Should homosexual behaviour be criminalised?

[FrankLJ]

Does he follow the chastity rule?

 

[CutlerB]

I very much agree with you. It is sad to see the constant hate on this forum when our Holy Father is trying to get us all on the right path.

I really think you need to distinguish “hate” from criticism of homosexual behaviour. The Pope himself makes that distinction. He has not failed to make clear the Church’s teaching on the matter at all. As for “getting us on the right path”, yes, that is exactly what he is trying to do, along with then Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[thistle]

I really think you need to distinguish “hate” from criticism of homosexual behaviour. The Pope himself makes that distinction. He has not failed to make clear the Church’s teaching on the matter at all. As for “getting us on the right path”, yes, that is exactly what he is trying to do, along with then Pope Benedict XVI.

Why do you single out homosexuality in your question as to whether it should be criminalised?
Why not adultery? Why not fornication?
All of them are sinful and unacceptable behaviour. Its nonsensical to criminalise mortal sins which is what your thread title suggests.

It is also against Church teachings to discriminate against homosexuals.

CCC 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.

 

[CutlerB]

Why do you single out homosexuality in your question as to whether it should be criminalised?
Why not adultery? Why not fornication?
All of them are sinful and unacceptable behaviour. Its nonsensical to criminalise mortal sins which is what your thread title suggests.

It is also against Church teachings to discriminate against homosexuals.

CCC 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.

To answer your first part, why can’t I ask a specific question? If I had wanted to ask about the others you name, I would have done so. It was simply this one that occurred to me.

It used to be a criminal offence, so I think I can legitimately ask the question. No, it is not categorically nonsensical to criminalise mortal sins (Abortion? Murder? Child abuse?). I know, they involve more than homosexual behaviour does, but I am merely denying it is categorically nonsensical as you say.

About the Catechism: I know, and I agree. But you will also concede that the Church considers such behaviour mortal sin, but won’t call that discriminatory. The Church says we should not discriminate against them based on their attraction. She does not say, however, that we should somehow accept (read: support) their behaviour. That’s why I ask: Why shouldn’t the law forbid it as it used to?

 

[thistle]

To answer your first part, why can’t I ask a specific question? If I had wanted to ask about the others you name, I would have done so. It was simply this one that occurred to me.

It used to be a criminal offence, so I think I can legitimately ask the question. No, it is not categorically nonsensical to criminalise mortal sins (Abortion? Murder? Child abuse?). I know, they involve more than homosexual behaviour does, but I am merely denying it is categorically nonsensical as you say.

About the Catechism: I know, and I agree. But you will also concede that the Church considers such behaviour mortal sin, but won’t call that discriminatory. The Church says we should not discriminate against them based on their attraction. She does not say, however, that we should somehow accept (read: support) their behaviour. That’s why I ask: Why shouldn’t the law forbid it as it used to?

If we criminalise mortal sins then entire populations would be in jail. Completely impractical proposition.

 

[CutlerB]

If we criminalise mortal sins then entire populations would be in jail. Completely impractical proposition.

That’s an overgeneralisation. I am talking about a concrete issue. After all, and again, it used to be a criminal offence and I don’t remember any population being in jail. Not even close.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That’s an overgeneralisation. I am talking about a concrete issue. After all, and again, it used to be a criminal offence and I don’t remember any population being in jail. Not even close.

Um, oral sex to orgasm is an mortal sin. There goes 60% of the population, off to jail.

And masturbation is a mortal sin. There goes 30% more.

So the 10 remaining percent can live in a holy land of venial sins, if they can figure out how to fund the prison system.

 

[CutlerB]

Um, oral sex to orgasm is an mortal sin. There goes 60% of the population, off to jail.

And masturbation is a mortal sin. There goes 30% more.

So the 10 remaining percent can live in a holy land of venial sins, if they can figure out how to fund the prison system.

Why are we suddenly talking about “all mortal sins”? I never said we should criminalise all of them, but I did point out that some are prohibited and the one in question has been, therefore it is permitted to ask the question.

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

 

[nikoletodd]

Let him without sin cast the first stone. Everyone has their own demons to face and you only have one judge that really matters…that’s God. He knows the heart of the sinner. He knows what has mentally or physically drawn someone to make the choices they make. To criminalize something we do not understand is no better than casting the first stone.

 

[captainrick]

A crime is an offense against the State. If you want homosexual activity (in private) to be a crime, then you believe the State should enforce morality. Might as well live in an Islamic country where the “Religious Police” can beat you with sticks if they think the way you are clothed is immoral. Or kill a woman who walks with a man who is not a relative or her husband.

 

[CutlerB]

Let’s legalise abortion then, since that can be done in private and is a moral issue, let’s not force people to submit to state-enforced morality. When abortion was illegal in Ireland, was it a crime against the state, the act of abortion itself? Not really. Violating the law, maybe.

 

[captainrick]

I believe an unborn child is a person. Killing a person is murder. The State has an interest in murder, although it is also a moral issue. Therefore abortion can be criminalized.

 

[CutlerB]

I believe an unborn child is a person. Killing a person is murder. The State has an interest in murder. Therefore abortion can be criminalized.

Yes, I know. As I wrote in the other post. The comment about “overgeneralisation” was exactly about that.

 

[Brendan_64]

YES!!! I have a lot of problems with the Church and my parish. My priest NEVER just talks to the congregation…he just spills out his overly rehearsed homily and that’s that. He never visits the CCD classes. It is so hard to make my son understand why we have to go to mass each week. Once in a while, he’ll go to church with my husband (his step dad) who is Methodist. Once in a while, I’ll go, too. I ENJOY the service there so much more than the ones of my church. The pastor engages the congregation…he delivers a message then TALKS about it. Something our priest never, ever does.

The Homily is part of the liturgy, it isn’t an opportunity to have a folksey chat with the congregation. The priest is there to teach the meaning of the scripture and put it into context. He isn’t there to chat to us. Mass is meant to be an encounter with Jesus, not somewhere for us to go to engage with the priest in some form of discourse.

I sound like I’m getting off track, but the point I’m trying to make is, GET OVER THE SEX and start reaching the children, the people…ALL people. The bottom line. The main thing is LOVING GOD! Leave the bedrooms alone.

The Church is not obsessed with sex. The last time I heard a priest give a homily about sex was about 30 years ago when I was at University.

The Church is not obsessed with sex, and it does not bang on about it. The issue is that the media, and secular society cannot accept that the Church is entitled to hold a view on sex and relationships that is at odds with the hedonistic view of sex as a recreational pastime. It is secular society and the media who are obsessed with this issue. They are obsessed with the Church’s position on sex, and outraged that the Church should have the audacity to disagree with their world view.

 

[Chizzywinks]

Um, oral sex to orgasm is an mortal sin. There goes 60% of the population, off to jail.

And masturbation is a mortal sin. There goes 30% more.

So the 10 remaining percent can live in a holy land of venial sins, if they can figure out how to fund the prison system.

Ok, call me stupid, but where in the 10 commandments does it say oral sex and masturbation are sins?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Ok, call me stupid, but where in the 10 commandments does it say oral sex and masturbation are sins?

Ummmm, where in the 10 commandments does it say that raping people is wrong? I assure you, the 10 commandments are not supposed to be comprehensive.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Ok, call me stupid, but where in the 10 commandments does it say oral sex and masturbation are sins?

You’d have to be deluded to think that the Ten Commandments are the only moral laws of the Old Testament. Much less the entire Bible.

PS. Your profile says you’re Catholic, but your post says you’re not…

 

[J_Peterson]

The Homily is part of the liturgy, it isn’t an opportunity to have a folksey chat with the congregation. The priest is there to teach the meaning of the scripture and put it into context. He isn’t there to chat to us. Mass is meant to be an encounter with Jesus, not somewhere for us to go to engage with the priest in some form of discourse.

The discourse with the priest can be a part of the encounter with Christ. Did Christ interact with His followers or simply talk at them? Christ was a bit folksy himself with talk of birds and mullberry bushes but most of all when he spoke of His Abba.

 

[Brendan_64]

The discourse with the priest can be a part of the encounter with Christ. Did Christ interact with His followers or simply talk at them? Christ was a bit folksy himself with talk of birds and mullberry bushes but most of all when he spoke of His Abba.

But a homily is not meant to be a two-way discussion. It is meant to be a sermon, a lecture, an explanation of the Gospel. The homily is not an opportunity to debate and discuss with the priest. Discussion and debate is best saved for a Bible study group, or over a cup of Coffee after Mass.

 

[Chizzywinks]

But a homily is not meant to be a two-way discussion. It is meant to be a sermon, a lecture, an explanation of the Gospel. The homily is not an opportunity to debate and discuss with the priest. Discussion and debate is best saved for a Bible study group, or over a cup of Coffee after Mass.

I never said anything about 2 way conversations. I merely meant that the priest at my parish is very cut and dry…he gives his sermon and that’s it. Just about every other priest I have ever known has “talked” to the parish…this priest talk “at” them.