What if the Church's teaching on homosexuality is wrong?

[bingbang]

Have you guys ever considered this?

When it comes to morality, looking at the morality system that the church uses objectively, it seems to be a pretty good system. Treat others the way you want to be treated is, in my opinion, the greatest moral rule of all. It is something that should be followed by everyone.

Anyway, I recently stumbled across the website for courage, which is a group that helps homosexual Catholics. It uses a 12 step program based off of Alcoholics Anonymous’ 12 step program. It treats homosexuality as an addiction that needs to be overcome, and this group (as well as the church) wants these people to fight their urges and stay celibate.

So my question is, what if the church is wrong with their teaching on homosexuality? I like to look at moral systems based on religion in an objective way…as in, if the religion is wrong, does the moral system still work. Now I actually don’t really agree with the church teachings on birth control but I can see why it makes sense. Following church teachings on birth control is unlikely to make someone less happy. The same goes with the teachings on pre marital sex and masturbation. Following these teachings is likely to make someone happier in the long run to be honest. And obviously treating others the way you want to be treated will make someone happier as well.

The only church teaching on morality that would likely lower someone’s happiness (at least that I can think of right now) is the church’s opinion on homosexuality. I can only imagine that a person in a long committed relationship with the person they love (be it two men or two women) would add to their happiness…and trying to fight these feelings would lower their happiness.

So what if the church is wrong about their teaching on homosexuality. If the church is wrong on other teachings, it is unlikely to substantially lower the quality of life of people, EXCEPT for their teaching on homosexuality. So, how would you feel if you went to heaven and God said the church was wrong about homosexuality all along.

I’m not trying to have an argument about how the church can’t be wrong, and this is a stupid hypothetical because of it, but how would you feel if it wasn’t really against God’s will to be in a monogamous homosexual relationship? In my opinion this teaching is severely lowering the quality of life of the people that are following it and that isn’t in line with Jesus’ message.

So, what if the church is wrong about its teaching on homosexuality?

THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL! DON’T ARGUE THAT IT IS WRONG AND GIVE ME REASONS FOR IT. THAT ISN’T THE QUESTION. IF YOU CAN’T POSSIBLY IMAGINE THIS HYPOTHETICAL THEN DON’T RESPOND ABOUT HOW THE TEACHING IS TRUE BECAUSE IT ADDS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO THE DISCUSSION.

 

[VetA]

Have you guys ever considered this?

When it comes to morality, looking at the morality system that the church uses objectively, it seems to be a pretty good system. Treat others the way you want to be treated is, in my opinion, the greatest moral rule of all. It is something that should be followed by everyone.

Anyway, I recently stumbled across the website for courage, which is a group that helps homosexual Catholics. It uses a 12 step program based off of Alcoholics Anonymous’ 12 step program. It treats homosexuality as an addiction that needs to be overcome, and this group (as well as the church) wants these people to fight their urges and stay celibate.

So my question is, what if the church is wrong with their teaching on homosexuality? I like to look at moral systems based on religion in an objective way…as in, if the religion is wrong, does the moral system still work. Now I actually don’t really agree with the church teachings on birth control but I can see why it makes sense. Following church teachings on birth control is unlikely to make someone less happy. The same goes with the teachings on pre marital sex and masturbation. Following these teachings is likely to make someone happier in the long run to be honest. And obviously treating others the way you want to be treated will make someone happier as well.

The only church teaching on morality that would likely lower someone’s happiness (at least that I can think of right now) is the church’s opinion on homosexuality. I can only imagine that a person in a long committed relationship with the person they love (be it two men or two women) would add to their happiness…and trying to fight these feelings would lower their happiness.

So what if the church is wrong about their teaching on homosexuality. If the church is wrong on other teachings, it is unlikely to substantially lower the quality of life of people, EXCEPT for their teaching on homosexuality. So, how would you feel if you went to heaven and God said the church was wrong about homosexuality all along.

I’m not trying to have an argument about how the church can’t be wrong, and this is a stupid hypothetical because of it, but how would you feel if it wasn’t really against God’s will to be in a monogamous homosexual relationship? In my opinion this teaching is severely lowering the quality of life of the people that are following it and that isn’t in line with Jesus’ message.

So, what if the church is wrong about its teaching on homosexuality?

its not so there is no issue,

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 6:9-10[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Leviticus 18:22 [/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Leviticus 20:13[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Romans 1:26-27[/BIBLEDRB]

besides which,
[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 1:26-28[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 1:27[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[bingbang]

its not so there is no issue,

Great rebuttal! What if I don’t take the Bible or the Church’s teachings as authority? Just tell me a hypothetical…what if the teaching is wrong?

Maybe I should rephrase the question. IF the teaching were to be wrong (hypothetically), would you agree that it would negatively effect the people’s lives who were celibate as homosexuals because of the church teaching? Do you think that their life would be better or worse for listening to this teaching that was hypothetically false.

 

[JohnCS]

This hypothetical question can’t really be answered. It is like me asking you, if you were a radish, what would you like to eat for dinner. It just can’t make any sense, you are asking to to “imagine” what it would be like if we go to heave and God says, “oh, you were wrong to preach that homosexual sex was wrong” Again as someone else said, it is not possible and there is no base line to measure it against so we can’t really give you an answer to that…however, I read the book “defending the higher law” and in there was a whole lot of statistics and studies (that for some reason do not get a lot of publicity, yet are peer reviewed and accepted) that show that homosexual relationships and persons are MUCH MUCH MUCH (sorry don’t remember the numbers) likely to end badly, cause depression, lead to violence, be open to other partners and so on. Obviously with any situation, there are the exceptions to the rule; sure some may be what they consider “blissfully happy” but statistics show otherwise for the vast majority.
God bless,

John

 

[estesbob]

Have you guys ever considered this?

When it comes to morality, looking at the morality system that the church uses objectively, it seems to be a pretty good system. Treat others the way you want to be treated is, in my opinion, the greatest moral rule of all. It is something that should be followed by everyone.

.

What the church is wrong about the resurrection? What if the church is wrong about transubstantiation? What if the church is wrong about how one is saved?

What you’re expressing above is the “all we need is love” theory of Christianity. That does not require a Church or even a belief system other than all we need to do is have a warm and fuzzy feelings about others regardless of what they do.

 

[bingbang]

What the church is wrong about the resurrection? What if the church is wrong about transubstantiation? What if the church is wrong about how one is saved?

Its true…what IF all of these things are wrong? I just feel as though it is something everyone should think about. No one can be 100% sure of things that can’t be proven and Catholicism can’t be proven. You should always consider the other side in matters you can’t prove.

Basically, what I am saying, is if you believe something is right with the assumption that a certain religious belief is right, but if you remove that religious belief and look at it rationally and objectively and that belief isn’t right anymore…then maybe you shouldn’t believe that. That is how I feel about Catholicism’s view on homosexuality. Without the assumption that Catholicism is right, what the church is doing is wrong.

What you’re expressing above is the “all we need is love” theory of Christianity. That does not require a Church or even a belief system other than all we need to do is have a warm and fuzzy feelings about others regardless of what they do.

I think if people acted more like this the world would be a better place.

 

[bingbang]

This hypothetical question can’t really be answered. It is like me asking you, if you were a radish, what would you like to eat for dinner. It just can’t make any sense, you are asking to to “imagine” what it would be like if we go to heave and God says, “oh, you were wrong to preach that homosexual sex was wrong” Again as someone else said, it is not possible and there is no base line to measure it against so we can’t really give you an answer to that…however, I read the book “defending the higher law” and in there was a whole lot of statistics and studies (that for some reason do not get a lot of publicity, yet are peer reviewed and accepted) that show that homosexual relationships and persons are MUCH MUCH MUCH (sorry don’t remember the numbers) likely to end badly, cause depression, lead to violence, be open to other partners and so on. Obviously with any situation, there are the exceptions to the rule; sure some may be what they consider “blissfully happy” but statistics show otherwise for the vast majority.
God bless,

John

I would be interested in a study that compared large groups of people going through the courage program and large groups of homosexuals to see who was actually happier.

 

[estesbob]

Its true…what IF all of these things are wrong? I just feel as though it is something everyone should think about. No one can be 100% sure of things that can’t be proven and Catholicism can’t be proven. You should always consider the other side in matters you can’t prove.

Basically, what I am saying, is if you believe something is right with the assumption that a certain religious belief is right, but if you remove that religious belief and look at it rationally and objectively and that belief isn’t right anymore…then maybe you shouldn’t believe that. That is how I feel about Catholicism’s view on homosexuality. Without the assumption that Catholicism is right, what the church is doing is wrong.

I think if people acted more like this the world would be a better place.

What if the church teachings are right? Not only about homosexuality but about all matters of faith? Where does that leave you?

It is impossible to have a discussion based on the parameters you’ve laid out.

 

[1ke]

The Church **cannot **be wrong in its teaching on faith and morals. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error because these teachings are necessary for our salvation.

Subjective happiness is irrelevant.

 

[bingbang]

What if the church teachings are right? Not only about homosexuality but about all matters of faith? Where does that leave you?

At the mercy of God…same place as you.

 

[bingbang]

The Church **cannot **be wrong in its teaching on faith and morals. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error because these teachings are necessary for our salvation.

Subjective happiness is irrelevant.

What an argument. The church is protected by the Holy Spirit so it cannot be wrong. And who told you that the church was protected by the holy spirit? The church. And since the church is protected by the holy spirit, it can’t be wrong about the church being protected by the holy spirit. Do you see where I am going with this? Your circular logic doesn’t prove anything…it is just your belief based on faith.

 

[estesbob]

At the mercy of God…same place as you.

If the church is right it has laid out exactly how we are saved. You have rejected that, If the church is right we can’t end up in the same place unless I, like you, reject the Church

I personally would not risk my immortal soul by embracing and "all you need is love " theology

 

[estesbob]

What an argument. The church is protected by the Holy Spirit so it cannot be wrong. And who told you that the church was protected by the holy spirit? The church. And since the church is protected by the holy spirit, it can’t be wrong about the church being protected by the holy spirit. Do you see where I am going with this? Your circular logic doesn’t prove anything…it is just your belief based on faith.

You want to argue based on the premise of church is wrong. For those of us and have faith that is a false premise. You might as well start a discussion as to whether the earth sits atop a giant turtle.

 

[JHow]

I would be interested in a study that compared large groups of people going through the courage program and large groups of homosexuals to see who was actually happier.

If I follow the logic of your hypothetical, homosexuals who abstain, following a hypothetically-incorrect church teaching (all two of them, most likely), are harmed because they are missing out on a loving relationship. Drunks, however, who abstain (there is likely only one of them), based on hypothetically-incorrect church teaching about drunkeness are not harmed, because they are only missing out on feeling high?

All you have done here is to ignore all the negative consequences of homosexuality while taking the negative consequences for alcoholism as self-evident.

 

[bingbang]

If the church is right it has laid out exactly how we are saved. You have rejected that, If the church is right we can’t end up in the same place unless I, like you, reject the Church

I personally would not risk my immortal soul by embracing and "all you need is love " theology

Well maybe I am right. And to my understanding, just because I reject the teachings of the church doesn’t mean I’m going to hell…and just because you accept the teachings of the church doesn’t mean you will go to heaven.

 

[JohnCS]

What an argument. The church is protected by the Holy Spirit so it cannot be wrong. And who told you that the church was protected by the holy spirit? The church. And since the church is protected by the holy spirit, it can’t be wrong about the church being protected by the holy spirit. Do you see where I am going with this? Your circular logic doesn’t prove anything…it is just your belief based on faith.

I really need to start taking notes about all of the books I read and what I read in them because once again I read something, somewhere that described how the argument is not circular, they showed the linear argument that takes us to whether or not we believe the historical Jesus lived. If you do believe it, then logically it leads up to the Church being protected by the Holy Spirit as noted in the post you are rebutting. It was a step by step by step by step arguemnt that lead from historical Jesus to Church doctrine on always being right in faith and morals. It may have been Karl Keeting’s Catholocism and Fundamentalism, but I am unsure. I have read way to much lately =) I just got done with CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters… talk about a brain job cool book though!

 

[bingbang]

You want to argue based on the premise of church is wrong. For those of us and have faith that is a false premise. You might as well start a discussion as to whether the earth sits atop a giant turtle.

What is your faith based on? So you are sure you are right, just like mormons, muslims, jews, hindus, and buddhists are sure they are right. So which one of you are right, if any at all? If faith proves something, then all religions are proven. Faith is only needed when there isn’t enough evidence to support your claims.

 

[bingbang]

If I follow the logic of your hypothetical, homosexuals who abstain, following a hypothetically-incorrect church teaching (all two of them, most likely), are harmed because they are missing out on a loving relationship. Drunks, however, who abstain (there is likely only one of them), based on hypothetically-incorrect church teaching about drunkeness are not harmed, because they are only missing out on feeling high?

All you have done here is to ignore all the negative consequences of homosexuality while taking the negative consequences for alcoholism as self-evident.

What are the negative consequences of a loving, monogamous, homosexual relationship?

 

[bingbang]

I really need to start taking notes about all of the books I read and what I read in them because once again I read something, somewhere that described how the argument is not circular, they showed the linear argument that takes us to whether or not we believe the historical Jesus lived. If you do believe it, then logically it leads up to the Church being protected by the Holy Spirit as noted in the post you are rebutting. It was a step by step by step by step arguemnt that lead from historical Jesus to Church doctrine on always being right in faith and morals. It may have been Karl Keeting’s Catholocism and Fundamentalism, but I am unsure. I have read way to much lately =) I just got done with CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters… talk about a brain job cool book though!

Let me just give you my interpretation of the argument that the church cannot err. This fact is supported by the Bible (according to Catholics, but certainly not according to Protestants…so obviously even this fact isn’t completely evident) which was written by Catholics (according to the people on this forum). So the Catholics wrote a book that verify that they cannot err. So the Catholics cannot err because they said as much. Doesn’t seem logical to me.

 

[challam2010]

Hypotheticals usually make me a little crazy because the word IF opens the door to infinite possibilities and you can’t really argue infinitely. Well, maybe on CAF you can…

However – the one factor that is still unknown is the origin of homosexuality. We don’t KNOW if it is genetic, a hormonal imbalance during gestation, related to environmental/nurturing factors, a psychological disorder or what. There are multiple theories on each one of these – and those I didn’t mention – but there is no proof for the cause.

We do know from observation and biology that homosexuality is not the normal state for the human species - or any other species - but since it often reveals itself in children as young as four or five, there has to be something at work here other than “choice.” The immediate sexual response to stimulation is not under our conscious control, although of course its expression is.

I know what the Church’s position is regarding celibacy for all unmarried people and that homosexuals bear a particular burden in that regard. Still, I think the OP has a point – what if, as it lacks definitive evidence of homosexuality’s origin, the Church really is wrong in its conclusions about its sinfulness (when acted upon sexually.).

God Himself is in relationship in the Trinity. God desires relationship with us and that we live and love in relationship with others. I find it incomprehensible that this loving, relationship-desiring God would expect a person to live his/her entire life without a loving, sexual relationship simply because of his/her unconscious sexual orientation

I know unmarried hetersexual people are also expected to conform to that standard – but sometimes that’s a choice or circumstantial – it isn’t mandated under pain of mortal sin because of who that person is in his/her very self (sexually).

Since we’re speaking hypothetically, (and disregarding biology for 30 seconds), what if you turn the tables and imagine that your heterosexual orientation were the one that was considered “intrinsically disordered?” Because of who you very basically are, and for no other reason you cannot share your life and love with anyone, ever. You are cut off from the deepest human relationship because your very essence (sexually), which was not your choice, is absolutely, irrevocably wrong.

I’m not gay, have no gay relatives – although I’ve had a few gay friends, and I don’t support gay “marriage” – but I do wonder about this particular scenario.

The scriptural references above certainly make homosexuality “wrong” – but let’s remember that when those were written, within a particular time and culture, no one knew squat about psychology or human sexuality.

It may be that we just don’t know enough to so thoroughly condemn the actions of this whole segment of our brothers and sisters.