What do you consider the "gay lifestyle" to be?

[MarianD]

No, but the fact that you have greater freedom in how you live your vocation makes you more human than a person who has less freedom, like me. You can choose your vocation and your state of life. I cannot.

I don’t understand why you can’t be a priest, a monk, or a nun (if you’re female).

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York has stated that gays who can live a life of celibacy can be ordained

To quote the article:

Dolan adopted what would come to be seen as the “moderate” reading – that men with same-sex inclinations could be ordained as long as they were capable of celibacy and not part of a “gay subculture.” “It’s not a no-gays policy,” Dolan said on CNN

He was talking about what the Vatican issued in 2005. The Vatican came out with a couple of instructions regarding homosexuals being ordained to the priesthood (link to it: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html). These instructions partially overturned a former document issued in 1961 that said that Bishops should ban all homosexuals from the priesthood (a suggestion that was rarely followed by the Bishops). Here’s a quote from it:

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”. (Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders).

It quite clearly says that those who have gay sex and/or can’t control their lusts can’t be ordained. But homosexuals who can control their lusts and don’t actively engage in gay sex can be ordained. It sounds a lot like heterosexuals who are ordained. Heterosexuals who actively have sex and/or can’t control their lusts also cannot be ordained. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with ordination because priests are called to be celibate regardless. If someone has extreme attraction that can’t be controlled, regardless of their sexual orientation, they can’t be ordained to the priesthood because it’s more than likely that they will break their chastity vow.

It further goes on to say:

*Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.
*

“Transitory” meaning “not permanent”. It seems to prove Archbishop Dolan’s and my point that gays who can “get over” their lusts (i.e. control their lusts, just like heterosexuals who can get over/control their lusts) can be ordained.

God calls us all to holiness, and He loves us all equally. Gay or straight, if we follow God’s Laws and love Him, we’ll be in Heaven together. The Church never has, isn’t now, and never will teach that chaste homosexuals are sinners just because they’re homosexual. Never ever consider yourself below anybody just because of your sexual orientation. That’s not what God teaches, no matter what people on this forum say. The Church is the ultimate authority, not this forum. And the Church doesn’t bar homosexuals who are living chaste lives from vocations.

So if you want to be a priest, a monk, or a nun, just be certain, through prayer and deep discernment, that you can control your attractions and can be celibate with the help of God. If you can truthfully and honestly do this, then there is nothing in the Church stopping you from being ordained.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

This forum is literally the only place where the word “homosexual” automatically implies a gay person who has gay sex and wants to get married. Nowhere else is this assumed, not even among people who identify as homosexuals and not even in the Catechism (which says “Homosexual persons are called to chastity” in paragraph 2359, which on this forum would somehow be an oxymoron).

Yes. And also note that the Church uses the word homosexual as it is, an adjective. Unfortunately, in our intellectually lazy culture, we tend to use adjectives as nouns, causing people to be defined by adjectives. Instead of a black person, we have “a black.” Instead of a homosexual person, we have “a homosexual.”

 

[dusty_david]

No, but the fact that you have greater freedom in how you live your vocation makes you more human than a person who has less freedom, like me. You can choose your vocation and your state of life. I cannot.

Yep…woohoo…non-sanctified loneliness forever (or, in prettified language, the perpetual, non-consecrated single “life”)…that’s what God has in store for me. Yay being all alone all the time! Woohoo!

Maybe that’s why so many of you people commit suicide. Of course you shouldn’t but you should get used to being alone for the rest of your life. There is a catholic church group called Courage that helps you homosexuals. Perhaps they can show you that lots of people have accomplished a great deal despite having no family or partners. Who knows. Maybe one day you’ll find a girl that will turn your head and you can fall in love, marry, and have kids.

 

[portarica]

One thing that is clear from this discussion is that the whole notion of describing what constitutes a “gay lifestyle” is an exercise in futility.

It keeps coming back to some very outdated concepts about human sexuality and the notion that people choose to have feelings that make them the subject of ridicule in society and the object of scorn from institutions that professes love for them.

Never mind that the hierarchy of the largest of those institutions is comprised of so many gay people that the internal discussions of the subject can only be about just how much of one’s nose can be bitten off to spite ones face.

Besides, there is no truth to all the “bad” stuff that happens only because people are gay or homosexual . It is all about how even people who profess to believe what Jesus taught, can’t deal with the differences among people.

We don’t hate the sin and love the sinner. We hate the sinners. What is the actual sin that gay people commit that rises up in us personally to the point that we actually hate it? What gay sin has anybody here actually seen?

Whose marriage has been hurt by a couple of lesbians getting hitched?

Conversely has anybody’s family been hurt by violent or verbal abuse of gay family members? Has anybody’s sensibilities been upset by gay priests telling us how bad it is to be gay? Or how difficult it is to be gay?

It is time to grow up and realize that gay people are people. Treat them like they may be Jesus in the guise of some flamboyantly dressed bishop or Jesus in the guise of a tormented teenager or Jesus in the guise of the kids that hang themselves because of what we do as Catholics that makes their lives more difficult to deal with.

Peace

 

[LCMS_No_More]

One thing that is clear from this discussion is that the whole notion of describing what constitutes a “gay lifestyle” is an exercise in futility.

It keeps coming back to some very outdated concepts about human sexuality and the notion that people choose to have feelings that make them the subject of ridicule in society and the object of scorn from institutions that professes love for them.

Never mind that the hierarchy of the largest of those institutions is comprised of so many gay people that the internal discussions of the subject can only be about just how much of one’s nose can be bitten off to spite ones face.

Besides, there is no truth to all the “bad” stuff that happens only because people are gay or homosexual . It is all about how even people who profess to believe what Jesus taught, can’t deal with the differences among people.

We don’t hate the sin and love the sinner. We hate the sinners. What is the actual sin that gay people commit that rises up in us personally to the point that we actually hate it? What gay sin has anybody here actually seen?

Whose marriage has been hurt by a couple of lesbians getting hitched?

Conversely has anybody’s family been hurt by violent or verbal abuse of gay family members? Has anybody’s sensibilities been upset by gay priests telling us how bad it is to be gay? Or how difficult it is to be gay?

It is time to grow up and realize that gay people are people. Treat them like they may be Jesus in the guise of some flamboyantly dressed bishop or Jesus in the guise of a tormented teenager or Jesus in the guise of the kids that hang themselves because of what we do as Catholics that makes their lives more difficult to deal with.

Peace

…or even tormented 39 year olds.

 

[dusty_david]

Maybe that’s why so many of you people commit suicide. Of course you shouldn’t but you should get used to being alone for the rest of your life. There is a catholic church group called Courage that helps you homosexuals. Perhaps they can show you that lots of people have accomplished a great deal despite having no family or partners. Who knows. Maybe one day you’ll find a girl that will turn your head and you can fall in love, marry, and have kids.

Ok, this came out completely wrong. Makes me sound horrible and I’m mostly not. I don’t know how to delete it. I’m sorry. Tasting shoe leather again.

Meant to say something like "this kind of attitude only leads to hopelessness. You have to look what you have and not what you don’t. Let’s say you were born without a leg or it got cut off when you were a young kid. Of course this is a terrible situation. Horrible, Everyone should have two strong legs. You got only one. Very bad situation. But sitting around on the self pity pot accomplishes nothing. There’s a group called Courage that can help you. Check it out. Sounds like you got nothing to lose. So if you can’t walk, learn to hop.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Ok, this came out completely wrong. Makes me sound horrible and I’m mostly not. I don’t know how to delete it. I’m sorry. Tasting shoe leather again.

Meant to say something like "this kind of attitude only leads to hopelessness. You have to look what you have and not what you don’t. Let’s say you were born without a leg or it got cut off when you were a young kid. Of course this is a terrible situation. Horrible, Everyone should have two strong legs. You got only one. Very bad situation. But sitting around on the self pity pot accomplishes nothing. There’s a group called Courage that can help you. Check it out. Sounds like you got nothing to lose. So if you can’t walk, learn to hop.

I’ve been to Courage and the issue I have with it is this. It’s always just about “the struggle.” My biggest problem with relation to same-sex attraction is the place it puts on within the Church and how people in the Church view it. I classify those who choose a religious vocation as first class because of two things: first, they choose to model Christ directly and second, they sacrifice their rightly ordered sexuality in purity and it’s all freely given out of a desire to love God. I classify those who choose marriage or straights who are in the single state as second class because, while they don’t model Christ directly, they do use their rightly ordered sexuality in a chastity according to their state. A homosexual person must be third class because, while they are required to sacrifice their sexuality or face eternal torment in hell, that sacrifice is of something that is intrinsically disordered, thus defective, making said sacrifice null and void. Even becoming a religious wouldn’t remove the fatal defect and allow the homosexual person to move from third class status…his or her sexuality is so defective and disordered that their sacrifice of it is worthless to God as it is stained irreparably by their very defect.

 

[MarianD]

A homosexual person must be third class because, while they are required to sacrifice their sexuality or face eternal torment in hell, that sacrifice is of something that is intrinsically disordered, thus defective, making said sacrifice null and void. Even becoming a religious wouldn’t remove the fatal defect and allow the homosexual person to move from third class status…his or her sexuality is so defective and disordered that their sacrifice of it is worthless to God as it is stained irreparably by their very defect.

God is pleased when all of us carry our crosses and put Him before ourselves. When you denounce a sin and try your hardest to stop sinning, God is pleased even though sin, by definition, is disordered.

And all of our sacrifices when made by themselves are defective before God. That’s why He sent His Son, Jesus to die for us, and that’s why the Mass is the constant repetition of Christ’s sacrifice. That sacrifice is perfect to God, and He accepts it and only it for the forgiveness of our sins. We are to sacrifice our desires and offer up our struggles in unison with Christ’s sacrifice so as to please God.

The Church never says that you are “defective” or your being chaste is a “defective” form of worship to God. The Church considers you on par with all other believers, as it states in the Catechism in paragraphs 2358-2359. The Catechism states that homosexuals can and should achieve Christian perfection by uniting their struggles with the Lord’s sacrifice on the Cross, something that every Christian regardless of sexual orientation must do. How can we achieve perfection if every sacrifice we make (even in unison with Christ’s sacrifice) is defective? The Church doesn’t contradict itself—the sacrifice gay Catholics make by staying chaste is not defective in any way and will still lead to perfection, pleasing God, and Heaven. So no, homosexuals aren’t defective and neither is their sacrifice of being chaste when made to please God. The Church definitely doesn’t teach this.

 

[portarica]

God is pleased when all of us carry our crosses and put Him before ourselves. When you denounce a sin and try your hardest to stop sinning, God is pleased even though sin, by definition, is disordered.

And all of our sacrifices are defective before God. That’s why He sent His Son, Jesus to die for us, and that’s why the Mass is the constant repetition of Christ’s sacrifice. That sacrifice is perfect to God, and He accepts it and only it for the forgiveness of our sins.

The Church never says that you are “defective” or your being chaste is a “defective” form of worship to God. The Church considers you on par with all other believers, as it states in the Catechism in paragraphs 2358-2359. The Catechism states that homosexuals can and should achieve Christian perfection by uniting their struggles with the Lord’s sacrifice on the Cross, something that every Christian regardless of sexual orientation must do. How can we achieve perfection if every sacrifice we make is defective? So no, homosexuals aren’t defective and neither is their sacrifice of being chaste when made to please God. The Church definitely doesn’t teach this

But putting crosses upon people doesn’t please Jesus. We have a tendency to only approach things from our own perspective, not from a true overall view.

Peace

 

[MarianD]

But putting crosses upon people doesn’t please Jesus. We have a tendency to only approach things from our own perspective, not from a true overall view.

Peace

The world is in a fallen state. Birth defects, disorders of all kinds, suffering of all kinds, etc. is a result of the natural order of a fallen world. God doesn’t intervene to stop this or cause this. He simply says “I’ll take you out of it.” God doesn’t put crosses on people, people are just given crosses due to their difficult situation because of the fallen state. Staying chaste is you taking up your own cross that was placed on you and following God, and that does please Him.

Also, how is this not an overall view? The Church isn’t the one who forbids gay sex. It’s the Bible. And neither the Church nor the Bible denounces homosexual attraction as a sin. So it’s not that homosexuals are to be treated differently by the Church and its members, it’s that they have to overcome sin like the rest of us. We all have different sins we’re prone to, and we all have to get over it with God’s help.

 

[Tigg]

God is pleased when all of us carry our crosses and put Him before ourselves. When you denounce a sin and try your hardest to stop sinning, God is pleased even though sin, by definition, is disordered.

And all of our sacrifices when made by themselves are defective before God. That’s why He sent His Son, Jesus to die for us, and that’s why the Mass is the constant repetition of Christ’s sacrifice. That sacrifice is perfect to God, and He accepts it and only it for the forgiveness of our sins. We are to sacrifice our desires and offer up our struggles in unison with Christ’s sacrifice so as to please God.

The Church never says that you are “defective” or your being chaste is a “defective” form of worship to God. The Church considers you on par with all other believers, as it states in the Catechism in paragraphs 2358-2359. The Catechism states that homosexuals can and should achieve Christian perfection by uniting their struggles with the Lord’s sacrifice on the Cross, something that every Christian regardless of sexual orientation must do. How can we achieve perfection if every sacrifice we make (even in unison with Christ’s sacrifice) is defective? The Church doesn’t contradict itself—the sacrifice gay Catholics make by staying chaste is not defective in any way and will still lead to perfection, pleasing God, and Heaven. So no, homosexuals aren’t defective and neither is their sacrifice of being chaste when made to please God. The Church definitely doesn’t teach this.

A wonderful post and I’m glad you were the one to respond!

 

[portarica]

The world is in a fallen state. Birth defects, disorders of all kinds, suffering of all kinds, etc. is a result of the natural order of a fallen world. God doesn’t intervene to stop this or cause this. He simply says “I’ll take you out of it.” God doesn’t put crosses on people, people are just given crosses due to their difficult situation because of the fallen state. Staying chaste is you taking up your own cross that was placed on you and following God, and that does please Him.

Also, how is this not an overall view? The Church isn’t the one who forbids gay sex. It’s the Bible. And neither the Church nor the Bible denounces homosexual attraction as a sin. So it’s not that homosexuals are to be treated differently by the Church and its members, it’s that they have to overcome sin like the rest of us. We all have different sins we’re prone to, and we all have to get over it with God’s help.

People lash other people to crosses and make their burdens heavier. That is what is contrary to what Jesus taught.

Eating shrimp is a sin in the bible, but we got over that. people arrived on the earth 6000 years ago in the bible and we got over that. There are many things in the bible that result from the ignorance of the people doing the scribing and we will continue to get over that.

And remember that Jesus said we were not responsible for the sins of our fathers, which is why the crosses you mention are not about a fallen world , but as a result of what God put into motion. If your God punishes people with birth defects and the like because of revenge, then your God isn’t Jesus.

Peace

 

[NE_Catholic]

everytime I see the title of this thread I thinkof the Simpson’s episode where Homer brought Bart to the steel mill.

 

[Tigg]

And remember that Jesus said we were not responsible for the sins of our fathers, which is why the crosses you mention are not about a fallen world , but as a result of what God put into motion. If your God punishes people with birth defects and the like because of revenge, then your God isn’t Jesus.

Peace

WOW!!! I hardly know where to begin with this. Adam and Eve were banished from the garden, remember??? Do you even believe in original sin?

 

[TMC]

And remember that Jesus said we were not responsible for the sins of our fathers, which is why the crosses you mention are not about a fallen world , but as a result of what God put into motion. If your God punishes people with birth defects and the like because of revenge, then your God isn’t Jesus.

WOW!!! I hardly know where to begin with this. Adam and Eve were banished from the garden, remember??? Do you even believe in original sin?

Portarica is correct - the misfortunes that befall people are not “punishment” for original sin or any other sin. Jesus was very clear on this point. Luke 13:1-5.

 

[Kolbe300]

as asexual.

I suppose I could describe my sexuality as asexual. That is, of course, assuming the term was even remotely true, which it isn’t. Personally, I choose not to lie about it.

“homosexual” is a new word in the dictionary.

I’m still trying to figure out what the birthdate of a word has to do with anything. It has a definition, regardless of when we started using it.

Why would you give yourself a label that is a connotation against God’s natural law??

I don’t, unless it’s apropos to a discussion. If my homosexual orientation is against God’s natural law, there is nothing I can do about that. I can’t change natural law and I sure haven’t changed my sexuality. I’m not going to label myself with a lie, like “asexual”, when I know what my sexuality truly is.

The term homosexual has a permanent connotation, meaning that there is no room for change. It is a fatalistic label.

And for lots of people, their homosexual orientation is permanent. So for some, that connotation isn’t far from the truth.

The only reason you label yourself a homosexual is because the label isn’t shunned by society anymore.

PetersKeys, if homosexual persons weren’t shunned by society and many in the Catholic Church, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I label my sexuality as homosexual for one reason and one reason alone: because it’s true. I’m not going to lie about it because I prefer to be honest. And I’m certainly not going to lie about it simply because someone feels it’s unnatural, disordered, evil, or any other thing.

Peace,
Kolbe

 

[Elizabeth502]

And remember that Jesus said we were not responsible for the sins of our fathers

No. He did not say that. He said that individuals were not responsible for the sins of their own (direct) relatives. That is what is defined as personal sin. He did not comment on anything that would later result in the Church’s biblically deduced theology of original sin.

which is why the crosses you mention are not about a fallen world

The poster, MarianD, mentioned “sufferings of all kinds.” Those are indeed the fruit of original sin, according to Catholic systematic theology, which in turn has a biblical base. Claiming that sufferings are merely those put there by (bad) humans is theologically false. Please get educated about this.

Original sin produced (according to classic Catholic theology) suffering & death.
Personal sin, a result of original sin which left humanity vulnerable, is owned by an individual (not an ancestor) and both directly and indirectly harms the community – sometimes physically & directly, at other times “only” spiritually and indirectly.

 

[portarica]

WOW!!! I hardly know where to begin with this. Adam and Eve were banished from the garden, remember??? Do you even believe in original sin?

Let’s see they were banished from the garden, had two boys who begot the rest of humankind? And we get baptized to erase the sin of eating an apple .

Is that the original sin you are talking about? And from that sin God decided to have kids born with their spines open or their eyes forever closed ?

I just want to make sure I believe in the correct original sin and that “original” sin is not just a concept to explain how we all are not perfect and by being baptized we are welcomed into the family that has the best knowledge on how to improve upon our imperfection.

Peace

 

[MarianD]

People lash other people to crosses and make their burdens heavier. That is what is contrary to what Jesus taught.

I agree, and this is why I advocate support groups and a strong community among parishioners to ensure that we all sprint across the finish line together with no one left behind.

Eating shrimp is a sin in the bible, but we got over that.

That was the Old Law, which was declared to no longer have to be followed by Sts. Peter and Paul in the Book of Acts and by St. Paul in his many epistles.

people arrived on the earth 6000 years ago in the bible and we got over that.

That’s not a moral or doctrinal issue, so this has never been a teaching of the Church that needed to be followed. The Church never said one had to believe this.

There are many things in the bible that result from the ignorance of the people doing the scribing and we will continue to get over that.

Some Biblical stories (such as Jonah) are figurative. But that has nothing to do with the ignorance of the scribes.

And remember that Jesus said we were not responsible for the sins of our fathers, which is why the crosses you mention are not about a fallen world ,

Original sin introduced death and suffering of all kinds into the world. We are not personally responsible for the sin, but we suffer the effects. However, we still are damaged spiritually by the sin (which is also another effect), and this is why we must believe in Christ’s sacrifice and be baptized.

Just like if someone was murdered. They’re not responsible for the sin of murder, the murderer is. But they still suffer from the effects of the sinner who murdered them.

but as a result of what God put into motion. If your God punishes people with birth defects and the like because of revenge, then your God isn’t Jesus.

Like I’ve said above, all kinds of suffering in the world are a result of the effects of original sin. So none of it is God punishing others or putting others in horrible situations. It’s all an effect of original sin, which introduced suffering, and the sins of others, which is the abuse of free will (God doesn’t interfere with free will).

Suffering doesn’t come from God. God simply allows it to happen because He doesn’t interfere with free will, and all suffering is the result of another person abusing his/her free will.

 

[MarianD]

Let’s see they were banished from the garden, had two boys who begot the rest of humankind? And we get baptized to erase the sin of eating an apple .

The language is figurative, but the truth remains that Adam and Eve, the first humans, disobeyed God and that was the original sin.

The sin wasn’t eating the fruit. Eating the fruit is a figurative way of saying the disobeying of God, and disobeying God is the original sin. We are all affected by this fallen state of rebellion against God. We get baptized so as to be adopted by God as one of His own, thus allowing us to ask for forgiveness for our past rebellion. Once we ask for forgiveness, God grants it.

And from that sin God decided to have kids born with their spines open or their eyes forever closed ?

Think of sin as darkness. Does darkness exist? No. Darkness is just the absence of light.

Similarly, sin is the absence of God. When God’s Almighty Love and Protection and absent, suffering is naturally present. Just like when light is absent, darkness is naturally present.

Why doesn’t God step in? Because He doesn’t interfere with free will, and free will is what people abuse when they constantly sin. Original sin’s main effect is suffering. God didn’t interfere with Adam and Eve’s free will, so He didn’t stop the sin from being committed. Now that the sin’s effects are ingrained into society as a whole due to it being the state that humans are born into, the world must be destroyed and created again (as told in Revelations) so that suffering on Earth and among humans will end. This won’t happen anytime soon, as far as we know, so suffering continues. That’s why there’s no suffering in Heaven—after the purging of our sins in Purgatory, we are fully in unison with God’s Will (i.e. the light is completely present), and so there is no sin and thus no suffering (i.e. no darkness).

What I’m saying is what the Church has taught since it’s creation by Christ through His sending of the Holy Spirit nearly 2000 years ago. The Church, all of its Bishops, and the Popes throughout the ages have agreed upon this. The Magisterium (all the Bishops in unison with the Pope) is protected from error in issues of faith and morals by the Holy Spirit, so there is no way they could possibly be wrong in what they’ve taught through the Tradition (which is the composition of all the teachings of the Magisteria of the past) of the Church and through their own teaching which simply explains this Tradition.