Please share your wisdom when defending the Catholic homosexuality teachings

[FreeSpirit1]

Please help me answer in a sensitive, credible manner objections to Church teachings about homosexuality.

As I watch ‘Chaz’ on Oprah, the woman-turned-man (transgender), daughter of the famous Sony and Cher couple, it puts the spotlight back onto what I realized a while ago: public opinion (or what public media would have us think) is miles away from Catholic teachings, regarding many points: all priests are pedophiles, women should be allowed to be ordained as priests, priest to be allowed to be married, etc…

The ‘all priests are pedophiles’ preconceptions I could handle. Time magazine ran an article in summer 2009 how unfounded and exaggerated this thinking is.

The “women should be allowed to be ordained to be priest” I can handle: it comes down to a question of power. Our Lord asks us to be servants, not power-hungry. Also, we are, when baptised, made “kings, prophets, and priests” (working on the bible reference). So women are already priests from baptism! I, as a woman, have no problem here. I just live my faith as best I can and as a ‘lay’ person, I have so much to learn and live by.

But homosexuality is different. These people are ‘born this way’, as Lady Gaga sings.

To anybody wondering, I personally have no homosexual inclinations. I usually will shy away from homosexuals, either male or female, because I want to avoid the issue, avoid the confrontation. I don’t have other answers than textbook Catechism of the Catholic Church, which maybe too cold, harsh answer when dealing such a delicate issue. I’m looking for answers on this issue with my friends and family who are heterosexual, but disagree with the Church’s teachings, having been won over by ‘public opinion’ shaped by media.

Perhaps some of you out there have the experience and have pointers to give, perhaps some of you have already struggled with close ones about this issue, and prayed through it… I would appreciate your wisdom.

Thanks,

Your sister in Christ.

 

[ahs]

Homosexuals cannot engage in sex that is ordered to nature because the sexes of homosexual couples is not complimentary. A homosexual act can never be ordered toward procreation, and therefore is contrary to the objective criteria of morality (sex is sought for some purpose other than it’s intended purpose).

I do not believe that people with same sex attractions are born that way. I believe people are born with certain dispositions, but that the attraction to a person of the same sex is something that develops later for various reasons. (Just FYI, I do have some experience with this…a relative who has a SSA.)

The Church teaches that persons with same sex attractions are no less important as persons than anyone else. It is not the attraction that is condemned, it is the act…the acting upon the attraction…homosexuality. People with same sex attractions are called to a life of chastity just like all Christians are. For the person with SSA, that may mean a celibate life.

 

[Rence]

A lot of people are under the false impression that the Church discriminates against gay people. That is so not true. In fact, the Church discrimates against everybody equally

Seriously though, the rules that the Church imposes on gay people, they impose on all unmarried heterosexuals as well…and married couples too. The rules are all the same.

The Church recognizes homosexual orientation. I do not believe it’s a choice. I think they were “born this way”. Regardless of whether it is a choice, or not, the rules of the Church are the same. Their burden is to be celibate just like an unmarried priest or a nun…or a single lay person. And the same rules apply that call a married couple to be chaste in their marriage - which means only having licit sex. It is not a “sin” in the eyes of the Church to be gay. It is a sin to engage in immoral sexual behavior.

The Church teaches that sex is only moral if it has two required properties 1) unitive and 2) procreative. That’s what the Church teaches for ALL. There are no exceptions to the rules within the Church’s teachings regarding sex.

1. Gay couples cannot be unitive (the parts just don’t fit), nor can they be procreative (only a man and a woman can conceive). Therefore their sexcapades are not licit in the eyes of the Church. This teaching is not going to change and it’s not outdated. It, in fact, makes perfect sense.
2. Heterosexual unmarried couples have the procreative property, but not the unitive because they are not married in the eyes of the Church. Therefore their sexcapades are not licit in the eyes of the Church. This teaching is not going to change. It is not outdated, and like it or not, it makes perfect sense.
3. In addition, a married couple is required to have both of these properties as well, which means artificial birth control creates illicit sex because it renders the act neither unitive nor procreative. Therefore their sexcapades are not licit in the eyes of the Church and if they want to fix it, they have to go off artificial birth control.
4. so much does the Church protect the unitive properties that it also forbids in vitro fertilization…there is no unitive property, therefore this is not a licit act in the eyes of the Church.

Gay people are not the only ones called to not have illicit and immoral sex. The same rules apply to everyone. It has to be unitive AND procreative. I hope that makes sense to you. The Church isn’t trying to be mean to anyone. Those are their rules and those are why they are the rules.

Maybe someone can add in something that I forgot to help you better understand the Church’s teachings regarding this matter…

 

[ahs]

A lot of people are under the false impression that the Church discriminates against gay people. That is so not true. In fact, the Church discrimates against everybody equally

Seriously though, the rules that the Church imposes on gay people, they impose on all unmarried heterosexuals as well…and married couples too. The rules are all the same.

The Church recognizes homosexual orientation. I do not believe it’s a choice. I think they were “born this way”. Regardless of whether it is a choice, or not, the rules of the Church are the same. Their burden is to be celibate just like an unmarried priest or a nun…or a single lay person. And the same rules apply that call a married couple to be chaste in their marriage - which means only having licit sex. It is not a “sin” in the eyes of the Church to be gay. It is a sin to engage in immoral sexual behavior.

The Church teaches that sex is only moral if it has two required properties 1) unitive and 2) procreative. That’s what the Church teaches for ALL. There are no exceptions to the rules within the Church’s teachings regarding sex.

1. Gay couples cannot be unitive (the parts just don’t fit), nor can they be procreative (only a man and a woman can conceive). Therefore their sexcapades are not licit in the eyes of the Church. This teaching is not going to change and it’s not outdated. It, in fact, makes perfect sense.
2. Heterosexual unmarried couples have the procreative property, but not the unitive because they are not married in the eyes of the Church. Therefore their sexcapades are not licit in the eyes of the Church. This teaching is not going to change. It is not outdated, and like it or not, it makes perfect sense.
3. In addition, a married couple is required to have both of these properties as well, which means artificial birth control creates illicit sex because it renders the act neither unitive nor procreative. Therefore their sexcapades are not licit in the eyes of the Church and if they want to fix it, they have to go off artificial birth control.
4. so much does the Church protect the unitive properties that it also forbids in vitro fertilization…there is no unitive property, therefore this is not a licit act in the eyes of the Church.

Gay people are not the only ones called to not have illicit and immoral sex. The same rules apply to everyone. It has to be unitive AND procreative. I hope that makes sense to you. The Church isn’t trying to be mean to anyone. Those are their rules and those are why they are the rules.

Maybe someone can add in something that I forgot to help you better understand the Church’s teachings regarding this matter…

FreeSpirit1: This is a really great post with good solid information. If you read Theology of the Body or Humanae Vitae or even the Catechism, you will find a rich source of information that explains all of the above, as Rence has posted.

There is only the 1 point I disagree with (“born that way”) but I think that is probably a moot point overall given the nature of the original post. For what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s a “choice” per se either…there are many many things that could cause a person to develop a same sex attraction. Maybe a topic for another thread…I digress…

 

[followingtheway]

It’s very hard to say because the Bible condemns homosexual acts (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 etc.) but studies (and even some Catholics) say there is genetic factor (link), so it’s hard to say.

I’m kind of agnostic-ish on topic of homosexuality. I personally have a problem with/doubts about every single opinion on homosexuality…

1. 
   *]It’s a lifestyle choice (who would be choose to be bullied, harrased and hated? And plus the Catechism even says “they do not choose their condition” - CCC 2358.)
   *]It’s a cross to bear (but why would God put those desires in a person, and say “acting on them is sinful”. Why would force celibacy on someone? Don’t we have free will? And why would God give someone an orientation that would cause them to be bullied, harrased, and hated?)
   *]It’s not sinful at all (what about the Bible’s statement on the matter?)
   *]It has to do with a mom babying her kid, or a single parenthood or child molestion (this should be debunked easily, due to certain gay people who haven’t experience any of those things)
   *]And some people say it’s a form of demonic possesion, but not I can’t stomach that
   
   God bless :byzsoc:
   
   David

 

[Debora123]

I fully agree with the Church’s teaching that homosexual activity is a grave sin.

However, I do notice the prejudice against this specific sin as opposed to other mortal sins - particularly masturbation.

The CCC makes it a point to state that the culpability of masturbation can be significantly lessened due to ignorance or other factors.

Meanwhile, I would guess that for a homosexual person to not act on their homosexual desires is just as hard, if not HARDER than not masturbating.

…Yet the CCC doesn’t say anything about homosexual activity being “significantly lessened” for any reason.

That’s really the only thing that bothers me, is that people can’t even begin to imagine how difficult it must be, and don’t address this. But they DO address and sympathize with how difficult masturbation is… only because it is something they can relate to and have probably experienced with the difficulty of it themselves.

 

[fish90]

A lot of people are under the false impression that the Church discriminates against gay people. That is so not true. In fact, the Church discrimates against everybody equally

Seriously though, the rules that the Church imposes on gay people, they impose on all unmarried heterosexuals as well…and married couples too. The rules are all the same.

The Church recognizes homosexual orientation. I do not believe it’s a choice. I think they were “born this way”. Regardless of whether it is a choice, or not, the rules of the Church are the same. Their burden is to be celibate just like an unmarried priest or a nun…or a single lay person. And the same rules apply that call a married couple to be chaste in their marriage - which means only having licit sex. It is not a “sin” in the eyes of the Church to be gay. It is a sin to engage in immoral sexual behavior.

The Church teaches that sex is only moral if it has two required properties 1) unitive and 2) procreative. That’s what the Church teaches for ALL. There are no exceptions to the rules within the Church’s teachings regarding sex.

1. Gay couples cannot be unitive (the parts just don’t fit), nor can they be procreative (only a man and a woman can conceive). Therefore their sexcapades are not licit in the eyes of the Church. This teaching is not going to change and it’s not outdated. It, in fact, makes perfect sense.
2. Heterosexual unmarried couples have the procreative property, but not the unitive because they are not married in the eyes of the Church. Therefore their sexcapades are not licit in the eyes of the Church. This teaching is not going to change. It is not outdated, and like it or not, it makes perfect sense.
3. In addition, a married couple is required to have both of these properties as well, which means artificial birth control creates illicit sex because it renders the act neither unitive nor procreative. Therefore their sexcapades are not licit in the eyes of the Church and if they want to fix it, they have to go off artificial birth control.
4. so much does the Church protect the unitive properties that it also forbids in vitro fertilization…there is no unitive property, therefore this is not a licit act in the eyes of the Church.

Gay people are not the only ones called to not have illicit and immoral sex. The same rules apply to everyone. It has to be unitive AND procreative. I hope that makes sense to you. The Church isn’t trying to be mean to anyone. Those are their rules and those are why they are the rules.

Maybe someone can add in something that I forgot to help you better understand the Church’s teachings regarding this matter…

I would like to add another point.

The male and female union in marriage supports an atmosphere ideal for the proper raising of children. For instance, the two sexes are generally complimentary. The male is conditional in his love for his children; this is not to say that the father does not unconditionally love his children in the least, but acts usually differently; while the female is usually more unconditional. Furthermore, the psychological development of children is enhanced when children have the chance to view the opposite sex free of the thought of the possibility of “union” with him or her.

Please tell me your objections to this point.

 

[Rence]

I would like to add another point.

The male and female union in marriage supports an atmosphere ideal for the proper raising of children. For instance, the two sexes are generally complimentary. The male is conditional in his love for his children; this is not to say that the father does not unconditionally love his children in the least, but acts usually differently; while the female is usually more unconditional. Furthermore, the psychological development of children is enhanced when children have the chance to view the opposite sex free of the thought of the possibility of “union” with him or her.

Please tell me your objections to this point.

The only objections I have are that other family units are left out of your prescription for a happy home. Let me first say that yes, the ideal is to have a father and mother that function within the context of a happy marriage, which makes a happy family. It’s imporant that children have both sexes as role models. But single mothers and single fathers do it quite well too, and are not less capable of being good parents and providing healthy homes for children. The Church has no objections to single people adopting children as long as they are not co-habitating, and living within the confines of the Church.

The Church, of course, does not want children brought up in same-sex relationship homes, for obvious reasons: Catholics are required to raise their children Catholic. It’s not a suggestion, but a requirement. Same sex couples are not living within the confines of the Church’s teachings…so they can’t be raising a child Catholic and catechizing them.

 

[chris62]

“Born this way?”

If pop culture says they are “born this way” then they are probably not. They don’t get a lot right.

There just seems to be an extraordinary number of homosexuals in modern Western society, unlike other parts of the world and other parts of history.

If they are “born this way” why are they mainly born that way in modern Western society? And not in other cultures and not 300 years ago, say.

I think modern Western society so warmly embraces homosexuality that anyone with a slight SSA may become full-blown. So I disagree with the “born this way” argument.

.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Please help me answer in a sensitive, credible manner objections to Church teachings about homosexuality.

As I watch ‘Chaz’ on Oprah, the woman-turned-man (transgender), daughter of the famous Sony and Cher couple, it puts the spotlight back onto what I realized a while ago: public opinion (or what public media would have us think) is miles away from Catholic teachings, regarding many points: all priests are pedophiles, women should be allowed to be ordained as priests, priest to be allowed to be married, etc…

The ‘all priests are pedophiles’ preconceptions I could handle. Time magazine ran an article in summer 2009 how unfounded and exaggerated this thinking is.

The “women should be allowed to be ordained to be priest” I can handle: it comes down to a question of power. Our Lord asks us to be servants, not power-hungry. Also, we are, when baptised, made “kings, prophets, and priests” (working on the bible reference). So women are already priests from baptism! I, as a woman, have no problem here. I just live my faith as best I can and as a ‘lay’ person, I have so much to learn and live by.

But homosexuality is different. These people are ‘born this way’, as Lady Gaga sings.

To anybody wondering, I personally have no homosexual inclinations. I usually will shy away from homosexuals, either male or female, because I want to avoid the issue, avoid the confrontation. I don’t have other answers than textbook Catechism of the Catholic Church, which maybe too cold, harsh answer when dealing such a delicate issue. I’m looking for answers on this issue with my friends and family who are heterosexual, but disagree with the Church’s teachings, having been won over by ‘public opinion’ shaped by media.

Perhaps some of you out there have the experience and have pointers to give, perhaps some of you have already struggled with close ones about this issue, and prayed through it… I would appreciate your wisdom.

Thanks,

Your sister in Christ.

Some are born that way, some aren’t. In the case of those that aren’t some fall into gay porn and masturbate to it warping them causing homosexual attractions (strictly sexual attractions, nothing deeper), in other cases molestation as a child can warp someone and result in them having homosexual inclinations.

It’s very hard to say because the Bible condemns homosexual acts (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 etc.) but studies (and even some Catholics) say there is genetic factor (link), so it’s hard to say.

I’m kind of agnostic-ish on topic of homosexuality. I personally have a problem with/doubts about every single opinion on homosexuality…

1. 
   *]It’s a lifestyle choice (who would be choose to be bullied, harrased and hated? And plus the Catechism even says “they do not choose their condition” - CCC 2358.)
   *]It’s a cross to bear (but why would God put those desires in a person, and say “acting on them is sinful”. Why would force celibacy on someone? Don’t we have free will? And why would God give someone an orientation that would cause them to be bullied, harrased, and hated?)
   *]It’s not sinful at all (what about the Bible’s statement on the matter?)
   *]It has to do with a mom babying her kid, or a single parenthood or child molestion (this should be debunked easily, due to certain gay people who haven’t experience any of those things)
   *]And some people say it’s a form of demonic possesion, but not I can’t stomach that
   
   God bless :byzsoc:
   
   David

1. 
   In chemistry a raw material can be very dangerous, but once purified can be rather sublime, the dangers are higher, but the rewards more than compensate. Homosexual acts are sinful, mortally so. People can be damaged by child molestation into developing homosexual attraction. The whole demonic possession is obviously a load of junk

 

[tskrobacz]

In both Matthew 16:13-20 and Matthew 18:18 Jesus gives us (both Peter and his followers) power to both strengthen and loosen the laws:

“I tell you the truth, whatever you forbid[f] on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit[g] on earth will be permitted in heaven."

What we, as Christians, often fail to recognize is that we have the power (and responsibility) to PERMIT that which is previously forbidden by the law for purposes of justice, mercy and good faith. For the naysayers regarding matters of homosexuality, female priests, etc it is well within the Churches teaching and authority to modify it’s its teachings on these topics.

While this is not an argument for or against any specific changes we often “ignore the weightier matters of the law—justice, mercy, and good faith. . . . [And instead we] strain out gnats and swallow camels” (Matthew 23:23-24).

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

In both Matthew 16:13-20 and Matthew 18:18 Jesus gives us (both Peter and his followers) power to both strengthen and loosen the laws:

“I tell you the truth, whatever you forbid[f] on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit[g] on earth will be permitted in heaven."

What we, as Christians, often fail to recognize is that we have the power (and responsibility) to PERMIT that which is previously forbidden by the law for purposes of justice, mercy and good faith. For the naysayers regarding matters of homosexuality, female priests, etc it is well within the Churches teaching and authority to modify it’s its teachings on these topics.

While this is not an argument for or against any specific changes we often “ignore the weightier matters of the law—justice, mercy, and good faith. . . . [And instead we] strain out gnats and swallow camels” (Matthew 23:23-24).

The CHurch can not change dogmatic teaching.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Debora

**That’s really the only thing that bothers me, is that people can’t even begin to imagine how difficult it must be, and don’t address this. But they DO address and sympathize with how difficult masturbation is… only because it is something they can relate to and have probably experienced with the difficulty of it themselves. **

People are more judgmental of homosexuality (sodomy, as opposed to the psychological condition) than they are of masturbation for a simple reason. Homosexuality can produce social diseases, as we found out from the rapid spread of AIDS throughout the world.

There is no such disease to be spread by masturbation. Masturbation is also a disease, but not a social one so much as a private one. Very few people are inclined to masturbate in public, thank God! The victim is one’s self rather than others.

Now I need to correct myself. Masturbation can be a social disease to this extent: the chronic habit of it tends to produce a demand for pornographic products. These products are produced by those who see no wrong (victims) in sex for hire. But we know better. The men and women who pose for pornography are often the victims of sexual abuse, or drug abuse, or incest, whatever. Their condition is a sick one that cannot be healed, but only further damaged, by giving themselves to the porno industry. Some have caught serious diseases from their promiscuous sexual relations, and some have committed suicide.

So I think yes, there should be more attention paid to the sin of masturbation, but I think people who commit sodomy are as dangerous to others as they are to themselves.

 

[michelleds]

Please help me answer in a sensitive, credible manner objections to Church teachings about homosexuality.

To anybody wondering, I personally have no homosexual inclinations. I usually will shy away from homosexuals, either male or female, because I want to avoid the issue, avoid the confrontation. I don’t have other answers than textbook Catechism of the Catholic Church, which maybe too cold, harsh answer when dealing such a delicate issue. I’m looking for answers on this issue with my friends and family who are heterosexual, but disagree with the Church’s teachings, having been won over by ‘public opinion’ shaped by media.

FreeSpirit, the posters above have given you good advice. however, I sense that perhaps you are looking for something that doesn’t exist in the 21st century. that one, sure answer which will not then lead to more difficult questions and discussions. sort of the “God said, I believe it, end of discussion.”

of course, you can take that stance, but if you are indeed “looking for answers on this issue with [your] friends and family” then that isn’t going to work.

sex is part of the natural order of things. sex is not purely or solely or even primarily created for pleasure. in fact, the primary, sole function of sex is procreation. Not unification, not emotional closeness, or to experience love. Yes, those are wonderful by-products but not the purpose. therefore, given those beliefs, only sex that can lead to procreation is part of the natural order. if one is outside of the natural order, then one is outside of God’s expectations and requirements.

There are a couple of points that I’d like to make that I think are sometimes forgotten.

1. we should love others enough not to want them to go to Hell. if I love someone of the same sex, I should love her enough to NOT lead her into sin and Hell.
2. following God’s law for 80 or 100 years on earth seems painful, but the alternative is eternity in Hell.
3. we should **want **to follow God’s teachings out of love for God rather than looking for loopholes. loopholes, in my experience, never come from a place of love.

Finally, to those who have such strong opinions on demonic influence and possession, I’m sure you’re familiar with the Bible’s teachings on such, but you might want to take a look at some of the teachings and writings of the Saints, even into modern day Saints such as Padre Pio.

 

[TimothyH]

My personal opinion is that there is too much focus on the sin and not enough on the fact that matrimony is a sacrament which has the Trinity as it’s model - perfect, self sacrificing love between God the Father and God the Son from which proceedes the Holy Spirit.

Trintarian love is the model upon which matrimony is built - self sacrificing love between man and woman, totally committed, inseperable, from which human life proceedes.

Anything less than a self-sacrificing, committed, and inseperable gift of man to woman and woman to man in which they are open to the creation of human life is not a union modeled after the Trinity and as such, is not sacramental matrimony. Anything which is not sacramental matrimony can never confer sanctifying grace.

Anything less than sacramental matrimony is exactly that - less. Sacramental matrimony is the best. That should be the focus IMO.

-Tim-

 

[JoArtist]

I fully agree with the Church’s teaching that homosexual activity is a grave sin.

However, I do notice the prejudice against this specific sin as opposed to other mortal sins - particularly masturbation.

The CCC makes it a point to state that the culpability of masturbation can be significantly lessened due to ignorance or other factors.

Meanwhile, I would guess that for a homosexual person to not act on their homosexual desires is just as hard, if not HARDER than not masturbating.

…Yet the CCC doesn’t say anything about homosexual activity being “significantly lessened” for any reason.

That’s really the only thing that bothers me, is that people can’t even begin to imagine how difficult it must be, and don’t address this. But they DO address and sympathize with how difficult masturbation is… only because it is something they can relate to and have probably experienced with the difficulty of it themselves.

Amen!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tsk

In both Matthew 16:13-20 and Matthew 18:18 Jesus gives us (both Peter and his followers) power to both strengthen and loosen the laws:

And they strengthened the laws, so far as homosexuality and female priests are concerned. Case closed.

 

[tskrobacz]

tsk

In both Matthew 16:13-20 and Matthew 18:18 Jesus gives us (both Peter and his followers) power to both strengthen and loosen the laws:

And they strengthened the laws, so far as homosexuality and female priests are concerned. Case closed.

I suspect not everyone is as certain as yourself on these matters. As a matter of faith, certainty is the opposite of true faith which always allows room for the Spirit to move us…Notice the authority to “loosen” is not uniquely given to Peter but also in Matthew 18:18 to all followers of Jesus.

 

[manualman]

Marriage is the way in which humanity most fully manifests the fact that we are created in the image and likeness of God. In no other way is our very nature ordered towards a self giving love that actually creates new life.

Catholicism is not a merely spiritual religion. We believe that the physical world matters and is just as real as the spiritual world. The fact that a homosexual couple has a relationship that is fundamentally sterile has meaning beyond the physical realm. It is inseparable connected to a reality that is both physical and spiritual.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tsk
**
I suspect not everyone is as certain as yourself on these matters. As a matter of faith, certainty is the opposite of true faith which always allows room for the Spirit to move us…Notice the authority to “loosen” is not uniquely given to Peter but also in Matthew 18:18 to all followers of Jesus. **

Only Protestants think like that. Every man his own pope.

No wonder there are thousands of Protestant sects. Not exactly what Christ had in mind.

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” - John 17:20-21
“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16).

“I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith you were called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing one another in love; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all” Saint Paul (Ephesians 4:2-6).