L
latin_rite
Guest
Is the Church stand on homosexuality. Based on dogmatic teachings or is it a doctrine?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
It is based on natural law and scripture.
S
surritter
Guest
It’s mainly natural law – male and female go together for a biological purpose, as well as an expression-of-love purpose. To use the biological package in a way that intentionally undermines either of these is contrary to nature.
Homosexuality is wrong because it is an attempt to express love but without the possibility of procreation. (If you’re going to ask about infertile couples, do a search for the numerous threads on this topic! In a nutshell, infertile couples are still designed to go together, whether there is a medical abnormality or simply menopause.)
By the way, in vitro fertilization is also wrong, because it is an attempt to procreate without the direct expression of love. Notice how it’s two sides of the same coin. Unfortunately, our culture is becoming morally bankrupt and can’t even find the “coin” to participate logically in a discussion about this topic…
Homosexuality is wrong because it is an attempt to express love but without the possibility of procreation. (If you’re going to ask about infertile couples, do a search for the numerous threads on this topic! In a nutshell, infertile couples are still designed to go together, whether there is a medical abnormality or simply menopause.)
By the way, in vitro fertilization is also wrong, because it is an attempt to procreate without the direct expression of love. Notice how it’s two sides of the same coin. Unfortunately, our culture is becoming morally bankrupt and can’t even find the “coin” to participate logically in a discussion about this topic…
L
latin_rite
Guest
Yeah. I meant. Is it dogmatic law. or a doctorine teaching
S
surritter
Guest
Sorry – I guess your question was clear. I don’t really know. I don’t think it’s a dogma, because a dogma is something that is formally proclaimed, and I think it pertains to an article of faith. Homosexuality is in the arena of morals. Also, I think a dogma is something that is not knowable by natural reason; it is a revealed item.
So I guess it’s a doctrine. What do the other readers think? Do doctrines have to be formally proclaimed? Or is there a third choice?
So I guess it’s a doctrine. What do the other readers think? Do doctrines have to be formally proclaimed? Or is there a third choice?
C
CradleCath
Guest
In Roman Catholicism, homosexual acts are considered contrary to natural law and sinful, while homosexual desires are considered “disordered” but not themselves sinful.
I would say that this belief is part of Sacred Tradition, since long before St. Thomas Aquinas defined homosexual acts as against Natural Law, scripture told us that it was wrong. I’d compare it to the Ten Commandments, which have never been proclaimed as dogma, but are part of Sacred Tradition.
P
PJM
Guest
Dear friend in Christ,
Does it matter? [Canon 751-754] Both are equally binding on Catholics and non-catholics alike.
Further it is an understood position from before Christ even founded the CC in Jewish Tradition, and has a explicit biblical foundation.
Love and prayers,
Pat
C
CradleCath
Guest
You are right, it really doesn’t matter, but the question triggered my curiousity. I’m glad that you mentioned that the biblical references re. homosexuality are applicable for **all **Christians.
There are so many things that I don’t know how the mainline Protestant denominations “get around” & it boggles my mind. I’m not criticizing them…but, if they are Christians…the basis of our teaching on contraceptives is from the story of Onan.
Christ, Himself…concerning divorce & remarriage said, “What God hath put together, let no man put assunder”. Yet Protestant religions allow so many things that were condemned in Scripture…The claim that their faith is Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation. Now they have Gene Robinson, the first openly homosexual…as an Episcopalian bishop. …how do they justify actions that are condemned in the Bible.
This should be in the Apologetics forum. Sorry about that, I just find this stance confusing.
O
otjm
Guest
It is based on moral law not doctrinal or dogmatic issues.
S
surritter
Guest
Protestants who accept homosexuality get around the biblical prohibitions by claiming that those were simply cultural proscriptions. Hey, women had to cover their heads, and nobody could eat pork, so of course certain things can change over time…then hey why not homosexual relations?
This of course emphasizes the need for a living, breathing interpreter of Scripture. We have that in the Catholic Church. But as mentioned a few times already, one would think that regardless of the Bible, natural law would also serve to alert people of the disorder which Protestants sometimes call “sexual preference.”
This of course emphasizes the need for a living, breathing interpreter of Scripture. We have that in the Catholic Church. But as mentioned a few times already, one would think that regardless of the Bible, natural law would also serve to alert people of the disorder which Protestants sometimes call “sexual preference.”
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Depends on what specific stands you are referring to, regarding homosexuality, whether it’s doctrine or dogma. Can you elaborate?
M
Malleus_01
Guest
Women should cover their heads and do at TLM but I digress.
Homosexuality is a Mortal Sin against Nature. It is one of the Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance. And yes the proponents of the Gay agenda will attempt to convey the falsehood that Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed for sins against “Charity” which of course is nonsence. In addition - Romans Chapter 1 - clearly St Paul specifically speaks about thses Sins and why they occur. In particular - and especially for our day is the passage:
Romans 1:32. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
Notice how it likewise says “They also that consent to them that do them”
The notion that people can be idenitified as " Homosexuals who dont practise homosexuality" today is diametrically opposed to this. No person is idenitified by Sin. The false notion that some People are “Created” that way is likewise presented so as to place the blame on GOD.
But Romans states :
1:21. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22. For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
1:23. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts and of creeping things.
1:24. Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.
1:25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
1:26. For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
God delivered them up… Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.
1:27. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
GOD didnt create them that way - they having known GOD darkened their own hearts.
And finally - All SINS are of Thought Word and Deed - not of Deed only. Therefore to say a person has an “INCLINATION” to Sin in that manner - be careful not to assume that giving in to temptation and enjoying that THOUGHT doesnt mean you have crossed the line into Mortal Sin. If the inclination is merely temptation it must be resisted. There are Sins and even Mortal Sins of Thought as well as of Word or of Deed. Or of Word - as in saying Homosexuals are “created” that way.
No Catholic is a Homosexual Catholic any more than he or she is a Murderer Catholic or a Thief Catholic or any other sin. We are all sinners - but it isnt part of our identity.
Homosexuality is a Mortal Sin against Nature. It is one of the Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance. And yes the proponents of the Gay agenda will attempt to convey the falsehood that Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed for sins against “Charity” which of course is nonsence. In addition - Romans Chapter 1 - clearly St Paul specifically speaks about thses Sins and why they occur. In particular - and especially for our day is the passage:
Romans 1:32. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
Notice how it likewise says “They also that consent to them that do them”
The notion that people can be idenitified as " Homosexuals who dont practise homosexuality" today is diametrically opposed to this. No person is idenitified by Sin. The false notion that some People are “Created” that way is likewise presented so as to place the blame on GOD.
But Romans states :
1:21. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22. For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
1:23. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts and of creeping things.
1:24. Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.
1:25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
1:26. For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
God delivered them up… Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.
1:27. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
GOD didnt create them that way - they having known GOD darkened their own hearts.
And finally - All SINS are of Thought Word and Deed - not of Deed only. Therefore to say a person has an “INCLINATION” to Sin in that manner - be careful not to assume that giving in to temptation and enjoying that THOUGHT doesnt mean you have crossed the line into Mortal Sin. If the inclination is merely temptation it must be resisted. There are Sins and even Mortal Sins of Thought as well as of Word or of Deed. Or of Word - as in saying Homosexuals are “created” that way.
No Catholic is a Homosexual Catholic any more than he or she is a Murderer Catholic or a Thief Catholic or any other sin. We are all sinners - but it isnt part of our identity.
S
surritter
Guest
Mal, our Mother the Church says that women aren’t required to cover their heads, so there’s no need to digress.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
The meaning and implications of the term homosexual orientation are not universally agreed upon. Church teaching acknowledges a distinction between a homosexual “tendency,” which proves to be “transitory,” and “homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct”(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, 1975, no. 8).
L
latin_rite
Guest
Long story short. Talking to an atheist on a web site. And she was going on about how the Church is wrong to not let gays take communion.I told her gays could. Just not gays who are sexually active.
They then posted. Yeah but the pope could change this rule. And he should because it would bring more people to the church. Because society attitudes have changed.
I told her that it doesn;t matter what the society of today feels. Or even if the pope was the most pro gay rights activist to ever set foot on the earth. He still couldn;t change that law. And the only way the church could change its stance, would be if God himself came to earth and told us he has changed his mind. I took the risk of her not knowing better, So i claimed it was a dogmatic teaching. I was either right or she didn;t know that i was wrong:blush:.
J
Jesse_Duran
Guest
Think of it. A male and female are created to multiply. it is not possible for 2 males to do so (or even two females). “A male and a female are meant to be together” for god has created us this way. To break this law made by nature is to not only to oppose god but also to resist nature.
M
Malleus_01
Guest
Mal, our Mother the Church says that women aren’t required to cover their heads, so there’s no need to digress.
Malleus: St Paul said they did have an option. They could opt to be shorn. So unles you see a bunch of baldheaded women they are not serving GOD’s will. And Traditional Catholic women cover their heads. Correct me if I am wrong but isnt this the TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC THREAD? Now protestants - they dont have to cover their heads. Lutherans or Baptists or Mormons. You know - false man made religions. So to each their own. But we as Catholics listen to everything St Paul teaches in Scripture and Holy Mother the Church has Taught for 1900 years prior to the Modernist we all want to be protestanized hoopla. Showm me a Catholic who says women dont have to cover their heads and I will show you someone who recieves “Communion in the Hand” - who holds hands for The Our Father - who offers their neighbor the “Sign of Peace” Who sings amazing grace to a strumming guitar and who dresses down for Mass.
And by the way - I can show you in Scripture where St Paul teaches this so if you disagree with what I wrote - Take it up with St Paul. I happen to believe him even if you dont.
<<<< The meaning and implications of the term homosexual orientation are not universally agreed upon. Church teaching acknowledges a distinction between a homosexual “tendency,” which proves to be “transitory,” and “homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct”(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, 1975, no. 8). >>>>>
Malleus: Homosexuality has been around long before 1975 and I think that the Church has taught quite abit about it in 2000 Years. Now you may accept what the Modern Church Militant teaches - but as a Catholic I am free to accept what the Church has taught for 1942 YEARS as opposed to 35 Years.
For example - St Peter Damien’s Book of Gomorrah . Are you attempting to say that the Work of St Peter Damien is null and void because of a modernist politically correct treatise? I think not. Perhaps you should broaden your horizons and understand that TRUTHS About things like homosexuality have been dealt with in all agees - not merely this age. And to assume that we have to merely view this abhorrrant behavior with modern eyes and with modern societal accepted morals is a bit presumptuous on your part IMO.
Malleus: St Paul said they did have an option. They could opt to be shorn. So unles you see a bunch of baldheaded women they are not serving GOD’s will. And Traditional Catholic women cover their heads. Correct me if I am wrong but isnt this the TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC THREAD? Now protestants - they dont have to cover their heads. Lutherans or Baptists or Mormons. You know - false man made religions. So to each their own. But we as Catholics listen to everything St Paul teaches in Scripture and Holy Mother the Church has Taught for 1900 years prior to the Modernist we all want to be protestanized hoopla. Showm me a Catholic who says women dont have to cover their heads and I will show you someone who recieves “Communion in the Hand” - who holds hands for The Our Father - who offers their neighbor the “Sign of Peace” Who sings amazing grace to a strumming guitar and who dresses down for Mass.
And by the way - I can show you in Scripture where St Paul teaches this so if you disagree with what I wrote - Take it up with St Paul. I happen to believe him even if you dont.
<<<< The meaning and implications of the term homosexual orientation are not universally agreed upon. Church teaching acknowledges a distinction between a homosexual “tendency,” which proves to be “transitory,” and “homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct”(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, 1975, no. 8). >>>>>
Malleus: Homosexuality has been around long before 1975 and I think that the Church has taught quite abit about it in 2000 Years. Now you may accept what the Modern Church Militant teaches - but as a Catholic I am free to accept what the Church has taught for 1942 YEARS as opposed to 35 Years.
For example - St Peter Damien’s Book of Gomorrah . Are you attempting to say that the Work of St Peter Damien is null and void because of a modernist politically correct treatise? I think not. Perhaps you should broaden your horizons and understand that TRUTHS About things like homosexuality have been dealt with in all agees - not merely this age. And to assume that we have to merely view this abhorrrant behavior with modern eyes and with modern societal accepted morals is a bit presumptuous on your part IMO.
M
Michael_Vernon
Guest
Even among those of us who are very fond of Tradition and believe that anything the Church does should be considered very long and very carefully before it is changed can easily see crucial distinctions between holding hands during the Our Father and winking at fornication of any kind. I urge traditionalists not to give real enemies of the Church a straw man to knock down.
M
Malleus_01
Guest
<<<< Even among those of us who are very fond of Tradition and believe that anything the Church does should be considered very long and very carefully before it is changed can easily see crucial distinctions between holding hands during the Our Father and winking at fornication of any kind. I urge traditionalists not to give real enemies of the Church a straw man to knock down. >>>>
Malleus: Well said - but the Truth itself stands on its own merit and the winds may blow and the rains may come and the floods but there it stands - and we all know what happens to the Staw - be it men or houses.
Pax
Malleus: Well said - but the Truth itself stands on its own merit and the winds may blow and the rains may come and the floods but there it stands - and we all know what happens to the Staw - be it men or houses.
Pax
C
Corki
Guest
She is trying to mix apples and oranges. First of all, neither doctrines nor dogmas can be changed. Second, dogmas are matters of faith, not rules for moral behavior. The Pope cannot change either doctine or dogma, only disciplinary rules of the Church.
The reason people living active homosexual lifestyles should not present themselves for Communion has nothing to do with what the Pope says. The reason is that no person, “gay,” or straight can licitly recieve Communion unless they are in a state of grace. Someone who is engaging in homosexual acts is in the same situation as a straight person who engages in some sexual act outside the context of marriage (or even some acts within marriage but that’s another thread
). He/she is not in a state of grace and can’t recieve Communion.- Status