Struggles with the Morality of Homosexuality

[atong]

I understand your situation, but let us not forget what Jesus said The truth shall set you free and the truth is homosexuality is immoral period and I know most of your gay friends will not accept it but that’s the reality, they will hate you, abandon you. It is not easy being a christian catholic specially when your telling the truth, even in the time of Jesus when he said that he was the son of God, many of his followers abandon him but still he stand for the truth, there is no formula on how to tell to a friend that what he is doing is immoral. No one will accept that what he is doing is immoral or sinful specially if he is enjoing it, but it is not impossible for them to realized that they are doing unchristian act. The best that you can do is to pray for them and offer mass every sunday for them. Miracle still happen, just BELIEVED.

 

[KingAlfred]

I am a twenty something graduate student at a major American university and homosexuality is something that is not only discussed frankly on a regular basis but most people have friends, associates, professors who are gay. I am also a musician and as such I have grown up around gay people all of my life.

I am a new Catholic and I say AMEN to everything that the Church teaches. But I have struggled, not with the understanding of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, but with the knee jerk, gut wrenching reality of looking a close friend that you respect and love in the face and telling them that you believe what they are doing is morally wrong; something that they argue is the way that God made them. Both of my parents are scientists, my mother was actually at the forefront of AIDS research so I know all the stats about how the biological claims of homosexuality are not fully conclusive, etc. That is not my question. My question is how can I love my gay friends while at the same time saying that I think that something with which they define their identity is morally wrong? In the past I have often been in situations when a good friend who knows that I am Christian (I was Evangelical before coming into Full Communion this past December) asks me point blank whether or not I think that they are sinning. When I answer in the affirmative the pain on their face makes me wish that I could rip my heart out.

I love Catholic answers radio and forums – they were instrumental in bringing me into the Church and continue to be a source of instruction and encouragement, but I have not found a answer to the human dimension of the homosexuality question. So many people who are vociferously against Gay marriage and the “gay agenda” seem to have no close homosexual friends – they have never felt the stabbing pain of saying to a close friend that you believe what they are doing…really the fundamental way that they define themselves is wrong and must be repented. That they cannot…should not…be allowed to adopt, have a family, or the basic medical right to make decisions when one or another might fall ill. In my heart of hearts I just can’t seem to reconcile loving and serving my neighbor, my very friends and indeed relatives, if I actively block their quest for basic things like medical rights. But I do ultimately believe what the Church teaches, and I am content to be bound by Her, regardless of my own feelings. My solution has been to keep my head down and avoid the question or any thought of the issue of homosexuality, but there must be a better way. Does anyone have any thoughts?

You’re stuck. You might have to give up these friendships. I’ve had to do the same within my own family, because of the hostility some have toward Christianity.

 

[thomfra]

re: dealing with gays.

I have gay friends and acquaintances. I just don’t bring the subject up at all. They know I’m Catholic. That’s that.

If they want heavy philosophy from you, that’s another matter. Dish out as much as you want. I don’t think anyone should run up to someone, press a hand on a shoulder, and say, “hey son, you’re a sinner.”

Hate the sin, love the sinner. I don’t have trouble doing this. Of course, at your age, you’re beginning to see better the human and social psychologies around you. Moral subjects can be very difficult to deal with. I’d say, go slow and take it easy; no heavy handed stuff.

re: pedophiles

I believe there is larger portion of homosexuals who are pedophiles or have pedophile interests, than there are heterosexuals with a pedophile interest. There is a whole “gay initiation” concept.

Me, I’m so tired with this homosexual business that I’m thinking about sending some bucks to fight the nonsense going on in California.

I think what you were trying to say is that there are a larger portion of pedophiles who have homosexual interests (some else quoted this statistic another thread - I am not sure of its validity).

The overwhelming majority of homosexuals would be horrified at the thought of pedophilia. You need to realise this.

What do you mean by gay initiation concept?

 

[thomfra]

In fact, alcoholism has been used countless times as a comparison. That usually gets criticized as well. Some people are not happy when homosexuality is “compared” to anything with a “negative” connotation.

The intent behind such comparisons is not to equate the material effects of the predisposition, but rather that a predisposition EXISTS in all these cases.

I saw a Dr. Phil show the other day (yes, I’m ashamed) about obesity. The guest, who was obese, was claiming that science has proven that there is an obesity “gene”. Phil, in all his wisdom rolleyes stated that a predisposition means ONLY that the person MIGHT become a thing - not they they WILL become that thing, whether it’s an obese person, or an alcoholic, or a pedophile, or even an active homosexual. Now, if Dr. Phil gets it, how difficult can it be?

I understand what you said, but I am not sure of how it is relevant to the conversation.

My point - was that homosexuality is equated with pedophilia all too often.

Homosexual sex (whilst a sin in the eyes of the RCC) is between two consenting adults.

Apart from the natural law thing, it is no more or less sinful than adultery, pre-marrital sex etc etc.

Pedophilia is not between consenting parties. One is a victim. One is an agressor.

Can you see the difference here?

 

[blessedtoo]

I understand what you said, but I am not sure of how it is relevant to the conversation.

My point - was that homosexuality is equated with pedophilia all too often.

Homosexual sex (whilst a sin in the eyes of the RCC) is between two consenting adults.

Apart from the natural law thing, it is no more or less sinful than adultery, pre-marrital sex etc etc.

Pedophilia is not between consenting parties. One is a victim. One is an agressor.

Can you see the difference here?

Let’s not derail the thread.

But please go back and read what CAPIV wrote and my follow up:

Pedophiles are created the way they are. This does not mean their urges ought to be indulged. Predisposition of unnatural (in the Aristotelian sense) urges does not entail the right to act on urges.

The issue here is predisposition. As science advances, “genes” may be discovered that explain why some folks are more apt to engage in behaviors that are unhealthy at best, immoral at worst. As fallen human beings, we are all predisposed to SOMETHING sinful. A predisposition is morally neutral. The behavior is the thing that gets judged, no? In that case, pedophilia may be considered worse than homosexual sex - but that is not the discussion.

The OP stated:

I know all the stats about how the biological claims of homosexuality are not fully conclusive, etc. That is not my question. My question is how can I love my gay friends while at the same time saying that I think that something with which they define their identity is morally wrong?

I’ve noticed that in discussions about this issue, everyone wants to claim their homosexual friends as pillars of society, examples of deep and profoundly committed love, and all around great people (which they are!). We all agonize over how to manage these relationships and don’t hesitate to explore ways to keep these friendships while living our Catholic faith. We desperately seek a way to love the sinner while hating the sin.

How would we respond or manage if we had a family member or a loved one who was a pedophile? Are they not “victims” of the same predisposition to unnatural and immoral behavior? Are we not obliged, as Catholics, to love these sinners as well?

The point, and it is relevant, is that being compelled to immoral behavior is a universal human condition. If we are able to recognize that we all suffer, from one degree to another, with fallen nature, it becomes easier to love our brothers and sisters for who they are (as God created them) and not what they do.

 

[blessedtoo]

That they cannot…should not…be allowed to adopt, have a family, or the basic medical right to make decisions when one or another might fall ill. In my heart of hearts I just can’t seem to reconcile loving and serving my neighbor, my very friends and indeed relatives, if I actively block their quest for basic things like medical rights.

In the case of adoption, it is important to keep the focus on the CHILD. While your response is one of compassion, and is in keeping with the general population, the fact is that a child’s development, health, well-being, and rights must be the priority. The Church (and most child experts, as well as the government) believes that every child has the RIGHT to be raised by his biological parent. When this scenario is impossible, we believe, along with most societies, that children should be raised by a mother and a father. Study after study bears evidence that these roles are indispensable. To purposefully place a child into a homosexual household, when there are other options available, is to seek to satisfy the needs of the PARENTS (in this case, the gay couple) rather than the needs of the child.

The Church has never taught that homosexuals should be denied medical “rights”. If I have a loved one in the hospital, I may be barred from a visitation if I am not an immediate family member. To circumvent this HOSPITAL rule, I may need to have some legal procedures put into play so that I can gain access. But that is not discrimination against gay people - it is discrimination against anyone who is not immediate family. There are many ways to address this problem if one is homosexual. Gay “marriage” is NOT one of them.

 

[nsm]

I understand that there are ways of getting around the whole immediate family clause, but if my husband or I end up in the hospital then we don’t have to go through any hoops, I automatically have access and vice versa, not to mention that when either he or I pass on, inheritance rights. That was all that I was saying.

I know what I must say, and do not shrink from expressing the Catholic view that homosexuality is against the moral law if asked directly. However, knowing what you need to say, saying it, and feeling great about it are very different things.

Also, as a resident of Boston (part of the year) and with family in California, same sex “marriages” are already legally occurring. My husband has a gay friend from high school who has just gotten “married”. A very good college friend who is gay is engaged. I know several gay professors who are “married.”

After painfully having to tell one of my best friends that struggles with homosexuality- a Christian- who asked me directly whether or not I thought that she was sinning, and literally watching a bit of her die inside with rejection as I said that I did believe it was a sin but I loved her, I have tried to not seek out the homosexuality issue. However, times are changing and a wedding invitation might be in my mailbox and then what?

In academia, expressing the Church’s view on homosexuality is tantamount to donning a white KKK robe or taking a high power hose to black children. In my mind the Church ultimately always stands with the oppressed, the outcast the downtrodden. I think that it is unfair, but it is a fact that Catholics and Protestants who express views like gays should not be legally married, find themselves agreeing with some extremist groups whose other views are repugnant. I don’t know what to do with this. I don’t want to stand in solidarity with supremicist groups who only hold these views because they hate. I do want to follow God and love my neighbor.

Yet, I understand that if someone I loved was doing something harmful, like drinking a little poison with their coffee I would tell them to stop - even if this coffee was their special secret recipe handed down throughout the centuries and defined their family identity.

Perhaps rejection is inevitable with this issue, and Jesus is certainly worth it because I know that he was rejected by his friends too. I know that some people who were close to him (and some Christians today) walked away when he said that you must eat His flesh and drink His blood or you don’t have life in you.

I just struggle with how to materially “hate the sin” and “love the sinner” when many gay people do not feel like they are doing anything wrong. I don’t want someone to stand up on the last day and say that they rejected Christ because I was unloving and pushed them away.

 

[AlexiaMusing]

This holds no validity whatsoever. Pedophiles are created the way they are. This does not mean their urges ought to be indulged. Predisposition of unnatural (in the Aristotelian sense) urges does not entail the right to act on urges. A married man is not sinful if unintentional impure thoughts penetrate his mind. However, the adulterer is the sinner. His actions can be justly judged by the community. In this case, the Catholic Church and Reason itself.

You may have a way to go to prove that pedophilia is genetic. In any case, we are not speaking of any criminal act here. It seems for some reasons that homosexuals are often lumped with pedophiles when a discussion ensues. It detracts from the argument severely and suggests that the poster feels that there is some connection. I’m sure you didn’t mean to convey that impression surely.

 

[Feste_1242]

However, knowing what you need to say, saying it, and feeling great about it are very different things.

What do you mean?

After painfully having to tell one of my best friends that struggles with homosexuality- a Christian- who asked me directly whether or not I thought that she was sinning, and literally watching a bit of her die inside with rejection as I said that I did believe it was a sin but I loved her, I have tried to not seek out the homosexuality issue. However, times are changing and a wedding invitation might be in my mailbox and then what?

I know how you feel; my uncle is getting re-married in two months. He had a civil divorce, but as the Church does not recognize this as valid, he is still considered married, and thus, committing a grave sin by re-marrying. I too am going to receive an invitation in the mail, and am rather dreading it. He has been informed of the immorality of his actions, but I fear has not heeded the warning. I love my uncle, and I believe it is the right thing for him to marry the woman he has fallen in love with, but that he must wait for an annulment. All we can do in these situations is stand by the Church, for it offers all the strength we need. Not only will we feel better for not having let our friends and family fall into sin, but our own souls will be enriched as well.

It’s interesting that you described it as “a bit of her dying inside”, because it’s kind of the other way around, isn’t it? They may lose hope and be emotionally hurt, but the spiritual strength, encouragement, and hope we give them is more than worth it.

In academia, expressing the Church’s view on homosexuality is tantamount to donning a white KKK robe or taking a high power hose to black children. In my mind the Church ultimately always stands with the oppressed, the outcast the downtrodden. I think that it is unfair, but it is a fact that Catholics and Protestants who express views like gays should not be legally married, find themselves agreeing with some extremist groups whose other views are repugnant. I don’t know what to do with this. I don’t want to stand in solidarity with supremicist groups who only hold these views because they hate. I do want to follow God and love my neighbor.

What?

I just struggle with how to materially “hate the sin” and “love the sinner” when many gay people do not feel like they are doing anything wrong. I don’t want someone to stand up on the last day and say that they rejected Christ because I was unloving and pushed them away.

It definitely is difficult, I agree with you there. But by letting someone know they are sinning, we are doing the opposite of pushing them away. We just have to tell them that we’re doing it because we love them.

 

[nsm]

What do you mean?

I totally do not agree with that stance, but I was just trying to explain the academic environment. When ever there is any discussion of the Church’s stance on homosexuality, it is automatically compared to horrendous happenings in the past.

 

[Feste_1242]

I totally do not agree with that stance, but I was just trying to explain the academic environment. When ever there is any discussion of the Church’s stance on homosexuality, it is automatically compared to horrendous happenings in the past.

I’m still not following you… What stance?

 

[nsm]

Sorry, I am having trouble with the quote function

The stance that the Church is on the “wrong” side of the issue of homosexuality and its stance is like those of hate groups.

I definitely do not believe this, it is repugnant to me - this is just the majority opinion in academia (the most loudly articulated one).

 

[Feste_1242]

The stance that the Church is on the “wrong” side of the issue of homosexuality and its stance is like those of hate groups.

I definitely do not believe this, it is repugnant to me - this is just the majority opinion in academia (the most loudly articulated one).

Oh ok. I agree. However, this doesn’t answer my original question. I was having trouble understanding your last sentence in this excerpt:

I know what I must say, and do not shrink from expressing the Catholic view that homosexuality is against the moral law if asked directly. However, knowing what you need to say, saying it, and feeling great about it are very different things.

 

[nsm]

I guess I was just trying to explain how it is hard to express an opinion that is very unpopular, and can get you labeled a hate-monger, bigot, homophobe or worse can forever alienate a gay person from God and from the Church.

 

[Feste_1242]

I guess I was just trying to explain how it is hard to express an opinion that is very unpopular, and can get you labeled a hate-monger, bigot, homophobe or worse can forever alienate a gay person from God and from the Church.

Oh. Well, alright then.

 

[redrosetea]

I don’t know if it is morally wrong, but it is spiritually wrong. It is forbidden in scripture…The Church can’t alter Scripture to make people feel good about sinning

No one else gets a free pass…I can’t commit adultery, priest cant have sex with anyone, People are forbidden to have sex outside of marriage

We all have our crosses to carry, that just happens to be theirs

Gays are not mistreated they are treated like everyone else…they are told not to sin…What else should we throw out for people who want to disregard scripture?

Once it starts it will never stop…

 

[Feste_1242]

I don’t know if it is morally wrong, but it is spiritually wrong. It is forbidden in scripture…The Church can’t alter Scripture to make people feel good about sinning

What is the difference?! :ehh:

 

[redrosetea]

The difference is that morals can change but a sin is always a sin…Lots of things that were considered immoral are now accepted…like woman smoking, or people going to the movies, or other social kind of things…What was considered immoral by people 100 years ago is probably vastly different than today

I am not anti gay, just anti sin…people 100 years ago would have treated a gay person very badly even if they had done nothing wrong, and lived a sinless life

 

[Feste_1242]

The difference is that morals can change but a sin is always a sin…Lots of things that were considered immoral are now accepted…like woman smoking, or people going to the movies, or other social kind of things…What was considered immoral by people 100 years ago is probably vastly different than today.

I am not anti gay, just anti sin…people 100 years ago would have treated a gay person very badly even if they had done nothing wrong, and lived a sinless life

…Um, no they don’t. What do you think morals are?

1. Conforming to a standard of right behaviour; sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment.
2. a**:** Of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. b: Sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment.

My point with these definitions is that morality and sin go hand in hand, they are the same thing. The Church tells us what is moral, meaning it tells us what is sin and what isn’t. The Church doesn’t change. Morals don’t change. Things like women smoking, to the best of my knowledge, were never considered immoral. Rather, they were simply socially unacceptable. And society *does *change.

 

[redrosetea]

Smoking was certainly taboo, so was a lot of the fashion ,even the modest fashion of today Woman that went into a bar or drank were considered tramps…

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to reject it