Senior German Priest Calls Homosexuality a Sickness. A Report

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bixby said:
Oh, you’re quite right. I’m sorry if it came across that I meant that. Having homosexual inclinations is not a sin - as the Catechism says it can be a cross - but acting on those inclinations emphatically is - just as fornication or adultery would be for straight people.
Click to expand...
Fornication and adultery are not described in the Catechism as being “depraved,” a term which seems especially severe to me in being applied to homosexual activity. It’s even described in the Catechism as a sin that “cries out to heaven for vengeance”. Fornication is described in more mild terms as being “gravely contrary to the dignity of persons” and adultery is described as an “injustice” whose “gravity” prophets have denounced. So, it seems that the Catechism puts homosexual activity in a class of its own. It doesn’t seem like the kind of “cross” that most straight people have to bear. I can’t help wondering why gay people would be given this kind of burden through no fault of their own.
 
Thorolfr said:
I suspect that for many gay men who take statements like this seriously, the result would be depression and self-loathing.
Click to expand...
I can see where an argument for changing the language we use. Just reading these statements, I can see some room for improvement, like the idea that homosexual persons are called to chastity. Just mentioning that singles them out, when in fact, all are called to chastity. I would be willing to bet that all have failed in that calling at some point.

Of course none of the is easy, sort of. There is also a sense in which this burden is light. We have as much mercy from God as we are willing to ask for.
 
It would help to remember the Catechism didnt come up with that terminology out of nowhere. Homosexual acts are viewed in an extremely poor light in the Scriptures. Changing the intention of the Word to accommodate personal viewpoints is truly serious.
 
AlmaRedemptorisMater said:
It would help to remember the Catechism didnt come up with that terminology out of nowhere. Homosexual acts are viewed in an extremely poor light in the Scriptures. Changing the intention of the Word to accommodate personal viewpoints is truly serious.
Click to expand...
What Scripture has to say about the topic is not as clear as some people seem to think. It says in Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth…

22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.
Click to expand...
So, how do these verses apply to a typical 12 or 13 year old boy who discovers during puberty that he is gay? Did he become that way because of his ungodliness and wickedness and who because of his wickedness was suppressing the truth? Did God give this boy up to the lusts of his heart because he exchanged the truth about God for a lie? Does anyone really believe that such a boy is filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness and malice, and is full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and craftiness? If he eventually gives in to feelings that seem normal and natural to him and is involved in a romantic relationship with another young gay man, is he really a God hater who deserves to die?

I fail to see how verses in the Bible like these apply to most gay men today. Their sexual orientation is not due to any fault of their own. They obviously didn’t become that way because they were especially wicked and evil.
 
edwest211 said:
I’ve known gay people. But you could not pick any of these people out in a crowd. I don’t wonder if the guy standing in line in front of me is gay or not. Only those extremists who want to go looking for trouble bother gay people. I don’t.
Click to expand...
You always talk about how much better things were in the past, but gay people used to get bothered quite a lot back then, especially by the police. That’s what set off the Stonewall riots in 1969 because the police in New York City would frequently raid gay bars and tell everyone to line up, maybe a couple of hundred of them, and demand that they produce their IDs. And a lot of them would get frisked. Any men in drag would be arrested. In the 1950s and 1960s, police in San Francisco would arrive at a gay bar with a paddy wagon and arrest all the patrons. And even though charges were usually dropped, those who got arrested would have their names published in the newspaper which would cause many of them to lose their jobs, etc.
 
Last edited:
Thorolfr said:
40.png
goout:
40.png
njlisa:
I’m not being contentious.

In the name of charity, we should look at same-sex relationships on a case-by-case basis.

A friend of mind has been in a relationship with another woman for 20 years. For the sake of clarity, I’ll call my friend Joan, the companion Beth, and Joan’s mother Martha.

When Joan’s mother was dying, Beth participated in Martha’s care. Just like the rest of Joan’s family, Beth took her turn taking Martha to the bathroom. Beth held Martha’s hand when she was afraid. Along with Joan’s family, Beth was present in Martha’s bedside.

No matter what I might think about the physical part of Joan and Beth’s relationship, I saw remarkable goodness, kindness, loyalty, and deep friendship.
Click to expand...
All relationships have various goods associated with them by nature. Anyone should be able to admit that. A person doesn’t have to be gay, straight, or indifferent to be compassionate and caring and be a good friend and companion.
Click to expand...
But in the context of this thread, if a gay person is compassionate and caring and are a good friend and companion, they are unlikely to be narcissistic, which means that such a person does not really fit the stereotype that some people have about gay people.
Click to expand...
I agree.

I have a daughter, 31, who has been an “out” lesbian for 10 years. In this time she has had several monogamous relationships and numerous lesbian friends. They are a strong, supportive, community.

In my observation they are mostly looking for “love” even more than heterosexuals. A “gut feeling” tells me that there is some deep damage in them which they are unconscious of themselves which expresses itself in a tendency to over think life, to grab momentary pleasures and sureties, a pre-occupation with the “feminine” but not traditional “femininity”. But “narcisism” I would observe rather less than the genera population, but rather insecurity and poor self image, sometimes masked by bravado and even hostility.

That’s my anecdotal contribution.
 
Last edited:
I am wondering if the German priest was using a clinical sense of “narcissim” rather than the common understanding, which has become both heavily used and acquired strong negative connotations - connotations he didn’t intend?

Either way, it’s not Catholic dogma.
 
Last edited:
Your failure to understand why the Church uses certain language does not mean that the Church is wrong.
 
Thorolfr said:
I don’t know how anyone could ever feel good about themselves if they think that something so evil is a permanent part of themselves even if it is never acted upon.
Click to expand...
But Thorolfr, no one is perfect. We do bad things, think bad things, and are tempted to do bad things. This is a basic fact. As I said in a similar thread before: There is a difference between seeing something as a temptation and having shame about something. We all experience temptation because we are all fallen beings. Does this mean we should all be depressed/feel shame constantly because we are not perfect? No. It is simply reality that we are not perfect and experience temptations. Same sex attraction is just another one of those temptations. This temptation is just another of the million reasons why we need Jesus’ saving grace.
CilladeRoma said:
This is a very good point, and part of the reason that, like Fr. Jim Martin, i think the Church needs to look at the language it uses when speaking of issues regarding homosexuality.
Click to expand...
And what “language” aught we use when speaking about an attraction that is at the same time a temptation? The CCC’s language is fine, I have not become depressed because of how it terms my attraction to other men. In fact I am grateful because it is speaking the truth without sugar coating it.
 
Last edited:
You are.
That does not mean that others like to be told that they are “gravely disordered”.
 
Homosexuality is masturbation extended to multiple people. Let’s stop acting like it’s some magical category of being; it is not. It is a carnal temptation that a minority of people experience.

The catechism says that masturbation is gravely disordered — and it is. I’m not depressed or self-loathing because I experience this temptation (I would also definitely agree there is an element of narcissism in it). Let’s stop being hypersensitive about this. We are discussing this to death and beyond.
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
You are.
That does not mean that others like to be told that they are “gravely disordered”.
Click to expand...
And here lies our problem. the CCC NEVER said that people with same sex attraction are gravely disordered, it says that the inclination is objectively disordered.

I hope that clears up any misconceptions
 
Last edited:
Neithan said:
Homosexuality is masturbation extended to multiple people. Let’s stop acting like it’s some magical category of being; it is not. It is a carnal temptation that a minority of people experience.
Click to expand...
Masturbation is not a sexual orientation. Most people aren’t sexually attracted to their hand or to other people’s hands. There aren’t any people out there who want to get married to a hand.
 
theCardinalbird said:
Same sex attraction is just another one of those temptations. This temptation is just another of the million reasons why we need Jesus’ saving grace.
Click to expand...
In my experience, the gender of the person to whom someone is attracted, their sexual orientation, the fact that they have SSA, is not just a temptation. It is not a fleeting desire to fulfill some immediate sexual urge. If a man has a desire to fulfill an immediate sexual urge with a woman who is not his wife and gives in to that desire and commits adultery, that immediate desire might be called a “temptation,” but the fact that such desires are always directed towards women and not men is not a temptation. That’s just the way that most straight men’s brains are wired. And for most gay men, their brains are wired to feel sexual attraction when they feel it towards other men.

And someone’s sexual orientation is not, in my opinion, just about the sexual act. It is much more than that. It is an intrinsic part of their emotional makeup. I know that for me, if I hear a love song on the radio, I’ve always thought of another man in my mind’s eye. If I want to dance with someone, I would most want to dance with another man. Any romantic feelings that I have ever had have always been directed towards another man. My emotional needs for companionship and intimacy are best met by another man. That’s not a temptation, in my opinion, that’s just the way that my brain is wired.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that is what the Catechism says, but that is not always how it is presented, especially by “arm chair theologians” on the internet.
 
Ok, but when I see a beautiful man and I find myself attracted to him, there is a choice I can make. I can either acknowledge his beauty and let it leave my mind with ease, or I can be tempted to lust after him. That is what I am talking about.

If you are talking about longing for companionship and intimacy, that is more complicated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top