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

[bingbang]

To clarify a few points - do you mean a seminarian, or an actual ordained priest. Not that it matters greatly, I’m just trying to properly identify the source for everyone.

Seminarian. I didn’t know the proper word for it.

 

[Mumbles140]

Seminarian. I didn’t know the proper word for it.

Thank you. As someone who has never discerned entering the priesthood or a religious order, I cannot testify to that matter, but if anyone who has discerned (or is ordained/took vows) can clarify, that would be appreciated.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I was told this by a priest in training at a Catholic camp when I was a child.

Hmmm, hearsay facts are not real facts.

If what you say is true, he was very mistaken in what he told you.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thank you. As someone who has never discerned entering the priesthood or a religious order, I cannot testify to that matter, but if anyone who has discerned (or is ordained/took vows) can clarify, that would be appreciated.

He is wrong.

 

[Newbie2]

It is interesting to see what occurs when one basesmorality on their personal discernment of what is right. One poster sees nothing immoral about a father having sex with his adult son but thinks there’s something disordered about lifetime celibacy while another sees nothing wrong with having sex with 30 different partners since he was married and believes the only problem is that people don’t realize that sex is just sex…

I think I will stick with the Judeo-Christian version of morality.

The problem I have with Christianity is lack of proof. The gospels probably weren’t written by eye witnesses, and paul certainly wasn’t an eye witness. We don’t have any of the original copies of these documents and there is a lot of room for error in the copies we do have.

Yet we accept as objective history many other documents which have far fewer copies in existance and dating from the same period. I’ll bet you accept the history derived from them…yet…somehow that they are “religious documents” they are viewed with suspicion and scrutinized much more carefully as such.

Each gospel writer seems to have some sort of agenda

Duh…to report their own version of the Gospel story.

and paints a slightly different picture of Jesus.

Demonstrating a reallity that would be absent in a manufactured book of Gospel stories.

 

[Spirithound]

Thank you. As someone who has never discerned entering the priesthood or a religious order, I cannot testify to that matter, but if anyone who has discerned (or is ordained/took vows) can clarify, that would be appreciated.

I just checked the 1983 Code of Canon Law and impotence is not an impediment to ordination. Perhaps it was in the 1913 Code, since I recall hearing about that too.

 

[Mumbles140]

He is wrong.

Thank you, Brother David - I was hoping you’d see my ‘call-out’ to someone who had “taken vows”.

 

[TheQuestioner]

As you observed, this is something that happened more in the past than in modern times. And as I previously said, when it does happen, it’s not generally an act of society, but rather that of a sociopathic individual, or small group, that through the application of force and violence has claimed ‘leadership’ of a society.

The Rwandan genocide happened no less than 20 years ago, and the Sudanese genocide is happening right now. The genocides in the balkans happened no less than 30 years go. They are not mostly in the past, they are quite recent. Individuals cannot carry out genocides, and just because every last person doesn’t agree with a genocide, does not mean that it isn’t a societal act. Otherwise we will have many people not willing to take the blame for their part in the atrocities, just as we have today.

I’m not sure I agree. First, I’d have to ask what law you are referring to. Second, decorum (in this case, standards of dress) is most certainly a moral issue. My mother would certainly label my wife being topless at a beach as immoral, and my grandmother might even consider being clad in a bikini thusly.

You don’t seem to understand. A law (do this, do that, don’t do this, don’t do that) exist because of a moral value or code (you should always keep within this bound, it would be wrong to do this to our fellow man, this behavior is destructive, we should encourage this). Thus the law “never show your ankle” or “never show your hair” is in place because of a moral rule “never let yourself be objectified or lead others to objectify you” or “have respect for your body and person”.

How does the standard of what counts as ‘dignified and decent’ being flexible over time (and clearly, it is) NOT qualify as changing morality.

Let me give you an example of how a standard changes

“it’s wrong to show your ankles”

50 years later

“It’s ok to show your ankles, but not your breasts”

Now let me give you an example of a change in morality value (not necessarily a change in moral code)

“It’s wrong to objectify people, and you should respect your body because you are a person”

50 years later

“man, we really need more strippers and whores in this town, I want porn and BOOBIES!!!”

You see the difference? The moral value of the human person as a whole being in the first example is still held, though the method used to preserve this human dignity changed. However in the second example, there was a loss in the value of the human person. That’s the difference between the change in a law and the change in a moral value. However, the moral rule of not objectifying anyone still remains, it’s just being disregarded.

I don’t have to experience something to know that I wouldn’t like it, if sufficient knowledge is available about what it entails. I’m not big on rules, and ya’ll have WAY too many of them when it comes to sex. Mostly around things you CAN’T do.

But it’s the fact that you are knocking it, not because you’ve done it and it sucked, but because (as you admitted) you can’t do it. You’re basically saying “because I can’t do this thing based on my current wishes, so I think it’s bad”. If you but wanted to have a child then you could try the Catholic way, but since you don’t you recognize you cannot do it. Instead of asking other practicing Catholics about it, you simply say that the Catholic way sucks (thus you are not trying to educate yourself on other people’s points of view and how that fit’s into the grand picture, you are merely mocking the method because you yourself cannot do it).

But here’s the thing… your God never said all that.

And you know this because…?

Have you ever stopped to consider why God is supposedly so anti-sex?

My God is anti-sex? By having sex with your spouse (in the right way) you are renewing the sacrament of marriage and infers grace on you thus bringing you closer to God. Does that sound anti-sex to you? Or is it that my God is anti-let me do things my own way? Have you looked in to Theology of the Body, or are you just knocking the Catholic ways without getting more information about them?

Promiscuous behavior is bad not only because of STDs, but because sex is and has always been about procreation and bringing two people closer, thus starting a family unit. Only recently with the creation of contraceptives has the view on sex changed because the procreative aspect has become optional. However, the unitive aspect that evolved with that procreative aspect has not gone away, and so promiscuous behavior was bad in the past because a woman would end up having too many kids to take care of, and thus would usually have to kill some and lose that family unit, and is bad today because you create bonds with people you then break with your subsequent neglect, thus hurting them deeply.

Well, considering they knew it was nothing more than a casual thing with a virtual stranger before it even happened, no. You think they’ve considered the same thing of me? I rather doubt it.

Doesn’t matter whether they considered the same for you (I only say this because I am talking with you now, in the grand scale of course it matters, they shouldn’t be hurting you either, you’re both victims). One day though, your life-style will catch up to you. Mark my words.

 

[Junebug999]

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.

I think a lot if people dk think the way you do and that is why the are confused a d grasping for straws. The seek the wisdom of men when they should seek the wisdom of God. Seek truth rather than relativist hypotheticals. We are created by God. Beware of creating a god that fits your human prerogatives. The gate is wide and the path is very easy that leads that way.

 

[slywakka250]

The idea of original sin is that it is now human nature, through our own free will and not by the will of God, to be sinful. But that doesn’t mean man cannot achieve enlightenment (i.e. the Beatific Vision). I’ve told you repeatedly that God and all Catholics are optimistic - we believe EVERYONE to be predestined to Heaven. It is selfishness, lust, and overall sinfulness that rejects God’s love and we condemn ourselves to Hell.
.

I could not disagree with this more. Catholicism is VERY pessimistic about the human condition, and specifically the final destiny of mankind, all the while trying to dodge the issue with this talk about “everyone being predestined to heaven.” Here’s why.

Catholicism teaches that it is possible to perform an action so evil, or live a life so evil, that it amounts to a permanent decision against God. This is why hell is eternal. It is because those people who go to hell, have rejected God 100%, and those people in hell are final and fully resolved in their decision to be there. they have to be, or else it would not be just to put them in hell.

Buddhism and other religions do NOT teach that man is capable of a decision or life so evil as to in effect be a permanent choice against all that is good for all eternity.

Indeed, other religions acknowledge evil, but no one is so evil as to be in a permanent state of rejection of God. Instead, you may be either caught in a cycle of reincarnations which lasts for eons, you may be caught in a dark spiritual dimension indefinitely, you might be trapped in a low vibration, and be in a kind of hell, the key difference being that it is not eternal. You may deliberately choose to stay in a hell for a very very long time, but your evil actions are not so evil, as to amount to a choice to stay there permanently like they do in Catholicism.

So Catholics are exceptionally pessimistic by the fact that they believe in the possibility of someone so evil, that they choose hell forever.

 

[Ginger2]

First let me confess, I did not read 24 pages of responses. Also, I am not Catholic.

But, I would like to give my hypothetical answer to this hypothetical question:

I. hypotheically, the Church cannot be wrong on anything defined ex-cathedral

II. if the Church’s teaching is not absolute, and they are wrong in this instance,…
. a. there is still a beneficial service to be provided through their 12 steps to heterosexuality program because,
. . 1. the sector of the homosexual community who claim sexuality in inate and cannot be changed.state anyone who changes was never homosexual to begin with. What a wonderful service the Church provides in helping clear up confusion and get these pseudo-gays living the heterosexual life they are truly born to live!!!
. . 2. of the five original founders of Exodus International, only one reverted back to homosexuality. The other four successfully left the homosexual lifestyle. This transformation has lasted decades!!! So, again even if the Church is wrong, their 12 step program can provide a wonderful, beneficial service for up to 80% of those who participate.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

. 1. the sector of the homosexual community who claim sexuality in inate and cannot be changed.state anyone who changes was never homosexual to begin with. What a wonderful service the Church provides in helping clear up confusion and get these pseudo-gays living the heterosexual life they are truly born to live!!!
. . 2. of the five original founders of Exodus International, only one reverted back to homosexuality. The other four successfully left the homosexual lifestyle. This transformation has lasted decades!!! So, again even if the Church is wrong, their 12 step program can provide a wonderful, beneficial service for up to 80% of those who participate.

Considering the Catholic Church does not encourage a person with a truly homosexual orientation to “switch off” and become heterosexual, but instead live a life of chastity, just as she commands every Catholic to do, what you have just said is a horrible misrepresentation of Catholic teaching.

No one “reverts” back to homosexuality. If they are homosexual, they are homosexual. If they are heterosexual, they are heterosexual. If they were truly homosexual to begin with and “converted” to heterosexuality, they are lying to themselves and to their spouses.

The Catholic Church teaches that the orientation itself is not a sin. Homosexuality as an orientation is no more sinful than eating a slice of watermelon at a Fourth of July celebration. Homosexual acts are what is sinful. To claim that the orientation itself is sinful flies in the face of the definition of sin and goes against the Natural Law upon which Catholic morality is based. Sin is not thinking of sinning, sin is actually committing a sin, it requires action. A celibate homosexual is still homosexual. A homosexual who has undergone the “services” of Exodus International and found a wife is a liar.

Edit: That final line concerns a person with a truly homosexual orientation. Not someone who only feels same sex attraction while simultaneously being attracted to the opposite sex. They would be lying to themselves and their spouse after having gone through Exodus International.

 

[Ginger2]

For crying out loud. I was not portraying anything about the RC. It was a hypothetical and I gave a hypothetical response.

I did not claim anyone can change sexual orientation as you have falsely accused me, but said that a certain sect of the Homosexual community denies this and **according to them, ** anyone who changes - NEVER WAS homosexual to begin with THEREFORE, hypothetically the Church is providing a useful service thru their 12 step program to sexually confused heterosexuals.

And I have an example of the original founders of EI. The reverting back to homosexuality was reference to his lifestyle not a statement of changing sexual orientation back and forth. I never claimed he ever became straight.
If you want an real answer, your denial that one can change denies God’s absolute power to accomplish anything. Apparently you doubt “all things are possible”?

 

[benedictus2]

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.

**If it is then it is not the Church that Christ established on earth. In which case everything that she is not permissible is permissible - murder, rape, incest, etc, etc, etc. Which means woe to us for we are all up the creek.

But since all indications prove that it is the Church that Christ established on earth then her teaching is correct.

Simple as that.**

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Sorry but this is a stupid question.

Firstly, those celebate homosexuals would have accepted the teaching of the Church to be right in the first place. And if they accepted the Church’s teaching on this matter, then they therefore hold that the Church teaches infallibly and therefore could never ever be wrong with regards this matter.

If (hypothetically - a most impossible hypothetically) it would be found that the teaching is wrong, how would celibacy have affected them negatively? Is a heterosexual who practices celibacy negatively affected by the practice?

You approach the question from a hedonistic point of view and are therefore unable to grasp that there is more to a fulfilled life than sex, sex and more sex.

As for those who never followed the Church’s teachings anyway, it is non issue.

 

[Ginger2]

Sorry but this is a stupid question.

Firstly, those celebate homosexuals would have accepted the teaching of the Church to be right in the first place. And if they accepted the Church’s teaching on this matter, then they therefore hold that the Church teaches infallibly and therefore could never ever be wrong with regards this matter.

If (hypothetically - a most impossible hypothetically) it would be found that the teaching is wrong, how would celibacy have affected them negatively? Is a heterosexual who practices celibacy negatively affected by the practice?

You approach the question from a hedonistic point of view and are therefore unable to grasp that there is more to a fulfilled life than sex, sex and more sex.

As for those who never followed the Church’s teachings anyway, it is non issue.

Very good answer!!! I loved it! There is always that double standard in homosexuality that says heterosexuals can, but homosexuals can’t. That hereosexuals are doing wrong but homosexuals are doing right concerning the exact same moral issues.

no one cries fowl when a heterosexuals is arrested for public masturbation, but if a homosexual is arrested for it, it’s homophobia and bigotry and prejudice.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Sorry but this is quite absurd. You are approaching a philosophical and moral proposition from a scientific view. Morality is beyond the purview of science.

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.

And what makes you think that without the assumption that Catholicism is right what the Church is doing is wrong?

You make it sound as if we say homosexuality is wrong because the Church says so. It is the other way around. The Church says homosexuality is wrong because it is so.

We do not say that homosexuality is wrong because Catholicism is right. Catholicism declares homosexual activity is wrong not because she is right but because objectively, homosexuality is wrong.

The Church does not declare anything willy nilly without having assessed and studied the morality issue in question.

For those who wish to practice homosexuality, they are free to do so. I find it laughable that homosexuals would wish the Church’s approval of their perverted practice when I doubt very much whether all her other teachings matter to them.

 

[antiochgirl]

Why is it that whenever the topic of gays comes up, people like you always bring out the pedophile line? PEDOPHILES HURT KIDS. How do gays hurt kids? Seriously I want an answer on that. Gays actually help kids in foster care, when gays are actually allowed to adopt. The couple completes their family, and the children get a loving home, away from the uncertainty of where they’ll go next and when. Of course you’ll refute this because you’re under the impression that all gays have fangs and drink baby blood or something… When you write back I want a scientific study on your side, one that isn’t from the 17th century that you obviously come from. Prove to me that homosexuality is a choice, or that gay families all abuse their kids, something like that. And think out your next answer a bit more so that you actually sound like you can think critically.

 

[Ginger2]

You are speaking about something you know nothing about, dear.

I know a teenager girl who had to go to the hospital emergency room because she and her boyfriend (who should not have been sexually active in the first place) engaged in a homosexual sex act. Which, btw, is just as risky for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals.

You get your misinformation about homosexuality from the mainstream. Try going on a gay chat room and you will be shocked.

The homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy physically emotionally and mentally and it is overflowing into the heterosexual community rapidly - that is how gays are hurting our children!

 

[FOFEBA]

The first serious enquiry into this question which I am aware of is the book by S.J. McNeil from the 1970’s. He was a catholic priest who investigated the matter in some detail, using modern scholarship. He considered the texts which are usually quoted, and put them into a linguistic and cultural context for the time in which they were written. If memory serves me correctly, he taught theology at Notre Dame University.

His conclusion was that the current church teachings are incorrect, base on his view of the actual meanings, as compared to the translated and current cultural spin, of the relevant scripture.

Unfortunately for all of us, Dr. McNeil’s book made the cover of Time Magazine, and the papal imprimatur was revoked because the book became too controversial.

Nonetheless, it is a valid point. The Church could be incorrect in this teaching. There are a number of serious and reputable biblical scholars who would agree with that position.