acts are Sinful?

[CMatt25]

Indeed. However, as I shouldn’t have to tell you, Catholic theology teaches that for a mortal sin you need “full knowledge and consent.” Someone genuinely believing that homosexual relationships are legitimate would not have “full knowledge”

No you don’t have to tell me. But hmmm… Interesting theory at least.

 

[Lycorth]

Here we go again.

Separation of church and state was one of the worst things to happen to Western civilization. Perhaps secularist textbooks and teachers may wax poetic over this, but the facts of history are that confessional states serve the interests of God much more than secular states; the confessional states of Europe helped to save Western civilization by assenting to God and giving Him primacy by encouraging and supporting the Church.

It is also pertinent to note that theocracies rarely have ever existed. Theocracies are distinguishes from classical monarchies, either of the relatively limited Medieval sort or the more extended kind found after the Protestant “Reformation”; in a theocracy, the rulers of the state are held to be divinely guided whereas in the monarchies that Europe enjoyed, rulers merely held that their *office *was of God and that order was a Godly thing to enforce. There could never be a Catholic theocracy because as a matter of faith, Catholics believe that only the Pope and the Magisterium teaching in union with him are divinely guided, and then only when exercising their official teaching capacity on a matter of faith and/or morals.

The state doesn’t need to be protected from the big, bad Church, but rather the other way around. The state has a moral obligation to uphold and defend the Church, as wise rulers did in antiquity, not to marginalize the Church and, hence, God, to serve man’s follies.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Exactly why the state needs protected from the church so theocracies stay behind

The church needed protection from the power of the state, not the other way around, so that we can have religious freedom.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Here we go again…

The state doesn’t need to be protected from the big, bad Church, but rather the other way around. The state has a moral obligation to uphold and defend the Church, as wise rulers did in antiquity, not to marginalize the Church and, hence, God, to serve man’s follies.

Exactly what I am trying to say.

 

[Contarini]

Exactly why the state needs protected from the church so theocracies stay behind

Theocracy is kind of like snake-handling. It exists mostly in the minds of horrified liberals and is pretty hard to track down in real life–it always turns out to be just over in the next holler.

European governments have rarely if ever been theocratic. Unless of course you are defining “theocracy” as any government where one religious perspective is enforced and/or where the church has a lot of influence over the government. But that’s a rather innovative and tendentious way to use the term. It’s like of like the unpleasant habit of contemporary American political conservatives of calling anyone not a strict libertarian on economic matters a “socialist” or even a “communist.”

Edwin

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

No, Anna I don’t believe we do as a whole. Or I hope not. And I’m always reminded of neighborly Christian service when I think of how it is I who might need the gay person to save me in a burning bldg someday.

But it’s a fine line again where some people due to their beliefs cross a line and in the case of homosexuality become homophobic or gay bashers. Or take the abortion issue, another hotly debated topic. Look what has happened when folks take their beliefs to the extreme there. They’ve been known to turn to hatred and doctors are murdered in cold blood. Even one while he was worshiping in his Lutheran church the same God we do. That’s the scary part to me. When people becoming so strident in their beliefs and it leads to the extreme.

You are right…two wrongs do not make a right. It is for each person to be judged by God. HOWEVER, that does not make the truth anyless the truth. Abortion is sinful, and so is homosexual acts. It is not sinful to have same sex attraction…but it is to act on it. Just as a single male may be really drawn to have sex with someone he is not married to…it’s a temptation…but sinful if he acts on it. By the way…murder is sinful to…so killing an abortion doctor is also wrong. And the CC teaches that. But it sounds like you want to make it so that God’s commandments are not valid…which is in error.

 

[larkin31]

Theocracy is kind of like snake-handling. It exists mostly in the minds of horrified liberals and is pretty hard to track down in real life–it always turns out to be just over in the next holler.

European governments have rarely if ever been theocratic. Unless of course you are defining “theocracy” as any government where one religious perspective is enforced and/or where the church has a lot of influence over the government.

The result is the same on the harassed, made miserable, excommunicated, banished, abused, tortured, and/or dead. Call it what you want. Matt’s point was clear; he was putting an idea into a short post.

 

[Lycorth]

Theocracy is kind of like snake-handling. It exists mostly in the minds of horrified liberals and is pretty hard to track down in real life–it always turns out to be just over in the next holler.

European governments have rarely if ever been theocratic. Unless of course you are defining “theocracy” as any government where one religious perspective is enforced and/or where the church has a lot of influence over the government. But that’s a rather innovative and tendentious way to use the term. It’s like of like the unpleasant habit of contemporary American political conservatives of calling anyone not a strict libertarian on economic matters a “socialist” or even a “communist.”

Edwin

Amen. It is indeed like talking to neo-cons about economics and having to hear the words “socialist” and “communist” every other sentence. Talking to secularists about the need for religion in government provokes the same sort of response; in neither case does anyone demonstrate any real understanding of the words they use or the people they accuse of living up to them.

The result is the same on the harassed, made miserable, excommunicated, banished, abused, tortured, and/or dead. Call it what you want. Matt’s point was clear; he was putting an idea into a short post.

Secularist governments, which by definition includes communist governments, have killed orders of magnitude more people than any confessional state ever has on solely religious grounds. From abortion to pointless wars halfway around the world to state oppression of dissidents and the gulag system, secularism has the blood of billions on its hands, and so do those who promote it.

 

[larkin31]

Secularist governments, which by definition includes communist governments, have killed orders of magnitude more people than any confessional state ever has on solely religious grounds. From abortion to pointless wars halfway around the world to state oppression of dissidents and the gulag system, secularism…

Tyranny has this, not secularism. But I otherwise agree with you.

…has the blood of billions on its hands, and so do those who promote it.

No. Not “secularists.” Many secular humanism stands directly opposed to tyranny in every form, and certainly those dictatorships that you are referencing above.

Please, let’s not get into a battle of death lists and misdeeds by humans done to other humans. There are no clean hands in that dirty mudfight. I am NOT trying to focus blame on theists or Catholics. I simply mean to state that the blame for both the wrongs done on this planet and the praise for the good done on this planet needs to be shared among these large categories of humanity. I find self-righteousness a dangerous scourge: divisive and damaging and typically historically myopic.

 

[Lycorth]

Tyranny has this, not secularism. But I otherwise agree with you.

No, it’s secularism - many tyrannies are secularist. Every communist country, for example, is a secularist tyranny.

No. Not “secularists.” Many secular humanism stands directly opposed to tyranny in every form, and certainly those dictatorships that you are referencing above.

Yes, “secularists”. Many secular humanists indeed oppose such measures as their less lenient counterparts, but secularism is to blame.

Please, let’s not get into a battle of death lists and misdeeds by humans done to other humans. There are no clean hands in that dirty mudfight. I am NOT trying to focus blame on theists or Catholics. I simply mean to state that the blame for both the wrongs done on this planet and the praise for the good done on this planet needs to be shared among these large categories of humanity. I find self-righteousness a dangerous scourge: divisive and damaging and typically historically myopic.

The gauntlet was already thrown down when people on this thread started whining about “theocracies” and praising secularist governments. Sorry, but the record needs to be set straight on that; the Church is far from the worst monster in human history, according to secularist propaganda. On a Catholic discussion forum, I most certainly won’t tolerate it.

But I agree with your remarks above, and appreciate that you’re not singling us out.

 

[LongJourney]

This poll is not an accurate measure of the attitudes of non-Catholics, due to small sample size. In addition, since participation on these boards may be skewed in the direction of conservative/traditional Catholics, even those results could be questioned.

In addition, the choices are limited. My personal belief is that homosexual acts are no more reprehensible than fornication or adultery which is not open to the creation of new life.

 

[Lycorth]

This poll is not an accurate measure of the attitudes of non-Catholics, due to small sample size. In addition, since participation on these boards may be skewed in the direction of conservative/traditional Catholics, even those results could be questioned.

You should hope they are so skewed. In these faithless times, the Church needs more “conservative/traditional Catholics”.

In addition, the choices are limited. My personal belief is that homosexual acts are no more reprehensible than fornication or adultery which is not open to the creation of new life.

That doesn’t answer the question. Really, the question should answer itself for all Catholics know the Church’s teaching on the matter. There is but one answer a Catholic can give.

 

[Bill_Pick]

That’s quite unfair. Shall we bring up the pediphile problem to combat your silly comment? At least the protestant denominations that openly accept homosexuals are consistent.

The Bible teaches clearly that homosexuality is wrong, a sinful destortion of God’s plan for sex.

What about the peadhille problem with the NON Cathloic churchs,can we talk about that or do we keep bashing The CHURCH that was started by CHRIST…Cathloic talk about the problem,do the non-cathloics talk about it

 

[AliciaCL]

The acts are sinful. Yes. How are they not? I have not seen what the theological reasoning is for those Christian churches who have decided that it’s ok to have actively homosexual persons in the clergy and marry homosexuals. As far as I can tell, it seems to be simply to be homosexuals seem like nice people and we want to include all people and stamp out all forms of discrimination, be humanistic toward their claims that this is their unchosen fundamental nature. Is there any more in-depth analysis out there?

 

[Dokimas]

What about the peadhille problem with the NON Cathloic churchs,can we talk about that or do we keep bashing The CHURCH that was started by CHRIST…Cathloic talk about the problem,do the non-cathloics talk about it

Before jumping all over me, please look back at the context of my post.

The poster I made my comment to seemed to be ‘casting stones’ toward protestants. I reminded the poster that it’s dangerous to cast stones.

Seems the fact is the CC were forced to talk about ‘it’ as the problems became more and more public. Until then, seems the CC ignored the problems.

I know first hand, the non-catholic Christian church I was part of for 19 yrs. dealt with these issue as soon as they became known. An aside, I’m not sure things were always dealt with correctly, but they were not ignored.

 

[Lycorth]

Before jumping all over me, please look back at the context of my post.

The poster I made my comment to seemed to be ‘casting stones’ toward protestants. I reminded the poster that it’s dangerous to cast stones.

Seems the fact is the CC were forced to talk about ‘it’ as the problems became more and more public. Until then, seems the CC ignored the problems.

I know first hand, the non-catholic Christian church I was part of for 19 yrs. dealt with these issue as soon as they became known. An aside, I’m not sure things were always dealt with correctly, but they were not ignored.

He’s got a right to be touchy about this issue; we Catholics are sick of hearing the Church being bashed and mocked in popular culture because of decades-old sex scandals when abuses happen much more often and recently in Protestant churches and elsewhere. We’re sick of being made out to be the kiddie-diddling religion just because the secularist media chooses to blow old Catholic problems completely out of proportion and refuses to report on the same when it happens elsewhere.

If someone keeps poking a dog long enough, he’s going to start growling.

 

[CMatt25]

But it sounds like you want to make it so that God’s commandments are not valid…which is in error.

No and I only brought up the abortion issue as another issue like homosexuality, the topic of this thread, in which extremely strident beliefs can lead someone to extremist actions. So I’m not going to comment here on the commandment “thou shalt not kill” as it relates to abortion.

And "Thou shalt not commit adultery in the strictest definition, is a bit difficult for the gay person to accomplish since in most places they are not allowed to have a spouse in the first place of which to commit the adultery against.

“Thou shalt not cover thy neighbors wife” in its strictest application doesn’t apply if the gay person is not coveting someone else’s spouse.

Sex forbidden outside marriage if we are including it as a commandment? Then you get into translation and the different beliefs people have and how to legislate belief. Going up on a street corner, pulling a gun, and killing someone on a street corner? Yeah illegal. But it’s one thing for someone to say they believe homosexual acts are sinful. Entirely something else to make for instance civil unions illegal.

 

[PRmerger]

No and I only brought up the abortion issue as another issue like homosexuality, the topic of this thread, in which extremely strident beliefs can lead someone to extremist actions.

And ambivalent beliefs can lead to inaction, no?

Isn’t there a saying: All it will take for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.

 

[CMatt25]

in a theocracy, the rulers of the state are held to be divinely guided whereas in the monarchies that Europe enjoyed, rulers merely held that their *office *was of God and that order was a Godly thing to enforce.

Sorta like it not being the grandest leap if left unchecked for someone like Dubya to have prayed about war, and while not having God or His angels speaking God’s words directly into his ear, believing he was being inspired. Or then perhaps a leader someday actually taking the leap into believing God actually told him or her to go to war. Fine lines.

 

[CMatt25]

since participation on these boards may be skewed in the direction of conservative/traditional Catholics, even those results could be questioned.