Homosexual orientation is a disorder of one’s psychosexual identity, plain and simple. Why for the sake of rendering compassion should any Christian consider it otherwise? An individual afflicted with a psychological disorder is just as capable through Jeus Christ of living a fulfilling and sanctified life of heroic virtue as anyone else.
)Faith is by definition belief without empirical reason. You can know all you can about what’s around you in the physical world, but you can only have faith in the supernatural. I’m not trying to slam it here – I think faith is generally a good thing (even if I don’t share it), but faith and reason are opposites.
Consider for a moment that the actual event would have occurred some 3500 years ago – 1500 years is plenty of time for definitions to be mistaken. The English term ‘sodomy’ comes from this erroneous belief that the sin for which Sodom was destroyed was homosexuality.
If God were so concerned about raging homosexuality, why didn’t he raze Athens and Sparta too? As far as I know, the Pope never defined sodomy speaking infallibly; the fact that the word came to mean anal, oral, and any other kind of sex that doesn’t result in sperm inside vagina doesn’t mean it was based on the correct notion.
The Church can say what it likes about matrimony. It discourages marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics already and disallows them entirely if the couple does not intend to raise the children as Catholics. I don’t really see why it doesn’t give everyone the chance to be equally sinless, but that’s you guys’ prerogative.
It’s run by humans, and humans are quite capable of making mistakes. Are Galileo and the Diet of Worms a third strike against the Holy Spirit, or against an institution which is maintained by fallible men? I’d say it’s the latter.
Thanks for this (and the part below, snipped for size). I’m in as complete agreement with it as my lack of faith will allow
Tantum ergo,
It’s another sparkling sunny day in southern Colorado with new snow. ). I haven’t been told never to darken my sister’s door again, for example (she being somewhat further left in her views to Bishop Spong and Hillary Clinton), nor that of other relatives who, raised Catholic, are now lapsed, sporadically attend a “church of the month”, etc. and who range from ‘middle of the road’ and points left. And they (bless their hearts) do not consider me beyond the pale in bigotry, nor do I consider them as bound for hell in handbaskets.The Church’s Magisterium has spoken very clearly and consistently on this subject and it was given authority to do so by Jesus Christ Himself. For clear-headed responses to all your arguments and “theories” please read a scholarly book by Richard Gagnon entitled, “Homosexuality and the Bible”.It seems to me that many people posting on this thread state their own personal beliefs as if they were facts. I believe that God comes to each person differently and that each of us has a different understanding and a different level of maturity in the faith. I have grown much in my faith and changed my beliefs from younger days. I am clear to always state them as MY beliefs and opinions. (Does it seem that I am trying to buffer the comments that will follow this posting. Yes, I am, be nice to me guys.
There is the general assumption that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says it is. I disagree with that. Where in the Bible does it speak against monogamous, lifelong, same-sex relationships? I agree that the Bible speaks much about sexual purity and feel that those teachings are for both heterosexual and homosexual alike.
You can bring up the sin of Sodom, but Ezekiel and even Jesus himself says that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality.
People bring up the holiness laws of Leviticus, but those were done away with by Jesus’ death on the cross. Do we follow ANY of those ceremonial laws?
Also brought up are the list of sins that Paul mentions. However Biblical scholars are not sure of the meaning of the terms translated by some translations of the Bible as “homosexual”. Paul’s use of those two terms is their first use in Greek literature and later use of the term seems to suggest meanings closer to male prostitusion and pedophilia. I believe strongly in sexual purity; I just can’t see that loving. lifelong monogamous homosexual relationships being condemned in the Bible.
Look at the writings of Father John J. McNeil if you want to see where I am coming from. He has written several books on the subject.
Now like I said, be nice please. I know many of you have put me in that “going-to-hell” category. I really am fairly conservative in my beliefs. I am upset, however, when people use the Bible as a weapon to beat people down and to discriminate against those in the minority. I find the fundamentalist protestant churches much worse at this than the Catholic church. (Part of the reason I AM a Catholic.)
In Christ, Pablo
Tantum Ergo,
Born that way theory?I second that!I am completely content with being homosexual. I wasn’t always content with it but eventually you find that you are as God made you. I think that being gay has given me a great deal of perspective that I would otherwise not have felt or experienced had I not been born homosexual.
Your belief is based on your private authority. That authority is what makes your position relativistic. You accept the absolutes you define because you deem them absolute. There appear to be degrees of relativsm.
… well I actaully I think I can understand his viewpoint, and I may be wrong.
Thank you for that link. It’s clear that the evidence continues to point largely toward psycho-sexual factors as the cause of homosexualilty. There may be some predispositions in some with gender identity problems but the social factors are the crucial tipping point.
Thanks, you are exactly right
That is partly what he is arguing, but I see it as another form of relativism. That line of reasoning suggests that truth is arbitrary or that we each get to decide what truth is. Or, that his beliefs are correct because he decides that. My submission to the Church does not make the Church true. She is true whether I assent or not.
Many that subscribe to relativism say they are absolutists. If you ask one who is realtivistic if they want to be robbed, they would say that is absolutely wrong. That example just shows the flaw in their reasoning, but it does not always sway them from claiming other moral choices are not absolute.
I am explaining my position. No need for name calling.
I use it, here, not as an insult but as a means to clarify the points.
Like I have said before, I have never fit any of those psycho-sexual factors, therefore being a prime candidate to show that one is born predisposed to homosexuality. To continue to call the condition a disorder infers that it is something that needs to be corrected. I disagree.
I likewise do not fit the psycho-sexual factors. And I have been gay as long as I can remember. I certainly did not make a “choice”. I would have never have chosen to be gay. It has led to much hardship. I have struggled to change and prayed to change. In my case the "disorder’ was when I lived in denial. Now that I have accepted the fact, my mental and spiritual well being has greatly improved.
That is an assertion you make. No more absolute than my assertion that there exist absolute ethical standards; they will be true standards whether or not I agree. I merely happen to already.
No, it is your choice, and if you were born into it it is your choice to remain so. You have free will and you use it.
Funny, it’s outside me too. I don’t base my belief as to what it is on faith in God though; it’s really based on reason, practicality, and perhaps a sense of goodwill.
It doesn’t mean the Church is correct either.
It doesn’t show a flaw, it shows hypocrisy.
Oh, sorry, I didn’t realize I have to take it but can’t give it.
You have been using it to paint me morally unreliable and logically unsound, in the face of my repeated statements that I do not hold to the tenets required by moral relativism, my abjurations of those tenets, my professions of an absolutist stance, and my requests that you stop. Either prove me a relativist now without using the fact that I don’t hold to your creed in your argument or stop talking.
I see that you are limiting knowledge to what one can measure with their senses. This being the case, you are referring to rationalism. Do you believe that there are others ways of knowing (knowledge of) reality that are not limited to or contained by what is physical, i.e., metaphysical?