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

[Rau]

How is it not obligatory? The difference seems kind of arbitrary. It’s a bodily activity. There’s a drive to engage in it, often overwhelming and (unfortunately) uncontrollable in certain persons. It’s ultimately necessary.

Seems there can thus be no sexual sin? “I had no choice” would always serve to excuse!

 

[edwest2]

Seems there can thus be no sexual sin? “I had no choice” would always serve to excuse!

“Consent” or “two consenting adults.” That’s the big lie. Real relationships - those are worth it.

Ed

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Lack of bodily control regarding sex is not the same as any other bodily function. I am guaranteed 100% protection from any sexually transmitted disease by not having sex.

Ed

Well, that’s not exactly true. One can get a sexually transmitted disease in other ways. Needles, razors, cutting devices, using moist towels or clothing that have been used by someone who is infected, kissing…

Education and transmission of information is rather important here, don’t you think?

 

[edwest2]

Well, that’s not exactly true. One can get a sexually transmitted disease in other ways. Needles, razors, cutting devices, using moist towels or clothing that have been used by someone who is infected, kissing…

Education and transmission of information is rather important here, don’t you think?

Definitely not. They key issue is self-control and knowing who you are dealing with, not what. I would never share a needle, razor, other skin-contact cutting device or use towels or clothing used by someone else in a public place. In fact, I avoid public places where contact with bodily fluids can be an issue.

I don’t even have a first kiss without being certain I know the other person well enough.

Ed

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Definitely not. They key issue is self-control and knowing who you are dealing with, not what. I would never share a needle, razor, other skin-contact cutting device or use towels or clothing used by someone else in a public place. In fact, I avoid public places where contact with bodily fluids can be an issue.

I don’t even have a first kiss without being certain I know the other person well enough.

Ed

Education and knowledge is not important? Hmmm.

 

[edwest2]

Education and knowledge is not important? Hmmm.

After the Sexual - without love - Revolution of the late 1960s and the ongoing promotion of sex without love throughout the following decades, and the mostly USELESS introduction of Sex Education in schools, young people learned the mechanics but not the consequences. In 1960, there were 4 STDs, two of primary concern. Today, there are a lot more. The message today is ‘use the morning-after pill’ or ‘get tested,’ but that’s like putting a band-aid on the real issue: self control.

Having sex is not rocket science. Decades have shown that failure to control human sexuality has led to an STD epidemic in the US. The exact opposite of what ‘sex education’ advocates claimed would happen. I lived through it all. It was presented as “mom and dad are embarrassed to talk to their kids about sex” or incompetent or just didn’t. So the State stepped in and created a curriculum that turned sex into a function devoid of anything but function. In my last year in school, we had to take a ‘sex education’ class. It has proven to be a waste of time.

The message we got was “No sex before marriage. PERIOD!” And most of us listened. And if you were going to get married, blood tests for both first.

So, no more ‘casual sex’ or ‘hook ups’ or parties where having sex was known to be part of the “party.” In a TV show with a lead character who played a DOCTOR decided to go to a bar, have some drinks, picked up a guy, had sex, and as they were dressing the following morning and he tried to tell her his name, she indicated “NO, I don’t want to know.”(not in words but with sssh! and gesture).

That way, when she gets HIV/AIDS or her body is found the next day, nobody knows the name of the guy? And that was her thing: sex, sex and more sex.

Now. Full stop.

Ed

 

[catholic1seeks]

One issue I have is –

Why do we have these strong desires and needs in the first place if acting upon them condemns oneself to hell?

That’s the problem I have with this notion of mortal sin inherent in the act of certain sexual activity, as if every single homosexual act is inherently and intrinsically gravely sinful.

 

[Rau]

One issue I have is –

Why do we have these strong desires and needs in the first place if acting upon them condemns oneself to hell?

That’s the problem I have with this notion of mortal sin inherent in the act of certain sexual activity, as if every single homosexual act is inherently and intrinsically gravely sinful.

Whether one is condemned to hell for anything is not for us to say. The most we can judge is whether or not the matter is serious, and the circumstances under which we make our choices.

Why is the desire present? Why do men ordinarily experience a (sexual) attraction to women - something which is objectively in accordance with their design of their body. I assume the answer to this lies somewhere in our biology. It certainly makes sense that the attraction ought to lead to a functionally logical use of our body.

In light of the above, it would seem possible that something goes “wrong” when the sexual attraction is to a person incompatible with our body. Of course that is speculation, since science does not know how sexual attraction is determined.

 

[1990Domer]

Yes. Well. Thankfully it is only some gay people.

Some Catholics used to persecute persons of other faiths. Etc. But let’s define the Church by its best qualities.

Let’s do the same with this issue. What is intrinsic to it, and not what some people may feel or act like.

I think the Church truly expresses messages of welcome and love. What seems to be in the smallest supply are those gay people to tell the “some” you speak about to back-off of the bigoted comments against the Church. You know, the street runs both ways. It’s hard to practice authentic Catholicism and not be labeled a bigot.

 

[1990Domer]

I think you personally need a lot more “development and understanding” to grasp the truth of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

The concept of a homosexual marriage being a “one-way ticket to hell” should be very easy to understand.

Assume that two Catholic homosexuals were civilly married or simply engaged in a homosexual relationship. When they engage in homosexual behavior, they both commit mortal sins. Their immortal souls are now in grave danger. Of course as Catholics, they can avail themselves of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Their mortal sin will be absolved, but they still must atone for the sin at judgement day.

To be truly in love with another person you must want the best for the one you love. The best for another is eternal salvation. How can two people love one another if they continue to endanger the eternal life of the other???

Assume again that our two homosexual friends spent a romantic Friday evening engaging in all sorts of homosexual activity. Since they go to Mass on Sundays, they plan to go to Confession on Saturday so they can receive Communion at Mass. However, one of the partners decides to run down to the pharmacy to buy more condoms. On the way he is struck by a train and dies instantly.

According to the teaching of the Church…he just bought his ticket to hell.

But…

The Church never condemns anyone to hell. We never claim that someone is “in hell”. Because even the most evil person could have reconciled himself with God the moment before he died. We just don’t know. We pray that forgiveness was granted and hope it was.
The bottom line is…it is not worth the risk.

If I can add one thing to this beautifully worded post…

Hell is a personal rejection of God’s will. The emphasis is “personal.” The Bible and the Church teachings, handed to us from Jesus and down through the popes, is our guidebook. The Church doesn’t damn anyone to Hell. Rather, it’s what a person does with his gift of free will that determines his fate after death.

 

[1990Domer]

Stop painting with broad strokes. The issue of whether it is OK or not for two men or two women to commit themselves in a life of love, and whether or not they can be able to, is simply DIFFERENT and SEPARATE from various persons who may be having particular agendas, which not every gay person or activist would support.

I will say this again…the tolerate gay person seems in short supply. Why are all the messages from gay people we hear one-sided? Where are those other, more tolerant gays? Well, probably afraid to speak up for fear of retribution by the bullying, all or nothing, nature of the movement.

 

[1990Domer]

The National Health Interview Survey, July 2014, which is the government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviors, found that 1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual.

That would be difficult since all Catholics believe that marriage is the core of a family and marriage is between a man and a woman. So these “families” would not be Catholics. Why would they want to send their children to a school that teaches that there is no such thing as two daddies or two mommies?

Doesn’t make sense.

As what happened in the Denver archdiocese, the lesbian couple enrolled their child in Catholic school to push buttons and advance their cause. It’s easiest to attack the Church from within. The Devil is very clever to attack from within the Church and exploit Her weakest link right now–the traditional family.

 

[1990Domer]

Well, that’s not exactly true. One can get a sexually transmitted disease in other ways. Needles, razors, cutting devices, using moist towels or clothing that have been used by someone who is infected, kissing…

Education and transmission of information is rather important here, don’t you think?

I think you are making quite the stretch here. The CDC is concerned with the uptick of HIV among the gay community because they no longer feel it is a death sentence. Medical advancements have been great.

You can’t deny you knew what Ed meant by his post. There is a definite risk of getting an STD if you have sex. We are not talking about other risky means here. It 's called a “sexually” transmitted disease because of its primary mode of infection. Do we need to redefine that term too to say sexually/needle/razor/moist towel/infected kissing transmitted disease.

You are grasping at straws here.

 

[1990Domer]

One issue I have is –

Why do we have these strong desires and needs in the first place if acting upon them condemns oneself to hell?

That’s the problem I have with this notion of mortal sin inherent in the act of certain sexual activity, as if every single homosexual act is inherently and intrinsically gravely sinful.

The sexual act has two intertwined components: to be life giving and love giving. Sexual relations are ordered to the ability to share in God’s gift of creating new life.

Many people have strong desires that are morally wrong…some have a strong desire to steal, kill, look at porn, masturbate, drink to excess, abuse others, etc. Hopefully few act on these desires as they are not moral and leads us away from God.

Don’t get me wrong, strong desires are a cross to bear. I have beat down other ones all the time. When I fail, I seek the grace of Confession. But our desires don’t give us a right to do whatever we want without consequence. This is where we have to use the gift of free will to reject desires that may hurt eternal salvation.

 

[at9009]

I will say this again…the tolerate gay person seems in short supply. Why are all the messages from gay people we hear one-sided? Where are those other, more tolerant gays? Well, probably afraid to speak up for fear of retribution by the bullying, all or nothing, nature of the movement.

I understand your point, but two points. One because we live (Those of us in the U.S.) in this hyper polarized culture war mentality, the tolerant person gets droned out (tolerant meaning one who stands firmly in their viewpoint but doesn’t feel the need to evicerate those who have a different viewpoint). The gay activist community at large (which has more media attention and pull) is hostile to the tolerant gay person for not “standing up for the cause” and the Chrisrian community at large (not refering to the Catholic Church but to the Christian Right whom has the most attention) often view gay people with hostility (not the we don’t support ‘gay’ marriage but flat out view you as a threat animosity). So the tolerant gay/ssa person gets hit on from both sides. Neither side really tolerates them or even listeners to them (so many must give up trying to be the voice of reason in the middle since there’s essentially no upside but plenty of downside. Not to mention the celibate gay/ssa person (the minority of a minority of a minority) gets often more hated by both sides and often used as a political football.

Second point is often the Catholic Church position never really gets mentioned, so in all honesty I doubt most know the full Church position. They know It can’t support "SSM’ but they probably don’t know it distinguishes between the acts and the inclination. Some of the most vocal hardline denominations don’t make that distinction and rather thanview the inclination as a cross, they view the person with it as Inherently sinful and basically damned until those attractions are gone (plus some often awful pastoral support). So, the Catholic Church often wrongly gets grouped in with that and many are turned away from even trying to find the truth from the get go.

 

[onenow1]

So then did God make a mistake when he made gay men and women?

(When I say “made” I assume secondary causes. Just like God did not directly “make” man and woman or the fruit fly or the thunder cloud over my house. But in his providence and foresight, all came to be.)

NO ! They must use their brain and common sense to realize the truth of His creation as He made it, and understand that this is a result of original sin, and bear our cross as he did, and asks us to do. The mistake belongs to Adam.

God Bless

 

[Rosebud77]

I will say this again…the tolerate gay person seems in short supply. Why are all the messages from gay people we hear one-sided? Where are those other, more tolerant gays? Well, probably afraid to speak up for fear of retribution by the bullying, all or nothing, nature of the movement.

Very very good question! If they would keep quiet and just get on with what they choose to do without temper tantrums and all the in your face stuff…

 

[1990Domer]

I understand your point, but two points. One because we live (Those of us in the U.S.) in this hyper polarized culture war mentality, the tolerant person gets droned out (tolerant meaning one who stands firmly in their viewpoint but doesn’t feel the need to evicerate those who have a different viewpoint). The gay activist community at large (which has more media attention and pull) is hostile to the tolerant gay person for not “standing up for the cause” and the Chrisrian community at large (not refering to the Catholic Church but to the Christian Right whom has the most attention) often view gay people with hostility (not the we don’t support ‘gay’ marriage but flat out view you as a threat animosity). So the tolerant gay/ssa person gets hit on from both sides. Neither side really tolerates them or even listeners to them (so many must give up trying to be the voice of reason in the middle since there’s essentially no upside but plenty of downside. Not to mention the celibate gay/ssa person (the minority of a minority of a minority) gets often more hated by both sides and often used as a political football.

Second point is often the Catholic Church position never really gets mentioned, so in all honesty I doubt most know the full Church position. They know It can’t support "SSM’ but they probably don’t know it distinguishes between the acts and the inclination. Some of the most vocal hardline denominations don’t make that distinction and rather thanview the inclination as a cross, they view the person with it as Inherently sinful and basically damned until those attractions are gone (plus some often awful pastoral support). So, the Catholic Church often wrongly gets grouped in with that and many are turned away from even trying to find the truth from the get go.

I think this is spot on.

 

[edwest2]

I understand your point, but two points. One because we live (Those of us in the U.S.) in this hyper polarized culture war mentality, the tolerant person gets droned out (tolerant meaning one who stands firmly in their viewpoint but doesn’t feel the need to evicerate those who have a different viewpoint). The gay activist community at large (which has more media attention and pull) is hostile to the tolerant gay person for not “standing up for the cause” and the Chrisrian community at large (not refering to the Catholic Church but to the Christian Right whom has the most attention) often view gay people with hostility (not the we don’t support ‘gay’ marriage but flat out view you as a threat animosity). So the tolerant gay/ssa person gets hit on from both sides. Neither side really tolerates them or even listeners to them (so many must give up trying to be the voice of reason in the middle since there’s essentially no upside but plenty of downside. Not to mention the celibate gay/ssa person (the minority of a minority of a minority) gets often more hated by both sides and often used as a political football.

Second point is often the Catholic Church position never really gets mentioned, so in all honesty I doubt most know the full Church position. They know It can’t support "SSM’ but they probably don’t know it distinguishes between the acts and the inclination. Some of the most vocal hardline denominations don’t make that distinction and rather thanview the inclination as a cross, they view the person with it as Inherently sinful and basically damned until those attractions are gone (plus some often awful pastoral support). So, the Catholic Church often wrongly gets grouped in with that and many are turned away from even trying to find the truth from the get go.

I’m glad someone understood my earlier post. We are educated enough to know the difference between sexual intercourse and other risks that do not involve it. The media has been mostly complicit in stigmatizing anyone who is against anything involving gay (and immoral straight) sexual behavior. There is a group called PFOX that consists of individuals who have left the gay lifestyle. Almost needless to say, the LGBT community does not like them. The LGBT publication, the Advocate, starts headlines with “antigay” person or “transphobic” person.

Dialogue is a two-way street, but with the gay issue - regardless of the number of faithful SSA Catholics - people who want others to understand what the Church teaches are indeed drowned out. When the Church links gay marriage to it being a threat to the family, Pope Francis is turned from more understanding to sounding more like the radical right.

We are all individuals made by God. What we do with our bodies sexually is our choice. I can have attractive lady friends but I have been taught: married women are strictly off limits. But I knew a guy who specialized in ‘dating’ married women.

We cannot throw up our hands even if the whole ‘town’ is on fire. We can’t be indifferent, like, “Oh well. What are you going to do?”

The Church is telling it like it is, but with great skill in wording, it’s being told: you’re wrong.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

The sexual act has two intertwined components: to be life giving and love giving. Sexual relations are ordered to the ability to share in God’s gift of creating new life.

Many people have strong desires that are morally wrong…some have a strong desire to steal, kill, look at porn, masturbate, drink to excess, abuse others, etc. Hopefully few act on these desires as they are not moral and leads us away from God.

Don’t get me wrong, strong desires are a cross to bear. I have beat down other ones all the time. When I fail, I seek the grace of Confession. But our desires don’t give us a right to do whatever we want without consequence. This is where we have to use the gift of free will to reject desires that may hurt eternal salvation.

It seems the desire trumps anyone who says “no” to it. You just can’t say no. No is not acceptable. Free will is presented as “Do what you want” not what some old book or Church tells you because God loves us and cares about us and, believe it or not, so does the Church. But if you go to LGBT web sites, all Christians and disagreers are immediately labeled and attacked or dismissed. “Don’t listen to those homophobic, bigoted haters.”

I don’t want to hate anyone. Honestly.

I have watched decades pass and more and more sexual immorality - first straight, now LGBT - portrayed in movies and on TV as neutral, normative and What’s the big deal?

Don’t ignore that, people.

Ed