Why Catholics will never "win" on homosexuality

[markeverett49]

Yesterday a old friend from seminary posted something on Facebook about same-sex marriage and how those who oppose it and cite the Bible have to adopt all the OTHER things in the Bible, such as dietary laws in the Pentateuch, but since they don’t, the Bible is out as an arguing point.

I thought, that’s a high price to pay for a cheap rhetorical point. If you throw out the Bible and religious teaching, you throw out “love thy neighbor” and “God is love” and so much more. Even if you can bear the cost of that, you can’t throw away the fall-back “hate is wrong” or ‘it is wrong to oppose something out of hate.’ Well, there’s nothing LEGALLY wrong with it. There’s no legal obligation to be compassionate. O, sure, YOUR morality holds that hate is wrong, but that doesn’t bind anyone else—that’s our starting point!

(NOTE: I am NOT saying that opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in hate, but if it were, what is the argument AGAINST that? If you throw out the scripture and the moral understanding of generations of believers as irrelevant, well okay, fine, but don’t presume that everyone has to agree with you about what is “fair” or “just” and what counts as “hate” and whether hate is wrong.)

You can’t say on the one hand, conventional morality is irrelevant and on the other, ‘don’t you know hate is wrong?’ Well, if morality is not a matter of knowledge but merely preference, then NO ONE knows that hate is wrong. Some people just feel that way, that’s all. (And others feel another way, which is their right.)

 

[Lochias]

Hello there.

I do appreicate your opinion(s) on the term “feelings” However, I believe you have missed the mark. Every human has feelings, no matter who they are. Feelings are however, separate from who we are when we are born. I as a Gay Catholic is moved just as anyone else, is moved by emotions, and feelings. Whether those emotions and feelings are of a heterosexual nature or homosexual nature is of no relevance when speaking of a person’s deisre to love, and be loved by another person. I know that God loves me unconditionally. It is up to me, to be mindful of God’s love for me and to share that Love as Jesus did when he walked the earth. If it is God’s will that I share my life with another man, as a married couple, so be it. If and when that happens, it is up to me to share that life with that person, the good and the bad, to be faithful entirely to my partner in all ways. As long as I continue to remember that God is my director and to the best of my ability love hm with my whole heart, then I am assured that I could live happily as God whats me to whether I live my life as a single person or married with another man.

God Bless You.

Gabriel

But if one is unwilling to follow ALL of the teachings of the Church that they profess to follow, the Church that Jesus Himself left to guide us, then that person really doesn’t love Jesus enough to trust Him. You are saying “My will be done”, rather than “Thy will be done.”

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Yesterday a old friend from seminary posted something on Facebook about same-sex marriage and how those who oppose it and cite the Bible have to adopt all the OTHER things in the Bible, such as dietary laws in the Pentateuch, but since they don’t, the Bible is out as an arguing point.

I thought, that’s a high price to pay for a cheap rhetorical point. If you throw out the Bible and religious teaching, you throw out “love thy neighbor” and “God is love” and so much more. Even if you can bear the cost of that, you can’t throw away the fall-back “hate is wrong” or ‘it is wrong to oppose something out of hate.’ Well, there’s nothing LEGALLY wrong with it. There’s no legal obligation to be compassionate. O, sure, YOUR morality holds that hate is wrong, but that doesn’t bind anyone else—that’s our starting point!

(NOTE: I am NOT saying that opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in hate, but if it were, what is the argument AGAINST that? If you throw out the scripture and the moral understanding of generations of believers as irrelevant, well okay, fine, but don’t presume that everyone has to agree with you about what is “fair” or “just” and what counts as “hate” and whether hate is wrong.)

You can’t say on the one hand, conventional morality is irrelevant and on the other, ‘don’t you know hate is wrong?’ Well, if morality is not a matter of knowledge but merely preference, then NO ONE knows that hate is wrong. Some people just feel that way, that’s all. (And others feel another way, which is their right.)

Sure. I don’t understand what you’re saying, anyway. If you’re saying that you feel atheism does not provide a person with a good source of morality, just say so. What you said about that guy claiming everyone should need to adopt all the points of the Bible is irrelevant. They don’t, anyway, because most of the time the people that claim that bring up Jewish law, which is something I know Christians don’t need to follow (and Catholics don’t even seem to get half of their morality from the Bible).

Anyway, you’re right in saying there’s no objective source of morality for an atheist, but I would argue that the world, and life, is easier for everyone without hate. There’s no reason to claim hate is good.

I’d also like to add that I don’t believe the religious teaching of love works. Most Christians don’t actually show signs of loving people. They’ll tell people they’re idiots, or that they’re ignorant, or that they’re perverts, and then claim to love people. That means nothing. It’s no use claiming that you love people if you don’t show it. It’s a complete perversion of love, and it makes it cheap and worthless.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

But if one is unwilling to follow ALL of the teachings of the Church that they profess to follow, the Church that Jesus Himself left to guide us, then that person really doesn’t love Jesus enough to trust Him. You are saying “My will be done”, rather than “Thy will be done.”

An argument that may be presented to a claim such as yours is that Jesus himself, or all that we know Jesus said, never mentions homosexuality. A problem with this is that it doesn’t take a literal view of the Bible, and of course Catholicism isn’t by the book anyway, but it works for moderate Protestants, I suppose. One guy I spoke to argued that it may as well be called Paulianity, as people seem to pay more attention to the writings of later apostles such as St Paul than that of Jesus. He said lots of other stuff, too, so it’s obvious he sat down and thought about it, because he had a response to everything I presented to him. It’s not necessarily true that “Cafeteria Christians” pick and choose because they don’t want to follow the Bible - some of them do have justified reasons for doing so.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Sure. I don’t understand what you’re saying, anyway. If you’re saying that you feel atheism does not provide a person with a good source of morality, just say so. What you said about that guy claiming everyone should need to adopt all the points of the Bible is irrelevant. They don’t, anyway, because most of the time the people that claim that bring up Jewish law, which is something I know Christians don’t need to follow (and Catholics don’t even seem to get half of their morality from the Bible).

Anyway, you’re right in saying there’s no objective source of morality for an atheist, but I would argue that the world, and life, is easier for everyone without hate. There’s no reason to claim hate is good.

I’d also like to add that I don’t believe the religious teaching of love works. Most Christians don’t actually show signs of loving people. They’ll tell people they’re idiots, or that they’re ignorant, or that they’re perverts, and then claim to love people. That means nothing. It’s no use claiming that you love people if you don’t show it. It’s a complete perversion of love, and it makes it cheap and worthless.

A person doesnt need to have an aura that radiates unicorns and teddybears in order for them to love a person. Tough love is also love. I dont need to “like” a person to love them either.

 

[tskrobacz]

I am currious–do you believe in right and wrong? Did Jesus not call sinners to repentance? I am confused by your post–in it you seem to imply that God in a desire for unity accepts and affirms everyone–you appear to allow no room for the concept of sin and the separation from God. Could you expand on just what you are saying? How do you define love? How do you define unity? Do you acknowledge there is such a thing as sin? How do you determine what is sin? What if someone is unrepentant and says that their sin is not a sin? How are you to be in union with them? Help me to understand you exact position here? Do you seek to be in union with the unrepentant adulteror and seek out what they can teach you about God? Are we wrong to teach adultery is wrong and call those who commit it to repentance?

Thank you,
Mark

Your question is rooted in a dualistic mindset that requires there to be an absolute “right” and “wrong” - whereas a non-dualistic mindset is open to the possibility that what I perceive from my finite self as “Good” or “Right” may also have a dark side and vice versa. I have no doubt that God oceanic-ally loves us all and allows us to make choices for good or for evil…as only true love can. There are acts of self will, (e.g. Adultery, Murder, etc) which are clearly counter to loving union.

Homosexuality does not fall into this space as it is who the person is intrinsically created to be. A person is Homosexual or they are not. A person is Black or they are not. A person is Blind or they are not, A person is Male, or they are not…you get the idea. The intrinsic foundation of the human person is given by God and untouchable by any human intervention whatsoever.

 

[Lochias]

An argument that may be presented to a claim such as yours is that Jesus himself, or all that we know Jesus said, never mentions homosexuality. A problem with this is that it doesn’t take a literal view of the Bible, and of course Catholicism isn’t by the book anyway, but it works for moderate Protestants, I suppose. One guy I spoke to argued that it may as well be called Paulianity, as people seem to pay more attention to the writings of later apostles such as St Paul than that of Jesus. He said lots of other stuff, too, so it’s obvious he sat down and thought about it, because he had a response to everything I presented to him. It’s not necessarily true that “Cafeteria Christians” pick and choose because they don’t want to follow the Bible - some of them do have justified reasons for doing so.

This is an old, tired argument and has been addressed many times. Like you point out, Catholics do not take a Bible Only point-of-view. The argument then becomes one of Sola Scriptura and of proper exegesis of the Bible, which has also been addressed many, many times. I therefore do not agree that “Cafeteria Christians” have any sort of justified view in terms of what they choose and don’t choose to follow. Nobody’s stopping them from doing as they please, but from the proper Catholic view, they will never, ever be justified in doing so.

 

[white_sheep]

What if a man and a woman, both married to other people, and both having children, fall in love and move in together? Who could see this beautiful couple living a life of such love and happiness and say it is evil? Nevermind that they have ruined numerous other people’s lives. Being in love with someone doesn’t make it right.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What if a man and a woman, both married to other people, and both having children, fall in love and move in together? Who could see this beautiful couple living a life of such love and happiness and say it is evil? Nevermind that they have ruined numerous other people’s lives. Being in love with someone doesn’t make it right.

When someone like Dawkins advocates his idea of “super niceness,” my mind enters a state of cognitive dissonance. Is this idea of “love,” or as some might say, “luv” as an ideal, and as it appears in your last sentence, a benign version of God’s Love, kind of like benign viruses injected in vaccines that are harmless versions of the real and dangerous ones? I think it was Kierkegaard who pointed out that Christianity in the modern world is a safe version of the real thing that has inoculated us against the real potency of God’s Love.

God’s Love must be dangerous to the status quo in the world, otherwise why did he warn us that, “If the world hates you, know that it hated me before it hated you.” (John 15:18). How could Jesus create such animosity that he was crucified? Surely this could not be from just “being nice.”

To put things into perspective, this letter was sent into Michael Voris ( Original can be found here. )and sums up “nicely” this idea.

I attend a very nice parish in a very nice diocese that is shepherded by a very nice bishop.
All of the parishioners at the Parish of Nice are very nice. So as not to offend fellow parishioners who are less fortunate, everyone in the parish has agreed to dress very casually in order to avoid being boastful.
As a result, many parishioners attend Mass dressed in beachwear attire. It looks so very nice.
Additionally, a large number of parishioners have volunteered to leave Mass immediately after receiving Holy Communion in order to clear the parking lot for the remainder of parishioners who stay until Mass is officially concluded. It is so very nice of those who volunteer.
Our priest, Fr. Nice, is also very nice. He is very careful not to offend any of his parishioners who might be actively involved in homosexual relationships, cohabitation, fornication, divorced and remarried outside the Church, taking contraception, or considering having an abortion. It is so nice of him to be considerate of others by withholding official Church teachings.
Instead he tells funny jokes during his homily which sometimes result in applause. Attending Fr. Nice’s Mass is very nice.
At the conclusion of the Mass, parishioners evacuate the church building as quickly as possible in order to make room for the next Mass, which, is very nice. As they hurriedly, depart, they are nice enough not to kneel, bow, or acknowledge the Tabernacle in any way, as doing so would obstruct the evacuation. This is so very nice.

 

[He_Man]

The difference between being against pedophilia and gay marriage is that pretty much everyone is against pedophilia no matter what their religious views are. A LARGE majority of people against gay marriage hold that view because of their religious views. If you have a moral view that your religion holds, and most people that don’t follow that religion disagree, you are probably wrong.

1. Your last statement is your opinion, and it is wrong. Most people don’t follow any one religion, in terms of statistics and 6 billion people on the planet, and regardless, consensus has never been a barometer of truth. Unless you still think the earth is flat.
2. You apparently missed the point. The reason we hear about a large opposition to homosexual marriage is because the Pro side has thrust the issue into the spotlight. Before there were calls for legitimacy, it was a non-issue that everyone knew was wrong. So to get annoyed that Church is singling out homosexuals is to simply wallow in self-pity. The Church didn’t make this a spotlighted issue; the pro-homosexual union movement did. If you don’t like the attention it gets, blame them.

 

[He_Man]

Do you read the threads about homosexuality here at all? While there are some thoughtful and compassionate posters, there are also a fair number who post differently. On other “Christian” forums the language can get even worse.

And again, that language was never used about divorced people, people committing adultery or living together without marriage. These folks have not been accused of being disordered, of being part of an “agenda” to destroy America nor have their choices been framed in any way the same as the choice of gay people to have partners.

There IS a difference and that difference has given those on the outside reason to view the Church’s argument as irrelevant. The total argument for the sacredness of marriage is the way to “win”, but that doesn’t seem to be a direction anyone wants to take.

Likewise, there are civil posters who are respectful of the Church 's teaching (aka, the word of God) and many others who shun that very word of God, which is more offensive than anything we could do to men alone.

You can be respectful and disagree with the notion of homosexual unions; it is difficult to be respectful and endorse them when by definition the very endorsement is a disrespectful affront to God and the Church.

 

[He_Man]

I would love to have eternal life and happiness. I just don’t believe in it because logic and reason tells me otherwise.

And so you come here to validate your beliefs? I wonder how many passionate Catholics spend oodles of time frequenting non-believer message boards?

 

[He_Man]

CC…truth speaks for itself and is credible on it’s own merits. No need to make this discussion about me, personally, when millions (yes millions) of homosexuals are placed in moral peril and dilemma by the egregious position that so many in the Catholic church have take on this matter.

Christianity is in favor of unity and inclusion of all peoples as an expression of God’s love…it does not discriminate as you suggest. Instead, it asks what does someone that I perceive as standing opposed to my finite understanding have to teach me about a God that is infinitely knowable.

Do you have anything official that supports your position, or are you just going to keep posting it until it becomes an encyclical with a fancy Latin title, like Postus Alotus?

 

[He_Man]

That is fine. I just don’t think that you should be trying to push your religious beliefs on others then by being against gay marriage because the church says so.

Can we assume you then relinquish the right to force the beliefs in favor of homosexual unions on the rest of us?

And you can’t really gripe about hearing religious objections to homosexual unions on Catholic Answers. No one is forced to come here.

 

[CopticChristian]

To follow Christ is to recognize Christ in all of his creation - if you limit it to “Church” you exclude a large part of the body. How is it that you understand me completely? You simply throw words at that which you do not understand. My position remains unchanged by anything that you have stated.

Tsk,

To ignore the Church is to ignore the greatest of His Creations.

 

[CopticChristian]

God alone is infallible and absolute, everything else falls short and is merely a contrivance of the human mind.

Tsk,

Including your paradigm of “loves work”

 

[CopticChristian]

As the Church teaches in Romans: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Tsk,

The Church teaches. The Church teaches who?

You state that you do not subjugate your values to Church teaching so who are you referring to in this statement?

Where does the Church teach using this passage from the letter to the Romans? Since I am in the Church, point out for me what I missed.

This is abstracted from the letter to the Romans when Paul is telling the Jews that because they have the Old Covenant that they are no better than the Gentiles. Gentiles were to be considered under the power of sin and Jews were exempt by the Old Covenant and Circumcision. This statement of Paul was to tell the Jews that the Old Covenant won’t save you and “you too, like the Gentile” are under the power of Sin.

Did you know that?

 

[CopticChristian]

Your question is rooted in a dualistic mindset that requires there to be an absolute “right” and “wrong” - whereas a non-dualistic mindset is open to the possibility that what I perceive from my finite self as “Good” or “Right” may also have a dark side and vice versa. I have no doubt that God oceanic-ally loves us all and allows us to make choices for good or for evil…as only true love can. There are acts of self will, (e.g. Adultery, Murder, etc) which are clearly counter to loving union.

Homosexuality does not fall into this space as it is who the person is intrinsically created to be. A person is Homosexual or they are not. A person is Black or they are not. A person is Blind or they are not, A person is Male, or they are not…you get the idea. The intrinsic foundation of the human person is given by God and untouchable by any human intervention whatsoever.

Tsk,

Race and homosexuality do not fall into the same category. This is faulty thinking on your part. No one can say for sure why you have the feelings you have. I believe it is a choice. There are people on this thread that have chosen not to respond to them. Dakota Roberts has posted much on this since returning to the Catholic Faith 2 years ago and has much to say about this. Reading what Dakota writes would do you some good. You should spend less time time to promote your inane ideas and read the posts of Dakota, it would humble you. It has humbled me.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

… and all in under 5 minutes!

youtube.com/watch?v=rikj0WMGbDU

The human face of actual homosexuals in the real world where they have real feelings and real lives. It’s a tough thing to argue against genuine, loving warmth with cold abstractions.

No Catholics are arguing against “genuine loving warmth.” Catholics are asserting that no matter how “genuine” or “loving” or “warm” same sex unions can be, they simply are not a marriage, because–by their very nature–they are never open to the possibility of creating life. Marriage, by its nature, is a relationship that is fundamentally oriented towards the creation of life. “Genuine loving warmth” absent “the orientation towards the creation of new life” is not marriage. It’s not cruel, or discriminatory, or bigoted, to tell someone the truth about what marriage is by nature.

The term “gay marriage” is meaningless political doublespeak that makes as much sense as “male mother” or “female grandfather.” I don’t understand why we can’t simply be honest about the fact that there is a difference between a union of two people that is oriented towards the creation of new life, and a union of two people that is NOT oriented towards the creation of new life?

Peace,
Robert

 

[migueltojose]

… and all in under 5 minutes!

youtube.com/watch?v=rikj0WMGbDU

The human face of actual homosexuals in the real world where they have real feelings and real lives. It’s a tough thing to argue against genuine, loving warmth with cold abstractions.

IF we will never “win”… (BTW is it about winning or losing? who decides? does it really matter… what matters is behavior, what matters is eternal salvation) …it is because we have lost the “critical mass” of people who are like minded. We had that for a long time… maybe until about 1973 or so… But now, secular relativism can beat us in the public opinion polls and the voting booth. We need to evangelize more or accept the consequences. However, as history has shown, a small group of enlightened, dedicated, providencial, God fearing, hard working individuals can acheive much. Winning will be when everyone chooses to be chaste, all the time, except when they are married and open to life.

“Ask and you shall receive.”

---

Tune In - to the Holy Spirit
Turn On - to Jesus Christ and
Drop Out - of the culture of death…