The bottom line on Catholics and gay intolerance

[Jason_1977]

Gay “marriage” is God’s way of eliminating gays.

Assume that there is at least a genetic predisposition to gayness. (Personally, I think this is a stretch, but let’s go with it for the sake of argument.)

If society forbids or strictly limits long-term gay relationships, then many gays will end up marrying the opposite sex, having kids, and passing on the genetic factors that support gayness.

Now suppose that society allows gay “marriage.” If anyone with the least inclination to being gay is encouraged to enter into only long-term gay relationships then they will produce far fewer kids, thus curtailing the survival of gay genetic factors.

Maybe we should even say that gay “marriage” is genocidal!

I used to work for a senior chief in the navy when I was active duty that would always say, “I think we should let men marry men & women marry women & in 3 generations, there will be no more liberals.” I miss him…LOL

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

To address the last question first…. So does the Church, which is Truth.

DOShea, thanks for your post. Perhaps there’s something I’m not quite getting (entirely possible!), but my difficulties with the Roman position remain unaddressed. Your post was an eloquent and balanced restatement of the party-line with a slight nod to any inconsistencies in that line amounting to, “that’s just the way it is.”

But that’s not particularly helpful. Here are the givens of the Roman teaching in this area:

1–Sexuality concerns the innermost being of the person as such (Catechism 2361)
2–Sexuality affects all aspects of the person in the unity of body his body and soul (2332)
3–Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman (2360)
4–A homosexual person (2359) is a person with an inclination toward homosexuality (2358) which is understood to refer to relations between same-sex persons who experience sexual attraction to same-sex persons (2357).
5–Homosexuality has a [purely] psychological genesis (2357)
6–Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered (2357)
7–The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered (2358)
8–Everyone must accept their sexual identity (2333)
9–Chastity refers to the integration of sexuality within the person (2337)
10–Sexuality becomes truly human when it is integrated in the marriage of man and woman (2337)

So what does the landscape look like for homosexuals, here?

First, it looks like it’s pretty clear that Rome does not believe that homosexuality is actually a viable form of sexuality. Points 3, 4, 6 and 7 reveal this. Sexuality is only understood within a heterosexual context (3 and 10). It would not be dishonest to say that when Rome says “Sexuality” it understands only heterosexuality. Therefore, homosexuals are people with a psychological problem (5), which problem twists or perverts the expression of their naturally good and well-ordered sexuality (6 and 7).

Granted, homosexuality understood as a psychological problem makes Rome’s position make some sense and makes the alcoholism comparison somewhat apt. A homosexual is really just a heterosexual with a problem. Understood that way, things make a lot of sense.

I don’t understand, though, how Rome could see homosexuals in this way, how it can believe that truly human sexuality is expressed in heterosexual marriage, and not publicly and officially endorse conversion therapy. To me, that’s like meeting someone with pneumonia and giving them an aspirin for a cure. This is perhaps the biggest inconsistency in Rome’s position if you accept all of its premises—that it sees something as a serious psychological illness, an objective disorder leading to actions that are intrinsically disordered, representing an aspect of personhood directly related to what it means to our innermost being (1, 2) and what it is to be truly human (10) and its response is: well, they just shouldn’t have sex. (???)

But in order to fully believe Rome’s position, one must first believe that homosexuality is simply a psychological problem. This is the thing that is not exactly admitted or discussed when presenting Rome’s position, however. Which leads to some incomprehension—for most homosexuals, homosexuality is not a psychological issue, but their sexuality! Telling a homosexual, “I hate homosexuality, but I love homosexuals,” is like saying, “I hate internal organs, but I love people who have them.” Why is this the message? Because most homosexuals also happen to agree with point 1 and 2 above! That they can be integrated, good people only by discarding, repressing, or ignoring their sexuality just seems ludicrous and anti-human to them. What no one in the conversation is acknowledging is that they are not really talking about the same things—again, a homosexual, speaking of their homosexuality, is speaking of their sexuality; a Roman Catholic apologist, speaking of homosexuality, is speaking of a psychological problem leading to a disordered inclination. People are using the same words to talk about completely different things.

And while there is bound to be protestation of coercion or secularism or some other dodge, the simple fact is that the scientific and medical community view homosexuality as a viable sexuality as opposed to a psychological condition, placing Rome back into a position analogous to it’s defense of geocentrism during the Copernican revolution. And the question comes down to the relationship between scientific fact and moral truth.

According to all evidence, moral, scientific and experiential, the givens need to be:

1—Sexuality concerns the innermost being of the person as such
2—Sexuality affects all aspects of the person in the unity of body his body and soul
3—Sexuality is ordered to loving relationship
4—The sexuality of a homosexual person is what makes them homosexual…
5—Sexuality is believed to be a function of both nature and nurture but is, in itself, good.
8—Everyone must accept their sexual identity
9—Chastity refers to the integration of sexuality within the person
10—Sexuality becomes truly human when it is integrated in a monogamous and loving relationship

Rome can only maintain it’s position on this topic if it ignores the scientific and experiential evidence altogether.

So in order for the Roman position to be stated as charitably as possible (to bring it back to the OP), one of two things must happen—the apologist must begin by honestly stating their position that homosexuality is not really a viable sexuality in order to make what follows relatively consistent and comprehensible, risking all the while the dismissal of their position as frankly against all available evidence and somewhat medieval as a result; or Rome’s position must change. The latter is, like it or not, inevitable, though it will no doubt take decades at the least; the former is unlikely to be practiced consistently.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[maggiemay2u]

Well, it’s an objective fact - Gay relationships are morally wrong. Unfortunately, in a world that doesn’t believe in objectivity, we are going to come across as hateful bigots. We’re gonna look like the people who still adamantly support racism now.

We have to come up with more compelling arguments to counter this. Anybody?

There is no lack of tolerance for homosexuals in the Catholic Church. To submit to the label of intolerance damages the truth of Church teaching. Just as we embrace all persons, regardless of disorder, limitation or disability, we embrace homosexuals. Just as we reach out to our divorced and remarried Catholics, we do not embrace the sin of their life style.

 

[Kolbe300]

Deo Volente,

I have really enjoyed this thread, especially hearing your thoughts on how the Catholic Church has addressed the issue of homosexuality (specifically in the Catechism). I will admit to not reading much of the discussion other than the parts between you and those who have addressed you. I have never been able to put into words my thoughts on the Catechism’s language on homosexuality. Thankfully, you were able to do that and to do it very well. Too often I see these portions of the Catechism pointed out to people dealing with homosexuality. It’s always kind of a, “Look at what the Church says. There, don’t you feel better now?” approach. You explained very well why that portion of the Catechism is actually much less helpful (one could call that an understatement) than many seem to think.

Sexuality concerns the innermost being of the human person. What of the homosexual’s sexuality? Given all we’ve said above, how is the homosexual to understand the relationship of their sexuality to their innermost being if their sexuality represents an inclination that is objectively disordered?

BINGO. BINGO. BINGO. Head of nail, meet hammer. How am I to view my sexuality if the “homosexual inclination” that I have always experienced is so disordered? Personally, I’ve disliked the word “inclination” used there, as if it’s something I deal with once or twice a month. If that “inclination” isn’t my sexuality, what is it? I can’t help but wonder how many heterosexuals view their sexuality as nothing more than an inclination? I’m guessing none. I’ve heard the argument that the heterosexuals version of that “inclination” would be any inclination to sin (fornication, adultery, etc.). Thankfully, their sexuality is not defined by that inclination. While their inclination to sin isn’t beautiful, their sexuality is. My inclination to sin isn’t beautiful. But what about my sexuality, is it beautiful? And if so, where is that in the Catechism? I have never been able to walk away from that portion of the Catechism and not felt pretty lousy.

What no one in the conversation is acknowledging is that they are not really talking about the same things—again, a homosexual, speaking of their homosexuality, is speaking of their sexuality; a Roman Catholic apologist, speaking of homosexuality, is speaking of a psychological problem leading to a disordered inclination. People are using the same words to talk about completely different things.

Bingo. Bingo. Bingo.

Thank you again Deo Volente. I believe the Church has a long way to go in understanding homosexuality. What saddens me is that I believe the Church could make such strides in changing how it views and speaks of homosexuality without changing a single thing with regards to its teachings on sex and marriage. While not being an advocate of same sex marriage at all, I’m an advocate for a deeper understanding of homosexuality.

Peace,
Kolbe

 

[AndyF]

Deo Volente:

I don’t see it this way. The Church teaches it’s subjects to resist identifying with the sin. This is in keeping with the nature of this sin has having a mechanism no different than other sins, albeit more subtle and deceptive, and, obtaining much of it’s aid through the chemical/psycholological processes of the libido, aided by anxiety,chronic shyness and other esteem robbing like causes. The expression of sex is the vehicle in motion and demonic influence hitches a ride at every opportunity.

But we are blessed, because God in his “Bible He Wrote” gave a hint to us as regards to this “mystery”, in that he classed the act and gave us an indicator to what degree it offends. Here is where we stop and collect our allegiances. We either think God has got it wrong, or loves to burden us with conundrums, or He really does feel this way to these acts. Having established our position, we work in reverse by working from a tenet. The determination of the rightness or wrongness of the act has been solved for us.

The act of homosexuality is intrinsically evil. Not only this but other acts are intrinsically evil. So then any orientation that has it’s means that foresees an end in this act is also evil. The will is honed by correct choices, prayer,observances,sacraments,virtuousness, so then one who finds his will weak in resistance will receive more for suggestion, thus more chances to get it wrong and is still responsible for how it performs regardless. The person sets the standard and he can only do this with the help of grace he deserves.

At one point in time this individual of your case found it comfortable to, or acceptable for, appropriate pertinent material for his contemplation or mindful experimentation, juxtaposing in his mind non-permissible situations, or found some mindful proposal delectable. Working from the clue we have, we immediately see the issue is off limits even for contemplation. He chooses to entertain the notion. In his case the situation being contemplated has past the test of human reasonableness. This reasoning is not divine reasoning but based on the empirical, and very much swayed by the sensual and his nature. Compounding results by accepting any of it and further weakens the position of the individual, either evident in weak wills, presenting a weak front to his mind of material for contemplation,etc, all due to acceptance.

So I guess the knee jerk statement would be, “Why even go there.?” Why discuss or try to determine anything. Who’s authority do we obey if this one isn’t the one we want?. The point is that within us there is another god and he wants us to contemplate and reconsider and to forget the base rule.

I think it’s a non issue, besides, how do we explain the cures that occur through those who have set themselves to devotion, group prayer, and attended self help groups and pastoral care.?

Andy

 

[Christopher68]

Grace & Peace!

DOShea, thanks for your post. Perhaps there’s something I’m not quite getting (entirely possible!), but my difficulties with the Roman position remain unaddressed. Your post was an eloquent and balanced restatement of the party-line with a slight nod to any inconsistencies in that line amounting to, “that’s just the way it is.”

But that’s not particularly helpful. Here are the givens of the Roman teaching in this area:

1–Sexuality concerns the innermost being of the person as such (Catechism 2361)
2–Sexuality affects all aspects of the person in the unity of body his body and soul (2332)
3–Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman (2360)
4–A homosexual person (2359) is a person with an inclination toward homosexuality (2358) which is understood to refer to relations between same-sex persons who experience sexual attraction to same-sex persons (2357).
5–Homosexuality has a [purely] psychological genesis (2357)
6–Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered (2357)
7–The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered (2358)
8–Everyone must accept their sexual identity (2333)
9–Chastity refers to the integration of sexuality within the person (2337)
10–Sexuality becomes truly human when it is integrated in the marriage of man and woman (2337)

So what does the landscape look like for homosexuals, here?

First, it looks like it’s pretty clear that Rome does not believe that homosexuality is actually a viable form of sexuality. Points 3, 4, 6 and 7 reveal this. Sexuality is only understood within a heterosexual context (3 and 10). It would not be dishonest to say that when Rome says “Sexuality” it understands only heterosexuality. Therefore, homosexuals are people with a psychological problem (5), which problem twists or perverts the expression of their naturally good and well-ordered sexuality (6 and 7).

Granted, homosexuality understood as a psychological problem makes Rome’s position make some sense and makes the alcoholism comparison somewhat apt. A homosexual is really just a heterosexual with a problem. Understood that way, things make a lot of sense.

I don’t understand, though, how Rome could see homosexuals in this way, how it can believe that truly human sexuality is expressed in heterosexual marriage, and not publicly and officially endorse conversion therapy. To me, that’s like meeting someone with pneumonia and giving them an aspirin for a cure. This is perhaps the biggest inconsistency in Rome’s position if you accept all of its premises—that it sees something as a serious psychological illness, an objective disorder leading to actions that are intrinsically disordered, representing an aspect of personhood directly related to what it means to our innermost being (1, 2) and what it is to be truly human (10) and its response is: well, they just shouldn’t have sex. (???)

But in order to fully believe Rome’s position, one must first believe that homosexuality is simply a psychological problem. This is the thing that is not exactly admitted or discussed when presenting Rome’s position, however. Which leads to some incomprehension—for most homosexuals, homosexuality is not a psychological issue, but their sexuality! Telling a homosexual, “I hate homosexuality, but I love homosexuals,” is like saying, “I hate internal organs, but I love people who have them.” Why is this the message? Because most homosexuals also happen to agree with point 1 and 2 above! That they can be integrated, good people only by discarding, repressing, or ignoring their sexuality just seems ludicrous and anti-human to them. What no one in the conversation is acknowledging is that they are not really talking about the same things—again, a homosexual, speaking of their homosexuality, is speaking of their sexuality; a Roman Catholic apologist, speaking of homosexuality, is speaking of a psychological problem leading to a disordered inclination. People are using the same words to talk about completely different things.

And while there is bound to be protestation of coercion or secularism or some other dodge, the simple fact is that the scientific and medical community view homosexuality as a viable sexuality as opposed to a psychological condition, placing Rome back into a position analogous to it’s defense of geocentrism during the Copernican revolution. And the question comes down to the relationship between scientific fact and moral truth.

According to all evidence, moral, scientific and experiential, the givens need to be:

1—Sexuality concerns the innermost being of the person as such
2—Sexuality affects all aspects of the person in the unity of body his body and soul
3—Sexuality is ordered to loving relationship
4—The sexuality of a homosexual person is what makes them homosexual…
5—Sexuality is believed to be a function of both nature and nurture but is, in itself, good.
8—Everyone must accept their sexual identity
9—Chastity refers to the integration of sexuality within the person
10—Sexuality becomes truly human when it is integrated in a monogamous and loving relationship

Rome can only maintain it’s position on this topic if it ignores the scientific and experiential evidence altogether.

So in order for the Roman position to be stated as charitably as possible (to bring it back to the OP), one of two things must happen—the apologist must begin by honestly stating their position that homosexuality is not really a viable sexuality in order to make what follows relatively consistent and comprehensible, risking all the while the dismissal of their position as frankly against all available evidence and somewhat medieval as a result; or Rome’s position must change. The latter is, like it or not, inevitable, though it will no doubt take decades at the least; the former is unlikely to be practiced consistently.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

You have written an excellent post and have summarized many of the reasons why I have a difficult time accepting the Church’s position on this topic.

 

[Kolbe300]

The Church teaches it’s subjects to resist identifying with the sin.

Hi AndyF. The Church also teaches that being homosexual is not a sin. No one is, nor should be, identified by their sexuality alone. However, one should be able to be honest about their sexual orientation. I can honestly identify my sexual orientation as homosexual without identifying with any sin at all.

The act of homosexuality is intrinsically evil. Not only this but other acts are intrinsically evil. So then any orientation that has it’s means that foresees an end in this act is also evil.

Hate the sinner’s orientation, but love the sinner now? Boy, that’s taking us frighteningly close to hate the sinner.

At one point in time this individual of your case found it comfortable to, or acceptable for, appropriate pertinent material for his contemplation or mindful experimentation, juxtaposing in his mind non-permissible situations, or found some mindful proposal delectable. Working from the clue we have, we immediately see the issue is off limits even for contemplation. He chooses to entertain the notion. In his case the situation being contemplated has past the test of human reasonableness. This reasoning is not divine reasoning but based on the empirical, and very much swayed by the sensual and his nature. Compounding results by accepting any of it and further weakens the position of the individual, either evident in weak wills, presenting a weak front to his mind of material for contemplation,etc, all due to acceptance.

I had to read that paragraph a few times. Correct me if I’m wrong, but is that a long way of saying, “He chose to be homosexual.”?

I think it’s a non issue, besides, how do we explain the cures that occur through those who have set themselves to devotion, group prayer, and attended self help groups and pastoral care.?

I think that can be explained by a couple things: For one, not everyone’s experience with homosexuality is the same. The issue isn’t the same for everyone. Also, the definition of “cure” is about as clear as mud. Was a person cured of their behavior? Were they cured of their orientation? Your question should always be followed by another one. How do we explain those who set themselves to devotion, group prayer, and attended self help groups and pastoral care but weren’t “cured” of their “evil” sexual orientation?

Peace,
Kolbe

 

[Darren69]

As I am homosexual and Catholic, it is very depressing to read this post.
All I can say is God is the one who judges fortunately but the way some people have responded in this post would make you think they have decided on behalf of God.

Anyway, after reading this post I have decided now to denounce my association with the Church. I have been thinking on this awhile but now cannot bear to be associated with fellow Christians who are obviously very narrow minded. I will tell everyone now homosexuality is natural, it is not unnatural as is the fact some people are blind, some are deaf, some are tall and some are short. I cannot put it anymore simply. I did read a response here saying gay people would marry a straight person and pass on the gene if gay marriage is prevented. Well once again I can confirm that they will only marry a straight person if they personally choose to do so or if they are basically forced to due to their social environment reflecting opinions like this topic.

I know myself my relationship with God is strong, I trust in God and I will pray now that those people struggling to accept homosexuality are forgiven.

God Bless you all.

 

[LaSalle]

Hi Darren,

All I can say is God is the one who judges fortunately but the way some people have responded in this post would make you think they have decided on behalf of God.

They have not made any judgments on anyone specifically, they have merely stated what the church teaches on homosexual acts. Don’t you believe that Jesus left us a Church that could definitively tell us right from wrong? Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead us to all truth, He also told us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and that He would protect her till the end of time.

In a world that lures us away from the truth in every way, Jesus knew that we would need a pillar of truth to guide us.

Anyway, after reading this post I have decided now to denounce my association with the Church. I have been thinking on this awhile but now cannot bear to be associated with fellow Christians who are obviously very narrow minded.

What does being ‘narrow minded’ mean to you? By not accepting that homosexual acts are morally wrong?

I think someone mentioned that if you want the church’s teaching on this, don’t listen to Catholics, they tend to throw their biases in and often get it wrong or highlight only the portion that teaches that it is unnatural; just listen to the church for the full explanation-

The Church acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . 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 that they may encounter from their condition.
“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (CCC 2357– 2359).

Paul comfortingly reminds us, “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (1 Cor. 10:13).

I will tell everyone now homosexuality is natural, it is not unnatural as is the fact some people are blind, some are deaf, some are tall and some are short. I cannot put it anymore simply.

Some people are born with a high libido and commit rape repeatedly as a result, or a with a preference for young children, or with a high propensity for violence, or with kleptomania etc etc … it doesn’t make their actions correct or any less wrong.

There are inherent defects in all of us, it’s just God’s way of giving us our crosses. It’s no defense for us to claim that it is natural or that we’re born that way and therefore we should be allowed to do those things.

I know myself my relationship with God is strong, I trust in God and I will pray now that those people struggling to accept homosexuality are forgiven.

God always forgives, however, in every instance in the bible He also asks us to ‘sin no more’, He demonstrated that He loves the sinner and hates the sin. He forgave those who showed sorrow for their sins and warned those who did not refrain from sinning that their ‘sin remained’. This begs the question - what is sin? Do we decide or does God?

If God decides, how does He make it known to us? Are we at liberty to reject it and go on claiming that we are all right with God?

Can we create our own list of what is morally right and what is morally wrong?

Yes, dealing with the tendencies are a struggle, but you must struggle, fall, and pick yourself up again … just like everyone of us with all our sins … the last thing we want to do is surrender and proclaim that it ceases to be a sin anymore and then indulge in it.

 

[jayeffem]

The posts in this thread continually state that homosexual activity is “morally wrong”. I wonder why this is. Is it because a bunch of old men in robes have decided that they get to be the arbiter’s of what is right and what is wrong? Is it maybe because we are taking passages literally from a book that claims the entire world was created in seven days and that an elderly man created a boat of elephantine proportions and then proceeded to gather two of every single animal in the world all by himself? Maybe it’s time to look back over what is declared “morally wrong”, and think about what a truely loving, fair, and just God would do. Would a just and loving God reject a person because of the way that the very same God created them? Maybe it’s time to change outdated “laws” that have no place in modern society.

 

[SteveGC]

The posts in this thread continually state that homosexual activity is “morally wrong”. I wonder why this is. Is it because a bunch of old men in robes have decided that they get to be the arbiter’s of what is right and what is wrong? Is it maybe because we are taking passages literally from a book that claims the entire world was created in seven days and that an elderly man created a boat of elephantine proportions and then proceeded to gather two of every single animal in the world all by himself? Maybe it’s time to look back over what is declared “morally wrong”, and think about what a truely loving, fair, and just God would do. Would a just and loving God reject a person because of the way that the very same God created them? Maybe it’s time to change outdated “laws” that have no place in modern society.

Define homosexual “activity”.

Are you suggesting that God created some to engage in homosexual “activity”, or that they were born with homosexual tendencies or proclivities? There’s a big difference, so I wanted to know if you can define what you mean by “activity”.

You are Catholic?

 

[Zoe_Brain]

I will assume for the purposes of argument that the Catholic church is opposed to homosexuality. I think I’m on safe ground there. For the sake of argument, I will also make no distinction between homosexual acts, and homosexual desires, even though I think such a distinction is important.

Finally, I will not argue as to whether the Church is right or wrong to do this: merely accept it as fact.

So where do we go from there?

The Catholic diocese in the USA have universally fought tooth and nail against same-sex marriage - but also same-sex civil partnerships, and any civil rights whatsoever for gays.

They have stated that they wish to continue to persecute them, to continue to deny them employment, rental accommodation, being able to travel by bus, train, aircraft or taxi, to make use of public baths or other facilities, to deny them access to cinemas and even hospitals. That the right to mercilessly persecute sinners, to starve them and deny them shelter and medical care is part of the bedrock of Christianity. Lest they be seen to condone the sin.

The result:

A lesbian who was banned by a hospital from visiting her dying partner has had her case thrown out of court.

Janice Langbehn sued Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami for not allowing her to see Lisa Pond, 39, her partner of 17 years.

Pond suffered a fatal brain aneurysm on February 18th, 2007. Langbehn says a social worker would not let her see her partner, who died alone the next day.

The couple, who had three adopted children, were on holiday on a gay-friendly Caribbean cruise when Pond became ill.

Langbehn and her children were not allowed to be with Pond in her final hours and hospital officials allegedly told Langbehn she was in an anti-gay city and state.

After waiting eight hours, she was eventually allowed to see Pond for five minutes as a priest performed the last rites.

Langbehn and gay charity Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit against Jackson Memorial Hospital but this was thrown out of court this week.

Ms Langbehn even had a medical power of attorney. Yet she was still denied access because she was Lesbian. Worse, she wasn’t merely denied access to her partner’s deathbed, so were the couple’s children.

It was only the intervention of the Priest who managed to get them any access at all - score one for humanity, regardless of the Church’s well-financed political machinations that have helped bring this state of affairs to pass.

Catholic groups have even opposed anti-bullying measures at schools, saying that to protect children of gay parents from physical assault would be to condone sin.

Most do not use those words, though a considerable proportion do, and they have not been criticised one iota by the Church. Better some kids be beaten to death than they be seen to countenance this particular sin. Some have said as much on this forum.

And yet… no-one claims the right to fire those who have divorced and re-married, despite this being an even greater sin if Scripture is to be credited. No-one refuses to employ Hindus because they are Idolators, a greater sin still. This is because it would be illegal to do so, yet somehow that is not seen as countenancing idolatry, nor a grave and unacceptable restriction on religious belief.

I am not Catholic. I’m not even Christian. Yet I do try to follow Matthew 22:39-40, even if I can’t follow the first and greatest commandment in Matthew 22:35-38.

It seems to me that the Pharisees, the Religious Lawyers and Scribes have direct descendants in the Church. Those who place rules above humanity and the two greatest commandments in Matthew 22 that are their basis, those so afraid of looking bad, of being seen to be less than wholly pious, that not only do they pass by the mugged traveller the wayside, they put in a few extra kicks as well to demonstrate to the world their disapproval of his kind. Exactly the kind of people 1 Corinthians 13 was aimed at.

It also seems to me that the animalistic, instinctive revulsion some feel against homosexuality (a feeling I have myself by the way) comes first, then scripture is misused in order to justify that hatred and bigotry. And that the Church has been complicit in this.

One more thing - while there may be no “Homosexual gene”, the neurology of gays and lesbians differs from the norm. The effect isn’t subtle, it can be seen on fMRI images quite clearly.



HeM - Hetero Man HoM - Homo Man HeW - Hetero Woman HoW - Homo Woman

It’s as much a “choice” as is being left-handed - there’s no gene for that either.

 

[SteveGC]

The Catholic diocese in the USA have universally fought tooth and nail against…any civil rights whatsoever for gays.

They have stated that they wish to continue to persecute them, to continue to deny them employment, rental accommodation, being able to travel by bus, train, aircraft or taxi, to make use of public baths or other facilities, to deny them access to cinemas and even hospitals. That the right to mercilessly persecute sinners, to starve them and deny them shelter and medical care is part of the bedrock of Christianity. Lest they be seen to condone the sin.

Source for this claim, please.

The result:
A lesbian who was banned by a hospital from visiting her dying partner has had her case thrown out of court.

Janice Langbehn sued Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami for not allowing her to see Lisa Pond, 39, her partner of 17 years.

Pond suffered a fatal brain aneurysm on February 18th, 2007. Langbehn says a social worker would not let her see her partner, who died alone the next day.

The couple, who had three adopted children, were on holiday on a gay-friendly Caribbean cruise when Pond became ill.

Langbehn and her children were not allowed to be with Pond in her final hours and hospital officials allegedly told Langbehn she was in an anti-gay city and state.

After waiting eight hours, she was eventually allowed to see Pond for five minutes as a priest performed the last rites.

Langbehn and gay charity Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit against Jackson Memorial Hospital but this was thrown out of court this week.

Ms Langbehn even had a medical power of attorney. Yet she was still denied access because she was Lesbian. Worse, she wasn’t merely denied access to her partner’s deathbed, so were the couple’s children.

It was only the intervention of the Priest who managed to get them any access at all - score one for humanity, regardless of the Church’s well-financed political machinations that have helped bring this state of affairs to pass.

Proof that this alleged episode was being fueled by the Catholic Church, please.

Catholic groups have even opposed anti-bullying measures at schools, saying that to protect children of gay parents from physical assault would be to condone sin

. Source, please. Also, please provide proof that official Church teaching provided guidance for the alleged behavior of these “Catholic groups”.

Most do not use those words, though a considerable proportion do, and they have not been criticised one iota by the Church.

Source, please…including proof that the Church is aware of this “considerable proportion” of groups using “those words”

Better some kids be beaten to death than they be seen to countenance this particular sin. Some have said as much on this forum.

Proof that the Church would condone these type of comments, please.

I am not Catholic. I’m not even Christian.

And yet, you seem to think you are fit to speak for the Church, and have so many stories about how the Church supports persecution of homosexuals…so many that you must think that providing credible sources for your stories is unnecessary?

 

[Diane_Lynn]

Now back to the issue of brain size, I’m sure with your resources you could find the evidence you need yourself, by doing your own research…because even if I did show references, I’m sure you would find a way to refute them, especially if you want to believe that all gays have some kind of disorder or something, or choose to be gay.

God loves everyoneQUOTE]

It seems to me that this discussion came up once before. It also was stated that there was not found by researchers a ‘gay gene’ although a lot of resources were expended to find such a gene.
There was found supportive genetic evidence but that was in regard to those considered as true transsexuals, not homosexuals. It was the Dutch research in which they did an examination of the hypothalamus and found that true male to female transsexuals did have that portion of their brain that corresponded to normal female brains. It also seemed to make clear the same result could not be found to include homosexuals nor transgender.
If need be I can look up the research but if I remember correctly it had something to do with a World Health Org. report and alluded to Swiss genetic studies and/or the Dutch BSTc studies.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Source for this claim, please.

Exhibit A: USA

Tough anti-bullying legislation is headed for a final vote in the North Carolina Senate, despite efforts by conservatives to strip out protections for LGBT students.
…
The legislation covers race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity. It would require any school employee who witnesses or knows of harassment or bullying to report the incident to school officials.

The inclusion of sexuality and gender identity was strongly opposed by conservative lawmakers and activist groups.

North Carolina’s two Roman Catholic bishops denounced the bill as a prelude to legalizing same-sex marriage.

The Christian Action League of North Carolina urged its members to call or send e-mail to their senators telling them to vote against the measure. And the Family Policy Council of North Carolina said that if the bill passed it would lead to the expansion of the state’s hate crime law and anti-discrimination laws to cover gays.

But supporters of the bill pointed to a growing number of students in other states who were bullied because fellow students thought they were gay.

There have been at least four suicide of middle-school aged children linked to homophobic bullying according to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Exhibit B : UK

Catholic schools in Britain are under attack by the government at the urging of homosexual lobbyists for refusing to bow to pressure to implement “anti-homophobic” bullying policies in schools. A report by a Commons Select Committee to the Department for Education and Skills singles out Catholic schools for refusing to implement regulations.

Education Secretary Alan Johnson told gay activists that the government is preparing guidelines for schools to address what was identified in the report as “faith-based” homophobic bullying.
…
The British government is explicitly collaborating with the homosexual movement in aiming at the Catholic Church’s stand against sexual immorality. In preparation for the report that will inform the guidelines, the Department of Skills and Education commissioned research from Stonewall into “faith-based” bullying in schools.

In a committee hearing, Jim Knight, Minister of State for Schools accused the Catholic Church of “faith-based bullying”. “Whatever the setting,” Knight said, “whatever the ethos, whoever the external partner to a school might be, school might be, if they have got one, be it the Catholic Church or anybody else. We should not tolerate bullying in any from, we should not tolerate people not respecting the difference that people have and I think that applies to homophobic bullying.”

(A hostile article)

Exhibit C : Australia (30% of whose population is Catholic)

The Catholic Education Commission will be grilled on what it is doing to tackle homophobic bullying in Catholic schools during the second day of a NSW inquiry this week.

Earlier, the NSW Education Department (DET) revealed there was more work to be done to combat anti-gay harassment in the classroom and playgrounds of public schools.

Exhibit D : UK again

[Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT union] told teachers gathered for a conference in Birmingham on combating prejudice: "Their resistance to homophobic bullying policies fails to understand that young children, regardless of their sexuality, can be victims of homophobic bullying. “They fail to see that it destroys children’s education and wider life chances. The Catholic Church is abdicating its responsibility to look after the health and well-being of youngsters.”

Ms Keates said one in five teenagers reports being a victim of homophobic bullying. There is evidence that some bright 16-year-olds were being turned off education because they were the victims of such abuse at school, she said…

Source: Christian Today

For the defence:

The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis has been in the forefront in making sure that its Catholic schools provide a safe environment for gay students. An excellent resource is “Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective” by Michael J. Bayly. Many Catholic schools are fighting bullying and fostering an atmosphere of tolerance towards gay and also other minority students.

From a review of this:
The initial training sessions conducted by the Safe Schools initiative involved members of the CPCSM planning and facilitating fourteen four-session sequences of training at seven area Catholic schools, aimed at creating safe and nurturing environments for LGBT students. Empowered by this training, individual teachers and students spearheaded additional efforts to address the needs and concerns of LGBT students. However, Bayly does acknowledge the “backlash” resulting from the Safe Schools Initiative and training; unfortunately, some conservative members of the Catholic community responded to efforts to minister to LGBT students as training staff to promote the LGBT agenda (although it is never made completely clear what that agenda might be). As Bayly states, “this vocal minority has had a chilling effect on safe staff training initiatives within many schools;” still, the very presence of this text as a guidebook for continuing these efforts constitutes a ray of hope for those determined to meet the challenge.

For the prosecution, Exhibit E from Canada

A nation-wide study on homophobia and bullying in high schools was launched on Friday as a collaborative effort between the University of Winnipeg and Egale Canada. The ambitious study hopes to gauge the social climate in Canadian high schools by surveying 10,000 students before the end of June.

Not all students will have the opportunity to participate, however. Three Catholic school boards in Ontario and Alberta have refused to co-operate with researchers and barred the survey. Helen Kennedy, Egale’s executive director, expressed surprise at the Catholic boards’ decisions:

*"The study is not about sexual behaviour; it is about social behaviour. It’s about bullying, harassment and taunting in our schools."*

A worthwhile effort, and it’s unfortunate that not everyone is sensitive to the cause. Even more strange, though, is the rationale for the research ban. Reverend Dennis Noon of the Wellington Catholic District School Board, who refused his students’ participation in the study, told the media that homophobia was simply “not a big issue” in Catholic schools.

Please address each of these issues in particular - starting with the contradiction between the statements by the Rev Noon and that of Mr Bayly.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

I’d give other examples, but there’s an 8000 character limit. Please address each of the separate areas, giving hard evidence that contradicts the data. Then we can move on to the next lot.

 

[SteveGC]

I’d give other examples, but there’s an 8000 character limit. Please address each of the separate areas, giving hard evidence that contradicts the data. Then we can move on to the next lot.

You want “hard evidence that contradicts the data”, and yet the data you yourself provide is non-existent, supportive of nothing of your original claim. Here, I’ll remind you of your claim: *" The Catholic diocese in the USA have universally fought tooth and nail against…any civil rights whatsoever for gays.

They have stated that they wish to continue to persecute them, to continue to deny them employment, rental accommodation, being able to travel by bus, train, aircraft or taxi, to make use of public baths or other facilities, to deny them access to cinemas and even hospitals. That the right to mercilessly persecute sinners, to starve them and deny them shelter and medical care is part of the bedrock of Christianity. Lest they be seen to condone the sin."*

You did not address those issues at all. I’ll assume you really only wanted to talk about the anti-bullying issue, atleast for now? And even with that, your “source” is Christian Today, a non-Catholic editorial which does not speak for the Catholic Church, does not quote directly from the Vatican, does not demonstrate in any way that these alleged pro-bullying activities are condoned, supported, or otherwise taught in any fashion by the Church proper.

So, let’s start again, shall we?

North Carolina’s two Roman Catholic bishops denounced the bill as a prelude to legalizing same-sex marriage.

Please provide for me the details surrounding these two bishops, the exact context of their involvement with this bullying issue, their exact words used to demonstrate their support for bullying of homosexuals, and proof that their alleged pro-bullying actions is representative of the Catholic Church’s doctrines and teachings. If you’re sticking with Christian Today’s one-liner about these men, then I’m afraid you bring nothing credible to the table worth anyone’s time. It is mere speculation devoid of facts.

Catholic schools in Britain are under attack by the government at the urging of homosexual lobbyists for refusing to bow to pressure to implement “anti-homophobic” bullying policies in schools. A report by a Commons Select Committee to the Department for Education and Skills singles out Catholic schools for refusing to implement regulations.

Please provide the details of these “anti-homophobic bullying policies”, providing the exact language of the policies, their scope and depth. We need to first be sure what precisely these schools (how many, we don’t know because you conveniently don’t reveal that) are refusing to do. Please include with those policy details, documentation which reveals these schools’ exact position on the issue, including quotations from those documents which reveal what they specifically object to, and why.

The British government is explicitly collaborating with the homosexual movement in aiming at the Catholic Church’s stand against sexual immorality.

I have no problem with this. It is the Church’s duty to stand against sexual immorality. The problem I have is in your accusation that they support pro-bullying of homosexuals as part of this stand against immorality. I also have a problem with your lack of proof that even if a Catholic group condones bullying, that their position is fully known by, and subsequently fully supported by, the Catholic Church in any way, shape or form.

unfortunately, some conservative members of the Catholic community responded to efforts to minister to LGBT students

which “conservative members”? More importantly, proof that these members are representative of the Church’s official position on the treatment of homosexuals?

In conclusion, you fail to provide any proof that the Catholic Church condones mistreatment of homosexuals. You so far fail to address the other issues of your original claim. When you can show me that the Church condones this type of behavior with “hard evidence”, then I will attempt to engage in a debate with you to address that evidence.

The burden of proof is not on me…these were your allegations…thus far unsupported and improperly sourced.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Please provide for me the details surrounding these two bishops, the exact context of their involvement with this bullying issue, their exact words used to demonstrate their support for bullying of homosexuals, and proof that their alleged pro-bullying actions is representative of the Catholic Church’s doctrines and teachings. .

Anything else? What they had for breakfast on September 17th 1976?

You demand a legal standard of proof, without granting me the investigative powers of a detective.

Do you deny that the two bishops spoke as the newspaper reported they did? I established a prima face case that needs answering. I cannot interview every one of the world’s Catholics, and you can just keep on moving the goalposts until that’s what’s required.

For example, you say that the church states that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. Prove it to me - I want original documentation, and a complete account of the circumstances under which it was written, names and qualifications of all those who had a hand in it, date of publication etc. Prove it.

You’re not interested in addressing the issue.

 

[wanner47]

For example, you say that the church states that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. Prove it to me - I want original documentation,

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Source: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.shtml

and a complete account of the circumstances under which it was written, names and qualifications of all those who had a hand in it, date of publication etc.

usccb.org/catechism/general/q&a.shtml

usccb.org/catechism/text/copyright.shtml

 

[SteveGC]

Anything else? What they had for breakfast on September 17th 1976?

nope…just those things I asked for. Just those things which directly demonstrate the Church is guilty of the behavior you allege. Unless of course, you start claiming they ate ‘bully-o’s’ with milk on that date…?
Zoe Brain:

You demand a legal standard of proof, without granting me the investigative powers of a detective.

because you’ve clearly elevated yourself to the level of judge, jury and executioner. Of course we need credilble proof, Zoe. You believe everything you read from Christian Today? And even if the articles you cited reveal facts about these “Catholic groups”, you still are failing to produce evidence that the Church supports their behavior
Zoe Brain:

Do you deny that the two bishops spoke as the newspaper reported they did? I established a prima face case that needs answering. I cannot interview every one of the world’s Catholics, and you can just keep on moving the goalposts until that’s what’s required.

no, I don’t deny it…nor do I concede that they did it. As I said, I’m waiting for incriminating evidence. No one’s asking you to interview the world’s Catholics. I’m not even asking you to interview these two Catholics. Just ask Christian Today to reveal more information about the details. Do you always go around citing their articles alone as your proof of all the world’s issues? Or do you actually do any leg work of your own before you start casting stones?
Zoe Brain:

For example, you say that the church states that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. Prove it to me - I want original documentation, and a complete account of the circumstances under which it was written, names and qualifications of all those who had a hand in it, date of publication etc. Prove it.

I refer you to JoAnna above
Zoe Brain:

You’re not interested in addressing the issue.

oh but I am. I’m merely waiting for the issue to reveal itself. I’m very patient. And I will never ignore credible evidence to your allegations. In fact, I’ll even do some of the leg work on my own for you. I’m still researching to find where the Catholic Church supports or teaches this kind of behavior. You’ll be the first to know when I find it. And I assume you’ll reciprocate that favor?