What has Benedict XVI said on same-sex attraction

[RoderickA]

I’m trying to answer someone who is angry at the church’s stance on homosexuality -and about Benedict XVI teaching homosexuals being “disordered”. I would like to answer first that this isn’t Benedict’s teaching but that of the church. I would further like to give examples of statements specifically by him that also show his, and the church’s, love for individuals with same-sex attraction. But I’m having a difficult time looking on the internet (you can imagine what I’m up against).

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

First one is what you want, second one is related

 

[Margy1948]

I’m trying to answer someone who is angry at the church’s stance on homosexuality -and about Benedict XVI teaching homosexuals being “disordered”. I would like to answer first that this isn’t Benedict’s teaching but that of the church. I would further like to give examples of statements specifically by him that also show his, and the church’s, love for individuals with same-sex attraction. But I’m having a difficult time looking on the internet (you can imagine what I’m up against).

Well, your friend has somewhat of a point, doesn’t Benedict have the power to change the teachings of the Church?

 

[Oumashta]

Well, your friend has somewhat of a point, doesn’t Benedict have the power to change the teachings of the Church?

@_@… This is still debatable? No Pope can, would, should, or will ever change the teachings of the everlasting Holy Catholic Church.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Well, your friend has somewhat of a point, doesn’t Benedict have the power to change the teachings of the Church?

No. If you are talking doctrines and dogmas, no. They may be clarified, but not changed. If you are talking about disciplines (such as allowing married men to become priests, the form of the Mass, the fasting rules, etc.) yes. But “teachings” usually does not refer to disciplines, although it sometimes appears that way

The doctrines and dogmas have been revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Church. Before the Ascension Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. So they are part of Divine Revelation, in other words, they come from God. They cannot change.

 

[april32010]

Well, your friend has somewhat of a point, doesn’t Benedict have the power to change the teachings of the Church?

 

[Chan26]

@_@… This is still debatable? No Pope can, would, should, or will ever change the teachings of the everlasting Holy Catholic Church.

I found these in three seconds .
They purport to be changes but maybe they 're not.
I also remember when i was a teenager, i was told i couldn’t attend weddings and other services in Protestant churches or in Temples. I don’t know where that came from.
Not arguing because I’m not that informed . Just wonder if your QUOTE is totally accurate.
chan

 

[Chan26]

No. If you are talking doctrines and dogmas, no. They may be clarified, but not changed. If you are talking about disciplines (such as allowing married men to become priests, the form of the Mass, the fasting rules, etc.) yes. But “teachings” usually does not refer to disciplines, although it sometimes appears that way

The doctrines and dogmas have been revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Church. Before the Ascension Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. So they are part of Divine Revelation, in other words, they come from God. They cannot change.

HI, I am assuming you are correct. This area is complex and i have a thin grasp so I bow to your greater knowledge. However, if Dogma is the Church teaching, then i know of no Dogma concerning same sex marriage or homosexuality. Jesus never said anything. So are you saying (or not) that the Pope’s remarks on this subject are simply the 'disciplines" of the church?
chan

 

[Peter_Plato]

I found these in three seconds .
They purport to be changes but maybe they 're not.
I also remember when i was a teenager, i was told i couldn’t attend weddings and other services in Protestant churches or in Temples. I don’t know where that came from.
Not arguing because I’m not that informed . Just wonder if your QUOTE is totally accurate.
chan

The difference between matters of discipline and matters of faith and morals is that the guidelines (disciplines) are the practical ways in which the matters of faith and morals are implemented. Since the circumstances outside the Church change, the disciplines or guidelines might also in order to better suit the changing conditions.

Think of parents of teenagers. Their basic moral position is to act such as to protect and nurture the spiritual, psychological and physical well-being of their children. That is an unchanging position not subject to revision. However, the rules or guidelines by which their basic moral position is implemented may change over time. If, say, a curfew time is set at 10:00 pm for a child of 15 years, it might be raised to midnight for an older child. Also, if the family moves to a more dangerous neighborhood, that also might affect the rules or guidelines. However, those changes of the disciplinary guidelines does not mean the basic moral principles upon which the guidelines are derived have changed. The parents are acting consistent with willing the well-being of their children.

Concerning contraception: a new life begins at conception. That is a scientific and morally important fact. The Church’s teaching on contraception is based upon that fact. It is wrong to kill an innocent human being. That moral teaching can never change. Ergo, contraception is wrong. The Church is not at liberty to change scientific and moral facts.

 

[Chan26]

I cut and pasted from sources and didn’t realize they hadn’t been included. Here is one source that states Catholic Teaching changes uscatholic.org.They also give what they consider are the reasons. There are hundreds of web sites if not thousands that list the many changes in the Churches teachings.
chan26

The difference between matters of discipline and matters of faith and morals is that the guidelines (disciplines) are the practical ways in which the matters of faith and morals are implemented. Since the circumstances outside the Church change, the disciplines or guidelines might also in order to better suit the changing conditions.

Think of parents of teenagers. Their basic moral position is to act such as to protect and nurture the spiritual, psychological and physical well-being of their children. That is an unchanging position not subject to revision. However, the rules or guidelines by which their basic moral position is implemented may change over time. If, say, a curfew time is set at 10:00 pm for a child of 15 years, it might be raised to midnight for an older child. Also, if the family moves to a more dangerous neighborhood, that also might affect the rules or guidelines. However, those changes of the disciplinary guidelines does not mean the basic moral principles upon which the guidelines are derived have changed. The parents are acting consistent with willing the well-being of their children.

Concerning contraception: a new life begins at conception. That is a scientific and morally important fact. The Church’s teaching on contraception is based upon that fact. It is wrong to kill an innocent human being. That moral teaching can never change. Ergo, contraception is wrong. The Church is not at liberty to change scientific and moral facts.

 

[Chan26]

You might start with the meaning of love. Jesus said to love one another as I have loved you.He also said, love your neighbours and even your enemies as you love yourself.If you keep my commandments you will remain in my love… This is my commandment: love one another, as I loved you. How simple.
’ Ask and answer if Benedict’s words could come out of the mouth of Jesus.
chan

I’m trying to answer someone who is angry at the church’s stance on homosexuality -and about Benedict XVI teaching homosexuals being “disordered”. I would like to answer first that this isn’t Benedict’s teaching but that of the church. I would further like to give examples of statements specifically by him that also show his, and the church’s, love for individuals with same-sex attraction. But I’m having a difficult time looking on the internet (you can imagine what I’m up against).

 

[CB_Catholic]

HI, I am assuming you are correct. This area is complex and i have a thin grasp so I bow to your greater knowledge. However, if Dogma is the Church teaching, then i know of no Dogma concerning same sex marriage or homosexuality. Jesus never said anything. So are you saying (or not) that the Pope’s remarks on this subject are simply the 'disciplines" of the church?
chan

Jesus never said anything about a lot of stuff, and not everything He said is recorded in Scripture. St. Paul, however had plenty to say on the subject, and his letters are considered inspired Scripture from the Holy Spirit. As is the Old Testament, and homosexual relations are condemned in the Jewish Law which was given to Moses by none other than God Himself, who also happens to be Jesus, the second Person of the Trinity. You cannot argue this point from the silence of Jesus about the matter. He is not going to contradict Himself, and neither is the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Apostle Paul.

I want to know–are you the same poster I addressed about this very same matter in another thread just last night? Your words and theirs are the same.

I am tired of people trying to extrapolate from Jesus’ silence on homosexuality that He approved it. He did not. That is a juvenile way of arguing something, not looking at all the facts and the whole picture, and picking and choosing what they want to believe. It is a convoluted way of thinking, and dishonest. Jesus was a practicing Jew, and also the giver of the Jewish laws. Jewish law does not condone homosexual relations, and neither did Jesus, period. He as God, established the law against it, and also established marriage as between a man and woman only.

 

[RoderickA]

Dakota Roberts,
What I was looking for was a statement, in Benedict XVI’s own words, that showed both his love and care for the individual, while also expressing church teaching. So thank you! I used a couple paragraphs from the first link you sent me.

I was responding to comments following the Feb. 20, article by John L. Allen, Jr. in the National Catholic Reporter titled “Papabile of the Day: The Men Who Could Be Pope”. That day’s article was on Cardinal Leonardo Sandri,

A reader had gone off on a rant against Pope Benedict XVI and I just couldn’t let it go unanswered. I am dyslexic and have a very difficult time with research, reading and writing. It took me a few hours to put together the research, and order my thoughts. But I just had to respond.

 

[RoderickA]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

First one is what you want, second one is related

Dakota Roberts,
What I was looking for was a statement, in Benedict XVI’s own words, that showed both his love and care for the individual, while also expressing church teaching. So thank you! I used a couple paragraphs from the first link you sent me.

I was responding to comments following the Feb. 20, article by John L. Allen, Jr. in the National Catholic Reporter titled “Papabile of the Day: The Men Who Could Be Pope”. That day’s article was on Cardinal Leonardo Sandri,

A reader had gone-off on a rant against Pope Benedict XVI and I just couldn’t let it go unanswered. I am dyslexic and have a very difficult time with research, reading and writing. It took me a few hours to put together the research, and order my thoughts. But I just had to respond.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You might start with the meaning of love. Jesus said to love one another as I have loved you.He also said, love your neighbours and even your enemies as you love yourself.If you keep my commandments you will remain in my love… This is my commandment: love one another, as I loved you. How simple.
’ Ask and answer if Benedict’s words could come out of the mouth of Jesus.
chan

If you define love as being “willing for the other person whatever they will for themselves” then love simply means allowing whatever immoral, impractical, unwise, imprudent, crass, etc., ( feel free to throw in any descriptor at random) behaviour the person wills for themselves because love, according to this definition, is not only blind but stupid and incapacitated as well because it simply assumes, despite all indications to the contrary, that the other person always knows what is best for themselves, without question.

If you define love as being “willing what is absolutely - using your considered and wise judgement - best for the other person,” then things get a little more challenging.

In the first instance, that kind of love is consistent with giving in to a drug addict who refuses to rehabilitate because the unquestioning assumption is that you simply will what they will because what they will for themselves is always the right thing.

In the second instance, love is decided, independently of what they will for themselves or what you will for them, but based upon what is best for them.

So, real love could conflict with automatically assuming that the other person always wills what is for their own good, because often people do not. In fact, it might be our moral responsibility to advise them that what they are willing for themselves is actually bad for them. Same sex behaviour, being contrary to the natural purpose of sexual desire, fits this description.

Jonah was sent to the city of Ninevah to give them the bad news that their behaviour, to put it crudely, stunk. Jonah, if you recall, didn’t want to pass on the news for fear of offending them, fear of retaliation and fear that they might change their behaviour and he would be taken as falsely predicting their destruction if God relented based on a change in their behaviour. By your definition of “love,” God was simply wrong for “passing judgement” on the Ninevites and calling them on their bad behaviour because the behaviour of others is made right simply by the fact that they will it - the logical extension of what is right is what is right for me so I have no right to criticize others.

Yes, I could imagine the words of Pope Benedict (and even stronger ones such as “brood of vipers”) coming from the mouth of Jesus because he always wills what is best for others, and warned explicitly against doing or advising things just to get the approval of others. Huge difference between what you advocate and what Jesus does.

If you want to subscribe to the ethics of superniceness, then Richard Dawkins is your man. If you are truly interested in what is good for others, out of real love for them, then Jesus in the Church is where to turn.

 

[thistle]

Well, your friend has somewhat of a point, doesn’t Benedict have the power to change the teachings of the Church?

First, the Church can never be in error in matters of faith and morals.
Second, the teachings on homosexuality are infallible teachings which can never be changed.

 

[Chan26]

If you define love as being “willing for the other person whatever they will for themselves” then love simply means allowing whatever immoral, impractical, unwise, imprudent, crass, etc., ( feel free to throw in any descriptor at random) behaviour the person wills for themselves because love, according to this definition, is not only blind but stupid and incapacitated as well because it simply assumes, despite all indications to the contrary, that the other person always knows what is best for themselves, without question.

If you define love as being “willing what is absolutely - using your considered and wise judgement - best for the other person,” then things get a little more challenging.

In the first instance, that kind of love is consistent with giving in to a drug addict who refuses to rehabilitate because the unquestioning assumption is that you simply will what they will because what they will for themselves is always the right thing.

In the second instance, love is decided, independently of what they will for themselves or what you will for them, but based upon what is best for them.

So, real love could conflict with automatically assuming that the other person always wills what is for their own good, because often people do not. In fact, it might be our moral responsibility to advise them that what they are willing for themselves is actually bad for them. Same sex behaviour, being contrary to the natural purpose of sexual desire, fits this description.

Jonah was sent to the city of Ninevah to give them the bad news that their behaviour, to put it crudely, stunk. Jonah, if you recall, didn’t want to pass on the news for fear of offending them, fear of retaliation and fear that they might change their behaviour and he would be taken as falsely predicting their destruction if God relented based on a change in their behaviour. By your definition of “love,” God was simply wrong for “passing judgement” on the Ninevites and calling them on their bad behaviour because the behaviour of others is made right simply by the fact that they will it - the logical extension of what is right is what is right for me so I have no right to criticize others.

Yes, I could imagine the words of Pope Benedict (and even stronger ones such as “brood of vipers”) coming from the mouth of Jesus because he always wills what is best for others, and warned explicitly against doing or advising things just to get the approval of others. Huge difference between what you advocate and what Jesus does.

If you want to subscribe to the ethics of superniceness, then Richard Dawkins is your man. If you are truly interested in what is good for others, out of real love for them, then Jesus in the Church is where to turn.

 

[Chan26]

e.

Chan26:
I have been a Catholic all my life. You are correct that one can not infer from silence but must look to the whole of Jesus’s words.
Consider Jesus;s teaching regarding the tax collector in the temple saying I am not worthy. Jesus found him worthy of forgiveness even though the tax collector never listed his sins, never repented but only sincerely, humbled himself before our God and declared himself unworthy.
Consider the thief on the cross, he never confessed or repented, he simply submitted to to the Son of God and declared his belief in Him. Jesus promised the thief he’d be in paradise that very day.
In the Lords Prayer, Jesus said nothing about our sins but that we surrender to God,(Our Father) and that it’s forgiving others that saves us. All of us are sinners. We shouldn’t spend time condemning others for their sin, but work on forgiving.others because it’s by forgiving others that we are forgiven.

I am not some other person you mention. All my posts are with my name.

 

[Tony2255]

usccb.org/bible/matthew/19/

• Matthew 19:4-6 "4 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

CCC vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

In reference to "disordered. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS- Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
" vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

It is disordered in the sense that it is the opposite of the natural order of God’s eternal law.

Even if you wanted to use natural selection, the order would be one male one female to be able to reproduce and pass on genes. Any other pairings would not be following the “order” and thus they are “disorder.” Not in the order of natural selection.

Not sure if this helps.

 

[speakttruth]

I found these in three seconds .
They purport to be changes but maybe they 're not.
I also remember when i was a teenager, i was told i couldn’t attend weddings and other services in Protestant churches or in Temples. I don’t know where that came from.
Not arguing because I’m not that informed . Just wonder if your QUOTE is totally accurate.
chan

The Catechism is the teaching of the Catholic Church and talks about all these issues. Every Catholic should have one.
GB