Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

[Ender]

We do seem to be having a problem communicating.

Joe 5859 said:
it is technically true that the Church does have that authority, appealing to that authority is definitely not the way to convince the unconvinced.

Again, my comments were addressed to a Catholic, and I was attempting to point out the implications of rejecting a fundamental doctrine of the church. Mine was not an argument about homosexuality; it was about what it really means to claim the church is wrong about a fundamental issue.

Most philosophers and theologians, however, think that most people, most of the time, don’t engage in critical thinking at all.

I agree with this, which is why I am unenthusiastic about the claim that natural reason will (as opposed to “may possibly”) lead one to the correct conclusion about a difficult moral issue. I’m pretty sure that what most people think of as natural reason is simply rationalization.

But, for better or worse, many/most Catholics don’t believe the Church is infallible, and you can’t take that for granted – especially when the person is specifically questioning an infallible teaching!

I was addressing that issue by pointing out the consequences of assuming that the church is not infallible (in those things which she in fact teaches are…infallible).

But Aquinas argued for the wrongness of sodomy from natural reason, not from revealed truth.

Aquinas may be able to successfully argue this point from natural reason but most people cannot, as can readily be seen from some of the interminable arguments that have arisen on this forum. Natural reason is the only tool we have in discussing this topic with a non-Catholic, but it is not the only tool available in debates with Catholics.…the truth made known to us by Revelation is neither the product nor the consummation of an argument devised by human reason. (Fides et Ratio #15)
We should not be reluctant to use all of the tools available to us.

But one must have the ability, at the very least, to discern the true Church.

True, but while it is reasonable for a Protestant (Muslim, Buddhist,…) to reject what the Catholic church teaches, it is irrational for a Catholic to do so.

You cannot know that a group is the true Church simply by asking whether they infallibly say that they are.

True again, but you can reasonably point out to a person what it means to claim both to be a Catholic and to reject the certainties the Catholic church professes.

Ender

 

[simpleas]

We’re not discussing how one should treat those who reject the teachings of the church-we’re talking about the consequences to those who have rejected those teachings and have no intention of reconciling themselves with the Faith

I must have missed where someone posted that they had no intention of reconciling themselves with God…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I thought that is what you meant. I didn’t know that following purity rules was the only way to follow Christ. What about being kind, patient, loving, giving etc etc to ALL people, regardless of what they do behind closed doors. Most all sin is a rejection of God, so that means most all of us can’t live the faith, IMO.

Living the faith should mean knowing that we are called to be perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect. But this is an enormous undertaking, and many will not be bothered. God doesn’t get fixated on any particular sin. We are all called, in the realm of sex, to be chaste; in the realm of politics, to be just; in the realm of making money, to be fair; etc. etc. It only requires that we fail in one major way to be damned. But even that comes only if we die unrepentant. So we can all live the faith, no matter how poorly we live it, if we just say we are sincerely sorry and ask forgiveness before we die.

This, I believe, is what the Church teaches.

 

[Abu]

Ender
Excellent reasoning on points in Posts #171 & 183.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I agree with this, which is why I am unenthusiastic about the claim that natural reason will (as opposed to “may possibly”) lead one to the correct conclusion about a difficult moral issue. I’m pretty sure that what most people think of as natural reason is simply rationalization. Ender

Natural reason has some kind of tie with common sense. To the extent that it does, conclusions about moral issues should be correct. To the extent that it does not, there is good reason to believe that some degree of rationalization is going on.

The nonreligious person who says there is no reason to object to same-sex relations really doesn’t have a sense of the common sense of mankind, which historically and everywhere has pretty much declared same-sex relations to be unnatural. Those who object to this fact have to rationalize (explain away) this universal revulsion for sodomy. But that can’t be done. The universal consensus on this matter ought to count for something, just as the universal revulsion for the advancement of sex between children or between siblings ought to count for something, even if certain children are all for it.

 

[Emily2014]

Hello Tigg,
Yes I read all the posts in this thread.
We must just agree to differ on this whole issue.
I respect your views but they are not mine.
God bless you.

 

[Ender]

Natural reason has some kind of tie with common sense. To the extent that it does, conclusions about moral issues should be correct. To the extent that it does not, there is good reason to believe that some degree of rationalization is going on.

I agree. My objections were not meant to imply that natural reason is not a powerful and valuable tool but simply to point out its limitations, especially when dealing with issues that invite rationalization. Homosexuality is one, contraception is another, and I think the church’s position on these issues would be stronger and command more respect if there was more unity among Catholics. I think it is fair to point out that arguments from “reason” are not getting us there.

The nonreligious person who says there is no reason to object to same-sex relations really doesn’t have a sense of the common sense of mankind, which historically and everywhere has pretty much declared same-sex relations to be unnatural. Those who object to this fact have to rationalize (explain away) this universal revulsion for sodomy. But that can’t be done.

I think this argument is refuted from the fact that it assuredly is being done. I do not diminish the value of logical arguments. They are absolutely necessary to provide a sound basis for whatever position is taken, but we expect too much from them if we hope they will win the day with the public. As far as public opinion goes, it is more effectively influenced by a clever bumper sticker than logic.

Ender

Abu: Thank you.

 

[edwest2]

I spent almost 10 years working in a hospital with LGBT persons. I did not discuss private sexual matters with anyone and others did the same. Knowing someone was homosexual did not intrigue me. It was like, “Well, she’s a lesbian.” The end. I didn’t give it further thought. We were judged by our employer and our work ethic and that was all that concerned me. Whatever we did privately was private. Then, privacy became more and more uncommon, especially for LGBT people. I don’t need to hear a celebrity on CNN telling everyone that’s watching that he’s gay and to stop being homophobic. I never had an irrational fear of gay people. Now, it’s common to announce that this or that person is the first bisexual woman to hold this political position, for example. Obviously, abandoning the right to privacy regarding sexual preference caused a reaction. I didn’t need to know what strangers were doing in private.

Second, I began dating a young lady who later told me she had been bisexual, but through God’s grace, that was behind her. I said, “No problem.” We went to Church together. But her past was between her and me and I had no desire to ask further questions.

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[naomily]

Popping back in to recommend a documentary. Chely Wright: Wish Me Away is available on Netflix and is a wonderful portrayal of a Christian country singer coming out and learning to accept herself as a lesbian. If you’ve ever wondered what kind of toll homophobia can have on a person, this is the movie for you.

 

[Abu]

The feeling that the citing of the authority of Christ specifically mandating the members of His Church to teach the fullness of His Truth is somehow wrong shows the lack of fidelity which the weak need to overcome.

St Matthew, 28:
“All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

St John Paul II reiterated in the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation *Christifideles Laici *(on the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World) 1988, which detailed “the ‘Criteria of Ecclesiality’ for Lay Groups” as requiring “The responsibility of professing the Catholic faith, embracing and proclaiming the truth about Christ, the Church and humanity, in obedience to the Church’s Magisterium, as the Church interprets it.” [p 79].

It is not just a “feeling”. It is a sacred trust, mandated by the Christ.

 

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

It is very fashionable nowadays to vilify God-fearing Christians and accuse them of having a personal attitude of hostility towards homosexuals, often referred to as ‘homophobia’, simply because they dare to contend that unnatural homosexual vice is an abomination in the sight of an all-holy God and gravely disordered. Sadly, this detestable sin, against which even nature herself protests, has been increasingly accepted as a perfectly acceptable ‘alternative lifestyle’ in an age which shamefully glories in its post-Christian character. This is why one hears so much of media celebrities ‘coming out’ and proudly declaring themselves to be ‘gay’, which is deeply disturbing since there is nothing gay about the homosexual lifestyle. Therefore, in view of this trend to normalize homosexual deviancy it is surely to be expected that devout Christians will refuse to hold their peace or adopt the liberal live and let live attitude of their pagan contemporaries. They cannot but speak out and denounce in the strongest terms this dreadful violation of the moral law of God.

However, dear friends, Catholic Christians who uphold their Church’s strong condemnation of homosexual acts of grave depravity without a glimmer of love or compassion earn Mark Twain’s caustic description of being “good people in the worst sense of the word”. The Catholic Church’s veto on homosexual *conduct *is clearly not an excuse not to express genuine love and concern for homosexual people. However, what we surely need to be wary of today is a spurious charity that is almost bending over backwards to apologise for the Church’s teaching, as if it was harsh and some reversion to the supposedly ‘unenlightened’ ancestral thinking of a former age. That professing Catholics feel so embarrassed regarding their Church’s authoritative teaching is extremely lamentable and evinces most clearly that they have been influenced by the godless spirit of the age, possibly a great deal more than they are prepared to acknowledge. Whilst the truth must always be spoken in love, the Catholic faithful are, nevertheless, under an obligation to speak plainly and bluntly, especially respecting a mortal sin that can debar a man or woman from Heaven - “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, not abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (I Cor. 6: 9,10).

No, dear friends, as Catholics we cannot and must not refrain from boldly and unashamedly declaring the Church’s teaching that homosexual genital acts are objectively immoral and the fruit of our wounded nature, as are all sins of the flesh. Our brief is not to soft-pedal the truth or apologise for it, so as to gain the good will of the homosexual community. However, one could be forgiven for thinking that this was the case, given that the primary focus is upon treating homosexuals with respect, compassion and sensitivity, whilst ignoring or downplaying the exceeding sinfulness of their vile and unnatural sin. That is a misguided and false charity which would have astounded former generations of the faithful. Respecting the dignity of every man does not mean giving approval to any and all sinful conduct, contrary to the moral law of God.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

 

[estesbob]

Popping back in to recommend a documentary. Chely Wright: Wish Me Away is available on Netflix and is a wonderful portrayal of a Christian country singer coming out and learning to accept herself as a lesbian. If you’ve ever wondered what kind of toll homophobia can have on a person, this is the movie for you.

Unfortunately I don’t need to have somebody to tell me of the terrible toll living in grievous sin can take on one’s life. My redemption came thru the Catholic Church and
regular reception of the sacraments( and a lot of help from a lot of great people in AA)

I’m praying that Ms. Wright’s redemption didn’t come from deciding sin was sin after all. That is no redemption of all.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think this argument is refuted from the fact that it assuredly is being done. I do not diminish the value of logical arguments. They are absolutely necessary to provide a sound basis for whatever position is taken, but we expect too much from them if we hope they will win the day with the public. As far as public opinion goes, it is more effectively influenced by a clever bumper sticker than logic.

Ender

Abu: Thank you.

You have made an interesting point. I agree that logical arguments do not always win the day, but they are never refuted. Some people just refuse to see them, and I think that is what you mean by rationalization. It’s easier to give in to political correctness than to fight the influence of the devil.

 

[edwest2]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

It is very fashionable nowadays to vilify God-fearing Christians and accuse them of having a personal attitude of hostility towards homosexuals, often referred to as ‘homophobia’, simply because they dare to contend that unnatural homosexual vice is an abomination in the sight of an all-holy God and gravely disordered. Sadly, this detestable sin, against which even nature herself protests, has been increasingly accepted as a perfectly acceptable ‘alternative lifestyle’ in an age which shamefully glories in its post-Christian character. This is why one hears so much of media celebrities ‘coming out’ and proudly declaring themselves to be ‘gay’, which is deeply disturbing since there is nothing gay about the homosexual lifestyle. Therefore, in view of this trend to normalize homosexual deviancy it is surely to be expected that devout Christians will refuse to hold their peace or adopt the liberal live and let live attitude of their pagan contemporaries. They cannot but speak out and denounce in the strongest terms this dreadful violation of the moral law of God.

However, dear friends, Catholic Christians who uphold their Church’s strong condemnation of homosexual acts of grave depravity without a glimmer of love or compassion earn Mark Twain’s caustic description of being “good people in the worst sense of the word”. The Catholic Church’s veto on homosexual *conduct *is clearly not an excuse not to express genuine love and concern for homosexual people. However, what we surely need to be wary of today is a spurious charity that is almost bending over backwards to apologise for the Church’s teaching, as if it was harsh and some reversion to the supposedly ‘unenlightened’ ancestral thinking of a former age. That professing Catholics feel so embarrassed regarding their Church’s authoritative teaching is extremely lamentable and evinces most clearly that they have been influenced by the godless spirit of the age, possibly a great deal more than they are prepared to acknowledge. Whilst the truth must always be spoken in love, the Catholic faithful are, nevertheless, under an obligation to speak plainly and bluntly, especially respecting a mortal sin that can debar a man or woman from Heaven - “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, not abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (I Cor. 6: 9,10).

No, dear friends, as Catholics we cannot and must not refrain from boldly and unashamedly declaring the Church’s teaching that homosexual genital acts are objectively immoral and the fruit of our wounded nature, as are all sins of the flesh. Our brief is not to soft-pedal the truth or apologise for it, so as to gain the good will of the homosexual community. However, one could be forgiven for thinking that this was the case, given that the primary focus is upon treating homosexuals with respect, compassion and sensitivity, whilst ignoring or downplaying the exceeding sinfulness of their vile and unnatural sin. That is a misguided and false charity which would have astounded former generations of the faithful. Respecting the dignity of every man does not mean giving approval to any and all sinful conduct, contrary to the moral law of God.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

Dear Portrait,

It has been my experience that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, LGBT persons were never treated differently from anyone else and the same was true of my coworkers. No, I am not discounting a history of abusive acts by individuals against LGBT individuals. But my mind did not imagine anything because I was taught private matters were not to be made public, or that people can be judged about what they do in private. I was introduced to the gay cousin of a friend and we had an enjoyable chat. I was then discreetly asked to excuse myself as the two had private business to discuss. Today, what has changed? The false accusations that all who disagree with open homosexuals who acknowledge their behaviors as good as being phobic. Homophobic and recently, Transphobic. I worked in a hospital which performed ‘sexual reassignment surgery.’ One female employee went through the procedure and now appeared male. There was no fanfare.

What has changed are blanket accusations from some in the LGBT community that hatred exists, that a phobia exists, that disagreement with their self-acknowledged behaviors automatically implies hatred. Does a police officer arrest an entire neighborhood because one person verbally or physically injured a gay (LGBT) person? Of course not. Each individual who cannot control his lack of love and respect for his fellow man is the only person who deserves blame if the evidence is clear that he was the perpetrator.

The other thing that has changed is that some in the LGBT community do not want dialogue but prefer confrontation, and are, on a case by case basis, guilty of harassment of straight people who speak the truth so that they, we, I, might repent and change our ways in conformance with the will of the One who made us.

The following from Bishop Fulton Sheen is a good example of how we should approach the matter:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0014.html

Peace and God bless,

Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ed,

Thank you for the link to Fulton Sheen. Soon to be saint?

 

[edwest2]

Ed,

Thank you for the link to Fulton Sheen. Soon to be saint?

You’re welcome. It appears sainthood is on the horizon but when, only God knows.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/06/18/vatican-theologians-approve-fulton-sheen-miracle/

Ed

 

[Starrsmother]

Did not seem to see ANYWHERE in her post “Separation from her Daughter”. She just said she will not be attending her wedding. And I thing this is also her RIGHT to be obedience to GOD.

My daughter was about 16 when she decided she was gay. She’s 26 now. First she got into drugs and then step 2 was becoming gay. We sent her to a psychiatrist but there’s only one in our town and frankly “she” is crazier than the people “she” treats. I use quotes because “she” is a 6’4" tall, once male, person with a huge adam’s apple and male pattern baldness who had surgery to become a woman and then --as a woman–decided she was a lesbian. Crazy or normal–go figure! By the time she/it finished with my daughter, I’m pretty sure that my daughter believes that any perverse sexual act out there is normal and fine. I speak to my daughter every few weeks by phone. This is because she lives in Florida and we live in Alaska for now. She understands that we will not and can not participate in her wedding, but we hope when we move home to Texas that she will come visit–but without the girlfriend. We simply stated our love for her but set boundaries. Believe me–she needs boundaries more than almost anything–she just doesn’t know it yet.

 

[cycleman]

Please consider the consequences of your rejection of her lifestyle. After her wedding, do you think she would agree to visit without her partner?

If she says she will only visit with her partner, you really only have two choices.

1. Agree to the visit,
2. not see her.

In the end, you will have to decide what is best for you and her.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

My daughter was about 16 when she decided she was gay. She’s 26 now. First she got into drugs and then step 2 was becoming gay. We sent her to a psychiatrist but there’s only one in our town and frankly “she” is crazier than the people “she” treats. I use quotes because “she” is a 6’4" tall, once male, person with a huge adam’s apple and male pattern baldness who had surgery to become a woman and then --as a woman–decided she was a lesbian. Crazy or normal–go figure! By the time she/it finished with my daughter, I’m pretty sure that my daughter believes that any perverse sexual act out there is normal and fine. I speak to my daughter every few weeks by phone. This is because she lives in Florida and we live in Alaska for now. She understands that we will not and can not participate in her wedding, but we hope when we move home to Texas that she will come visit–but without the girlfriend. We simply stated our love for her but set boundaries. Believe me–she needs boundaries more than almost anything–she just doesn’t know it yet.

Substance abuse is a common coping mechanism for those suffering from the severe emotional pain of being trapped in the closet. They drink to cover up their feelings and to avoid covering up their reality that they don’t know how to address. They drink more and more to cover up the feelings.

You daughter likely started abusing substances to try to numb the pain of the closet and eventually couldn’t take the pain even with the drinking so she came out of the closet.

 

[SMGS127]

Substance abuse is a common coping mechanism for those suffering from the severe emotional pain of being trapped in the closet. They drink to cover up their feelings and to avoid covering up their reality that they don’t know how to address. They drink more and more to cover up the feelings.

You daughter likely started abusing substances to try to numb the pain of the closet and eventually couldn’t take the pain even with the drinking so she came out of the closet.

This.

This is also why such a ridiculous percentage of the LGBT community smokes cigarettes, for anxiety reduction. It’s hard to live in a world where some people want to kill you for your attractions, others don’t want you anywhere near their children, others don’t want you anywhere near THEM, and you’re essentially a social pariah for everything. You can be fired from your job or kicked out of your apartment over your orientation. People go on major media stations and talk about how dangerous you are as a person. And most of this hatred and bigotry is directed at you regardless of whether you act on your attractions or not.

thedccenter.org/facts_smoking.html