The bottom line on Catholics and gay intolerance

[KathleenMary]

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

Harm to whom? Certainly homosexuality (aka: “being a homosexual”) poses a difficulty for that individual to abstain from sinful behaviors. This, as I explained before is a private issue between that individual and God.

Harm to others is caused when sinful acts are promoted in society as legal and therefore “good”.

 

[KathleenMary]

…But legalizing gay marriage isn’t forcing anyone to do anything…

• It is forcing a redefinition of “marriage” from it’s traditional meaning to a substantively altered one. This is forced on everyone who uses the word “marriage”.
• It is forcing others to publicly regard it as acceptable. This involves changes for the way society conducts itself.
• It is forcing young children in public schools to be taught that acting upon ones homosexual inclinations is not only morally acceptable but regarded in an elevated way by society, by virtue of special marriage laws created for these unions.
• It is forcing either motherlessness or fatherlessness upon more and more adopted young children as “gay married” couples use their new legal status to demand their “right” to raise children.

It would seem to be clear that many things are, and will continue to be, forced on societies members by the legalization of “gay marriage”.

Each of the points I made is an issue that could be discussed for days, but even the staunchest proponent of “gay marriage” would concede that it does and will continue to “force” changes in behavior and lifestyle for the general public.

If even one of the bulleted statements I made are true, your statement, “But legalizing gay marriage isn’t forcing anyone to do anything”, would have to be false.

 

[KathleenMary]

I think you missed my meaning. If Catholics are supposed to oppose same-sex marriage because of the “sin” of homosexuality,

Catholics oppose it because:

1. “Same-sex marriage” is a misnomer.
2. Giving validity to the forced alteration of the meaning of “marriage” would be harmful to those who don’t know better.

doesn’t consistency demand that they also oppose religious freedom for other religions because of the “sin” of “heresy”?

To address the second part of your question, if someone were teaching heretical views to my children in school, I would oppose that too.

We are not required to oppose beliefs, but we are required to oppose harmful actions. Hope that made it more clear.

 

[gearhead]

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

“Gay” is a descriptor that can apply to a number of things. A person who is attracted to the same sex but not the opposite sex is gay even if he doesn’t act on this.

Regardless, it’s not harmful either way. Homosexual attraction is not harmful, and neither are homosexual acts.

1. 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.

But sometimes they are sinful. If they aren’t, then what did the SSPX bunch get excommunicated for?

Harm to whom? Certainly homosexuality (aka: “being a homosexual”) poses a difficulty for that individual to abstain from sinful behaviors. This, as I explained before is a private issue between that individual and God.

Harm to others is caused when sinful acts are promoted in society as legal and therefore “good”.

I was talking about harm to anyone.

Our enshrined religious freedoms made it legal (and therefore “good” by your argument) for the various groups of schismatic Catholic offshoot groups to continue to exist and worship. They make it legal (and therefore “good”, apparently) for the Protestants who are so inclined to call the Pope the antichrist. They make it legal (and therefore “good”) for other denominations to specifically target Catholics for conversion away from the Catholic Church.

Do you see these acts as sinful? Do you see them as harmful? They’re legal.

Catholics oppose it because:

1. “Same-sex marriage” is a misnomer.
2. Giving validity to the forced alteration of the meaning of “marriage” would be harmful to those who don’t know better.

1. Is it more of a misnomer than calling a Protestant denomination “the church”?
2. How is it harmful?

To address the second part of your question, if someone were teaching heretical views to my children in school, I would oppose that too.

We are not required to oppose beliefs, but we are required to oppose harmful actions. Hope that made it more clear.

Not in your school… assuming it’s a public school, that would be a violation of the separation of church and state. But how would you feel if someone handed your child a Chick Tract about the “evils” of Catholicism on the transit bus or subway?

 

[JKing]

My apologies if this post is redundant. I read as far as this post and couldn’t hold my tongue any longer.

I think they should be treated equally.

If Catholics don’t vocally discriminate against those who have had sex outside marriage, nor utterly reject and anathematise those who have re-married after divorce, yet have a quite different standard for homosexuals, then I can’t help but come to the conclusion that the visceral loathing and homophobia comes first, while religion is merely used as an excuse.

The confessional door opens to all–on one condition: repentance. It’s called “firm purpose of amendment”. That means when we confess our sins to the priest (standing in for Christ) we are promising that we will never commit that sin again. We might fail in the heat of temptation, but at the time of our confession we are sincerely making the promise. And if we do fail, we hurry back to the confessional and renew our promise and accept the Grace offered to help us fight the temptation better next time. We are all sinners. We all have our struggles.

So, those who have sex outside marriage must promise never to do it again and they can be forgiven and reconciled with the Church.

Even the divorced/remarried can be reconciled, if they separate from the second “spouse” or if their true spouse dies, because we can only have one spouse. Some remarry after it has been proven that the first attempt at marriage was not valid (annulment), in which case they were never married so the second attempt is possible. Any overlap or extramarital relations in the interim are sinful and must be confessed. As with any sin, if the sinner has a firm purpose of ammendment they can be reconciled. That means that if they are unlawfully living with or having relations with someone who is not their lawful spouse they must move out or live as brother and sister until their union can be convalidated. (Many refuse to submit to these demands, insisting that the Church affirm their choices, and therefore cannot be reconciled. Protestant churches are full of divorced/remarried ex-Catholics because they fail to uphold the standards set by Christ.)

Now, as for homosexuals, if they promise to stop the sinful behavior, they can be forgiven and reconciled. The problem is that when a person says they are “gay” that usually means they embrace the lifestyle and see nothing wrong with engaging in homosexual acts. As with any other sinner, the church is not here to affirm their sinful behavior, but to minister Christ’s forgiveness and welcome them back into full communion. This is not possible without repentence.

So it is not a different standard. It is a very high standard (be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect) but not any different no matter what your sin is. Thieves have to stop stealing. Drunks have to stop drinking to excess. Adulterers/fornicators have to stop having sex outside marriage. And active homosexuals have to embrace life-long chastity just like anyone else who remains unmarried. Will they fail? Sure, possibly. But they can rush back to the sacrament, confess and renew their promise to never do it again, and with the help of God’s Grace, they’ll do better. It’s a cross. It’s a life-long struggle. It’s not fair. God has chosen them to live heroically and He will provide the Grace necessary–if they ask. The same is true for any vocation.

In Christ,
Just another sinner.

 

[gearhead]

So it is not a different standard. It is a very high standard (be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect) but not any different no matter what your sin is. Thieves have to stop stealing. Drunks have to stop drinking to excess. Adulterers/fornicators have to stop having sex outside marriage. And active homosexuals have to embrace life-long chastity just like anyone else who remains unmarried. Will they fail? Sure, possibly. But they can rush back to the sacrament, confess and renew their promise to never do it again, and with the help of God’s Grace, they’ll do better. It’s a cross. It’s a life-long struggle. It’s not fair. God has chosen them to live heroically and He will provide the Grace necessary–if they ask. The same is true for any vocation.

It is a different standard. We’re talking about secular law here. Under secular law:

• divorce is legal.
• remarriage after divorce is legal.
• adultery is legal.
• “fornication” is legal.
• sacrilege is legal.

It’s perfectly legal to picket on the sidewalk in front of a Catholic Church chanting “the Pope is the antichrist!”

It’s perfectly legal for anyone off the street to dress up as a bishop and go around ordaining men as priests. Heck - it’d be perfectly legal for them to ordain house pets.

In most places, it would be perfectly legal for someone to receive a Eucharistic host, take it to the washroom, urinate on it, drop it into the toilet and flush it down the drain.

And on, and on, and on.

I have never once heard of the Church speak out against the freedom of religion or the freedom of speech that allows people to behave in this manner; in fact, on several occasions, I’ve heard Church representatives voice their support for these freedoms.

There is a different standard.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

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?

In answer to your question I can only state that which I learned through research.

An intersex child at birth is usually given the identity of one of the two binaries. They are not listed as an ‘it’ even if the sex is ambiguous. With a sex designation on their birth certificate and the same on their baptismal certificate it would seem not to be a contradiction to marry someone of the opposite sex by the Catholic Church.

The difficulty comes up when doctors convince the parents to ‘correct’ the sex of the intersex infant and usually do so by the simplest means which is to construct a vagina (although some have vaginal vaults already) and continue from there. It is harder to construct a male organ unless there is a clitoris which may be ‘over-extended’.

The real problem it seems is that many such as Caster have outward bodies that appear to be more of one sex than the other without clear genital definition. In her case the genitalia may appear female but in the abdomen are two testes and that creates testosterone which of course are male organs. Scrotal tissue might well have been taken as vulva tissue at birth as well.

But then there are over a hundred different variations of intersexuality so unless the infant is fully evaluated not only physically but also chromosomally and perhaps best by DNA tests it would be impossible to determine the sex and even then not so clear cut.

Gender is something else and often leads to a creation of confusion in dealing with specific issues of sex and/or sexuality. There are intersex who are married in the Catholic Church but their documentation was in league with their identity. I am not sure how the church would react if it were found post marriage the partner was not aware of the intersex condition pre-marriage of their spouse or how the church might later respond to the issue of a requested annulment. That seems to be a conundrum does it not?

I am one who feels that if one is Intersex and has had corrective surgery which is in conjunction with their mental sex and wishes to marry an opposite sex person then why not?

But if an intersex person physically and legally identifies as male and would want to marry a male then that would be unacceptable for the Catholic Church as it would be same sex would it not?

I see the main problem as being the difference between sex and gender. Sex is physical and gender is mental and the terms that apply to intersex and transsex are just that but issues of gender would seem best described in concord with those ill defined terms in a more selective and concise manner than simply an umbrella concept fostering confusion.

I too have been accused of being at times a bit ‘butch’ in my actions but my husband seemed not to mind one bit. Some men might be threatened by that I suppose. I prefer the feminine side of my nature and that is how I express myself but I can still do some things better than many man. Pitched softball in college and think I can still throw faster than most men.

Never give explanations for your abilities. They have nothing to do with sex or gender. It is just you. A nun in grammar school once told me to be proud of my abilities and I hope you will accept my same advice to you. OK?

 

[JKing]

There’s no Pandora’s Box because societal norms will never accept polygamy, incest, etc. They were disapproved of 30 years ago, they are disapproved of now, and they will still be disapproved of 30 years from now. Any polygamy group trying to use gay marriage as a springboard will likely be opposed by 99.99% of the polulation.

All they need is 5 black robes to approve and the 99.99% have nothing to say.

 

[JKing]

It is a different standard. We’re talking about secular law here. Under secular law:

OK. I wasn’t talking about law. I was talking about sin. Practically everything you cited would be sin. And all of it would be totally and completely forgiven if the offender was repentant.

 

[gearhead]

OK. I wasn’t talking about law. I was talking about sin. Practically everything you cited would be sin.

I know. That was my point. Every one of those things is legal, but the Church doesn’t campaign for the prohibition of any of it. In some cases, it actually campaigns in favour of the laws that allow these things to happen.

 

[KathleenMary]

But how would you feel if someone handed your child a Chick Tract about the “evils” of Catholicism on the transit bus or subway?

Is this someone doing this under the direction of local, state or the federal government? If so, I would complain, that’s pretty much a given. Perhaps you should just explain where you are going with this line of questioning. I don’t see how these hypotheticals connect to the topic.

 

[KathleenMary]

I know. That was my point. Every one of those things is legal, but the Church doesn’t campaign for the prohibition of any of it. In some cases, it actually campaigns in favour of the laws that allow these things to happen.

The church teaches, or “campaigns” to use your words, against all sin. Are you complaining that they don’t give each and every sin equal time?

The church can’t “prohibit” sin. We don’t have sin police. What others do in the privacy of their homes that harms noone but themselves is, as I explained before, between them and their God. The redefining of the traditional meaning of “marriage” and the official government sanctioning of this newly official type of union makes it a public issue, not a private one.

 

[KathleenMary]

Our enshrined religious freedoms made it legal (and therefore “good” by your argument) for the various groups of schismatic Catholic offshoot groups to continue to exist and worship. They make it legal (and therefore “good”, apparently) for the Protestants who are so inclined to call the Pope the antichrist. They make it legal (and therefore “good”) for other denominations to specifically target Catholics for conversion away from the Catholic Church.

Do you see these acts as sinful? Do you see them as harmful? They’re legal.

What is “good” is freedom of religion and freedom of speech. All speech and all religions are not necessarily, in and of themselves, “good”. Not everything translates so perfectly.

Also, all sin does not have to be legislated away. As explained, some sin harms noone but the sinner. It would seem that you are suggesting that, as long as there is no specific “law” against something it must be good. That wasn’t my point. Is it yours?

 

[KathleenMary]

“2. Giving validity to the forced alteration of the meaning of “marriage” would be harmful to those who don’t know better.”

1. Is it more of a misnomer than calling a Protestant denomination “the church”?
2. How is it harmful?

Does it matter which is more of a misnomer? They don’t teach that Protestant denominations are “the church” in my childrens’ public schools, but they do and will teach that having 2 mommys or 2 daddys, and the circumstances that resulted in that, are morally acceptable.

Teaching children that immoral things are moral or good is harmful.

Regarding #1 (above). You have referred to the topic of schisms a few times. If that is of particular interest to you, I am sure there are several thread which address that topic.

Perhaps you can explain how it relates, if it does, to the topic at hand: “The bottom line on Catholics and gay intolerance”

 

[gearhead]

Does it matter which is more of a misnomer? They don’t teach that Protestant denominations are “the church” in my childrens’ public schools, but they do and will teach that having 2 mommys or 2 daddys, and the circumstances that resulted in that, are morally acceptable.

Do they? Or do they simply teach your children the fact that some kids have 2 mommies or 2 daddies?

Teaching children that immoral things are moral or good is harmful.

And teaching children that things that you may personally find immoral do exist is not necessarily harmful at all.

Regarding #1 (above). You have referred to the topic of schisms a few times. If that is of particular interest to you, I am sure there are several thread which address that topic.

Perhaps you can explain how it relates, if it does, to the topic at hand: “The bottom line on Catholics and gay intolerance”

It just seems to me that judging by its actions, the Catholic Church is more tolerant of matters that it considers to be vital and fundamental to the core of the faith than it is about issues surrounding homosexuality today.

 

[KathleenMary]

Do they? Or do they simply teach your children the fact that some kids have 2 mommies or 2 daddies?

Nothing is ever that simple.

And teaching children that things that you may personally find immoral do exist is not necessarily harmful at all.

It depends on the context.

It just seems to me that judging by its actions, the Catholic Church is more tolerant of matters that it considers to be vital and fundamental to the core of the faith than it is about issues surrounding homosexuality today.

I agree, it does seem like that to you. Have you decided that issues regarding sexuality are not vital or fundamental to the core of the faith?

 

[gearhead]

I agree, it does seem like that to you. Have you decided that issues regarding sexuality are not vital or fundamental to the core of the faith?

I think that the question of what the Church is and what it should be comes before the question of who should get married in it.

 

[SteveGC]

It is not a different standard.

The Church proper does not “vocally discriminate” anyone, regardless of the sin. Not homosexuals, not fornicators, not adulterers, not anti-Catholics, etc. What She does is define sinful behavior, and teach how to maintain proper relationship with God in light of those temptations to act in sin.

Catholics make a public statement about issues such as gay marriage or abortion because they are distinct, tangible issues in the law. I think we have to look at how the founding fathers originally created the laws. Laws were originally made with a more faith-based frame of mind, and chosen based on the practicality of their identification, fair and equitable jurisprudence, and the capacity to enforce them. At the same time, the fathers wanted to ensure that some things were not created on the national level, like a state religion, or state run media, etc. They also did not want to impede on people’s freedoms to choose actions which could not be clearly defined in terms of their morality.

So from all that, we can itemize and analyze individual actions and the legislation (or lack thereof) behind them:

-Murder for example, is clearly immoral…hence illegal.
-Divorce is not so clearly immoral (as it depends on extenuating circumstances beyond the scope of state law)…hence, legal
-Adultery is clearly immoral, but impractical to enforce and to fairly incriminate…hence not illegal.
-Fornication…same as adultery, when it’s done privately. But I do believe that we will see a Catholic voice grow in the area of pornography. It has already begun. As a public display of clear immorality, it is becoming more evident that new laws should be written that render pornography illicit. If porn were prevalent in the late 18th century, I’m certain laws would’ve been written against it. The same goes with many immoral behaviors that simply were not prevalent at that time, but are everywhere today.
-Someone’s capacity to worship as they please is not objectively nor intrinsically immoral, and allowing that worship to include public, peaceful displays of anti-Catholic rhetoric (for example) is necessary to ensure the state does not dictate a person’s freedom to reject God. The law allows for people to worship outside of Christianity because a state religion was to be avoided…because no one’s relationship with the Creator should be forced…they should be free to seek Him as they are moved to…even if that seeking is done ultimately outside of the Christian path…hence, people can freely worship as they please.

-That brings us to gay marriage…immoral because it directly infers the acceptance of same-sex sexual activity…which is clearly immoral. And it distorts the divine element of marriage itself…also an immoral act.

Not a different standard applied to homosexuals…not a different standard applied to the gay-marriage legalization appeal.

The standard is the same…is it immoral?..if so, is it identifiable / able to be fairly incriminated? does it impact societal behavior?..is it practical to enforce? These are the same types of qualifiers aggregately used for all lawmaking (atleast originally). The answers to gay marriage happen to be yes on all counts. These same questions are answered yes on all counts for abortion as well…and Catholics are quite vocal there. Not that gay marriage and abortion are equally immoral…but the standard for judging the legalization is the same.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

It is not a different standard.

The Church proper does not “vocally discriminate” anyone, regardless of the sin. Not homosexuals, not fornicators, not adulterers, not anti-Catholics, etc. What She does is define sinful behavior, and teach how to maintain proper relationship with God in light of those temptations to act in sin.

Catholics make a public statement about issues such as gay marriage or abortion because they are distinct, tangible issues in the law. I think we have to look at how the founding fathers originally created the laws. Laws were originally made with a more faith-based frame of mind, and chosen based on the practicality of their identification, fair and equitable jurisprudence, and the capacity to enforce them. At the same time, the fathers wanted to ensure that some things were not created on the national level, like a state religion, or state run media, etc. They also did not want to impede on people’s freedoms to choose actions which could not be clearly defined in terms of their morality.

So from all that, we can itemize and analyze individual actions and the legislation (or lack thereof) behind them:

-Murder for example, is clearly immoral…hence illegal.
-Divorce is not so clearly immoral (as it depends on extenuating circumstances beyond the scope of state law)…hence, legal
-Adultery is clearly immoral, but impractical to enforce and to fairly incriminate…hence not illegal.
-Fornication…same as adultery, when it’s done privately. But I do believe that we will see a Catholic voice grow in the area of pornography. It has already begun. As a public display of clear immorality, it is becoming more evident that new laws should be written that render pornography illicit. If porn were prevalent in the late 18th century, I’m certain laws would’ve been written against it. The same goes with many immoral behaviors that simply were not prevalent at that time, but are everywhere today.
-Someone’s capacity to worship as they please is not objectively nor intrinsically immoral, and allowing that worship to include public, peaceful displays of anti-Catholic rhetoric (for example) is necessary to ensure the state does not dictate a person’s freedom to reject God. The law allows for people to worship outside of Christianity because a state religion was to be avoided…because no one’s relationship with the Creator should be forced…they should be free to seek Him as they are moved to…even if that seeking is done ultimately outside of the Christian path…hence, people can freely worship as they please.

-That brings us to gay marriage…immoral because it directly infers the acceptance of same-sex sexual activity…which is clearly immoral. And it distorts the divine element of marriage itself…also an immoral act.

Not a different standard applied to homosexuals…not a different standard applied to the gay-marriage legalization appeal.

The standard is the same…is it immoral?..if so, is it identifiable / able to be fairly incriminated? does it impact societal behavior?..is it practical to enforce? These are the same types of qualifiers aggregately used for all lawmaking (atleast originally). The answers to gay marriage happen to be yes on all counts. These same questions are answered yes on all counts for abortion as well…and Catholics are quite vocal there. Not that gay marriage and abortion are equally immoral…but the standard for judging the legalization is the same.

Yes Steve, you made our argument clear and concise from our Catholic perspective.

 

[Dale_M]

I think we have to look at how the founding fathers originally created the laws. Laws were originally made with a more faith-based frame of mind, and chosen based on the practicality of their identification, fair and equitable jurisprudence, and the capacity to enforce them.

Hold on a moment. When you use the phrase “founding fathers”. I think most US citizens assume you mean to creators of our nation. Is that what you are referring to? If so, I am not at all convinced that they were operating out of a religious framework.

-Murder for example, is clearly immoral…hence illegal.
-Divorce is not so clearly immoral (as it depends on extenuating circumstances beyond the scope of state law)…hence, legal
-Adultery is clearly immoral, but impractical to enforce and to fairly incriminate…hence not illegal.

Wait a minute, are you saying that laws shouldn’t exist unless they can be uniformly enforced? Its a highly controversial position.

The law allows for people to worship outside of Christianity because a state religion was to be avoided…because no one’s relationship with the Creator should be forced…they should be free to seek Him as they are moved to…even if that seeking is done ultimately outside of the Christian path…hence, people can freely worship as they please.

Okay, so that should allow for gay marriage, since it is seen as a religious practice.

That brings us to gay marriage…immoral because it directly infers the acceptance of same-sex sexual activity…which is clearly immoral. And it distorts the divine element of marriage itself…also an immoral act.

Wait a minute… now you are imposing your religious views on everyone else. This seems contrary to the freedom on which the US was founded.