The bottom line on Catholics and gay intolerance

[rpp]

Well, you do realize that the Church rejects their relationships and families categorically, right? It’s hard to blame them, isn’t it? If you had your way, wouldn’t you want them all to reject their husbands and wives or boyfriends or girlfriends and shared parenthood in favor of total celibacy?

I mean, what has the Church done in the cause of homosexual rights or tolerance recently?

The Church offers forgiveness and healing to those who suffer the mental defect of homosexuality, just as the Church offers love and forgiveness to other who commit sins. However, just like all other sinners, those who persist in their sin cannot receive forgiveness from God. The Lord, via His Church, calls all people holiness. Those who persist in acting upon their mental disorder and insist on engaging in clearly unnatural and gravely sinful acts are obviously not able to live up to this. While the Church does not tolerate sin of any kind, it is active homosexuals who are intolerant when they insist that the God, as represented by His Church, should make a special exception just for them.

But then, I would expect little else from those suffering from serious mental disorders.

With that said, I grow weary of this topic. Anti-Catholic, such as yourself, will not be satiudfied until that last priest has been executed and Church is utterly destroyed. You are so caught yp in your sin that your conscience has been destroyed. You have my sincere pity, but will not garner any more of my attention.

 

[Dale_M]

You are asking for equality as if same sex marriage is a civil right when in fact it would become a license to ACT on one’s homosexuality with the condolence of the government and required to be accepted by the church.

Hm?

Why do you say that the Church would be required to accept homosexual marriage? I think civil marriage and religious marriage are independent of each other - at least that is the way in the US. One can get a civil marriage or a religious marriage and yet not seek the other.

 

[Mike5575]

The question I have about gay marriage is if you’re a catholic. Should Catholics have to vote against gay marriage to be against it? Shouldn’t we let gay people make the right the right choice on their own? After all, god gave us free will for a reason.

 

[KathleenMary]

…

In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI speaks of several aspects that bear on the particular truth in question, such as Gods will, unselfish love, natural law, and revelation. Selfless love seems to be one theme, and a sharp contrast can be seen in any comparison of that, framed in the setting of a man-woman marriage and family rearing, and any other kind of love that doesn’t serve God’s divine will and is based on something less than selflessness. PP6 even mentions the consequences of ignoring the truth, which in the 41 years since it has been around have come true just as he reasoned they would. ** It is difficult, then, to make the case that the Church isn’t teaching “the right stuff.” They are, it’s just that when the teaching is not accepted and the predicted perils of ignoring them come true, it does not follow that we need a “new truth,” only that we give pause to ignoring the existing one. All of society is effected by these choices, families, friends, Churches… it touches everything**…

… The truth is given by God and leads to God. So does the Church, which is Truth.

DOShea,
Allow me to compliment you. I enjoyed reading several of your posts. I have read through much of this thread and, in particular, was struck with how this one section of yours sums up much of the theme of this discussion. Well done.

Peace =D

 

[Diane_Lynn]

The question I have about gay marriage is if you’re a catholic. Should Catholics have to vote against gay marriage to be against it? Shouldn’t we let gay people make the right the right choice on their own? After all, god gave us free will for a reason.

. I totally agree with you. God gave us free will and also warned us that to do contrary to that which He made clear is right we would have to answer.
I know that to steal is wrong but should I use my free will to make the decision that it is my right to steal then I must also accept the consequences as they might apply. YES???
No, as a Catholic I follow the teachings of the church in my opposition to gay marriage which, it being the intent and not the fulfillment of the marriage to begin with, is geared toward the expression of a same sex ACT.

 

[Dale_M]

gay marriage which, it being the intent and not the fulfillment of the marriage to begin with, is geared toward the expression of a same sex ACT.

Erm… probably not. Granted, I don’t have any statistics, but I think most gays and lesbians have sex before getting married.

The actual purpose of gay marriage is the fulfillment of same sex LOVE.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

But then, I would expect little else from those suffering from serious mental disorders…

Um… so, what makes you say that gays have serious mental disorders?

I’ll repeat something I said in a previous post. Something that we have ample evidence of:

OK, object to homosexuality as sinful. I don’t believe it is, but every catholic should.

Where the Church goes off the rails though, is where the logic is followed to the point of absurdity, and cruelty too.

1. Homosexuality is a sin
2. Therefore we can’t be seen to support it.
3. Therefore we will oppose legislation against bullying of children of gay parents.

It seems to me that the Church is far too concerned about appearances, and far too little concerned about practice. It rather resembles elements of the Left in that regard, but that’s just my opinion.

I’m reminded of Luke 10:25-37.

Anti-Catholic, such as yourself, will not be satiudfied until that last priest has been executed and Church is utterly destroyed.

While such people have existed (I’m thinking of the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War for example) - and the French Revolutionary Denis Diderot did say “Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” - I think you’re being both uncharitable and perhaps a little bit paranoid here. I mean that in the clinical sense.

Yes, there would be some people who think that way. Just as there are some who would see both myself and my 8 years old son exterminated, as we’re both Intersexed.

But the last data I have available to hand stated that over the course of a year in the USA, not one single Catholic was murdered for being catholic, but 9 gays were murdered for being gay, and 26 trans/intersexed people for being trans/intersexed. That doesn’t include the deaths in operating theatres of intersexed children being given surgical intervention they didn’t consent to in order to make them appear normal.

If the “anti-catholics” are hell-bent on murder of the priesthood, they don’t seem to be very competent at it. Given these objective facts, accusations that gays are mentally ill and out to get you don’t appear terribly rational.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Interesting that being gay is a serious mental disorder to some. If so, why are most of them in most aspects of life doing just fine? By the same standards one would use to call being gay a mental disorder, to be fair would have to consider those with no sexual attraction (aesexuaal) just as disordered. And I see no movement to do that. Gays are treated a lot owrse then those just shacking up. We have double standards galore here.

 

[mandateman]

For a person to be gay is not a sin. For a person to take part in homosexual activity is a serious moral error.

In fact if two persons of the same sex even demonstrate homosexual behaviours supporting homosexual activity, eg two men or women slow dancing in embrace normally reserved for dating men and women it is already a serious moral error. If a man or woman publically demonstrate behaviors normally consistent with the opposite sex, eg a man too effeminate or a woman to mansculine it is already a serious moral error.

There is such a thing as Public Scandal which is behavior that leads people to believe that even more is going on in private. Though Public Scandal may be misunderstood by persons using Rash Judgement.

 

[KathleenMary]

The question I have about gay marriage is if you’re a catholic. Should Catholics have to vote against gay marriage to be against it? Shouldn’t we let gay people make the right the right choice on their own? After all, god gave us free will for a reason.

Catholics don’t “vote” on what is moral or immoral. I think what you’re asking, correct me if I’m wrong, is, should they be involved in publicly coming out against “gay marriage”.

When sin is solely a private issue, it is of course between the sinner and God alone. When sin is held up in public as legally (and implied to be morally) correct, then Catholics do have to be concerned about harm done to our impressionable youth. So, in that sense, it is a Catholic’s moral duty to speak out against it.

Matthew 18:6
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

 

[gearhead]

When sin is solely a private issue, it is of course between the sinner and God alone. When sin is held up in public as legally (and implied to be morally) correct, then Catholics do have to be concerned about harm done to our impressionable youth. So, in that sense, it is a Catholic’s moral duty to speak out against it.

Does this mean that it’s also a Catholic’s moral duty to speak out against other “sins”? Heresy and schism, for instance? Should a good Catholic also speak out against freedom of religion for non-Catholic denominations and non-Christian religions?

 

[sharrisec]

Does this mean that it’s also a Catholic’s moral duty to speak out against other “sins”? Heresy and schism, for instance? Should a good Catholic also speak out against freedom of religion for non-Catholic denominations and non-Christian religions?

Kathleen was very clear when she said private vs. public sins. The Gay lifestyle is a mortal sin according to the Church. When it is made a public issue and presented to us that it’s a valid choice for all individuals, including our children, this is where we do have a duty to speak out. When the Gay lifestyle was less public in the past (>10 years ago), I’m sure most will admit ther was less noise from Catholics, due to the fact that there was no scandal and less influence on our children. Your statement regarding freedom of religion for non Catolics is off-topic, however if you read the Cathechism of the Cathoic Church, you’ll see the Church’s positon on this as well.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

Does this mean that it’s also a Catholic’s moral duty to speak out against other “sins”? Heresy and schism, for instance? Should a good Catholic also speak out against freedom of religion for non-Catholic denominations and non-Christian religions?

We Catholics have many moral duties and we do address them as they arise either publicly or as they confront us personally. But this issue is not of the other sins but simply the one of the ACT of homosexuality and not the inkling or thought of it to the person. It is not a sin unless ACTED upon and that goes for most mortal sins.

 

[KathleenMary]

Does this mean that it’s also a Catholic’s moral duty to speak out against other “sins”? Heresy and schism, for instance? Should a good Catholic also speak out against freedom of religion for non-Catholic denominations and non-Christian religions?

When there is potential harm to another human being, wouldn’t you say it is the moral duty of any other “good human being” who can prevent that harm to do so?

As to the second part of your oddly constructed question, is someone forcing you to be Catholic? You appear to be participating in the Catholic forum of your own free will.

 

[almostatheist]

When there is potential harm to another human being, wouldn’t you say it is the moral duty of any other “good human being” who can prevent that harm to do so?

As to the second part of your oddly constructed question, is someone forcing you to be Catholic? You appear to be participating in the Catholic forum of your own free will.

When there is potential harm to another human being, wouldn’t you say it is the moral duty of any other “good human being” who can prevent that harm to do so?

As to the second part of your oddly constructed question, is someone forcing you to be Catholic? You appear to be participating in the Catholic forum of your own free will.

What harm is being committed? If you were forcing me (or anyone else) to be Catholic than that would be a problem. But legalizing gay marriage isn’t forcing anyone to do anything. Separation of Church and state means that a Catholic priest would have the right to not perform a gay wedding should he so chose. No one’s rights, freedoms, or well-being is in jeopardy by legalizing gay marriage.

I suppose it can also be argued that other religious choices pose a much more emediate, physical threat than gay marriage.

 

[athansor]

. If a man or woman publically demonstrate behaviors normally consistent with the opposite sex, eg a man too effeminate or a woman to mansculine it is already a serious moral error.

.

Is Caster Semenya in moral error?

 

[gearhead]

When there is potential harm to another human being, wouldn’t you say it is the moral duty of any other “good human being” who can prevent that harm to do so?

Not necessarily. And I don’t believe that there is “potential harm” associated with homosexuality anyhow.

As to the second part of your oddly constructed question, is someone forcing you to be Catholic? You appear to be participating in the Catholic forum of your own free will.

I think you missed my meaning. If Catholics are supposed to oppose same-sex marriage because of the “sin” of homosexuality, doesn’t consistency demand that they also oppose religious freedom for other religions because of the “sin” of “heresy”?

 

[Diane_Lynn]

Is Caster Semenya in moral error?

No she is not.

This continually seems to come up…the assumption that someone Intersex should be considered as being automatically homosexual and go even further to think that she is guilty of sin or behaving immorally. If that was not the thought then why bring her name into this conversation? Being born with a physical anomaly is not the same as a homosexual sexual orientation.

I know that the pro gay marriage folks will grab at any tool to build their house of selfish acceptances but very unfair to bring to the fore someone who who born different and as it now stands… condemned for it.

 

[sharrisec]

Not necessarily. And I don’t believe that there is “potential harm” associated with homosexuality anyhow.

I think you missed my meaning. If Catholics are supposed to oppose same-sex marriage because of the “sin” of homosexuality, doesn’t consistency demand that they also oppose religious freedom for other religions because of the “sin” of “heresy”?

1. Homosexuality = Same-Sex Attraction and is not a sin in itself. The word ACT is key here. This thread was opened with the word “Gay” which obviously means much more than a simple attraction or inclination. We’ve repeated many times here that homosexuality is not a sin, but an inclination
2. Heresy and schism are not normally sinful. All it means is that there is a group of people not in full communion with the Church. I thik this is a topic fo a separate thread.

 

[athansor]

No she is not.

This continually seems to come up…the assumption that someone Intersex should be considered as being automatically homosexual and go even further to think that she is guilty of sin or behaving immorally. If that was not the thought then why bring her name into this conversation? Being born with a physical anomaly is not the same as a homosexual sexual orientation.

I know that the pro gay marriage folks will grab at any tool to build their house of selfish acceptances but very unfair to bring to the fore someone who who born different and as it now stands… condemned for it.

I bring her up for two reasons. One, as an intersexed person, what are her options for relationships? Does God really create intersexed people, or is she just a women with perhaps not so delicate features? Can she marry a man if she chooses?

The other reason, though, was the implication that it was a sin to act in a way not typical for ones gender. As a heterosexual and happily married woman, I wonder what one means by that. I am sometimes not the most feminine person around. I am in a male-dominated field at work, play in male-dominated sports, love weightlifting, wear comfortable shoes, etc.
I also do some very feminine things, like teaching and performing dance, but I’m basically a tomboy and have been all my life. Is there something morally wrong in that?