Why is the US Catholic church so obsessed with the gay issue?

[catholic1seeks]

The Church clearly disagrees.

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

Ed

I know what the Church teaches in its documents. This is an issue I struggle with.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Several Catholic organizations in the US seem to be uncomfortably and awkwardly preoccupied with gay issues. Catholic Answers Live, a radio show I love, sometimes has specific shows dedicated to same-sex marriage or homosexuality. I just switched on EWTN on my TV and the show was talking about the “militant homosexual agenda.” Catholic bloggers and articles are always dedicating topics on this issue; everytime I go to NewAdvent.org, there is a good chance I’ll see a highlighted article casting the issue in a severe light.

My question is, what is this emphasis on this issue meant to achieve? Is it supposed to help those gay persons who are already struggling to find a place in the Church? Is it supposed to convince the “militant homosexual” activists? Is it supposed to reach out to those in the Church and the world who disagree with church teaching and accept homosexual relationships? Or is it supposed to comfort those who already agree with church teaching?

Maybe I am just sensitive. But I do not see the point with this over-emphasis. I could see how such a preoccupation would turn away those from the Church, as it is making me really disappointed with the USA church’s outreach to those on the fringes.

Why do you think it is the Church that is obsessed with these issues? It seems to me that it is our society, or at least a portion of our society, that is obsessed with all things relating to sex. It (they) goes to great lengths to justify almost anything if it is in the service of sex. Marriage is just the latest casualty of the assault. I think the Church has just been responding the current battle. So because the Church responds to the attacks on marriage–it is the Church that is obsessed and not the attackers who wish to change the definition of marriage? I don’t get it.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Lucretius]

Thank you for posting this.

Oops. I forgot to point out who wrote that. That passage is from St. Justin the Martyr’s First Apology; Chapter 29: Continence of Christians, found here: newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

He’s one of the earliest Fathers too (around AD 125), so there is little doubt that this was an early teaching, and did not just appear around the medieval period, unlike what some might argue.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

PS. I edited that post, for clarification.

 

[Rau]

What?

I assume you know what I am referring to considering context.

Are all acts of masturbation wrong? Is two men exchanging semen not masturbation if they are committed to each other, and have a deep affection? Why is exchanging semen a good and proper thing in this context?

 

[Lucretius]

In the very first chapter of the Torah, we have this:

And God pronounced his blessing on them, Increase and multiply and fill the earth, and make it yours (Genesis 1:28)

The first command that God gives to humanity (not just to the Jews, humanity) is to procreate. This teaching comes straight from the Torah, and predates St. Paul and the Church Fathers.

Then, in chapter two, we have this:

This rib, which he had taken out of Adam, the Lord God formed into a woman; and when he brought her to Adam, Adam said, Here, at last, is bone that comes from mine, flesh that comes from mine; it shall be called Woman, this thing that was taken out of Man. That is why a man is destined to leave father and mother, and cling to his wife instead, so that the two become one flesh. Both went naked, Adam and his wife, and thought it no shame. (Genesis 2:22-25)

This is where the union and fidelity aspect of marriage is explained.

Then, in chapter three, we have this:

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they became aware of their nakedness; so they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves girdles (Genesis 3:7)

The last aspect of marriage, resistance to concupiscence, starts here. Notice how this wasn’t an original part of marriage, and only appears after the Fall. Before the Fall, the sexual appetite was completely under control of the “intellectual appetite,” also known as the will. In the pre-Fall world, Adam would only feel raw sexual attraction to Eve if his will first “chose” for it to be so. His will, due to original Grace, had complete knowledge of the law of God and reason, and so would only choose to feel such feelings for rational reasons, like procreation. To put it another way, he would choose to have sex, and then he would feel passion for her, with this choice being based on reason (he wouldn’t have chosen sex for pleasure, but rather enjoyed the pleasure of sex while he chose sex for a rational reason like procreation). To cite Scripture, “Both went naked, Adam and his wife, and thought it no shame.” After the Fall, the sexual appetite, like all the sensible appetites, rebelled against Man, and thus we now are stuck in this stituation where the sexual appetite tries to tempt our will into acting on the impulse. Sometimes this impulse is not sinful in itself, like when a couple “get the feeling” and go at it, while being at least open to procreation, although this shows a weakness they have to work on. But sometimes, heck, most of the time, this impulse tries to tempt us to reject God and our wives (I write this from a man’s prospective, since I am a man. Feel free to replace “wives” with “husbands” and so on). The resistance to concupiscence that a married couple work with is preparation for Heaven, where we will all be virgins “like the Angels, neither giving nor being given in marriage.”

Thus, in the Torah alone, all attributes of marriage are introduced and explained in the first marriage.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bradski]

Now that’s the way to lose a debate…try to convince people that two wrongs make it right.

I don’t think that either of them are wrong. You do, yet you spend an enormous proportion of your posts railing against homosexuality and…how many on contraception? I can find one out of over 2,500 posts. Maybe because a huge majority of Catholics use contraception it’s a harder argument for you.

 

[laircy]

The real question is why is the culture so obsessed with the gay issue? The perceived “obsession” in the Church is only a response to the obsession of our culture in legitimizing sin.

 

[edwest2]

Why do you think it is the Church that is obsessed with these issues? It seems to me that it is our society, or at least a portion of our society, that is obsessed with all things relating to sex. It (they) goes to great lengths to justify almost anything if it is in the service of sex. Marriage is just the latest casualty of the assault. I think the Church has just been responding the current battle. So because the Church responds to the attacks on marriage–it is the Church that is obsessed and not the attackers who wish to change the definition of marriage? I don’t get it.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I don’t get it either, Mark. First, The Pill in 1960, followed by the Sexual - without love - Revolution of the late 1960s which laid most of the groundwork for what is going on today, followed by legalized abortion, followed by No-Fault Divorce. Then we had a non-scientific vote in 1973 by the American Psychiatric Association whose members were pressured by radical gay activists, along with closeted gays within, to arbitrarily make what was a disorder yesterday, not a disorder in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

Ed

 

[Lucretius]

The real question is why is the culture so obsessed with the gay issue? The perceived “obsession” in the Church is only a response to the obsession of our culture in legitimizing sin.

In the '60s, marriage was a symbol of the Patriarchy mad: groan growl hiss scream ). Gay people were proud to claim that they weren’t married, since it showed how “enlightened” they were from the darkness of the Evil Institution, and how they were resisting the Oppressors of Women^™

Then, at some point, everyone switched around and marriage become some sort of political fetish. Now, gays getting married is understood as resistance to the Oppressors and the Patriarchy

To use a phrase from Chesterton, “fads of the times.” Yep.

Chrsti pax,

Lucretius

 

[edwest2]

In the '60s, marriage was a symbol of the Patriarchy mad: groan growl hiss scream ). Gay people were proud to claim that they weren’t married, since it showed how “enlightened” they were from the darkness of the Evil Institution, and how they were resisting the Oppressors of Women^™

Then, at some point, everyone switched around and marriage become some sort of political fetish. Now, gays getting married is understood as resistance to the Oppressors and the Patriarchy

To use a phrase from Chesterton, “fads of the times.” Yep.

Chrsti pax,

Lucretius

Feminists definitely supported and continue to support ‘gay marriage.’

Ed

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I don’t think that either of them are wrong. You do, yet you spend an enormous proportion of your posts railing against homosexuality and…how many on contraception? I can find one out of over 2,500 posts. Maybe because a huge majority of Catholics use contraception it’s a harder argument for you.

I don’t believe that a majority of Catholics use artificial contraception…

True, I don’t spend much time on the contraception issue…probably because it is not covered very much on CNN or MSNBC or any media outlets for that matter. Also there are no “anti-Contraception” demonstrations out side my Church and no “Contraception Pride” parades in San Francisco and finally there seems to be no interest in contraception at the Supreme Court level. That leaves me with the homosexual issue and the redefinition of marriage. Once I have that nonsense settled I can then move on…

 

[Contarini]

OK, you need to explain this one slowly to me.

How are all homosexual acts not the same?

Would you agree at least in terms of heterosexual acts… masturbation, fornication, oral sex, and “doing everything but intercourse” … that they are all sinful?

A person is either chaste or they are not (regardless of their sexual orientation).

The attitude you just expressed is one of the biggest causes of scandal in the world today–and I mean that in the theological sense, though it’s also true in the colloquial sense.

Liberals and non-Christians regularly comment that conservative Christians don’t seem to get the importance of consent and routinely speak as if all “immoral” acts were the same, or at most just varying degrees of basically the same thing.

Two people who have consensual sex in the context of a relationship of affection and trust are not remotely doing the same thing as a rapist or a callous seducer.

What they are doing still falls short of the sacramental reality of sex as God intended it, and it may reflect an overly casual attitude to sex that has bad consequences down the road for their relationship and for their own dignity as human persons.

But if conservative Christians don’t draw a very clear and sharp distinction between blatantly abusive and clearly consensual forms of sex (recognizing that there are a lot of instances that blur the line), then they lose moral credibility, and rightly so.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The real question is why is the culture so obsessed with the gay issue? The perceived “obsession” in the Church is only a response to the obsession of our culture in legitimizing sin.

The society certainly is obsessed with it.

All the more reason for the Church to make it clear that it isn’t.

Which is why, I think, Pope Francis has taken the approach he has, which has confused and upset so many of the more conservative among the faithful.

Edwin

 

[Rau]

…
But if conservative Christians don’t draw a very clear and sharp distinction between blatantly abusive and clearly consensual forms of sex (recognizing that there are a lot of instances that blur the line), then they lose moral credibility, and rightly so.

Edwin

What makes one a conservative Christian? Is it to believe that sex is only right inside marriage? On another thread, those believing this were labelled “ultra conservative” Catholics

 

[Lucretius]

The attitude you just expressed is one of the biggest causes of scandal in the world today–and I mean that in the theological sense, though it’s also true in the colloquial sense.

Liberals and non-Christians regularly comment that conservative Christians don’t seem to get the importance of consent and routinely speak as if all “immoral” acts were the same, or at most just varying degrees of basically the same thing.

Two people who have consensual sex in the context of a relationship of affection and trust are not remotely doing the same thing as a rapist or a callous seducer.

What they are doing still falls short of the sacramental reality of sex as God intended it, and it may reflect an overly casual attitude to sex that has bad consequences down the road for their relationship and for their own dignity as human persons.

But if conservative Christians don’t draw a very clear and sharp distinction between blatantly abusive and clearly consensual forms of sex (recognizing that there are a lot of instances that blur the line), then they lose moral credibility, and rightly so.

Edwin

St. Thomas (and I think Martin Luther) often get bashed for “saying that masturbation is worse than rape,” when in reality they are actually making this distinction. When you abstract the sexual component (without the justice aspect), masturbation is worse than rape, because rape, sexually speaking, is no different from chaste sex, in the sexual/procreative aspect alone. However, if you look at rape holistically, with both the mere sexual aspect and the Justice aspect, it is a lot, lot worse than masturbation

Dr. Peter Singer teaches that “sex brings up no moral questions.” He himself is making this distinction, and, following the Sexual Revolution, is claiming that sex by itself is neither morally good or evil. In this case, the other major aspect of sex, Justice, becomes the only determining factor to indicate whether a sex act is moral or not. By Justice, we mean consent of course.

It is my understanding that the whole point of the Sexual Revolution is to promote the idea that consent is the only factor in determining the morality of a sex act.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bradski]

I don’t believe that a majority of Catholics use artificial contraception…

A Pew Research poll conducted in March, just after Francis’ election, found that three-quarters of U.S. Catholics (76%) say the church should permit birth control. pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/19/majority-of-u-s-catholics-opinions-run-counter-to-church-on-contraception-homosexuality/

“Data shows that 98 percent of sexually experienced women of child-bearing age and who identify themselves as Catholic have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point in their lives.” washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html

True, I don’t spend much time on the contraception issue…probably because it is not covered very much on CNN or MSNBC or any media outlets for that matter.

Much time? No, you spend no time at all. Which is fine if you consider homosexuality to be a greater evil. And I guess no-one is interested in contraception. That’s a done deal. No-one is going to file any reports on something that hardly anyone considers a problem. So is that how you see it? It’s not on the TV, so it’s not a problem?

I take it that as matters regarding SSM are reported less and less (as they certainly will be as these things have a certain shelf life as far as the media goes – there is always another topic de jour) we shall see less and less posts from you on it.

It is my understanding that the whole point of the Sexual Revolution is to promote the idea that consent is the only factor in determining the morality of a sex act.

Your understanding is pretty much correct.

 

[Lucretius]

The society certainly is obsessed with it.

All the more reason for the Church to make it clear that it isn’t.

Which is why, I think, Pope Francis has taken the approach he has, which has confused and upset so many of the more conservative among the faithful.

Edwin

I disagree, I think we should be obsessed with the gay issue. However, I agree with the spirit of your position: we should be obsessed with gays, but we should also be obsessed about the poor, our environment, other sexual issues, orphans, abortion, stopping diseases, teaching the uneducated, helping those suffering from the Nepal earthquake, caring for the sick and elderly, baptizing people, etc.

It is fire that I have come to spread over the earth, and what better wish can I have than that it should be kindled! There is a baptism I must needs be baptized with, and how impatient am I for its accomplishment! (Luke 12: 49-50)

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What?

I assume you know what I am referring to considering context.

You posted " I do not accept that homosexual acts are sinful just because they are not open to new life/procreation,"

By definition, sexual acts produce new life. By extension, acts that are not open to new life/procreation, are not sexual acts. They are nothing more than self pleasure.

Today’s culture of relativism would find that perfectly acceptable…if it’s fun and feels good…go for it.

However…

Canon 1061 of the Code of Canon Law states that a valid marriage is “called ratified and consummated if the parties have performed between themselves in a human manner the conjugal act which is per se suitable for the generation of children, to which marriage is ordered by its very nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.”

Thus, oral sex, anal sex, and mutual masturbation do not constitute consummation of marriage and remain serious sins.

You seem to have a more than average understanding of Catholicism. You know scripture and you claim to have “Catholic tendencies” according to your profile page. I would assume that you could be interested in becoming Catholic.

What bothers me is your inability to accept the truths, explanations and answers provided to you by forum members. I would think that if someone wanted to join a club, they would embrace the rules and traditions of that club rather than argue about them with the members. I would hope that you are not one of those who post on the forum with the intention of changing the Church before you accept it.

 

[Lucretius]

A Pew Research poll conducted in March, just after Francis’ election, found that three-quarters of U.S. Catholics (76%) say the church should permit birth control. pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/19/majority-of-u-s-catholics-opinions-run-counter-to-church-on-contraception-homosexuality/

“Data shows that 98 percent of sexually experienced women of child-bearing age and who identify themselves as Catholic have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point in their lives.” washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html

I think what our friend means is Catholics in the entire world. Catholics in the U.S. make up only like 2% of Catholics (I could be wrong on that). So if the majority of 2% of Catholics use contraception, I think we can still safely say that most Catholics don’t use contraception.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

A Pew Research poll conducted in March, just after Francis’ election, found that three-quarters of U.S. Catholics (76%) say the church should permit birth control. pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/19/majority-of-u-s-catholics-opinions-run-counter-to-church-on-contraception-homosexuality/

“Data shows that 98 percent of sexually experienced women of child-bearing age and who identify themselves as Catholic have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point in their lives.” washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html

The PEW poll and the Washington Post article have been debunked and refuted here on the forum.

The PEW poll did not ask Catholic women if they used artificial birth control. Yet you claimed “Maybe because a huge majority of Catholics use contraception it’s a harder argument for you.”

The Washington Post article is rejected because:

"But while the study says that 98 percent of “sexually experienced Catholic women” have “ever used a contraceptive method other than natural planning,” the data shown in the report does not actually back up that claim. In fact, a supplementary table in the report, on page 8, even appears to undermine that statistic, since it shows that 11 percent of Catholic women currently using no method at all. "

washingtonpost.com/blogs/…eqIR_blog.html

Much time? No, you spend no time at all. Which is fine if you consider homosexuality to be a greater evil. And I guess no-one is interested in contraception. That’s a done deal. No-one is going to file any reports on something that hardly anyone considers a problem. So is that how you see it? It’s not on the TV, so it’s not a problem?

Once you cut through all the anti-Catholic media BS and misquoting of blogs…it becomes less a problem.

I take it that as matters regarding SSM are reported less and less (as they certainly will be as these things have a certain shelf life as far as the media goes – there is always another topic de jour) we shall see less and less posts from you on it.

As I said before, when my work is done and this problem is solved I will move on.