New Poll: Do you think Homosexual Acts are Sinful?

[PRmerger]

Considering I am a Catholic who is informed but whose conscience still can not accept every teaching, I can at this pt agree the Magisterium has handed us a teaching.

Ok, then.

I hope you’re still pondering my question, which is to get to an understanding whether so-called Catholics who disagree with the Church on different issues have created a religion in their own image and likeness, rather than one that has been given to them by Christ.

 

[The_Reginator]

… whether so-called Catholics who disagree with the Church on different issues have created a religion in their own image and likeness, rather than one that has been given to them by Christ.

For Catholics that is the big question.
There is no point for us individually to look for the original bibles texts and translate them and then try to come to a conclusion as to what God is really telling us.

God gave us the Church for that. It is the teaching of the Church that we MUST obey, no matter how difficult. For the teaching of the Church is the teaching of God.

(I often consider true homosexuality to be a very heavy cross to bear.)

 

[PRmerger]

For Catholics that is the big question.
There is no point for us individually to look for the original bibles texts and translate them and then** try to come to a conclusion as to what God is really telling us**.

Yes, although this should be understood with some nuance. We are most certainly free–indeed obligated–to read the Scriptures and see what God is telling us privately, personally. For example, if I am prayerfully asking for direction as to how to provide food for my family when I’ve lost my job, and then I turn to Scripture and open to the verses in which Jesus multiplies the loaves…well, I am certainly free to interpret that as God telling me, “Don’t worry, my beloved! I will take care of that!”

God gave us the Church for that. It is the teaching of the Church that we MUST obey, no matter how difficult. For the teaching of the Church is the teaching of God.

Indeed. And I believe that any Catholic who says, "Well, I disagree with the Church on ________ (fill in the blank with the doctrine du jour that’s at issue–and it’s usually one that deals with the Church’s teaching on sex. Go figure. ) is really saying, "Well, I disagree with *Christ *on __________.

 

[CMatt25]

Ok, then.

I hope you’re still pondering my question, which is to get to an understanding whether so-called Catholics who disagree with the Church on different issues have created a religion in their own image and likeness, rather than one that has been given to them by Christ.

No. They’re Catholics according to the Church. Not “so called” Catholics. Who in cases are even following their informed but nevertheless still dissenting consciences as the Church says they must.

CCC includes,

1776 His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

 

[PRmerger]

No. They’re Catholics according to the Church. Not “so called” Catholics. Who in cases are even following their informed but nevertheless still dissenting consciences as the Church says they must.

CCC includes,

1776 His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

Matt, by your own paradigm, you cannot object to my use of the term “so-called Catholic”, for my conscience–my most secret core and my sanctuary–tells me that I can and, indeed, ought to do so!

 

[PRmerger]

Matt, by your own paradigm, you cannot object to my use of the term “so-called Catholic”, for my conscience–my most secret core and my sanctuary–tells me that I can and, indeed, ought to do so!

And, Matt, just so you know–I’m just messin’ with ya!

If you object to my use of “so-called Catholic” I will refrain from doing so.

I actually don’t really think too hard about who can call themselves Catholic, although it does irk me to see public figures profess Catholicism, then make ignorant claims about their faith, causing scandal. And, I make no apologies for calling Nancy Pelosi a so-called Catholic, for she has made up a religion that bears little resemblance to the one Christ founded.

Anyway, I prefer to label those who are the “Clueless Catholic in the Pews”–of which I am certain you are not one. These are the majority of people who sleepily sit through the Mass and then, one day, get bowled over by a fervent Jehovah’s Witness showing them a verse in Scripture “which the Catholic Church contradicts”… and next thing you know there’s Clueless Joe Catholic worshipping in the Kingdom Hall!

(Then, they come to the CAFs and in an effort to give themselves more credibility, profess, “Well, I used to be a Catholic and…” only to get things sooooo wrong it makes me cringe!)

Grrrrrr!!

 

[CMatt25]

What do you think the original writers might have meant, instead?

Do you mean if they weren’t merely expressing customary thinking of the times as they did in support of slavery or in women keeping quiet in church? Or something like the OT directives not to have sex with a woman during her menstrual periods? Or where a woman had to marry her rapist if the rapist pd the father 50 sides of silver? Or Lot offering up his virgin daughters to the men of Sodom. Now there’s a custom.

But if you need more, here are just a few links you can look @ if you truly want to explore other beliefs.

religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm

religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc8.htm

religioustolerance.org/hombibg191.htm

libchrist.com/other/homosexual/sodom.html

And you can find a lot more if you truly want to learn about other beliefs.

You can look into the reasoning behind some denominations ordaining gays and lesbians. Or can probably even find out why the United Church of Christ supports gay marriage.

Peace.

 

[Dokimas]

No one is discrminating against anyone–homosexuals can get married. They can choose any member of the opposite sex who’s free to marry and get hitched.

I know I should step in here an change the subject but I can’t help myself.

Your comment is using the same dodge as what some here as said about the CC forcing priest to remain celibate.

BTW, the Bible teaches homosexuality is sin and therefore wrong. So is forcing celibacy.

 

[LongJourney]

The church does not FORCE celibacy. A man intending to become a priest KNOWS that is part of the package. And he is encouraged to leave if this requirement becomes seriously troublesome. The NT tells those who are called to celibacy that it is a preferred lifestyle for them freer from the troubles of raising children and maintaining a life-long intimate relationship with one woman. The modern interpretation of scriptures also encourages celibacy for those with strong homosexual inclinations.

 

[Dokimas]

The church does not FORCE celibacy. A man intending to become a priest KNOWS that is part of the package. And he is encouraged to leave if this requirement becomes seriously troublesome. The NT tells those who are called to celibacy that it is a preferred lifestyle for them freer from the troubles of raising children and maintaining a life-long intimate relationship with one woman. The modern interpretation of scriptures also encourages celibacy for those with strong homosexual inclinations.

You are free (obviously) to call it what it is. Because a man is NOT called by the CC if he chooses not to remain celibate (but to get married), then he is forced to be celibate if he ‘feels’ called to the priesthood.

If he decided after he is a priest that he would rather be married than burn (with God given sexual desires - thus choosing to marry), he can’t remain a priest; not only that but many catholics would accuse him of sinning against God by going back on his vow.

I agree that it is easier to serve God if a person can be celibate and not sin (in mind or body). Jesus spoke of it as did Paul. They both did NOT disqualify a man from being a bishop, priest or pastor if they chose marriage.

To disqualify a man from priesthood because they, in all good conscience, can not pledge to remain celibate, is to force them to be celibate against their better judgement or force them not to be a priest.

 

[LongJourney]

Why don’t you ask Fr. Cutie about that? That handsome and being a Catholic priest could really lead to difficulties. LOL

 

[PRmerger]

Do you mean if they weren’t merely expressing customary thinking of the times as they did in support of slavery or in women keeping quiet in church? Or something like the OT directives not to have sex with a woman during her menstrual periods? Or where a woman had to marry her rapist if the rapist pd the father 50 sides of silver? Or Lot offering up his virgin daughters to the men of Sodom. Now there’s a custom.

But if you need more, here are just a few links you can look @ if you truly want to explore other beliefs.

religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm

religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc8.htm

religioustolerance.org/hombibg191.htm

libchrist.com/other/homosexual/sodom.html

And you can find a lot more if you truly want to learn about other beliefs.

You can look into the reasoning behind some denominations ordaining gays and lesbians. Or can probably even find out why the United Church of Christ supports gay marriage.

Peace.

Now Bible-only Christians may have to squirm with your argument here, but, Matt, as you know, Catholics have Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to counter your argument.

Yep, the Bible says those things, but Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium have given us the proper way to understand them.

So, now, will you please answer jmcrae’s question? What do you think the inspired writers might have meant regarding the term “homosexualit”, as it’s used in Scripture? How would it differ from our 21st century understanding?

(You stated earlier: “Depends on if I believe 20th century Bibles correctly translate from Greek to the word homosexual”) Please answer what you believe the original meaning could have been.

 

[Lycorth]

No. They’re Catholics according to the Church. Not “so called” Catholics. Who in cases are even following their informed but nevertheless still dissenting consciences as the Church says they must.

CCC includes,

1776 His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

That is deliberate misrepresentation of the Church’s teaching on conscience.

Why merely cite the CCC’s statements on conscience and not on homosexuality?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

*2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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. 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.

2359* * Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. *

God cannot contradict Himself, so He would not teach that homosexual practices are “intrinsically disordered” and then teach that we are free to make up our own minds on the matter.

On a side note, this certainly adds weight to critics of the Church’s policies since Vatican II, particularly of the vagueness in which many things have been written…

 

[jmcrae]

Do you mean if they weren’t merely expressing customary thinking of the times as they did in support of slavery or in women keeping quiet in church?

Actually no. You had originally stated that you didn’t think that the term “homosexuality” was originally used in the Scriptures, and that there has been a mistranslation along the way. My question was, what do you think the original word actually was?

Or something like the OT directives not to have sex with a woman during her menstrual periods?

This actually makes sense, given the lack of showering and bathing facilities for nomadic tribes in the desert. The woman would have had a hard time cleaning herself, if she was also having sex at the same time.

Or where a woman had to marry her rapist if the rapist pd the father 50 sides of silver?

I should think that such a consequence would have acted as a deterrent for the men, too - if you attack a woman, she will become your wife until death ye do part.

Or Lot offering up his virgin daughters to the men of Sodom. Now there’s a custom.

That was not a “custom” - it was a one-time incident, and Lot received the consequences for it quite harshly, as I recall.

In any case, none of this answers my question.

If the Scriptures that appear to condemn homosexuality are actually condemning something else, what is that something else, in your opinion - and what is your basis for thinking so?

But if you need more, here are just a few links you can look @ if you truly want to explore other beliefs.

Thank you, I have explored a great many beliefs in my time.

I used to belong to a liberal Protestant congregation that was mostly run by actively practicing homosexuals, so I am fully aware of their side of the issue, and what they think the Bible is telling them.

I was asking you what you think it means, though, instead of simply assuming that you go by the same interpretation that they do. After all, I am assuming that you are reading the Bible for yourself, and not simply parroting other people’s interpretations and taking them for your own, without also going to the source to see if these things are true.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

But it’s obvious that they are NOT receiving equal treatment under the law. That’s just not fair, they pay taxes just like the rest of us, they deserve the same breaks that married couples enjoy, imo.

Ahhh…what about those poor hetrosexual couples who live together but aren’t married? don’t they deserve a break?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

No because Jesus told us not to cast stones and knowing the entire truth about everything depends on how omniscient we are.

We can know God’s truth…did you hear the reading today? Jesus did not tell us to keep sinning. For the woman who was caught in adultry…he didn’t tell her it was ok. He told her to sin no more. And he didn’t tell the crowd that adultry was ok or that they should think it’s ok.

By the way…for someone who is so against casting stones…you seem to lob quite a few at the Catholic Church and people in the church…Then back away with your hands up innocently…“I haven’t done anything like that”…

 

[jmcrae]

We can know God’s truth…did you hear the reading today?

Moses was direct and to the point, this morning - God’s ways are not far away in heaven, or under the sea - you don’t need to send messengers to go and search it out, or try to find a ladder that is tall enough to reach it - it is here at home, in your mouth and in your heart - all you have to do is listen and obey.

 

[CMatt25]

That is deliberate misrepresentation of the Church’s teaching on conscience.

Why merely cite the CCC’s statements on conscience and not on homosexuality?

On a side note, this certainly adds weight to critics of the Church’s policies since Vatican II, particularly of the vagueness in which many things have been written…

Call it what you want but the words are there.

Because another poster had asked me if I thought “so called Catholics” as she put it were forming their own religion. Since they follow their conascience those were the words from the CCC I quoted.

Yes maybe you should start your own church in a pre-Vat 2 form.

 

[jmcrae]

Call it what you want but the words are there.

I think it can be really easy to mistake one’s personal opinions for one’s conscience, as well, especially when the items under discussion are purely hypothetical. Not saying that you don’t have any personal experience of the homosexual lifestyle, but there’s a lot of stuff that sounds just dandy on paper, but when you look at the real life situation, it doesn’t apply or work at all - or even make any sense. After all, why should homosexuals pair up in the same way that heterosexuals do? There’s nothing in what they do that requires two, and only two, people. They can just as easily do it alone, and just as easily do it in a group of three or more. There would be no difference made to the experience itself.

Because another poster had asked me if I thought “so called Catholics” as she put it were forming their own religion. Since they follow their conscience those were the words from the CCC I quoted.

In a lot of cases, (not saying you, specifically, of course) what dissenters are following is not their own conscience at all, nor even their own carefully formed opinions, but rather, uncritically imbibed TV comedy programs, grocery check-out magazines, and the equally-uninformed opinions of their neighbors.

 

[guanophore]

I was wondering why such an old thread was popping up. It seems that firstmode is anxious to keep it going, even though it has not been moving very fast. Then, low and behold, it is YOUR post that seems to be the watershed - the one after which the pace of the thread finally picks up!

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.

It is “unfair” for Catholics to think that their church teaches the Truth because so many Catholics embrace it?

No, we should not bring up the pedophile problem. Why? because you are once again confusing the infallible teachings of the Church with the actions of sinful men, who don;t obey the Teachings. The logic is flawed, Doki. I is like saying that Jesus did not teach the Truth, because Judas betrayed him.

Homosexuals are welcome in the CC, just liek everyone else. What is NOT welcome is sinful behavior, and excusing sin because it is politically correct to do so.

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

So, it is fair for you to believe this, but if Catholics believe this, it is “unfair”?