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

[TheQuestioner]

It is right to treat others the way you want to be treated because all humans deserve respect. Just as I want someone to treat me properly, I should want to treat others properly. The reason why this is right is because I can relate with others.

But how do you define treating others properly? Why should all humans be treated with respect? Respect is a relative term, how do you define what is respectful and what is not, and why is it respectful. That’s the heart of the question. You seem to think we should just because, but there is no reason presented as to why. The religious have a reason (we are all made in the image of God), but without God what then becomes the reason.

For instance, utilitarians believe an action is good if the benefit is greater than the harm. Not that there is no harm, but that the benefit is greater than the harm.

Kant believed an action was moral if everyone could do it without it becoming illogical, so for example if everyone stole, and personal property was no longer acknowledged, then nothing would belong to anyone and therefore stealing could not exist. Thus the action was illogical and “immoral”.

So why is an action wrong or right. Respect is not a reason, because that term depends on many things.

In terms of homosexuality, you can only use your partner as a means of sexual pleasure. Though closeness can result from this, you can never give yourself fully to another human being in having a child. Where is the respect in that?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Wrong.

Morality is relative, and that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt merely by studying history. It was once considered immoral for a proper lady to expose her ankle. It now is. Tis a simplistic example, to be sure, but proves my point, and there are many other examples if you look around.

I could easily say that though customs of respect are relative, morality itself (what a human being ought to and ought not to do) is not relative. Many people simply say morals are relative as if it is a matter of fact, so you may not be used to the question I am about to ask you.

Please provide a logical argument as to why morality is relative. Can you give reasons for this? Can you show me how you came to that thought process?

I suppose that can be true if you view procreation as humanity’s primary purpose. While male on male sex is not my thing, for those who enjoy it, they derive pleasure from it, ergo it is absolutely part of the normal human life cycle, as we do many many things for the sole purpose of deriving pleasure from it.

I don’t view procreation as humanity’s purpose, but since we are supposed to take religion out of this equation that is all that I am left with.

Just because we derive pleasure from it doesn’t mean that it is a part of our life-cycle. That’s like saying because a person derives pleasure from taking crack (not comparing homosexuality to drugs in any way) it is therefore a part of the human natural life cycle. There is no connection between what is pleasurable and what is part of our life cycle. Though what is pleasurable can be part of the life cycle, what is part of the life cycle is not always pleasurable (like giving birth)

If homosexuality were spreadable by some kind of virus, you might have a point. But homosexuals are, well, homosexual, ergo they are statistically less likely to have children. However, societal acceptance of homosexuality, the legality of homosexual marriage, nor any other conceivable legal ‘acceptance’ will cause heterosexuals to spontaneously decide to change teams. I don’t see your point.

The point of that quote was not to say that homosexuality is a spreadable disease. The point was to show that in a society (which constitutes a genetic pool) you would want the population in that pool to increase. Anything that inhibits that growth is non-beneficial. Hence, famine, disease, starvation and sterility are non-beneficial. So it must also be recognized that homosexuality is also non-beneficial for the propagation of the species.

Again, all this is assuming there is no God.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Really?

So which society was right and which was wrong. The puritanical one 300-400 years ago that declared the sight of an ankle as immoral, or the one of today that does not. By what objective standard do you decide?

Human dignity.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

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

Then there is no Christianity, no God and our sole purpose on earth is to feed the worms after our death.

 

[bingbang]

No, I would not agree. Celibacy is an objectively higher state of life than non-celibacy, as St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8. More to the point, Jesus speaks of men who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom (Matthew 19:12). For a man who has same-sex attractions to willfully give up those attractions because he feels God is asking him to, is for that man to make himself a eunuch for the kingdom of God, which Jesus recommends.

And so I say that their lives would be better for having needlessly obeyed the hypothetically false teaching.

If Jesus endorses people becoming eunuchs, then why must Catholic priests have at least one working testicle?

 

[bingbang]

Mankind requires reproduction if it is going to survive the long haul. It seems the last 6,000 years has been a long haul therefore it is good that we reproduced. It is also good to do it according to the rules of God.

Homosexuality leads to death of a species therefore it is not good and should not be accepted.

We don’t dislike the person but only the act. We will leave judgement to God.

Why do people want to support acts that only lead to extermination??? Had your biological mother and father decided a homosexual lifestyle you wouldn’t be here.

Logic forces mankind to mate man and woman. What percentage of non-contributors is acceptable in the development of man before he becomes seriously disadvantaged or extinct? We are seeing it happen right now in sections of the world like Europe.

Had my father or mother become a priest and nun I wouldn’t be here either. Celibate priests and nuns leads to the death of a species therefore it is not good and should not be accepted.

 

[bingbang]

Sorry but I disagree here and see this as your fundamental mistake.

Catholicism can not be proven by the critera you have established as necessary for proof.

For myself, it is proven, otherwise I would not have have given my life so wholly (in religious consecration) to God and His Church.

Catholicism is proven for you, but that doesn’t mean it is actually right. Islam is proven in the minds of hundreds of millions of people, yet you dismiss their teachings. Why are your beliefs so special?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

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.

I wouldn’t say that the teaching is wrong; however, I would say that it is imperfect, that being, incomplete. The three paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are elegant in their language, insisting that “it is a trial,” that homosexual persons are to “be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” and that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard must be avoided.” (CCC §§2357-58). CCC §§2358-2359 give very limited information as to how a person with SSA is to fulfill their vocations. “These persons are called to fulfill the will of God in their lives” and “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” St. Paul tells us that homosexuality is a curse (Rom. 1:24-27).

Considering that the Church really doesn’t know what to do with such persons, except to push them into a support group that focuses solely on chastity and nothing else (Courage), it makes one wonder whether it is a curse… After all, everything relative to vocations for the person with SSA is about what he or she can NOT do, not what they CAN do. In light of the abuse scandals, it is virtually impossible for a man with SSA to become a priest or be admitted to the religious life (which is also barred to women with SSA, AFAIK). Marriage is out unless the accursed decides to undertake the difficult path of healing the underlying issues that lead to their SSA, if they even CAN (some can, some can’t). That leaves one relegated to the non-consecrated, perpetual single-life. Even the name is depressing…unholy loneliness forever. That’s a hard pill to swallow, but it appears that God saying, “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18) has an exception.

 

[Andre1000]

We all will die and they if Catholic Church was right than all people who lived homosexuality go to hell and if church was wrong no one cares because we all are dead for ever.

The live is so short that any damage is zero compared to the infinity time.

But the hell would last for ever!

 

[bingbang]

But how do you define treating others properly? Why should all humans be treated with respect? Respect is a relative term, how do you define what is respectful and what is not, and why is it respectful. That’s the heart of the question. You seem to think we should just because, but there is no reason presented as to why. The religious have a reason (we are all made in the image of God), but without God what then becomes the reason.

For instance, utilitarians believe an action is good if the benefit is greater than the harm. Not that there is no harm, but that the benefit is greater than the harm.

Kant believed an action was moral if everyone could do it without it becoming illogical, so for example if everyone stole, and personal property was no longer acknowledged, then nothing would belong to anyone and therefore stealing could not exist. Thus the action was illogical and “immoral”.

So why is an action wrong or right. Respect is not a reason, because that term depends on many things.

In terms of homosexuality, you can only use your partner as a means of sexual pleasure. Though closeness can result from this, you can never give yourself fully to another human being in having a child. Where is the respect in that?

Empathy is the reason you should treat others well. Humans are able to put themselves in others’ shoes and be good people. I want to make others happy because I want others to make me happy.

You obviously have a horrible understanding of homosexual relationships. I guess someone who is incapable of having a child for medical reasons cannot give themselves fully to another human being. How silly.

 

[bingbang]

I could easily say that though customs of respect are relative, morality itself (what a human being ought to and ought not to do) is not relative. Many people simply say morals are relative as if it is a matter of fact, so you may not be used to the question I am about to ask you.

Please provide a logical argument as to why morality is relative. Can you give reasons for this? Can you show me how you came to that thought process?

I don’t view procreation as humanity’s purpose, but since we are supposed to take religion out of this equation that is all that I am left with.

Just because we derive pleasure from it doesn’t mean that it is a part of our life-cycle. That’s like saying because a person derives pleasure from taking crack (not comparing homosexuality to drugs in any way) it is therefore a part of the human natural life cycle. There is no connection between what is pleasurable and what is part of our life cycle. Though what is pleasurable can be part of the life cycle, what is part of the life cycle is not always pleasurable (like giving birth)

The point of that quote was not to say that homosexuality is a spreadable disease. The point was to show that in a society (which constitutes a genetic pool) you would want the population in that pool to increase. Anything that inhibits that growth is non-beneficial. Hence, famine, disease, starvation and sterility are non-beneficial. So it must also be recognized that homosexuality is also non-beneficial for the propagation of the species.

Again, all this is assuming there is no God.

It is so funny that all of your arguments against homosexuality also go against celibate priests and nuns.

 

[bingbang]

Then there is no Christianity, no God and our sole purpose on earth is to feed the worms after our death.

lol…so if the Church is wrong on one issue God does not exist? That is absurd.

 

[bingbang]

We all will die and they if Catholic Church was right than all people who lived homosexuality go to hell and if church was wrong no one cares because we all are dead for ever.

The live is so short that any damage is zero compared to the infinity time.

But the hell would last for ever!

Once again this absurd argument comes up: if the church is wrong about homosexuality, God does not exist. Can you guys please tell me the reasoning for this HUGE leap?

According to Catholicism every other religion in the world is wrong about things, but that is OK and fine, but if the Church were to be wrong about something that automatically means that God doesn’t exist? I don’t see the reasoning behind this other than blind faith based on nothing.

 

[Seeker2010]

Please provide a logical argument as to why morality is relative. Can you give reasons for this? Can you show me how you came to that thought process?

Standards change. Many things that were once considered immoral are no longer seen as such. The aforementioned bare ankle. More revealing swimwear. Pornography was once seen as only for dirty old men, now many see it as normal as reading the paper.

On the other hand, things once seen as moral now are not. Slavery. Racism. Debtors prisons.

And some things don’t tend to change. Murder. Theft. Rape.

The trend, as I see it, is that things that have no victim are becoming seen more and more as moral acts. Thus sexual practices that were once immoral at best, or literally verboten at worst, but that harmed nobody besides (potentially) those who choose to partake, are more and more becoming acceptable as normal and moral.

The point of that quote was not to say that homosexuality is a spreadable disease. The point was to show that in a society (which constitutes a genetic pool) you would want the population in that pool to increase.

Not necessarily. While I don’t ascribe to the radical left that we’re currently overpopulated, I recognize such a condition could occur, and with unchecked procreation, it’s only a matter of time. That said, neither do I think we’re in any way in danger of dying out due to a lack of procreation, either.

So it must also be recognized that homosexuality is also non-beneficial for the propagation of the species.

Homosexuality will continue to exist at roughly the percentage as it does now (and always has) regardless of how we treat it. It will not spread just because it’s not demonized or criminalized. Nothing will change.

 

[bingbang]

I wouldn’t say that the teaching is wrong; however, I would say that it is imperfect, that being, incomplete. The three paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are elegant in their language, insisting that “it is a trial,” that homosexual persons are to “be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” and that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard must be avoided.” (CCC §§2357-58). CCC §§2358-2359 give very limited information as to how a person with SSA is to fulfill their vocations. “These persons are called to fulfill the will of God in their lives” and “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” St. Paul tells us that homosexuality is a curse (Rom. 1:24-27).

Considering that the Church really doesn’t know what to do with such persons, except to push them into a support group that focuses solely on chastity and nothing else (Courage), it makes one wonder whether it is a curse… After all, everything relative to vocations for the person with SSA is about what he or she can NOT do, not what they CAN do. In light of the abuse scandals, it is virtually impossible for a man with SSA to become a priest or be admitted to the religious life (which is also barred to women with SSA, AFAIK). Marriage is out unless the accursed decides to undertake the difficult path of healing the underlying issues that lead to their SSA, if they even CAN (some can, some can’t). That leaves one relegated to the non-consecrated, perpetual single-life. Even the name is depressing…unholy loneliness forever. That’s a hard pill to swallow, but it appears that God saying, “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18) has an exception.

Well good luck to you. I personally think the church is focused on semantics rather than the basics. I see the ban on monogamous homosexual relationships to be a teaching of the pharisees.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Mankind requires reproduction if it is going to survive the long haul. It seems the last 6,000 years has been a long haul therefore it is good that we reproduced. It is also good to do it according to the rules of God.

Homosexuality leads to death of a species therefore it is not good and should not be accepted.

We don’t dislike the person but only the act. We will leave judgement to God.

Why do people want to support acts that only lead to extermination??? Had your biological mother and father decided a homosexual lifestyle you wouldn’t be here.

Logic forces mankind to mate man and woman. What percentage of non-contributors is acceptable in the development of man before he becomes seriously disadvantaged or extinct? We are seeing it happen right now in sections of the world like Europe.

Decided? Decided!? Decided!?!

Excuse me!?

Are you kidding!? Do you honestly believe that a person chooses to be same-sex attracted!? As a person who has been CURSED with same-sex attractions, I find the notion to not only be offensive but hateful. To believe that a person can even choose who they are drawn to sexually is completely ridiculous. It this notion were true, then everyone would have a crossroads where they’d be confronted with a choice…guess what? It doesn’t happen that way. There are a lot of reasons people turn out same-sex attracted, but it’s definitely not a choice.

What is a choice is what one does with the knowledge that one has been cursed with same-sex attractions. I see there being three possibilities. The minimalist choice the Church gives is to live a non-consecrated, perpetually single-life (non-sanctified loneliness forever). The choice the world gives is to give in to the attractions and to “go with it” either through gay long-term relationships or rampant promiscuity. I am taking the third path: one of exploring why I turned out this way and trying to deal with the problems and to overcome the curse.

All three paths involve some suffering. The non-consecrated, perpetually single person ends up living in constant fear of slipping and having limited options for social interaction. The person who lives a “gay lifestyle” opens themselves up to disease, addiction and the threat of deadly disease (the men more than the women because of the type of sexual drive each sex experiences). The person who chooses to explore and overcome their SSA has to confront their painful past head-on and experience the hurts that caused their SSA anew so they can experience healing, which requires help from a person who has the confidence and trust of the overcomer.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Well good luck to you. I personally think the church is focused on semantics rather than the basics. I see the ban on monogamous homosexual relationships to be a teaching of the pharisees.

The teaching is correct, but it fails to address more than the barebones minimum. Except for non-sanctified loneliness forever, what moral choices do persons with SSA have?

 

[bingbang]

The teaching is correct, but it fails to address more than the barebones minimum. Except for non-sanctified loneliness forever, what moral choices do persons with SSA have?

Monogamous same sex relationships. It is only “immoral” because the church says so. There really isn’t any good secular, non religious, reason for why it is immoral.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Empathy is the reason you should treat others well. Humans are able to put themselves in others’ shoes and be good people. I want to make others happy because I want others to make me happy.

You obviously have a horrible understanding of homosexual relationships. I guess someone who is incapable of having a child for medical reasons cannot give themselves fully to another human being. How silly.

Empathy is an emotion. What if i don’t have empathy? What if I have dehumanized my victims and no longer feel sorry for them? Empathy is not an answer as to why we should treat others good, only why we ever would.

It seems you have little understanding of the basis of morality, or any moral system. A better answer would have been survival, benefit, logic, happiness, pleasure even. But empathy is not good enough. You need to do better.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Standards change. Many things that were once considered immoral are no longer seen as such. The aforementioned bare ankle. More revealing swimwear. Pornography was once seen as only for dirty old men, now many see it as normal as reading the paper.

On the other hand, things once seen as moral now are not. Slavery. Racism. Debtors prisons.

And some things don’t tend to change. Murder. Theft. Rape.

The trend, as I see it, is that things that have no victim are becoming seen more and more as moral acts. Thus sexual practices that were once immoral at best, or literally verboten at worst, but that harmed nobody besides (potentially) those who choose to partake, are more and more becoming acceptable as normal and moral.

Changing standards and public opinion are not a reason why morality is relative. You’ve merely given me examples of people’s opinion changing about different moral issues. But you haven’t shown me why this is acceptable, or why morality (what a human always ought to do and what he never ought to do) is changeable. There are logical arguments for moral relativism. Maybe you should look them up.

Not necessarily. While I don’t ascribe to the radical left that we’re currently overpopulated, I recognize such a condition could occur, and with unchecked procreation, it’s only a matter of time. That said, neither do I think we’re in any way in danger of dying out due to a lack of procreation, either.

The general rule of the wild is, if you can afford to procreate, then do so. That being the case, just because we are not under threat of underpopulation does not mean that we still are not obligated by nature to continue to procreate. In fact, while others are not procreating, it is your advantage to have many kids so that your offspring could be more numerous.

Homosexuality will continue to exist at roughly the percentage as it does now (and always has) regardless of how we treat it. It will not spread just because it’s not demonized or criminalized. Nothing will change.

Again, I said nothing about the spread of homosexuality. I never implied that it could be spread (though the number of people who claim to be homosexual has increased over the years), but said that for the human race as a whole, homosexual behavior when viewed merely from an evolutionary perspective is detrimental.