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

[Rau]

I am not going to believe something I do not believe to be true.

But you can try to believe, and you can submit. Evidence has been provided that the truths to which you object, and refuse to believe, are taught infallibly.

 

[estesbob]

There is no “wrong” in questioning, studying seeking to understand. There is no wrong in involuntary doubt. It is when one decides to take a contrary stance that one goes too far.

 

[Thorolfr]

There is no “wrong” in questioning, studying seeking to understand. There is no wrong in involuntary doubt. It is when one decides to take a contrary stance that one goes too far.

Why question or study anything if only one solution is allowed? During the process of questioning, studying and doubting, someone might reach a conclusion that is different than that of the Church. The Church, for example, might say that being left-handed is not a sin, but it is a sin to write with your left hand. Someone might study and question this teaching and decide that it doesn’t seem very convincing or make much sense and therefore decide to take a contrary stance.

 

[pete_29]

Why question or study anything if only one solution is allowed? During the process of questioning, studying and doubting, someone might reach a conclusion that is different than that of the Church. The Church, for example, might say that being left-handed is not a sin, but it is a sin to write with your left hand. Someone might study and question this teaching and decide that it doesn’t seem very convincing or make much sense and therefore decide to take a contrary stance.

To understand why only the one solution is allowed

 

[Rau]

That does not follow. First off, many Christians (most non-catholics) believe in a Church that does not teach infallibly.

But I believe in a Church that was meant to teach the truth. Not so sure if this means every single aspect of its teachings is true.

You yourself have admitted that the Church can teach infallibly, although you erroneously believed that to do so requires an ex-cathedra statement or an act of a Council. Now that it has been explained that most infallible teaching is not by that means, and thus encompasses matters that you believed were not wrong, do you now argue there really is no infallible capacity, just that the Church was “meant to teach the Truth”?

But isn’t this a diversion? The form of expression of the Church teaching is not the determining factor in your discrimination of what is true, is it?

 

[ctb95]

Why question or study anything if only one solution is allowed? During the process of questioning, studying and doubting, someone might reach a conclusion that is different than that of the Church. The Church, for example, might say that being left-handed is not a sin, but it is a sin to write with your left hand. Someone might study and question this teaching and decide that it doesn’t seem very convincing or make much sense and therefore decide to take a contrary stance.

We question and study so we can understand. When I was confirmed, I didn’t understand the Indulgences. However, I believed that the Church was given authority to teach and I believed all the other doctrines of the Church, so I trusted the Church on this teaching even though I had doubt.

If I were to intenly study the doctrine of Indulgences and their history, as well as analyze the protestant arguments against them, I would come to a greater understanding and belief in them.

 

[Rau]

Why question or study anything if only one solution is allowed? During the process of questioning, studying and doubting, someone might reach a conclusion that is different than that of the Church. The Church, for example, might say that being left-handed is not a sin, but it is a sin to write with your left hand. Someone might study and question this teaching and decide that it doesn’t seem very convincing or make much sense and therefore decide to take a contrary stance.

Let’s ignore the silly example, being a matter on which the Church claims no authority or capacity to teach.

It is in our nature to want to learn and understand. When we arrive at a different answer to our College professor, do we readily conclude he is wrong? Or do we go back and try to see how he came to his answer? How much more deference do we owe to a Church whose teaching authority comes directly from God?

 

[Murmurs]

There is no “wrong” in questioning, studying seeking to understand. There is no wrong in involuntary doubt. It is when one decides to take a contrary stance that one goes too far.

Quite, thanks. One can disagree, but obey faithfully all the same? I hope so. Thank you all the various people who’ve contributed to this

 

[Rau]

Quite, thanks. One can disagree, but obey faithfully all the same? I hope so. Thank you all the various people who’ve contributed to this

Those are your words, not mine.

 

[estesbob]

Why question or study anything if only one solution is allowed? During the process of questioning, studying and doubting, someone might reach a conclusion that is different than that of the Church. The Church, for example, might say that being left-handed is not a sin, but it is a sin to write with your left hand. Someone might study and question this teaching and decide that it doesn’t seem very convincing or make much sense and therefore decide to take a contrary stance.

When did your denomination decide that homosexual behavior was no longer a sin and what was their rationale for doing so?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rau View Post
There is no “wrong” in questioning, studying seeking to understand. There is no wrong in involuntary doubt. It is when one decides to take a contrary stance that one goes too far.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

This really bugs me!

I just spent hours revising my original reply to you to make it more understandable. It is two pages longs. I have references and quotes and even pictures…

Now Rau pops up and settles the whole thing in just 31 words…

I can only add…

Questioning is OK, but once understood, you really can’t disagree with a Church teaching. You don’t have to like it, but as you say … you really must “…obey faithfully all the same.”

PS: Thanks a lot…Rau!

 

[Contarini]

When did your denomination decide that homosexual behavior was no longer a sin and what was their rationale for doing so?

The rationale used by the Episcopal Church (which is not Thorolfr’s denomination, though the two denominations are in full communion) can be found here.

 

[Thorolfr]

The rationale used by the Episcopal Church (which is not Thorolfr’s denomination, though the two denominations are in full communion) can be found here.

I could be wrong, but I think that the Episcopal Church has gone further than the ELCA in actually laying out their rationale. The only document I know from the ELCA on this issue is the statement in “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” (starting on page 18) which basically concludes with a statement that there is no consensus on the issue of homosexuality:

Although at this time this church lacks consensus on this matter, it encourages
all people to live out their faith in the local and global community of
the baptized with profound respect for the conscience-bound belief of the
neighbor. This church calls for mutual respect in relationships and for guidance
that seeks the good of each individual and of the community. Regarding
our life together as we live with disagreement, the people in this church
will continue to accompany one another in study, prayer, discernment,
pastoral care, and mutual respect.

elca.org/Faith/Faith-and-Society/Social-Statements/Human-Sexuality

Some ELCA congregations have gone through a process of discernment on this issue and have officially become quite inclusive and supportive of LGBT people. In cooperation with an organization called ReconcilingWorks, they have officially listed themselves as what are called “Reconciling in Christ” (RIC) congregations:

reconcilingworks.org/

Many other ELCA congregations, on the other hand, have not gone that far (mine included) and some have adopted a kind of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” kind of policy.

More conservative congregations on this issue probably left the ELCA after its vote in 2009 to allow the ordination of LGBT people in committed and monogamous relationships. Some have joined other new Lutheran denominations such as the North American Lutheran Church (NALC).

Individual congregations, especially those that came out of the American Lutheran Church (ALC), have a history of local autonomy. The Lutheran Church in America (LCA) was more centrally organized and that structure was carried over to some extent when the ELCA was organized in 1988 by joining the LCA, the ALC, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (AELC). Nevertheless, a lot of decision making still remains with individual congregations and their pastors and the authority of ELCA bishops is somewhat limited.

 

[estesbob]

The rationale used by the Episcopal Church (which is not Thorolfr’s denomination, though the two denominations are in full communion) can be found here.

Their premise is that everyone who went before us got it wrong. They even claim that somehow we are more enlightened than previous generations in interpreting scripture. They also throw in some comments about compassion and tolerance. Ive said it before but this rationale presupposes a totally inept god that would allow his people to be in grievous error for over 2,000 years. If the Catholic Church made such assertions I believe I would leave organized religion entirely ,probably becoming an agnostic. I refuse to believe in a god who lets his people stumble around in error for thousands of years.

 

[Thorolfr]

I refuse to believe in a god who lets his people stumble around in error for thousands of years.

But didn’t He do that for a long time anyway? What about all the people in the world who lived before the time of Jesus, especially those in areas distant from the Middle East? What about people like Native Americans who were living in the Americas for at least 14,000 years before Christians like Christopher Columbus showed up on their doorstep? Weren’t they allowed to stumble around in error for thousands of years?

 

[estesbob]

But didn’t He do that for a long time anyway? What about all the people who lived before the time of Jesus, especially those in areas distant from the Middle East? What about people like Native Americans who were living in the Americas for at least 14,000 years before Christians like Christopher Columbus showed up on their doorstep? Weren’t they allowed to stumble around in error for thousands of years?

How do you know God did not reveal himself to Native Americans and others?

What we see our people trying to rationalize sin. No matter how you parse it, no matter how one tries to twist scripture to support their views one simply can not get away form the fact several Christian denominations are throwing out over 2,000 years of teachings. So either god allowed them to be in error or they are flat out wrong. Of course this was always the inevitable result of the so called reformation. Having abandoned the idea of any central authority chaos resulted-Christianity splintered into 30,000 different directions and the definition of sin changes on an almost daily basis. In fact for many denominations the only real sin is believing there is sin. Fortunately the One True Church avoided all this.

 

[drac16]

Well, can you blame them? I certainly don’t blame them. The pro LGBT activists are threatening the freedom of christians and many others. Those LGBT activists are threatening religious leaders to bow the knee to the golden calf, or else face legal action. They’re slowly [but surely] overcoming the public school system; they’re coming for our mosques next.

 

[catholic1seeks]

How do you know God did not reveal himself to Native Americans and others?

What we see our people trying to rationalize sin. No matter how you parse it, no matter how one tries to twist scripture to support their views one simply can not get away form the fact several Christian denominations are throwing out over 2,000 years of teachings. So either god allowed them to be in error or they are flat out wrong. Of course this was always the inevitable result of the so called reformation. Having abandoned the idea of any central authority chaos resulted-Christianity splintered into 30,000 different directions and the definition of sin changes on an almost daily basis. In fact for many denominations the only real sin is believing there is sin. Fortunately the One True Church avoided all this.

You approach this awkwardly.

God would not have led the Church wrong all that time; the issue is framed quite differently now. It would be one thing if the Early Church had homosexual persons wanting to live committed lives in a relationship and these persons wanting to get married – and if the Church said NO. But that was not happening then; there was quite a different cultural context. Besides, the Church is never 100% correct. For the vast majority of its history, the Church assumed the existence of slavery as part of a fallen world.

 

[Contarini]

As has been pointed out to you their is no hierarchy of truths-at least in the way you interpret it. Truth is truth. It NEVER changes no matter where in you hierarchy you choose to place it. I am really at a loss as to the point you are trying to make? Do you believe that the Church teachings on homosexuality is wrong or that one can ignore them if they believe they are wrong?

Hierarchy of truths is Catholic teaching, found in Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 11.

Certainly the Council did not mean to say that some defined teaching can be rejected, and it should be noted that the phrase occurs in a discussion of ecumenism. It’s a modification of the traditional view that rejection of any defined doctrine constitutes rejection of the Faith as a a whole, I think.

But that is relevant to Catholics like Murmurs who have trouble accepting all official teaching. Conservative Catholics (and I will use that word in this context, because it is the most appropriate word) often urge dissenters just to leave the Church, suggesting that they are dishonest if they disagree but remain Catholics.

The hierarchy of truths explains why that is not the case.

I put it this way. There are three propositions relevant here, to which one may assign varying degrees of probability.

1. The Catholic Church is the true Church (i.e., all Christians ought to be in communion with Rome and Rome will never teach an error such that faithful Christians would have to break communion with Rome in order to remain faithful)
2. The Catholic Church teaches X, in such a way that if it ceased to teach X it would be admitting that proposition 1 was false.
3. X is false.

If one ranks the probabilities in the order I listed above–if one is more certain that Catholicism as a whole is true than that X is the permanent, unalterable teaching of the Church or that X is false–then one should remain Catholic. But even if one gives 2 or 3 a higher probability than 1, or 3 a higher probability than 2, one should remain Catholic. The only point at which it would be dishonest to remain Catholic would be if one were more certain of both 2 and 3 than of 1. that would mean that, functionally, one no longer believed 1.

It’s a bit different for someone like myself looking in from the outside, but in terms of whether there is any insuperable obstacle to becoming Catholic the same principle applies.
The “X” that bothers me most is the doctrine that women are incapable of being ordained.
But even then, it is a very close call for me whether 2 or 3 is more probable, and I definitely give 1 a higher probability than either.

 

[Contarini]

This framework gives us six possible attitudes to Catholic doctrine, arranged in three pairs from most orthodox to downright heretical.

123 or 213 would be the normal order for an orthodox, fairly contented Catholic. In both you are relatively confident that the Church is true and that the Church teaches the doctrine in question, over against any questions you may have about the doctrine considered in itself. You might, if left to your own devices, disbelieve X, or on the other hand X may seem obviously true. But as long as you are more certain of 1 than of 2 and of 2 than of 3, it doesn’t make a lot of difference to your peace of mind or your relation to the Church.

The difference between 123 and 213 has to do with the hierarchy of truths. If you hold 213 on a doctrine you are so sure that it’s an intrinsic part of Church teaching that if the Church changed you would no longer believe the Church. Clearly on some things–like the resurrection of Jesus, or the Trinity, or the Incarnation, and probably also the Real Presence and other basic sacramental doctrines, as well as some basic moral doctrines–213 is the proper order. That is to say, some things are higher on the hierarchy of truths than the claims about the Church represented by “1.” But if you put 1 higher than 2 (either 123 or 132), then you are so confident in the Church (or relatively uncertain about whether the Church has permanently committed itself to this particular thing) that you would remain Catholic even if, to your surprise and shock, 2 turned out to be false with regard to X.

Another way of putting it, then, is that the more doctrines with regard to which you hold 123 or 132, the higher up (relatively) you put trust in the Church itself, compared to belief in specific doctrines. In an extreme case, you might say that 123 holds for all doctrines–that you believe even in Jesus only on the basis of the authority of the Church. (Augustine is, of course, often quoted to support this, though I question whether he meant it as strongly as that. And if he did, he was flatly wrong.) I think that’s a very distorted way to hold the hierarchy of truths.

But on the other hand, if you hold 213 for pretty much all doctrines, then you are going to be perpentually nervous and on edge, because if the Church ceases to teach what you think it teaches, then you might lose your faith in the Church altogether. “Traditionalist” Catholics tend to hold 213 for a lot of doctrines, while other “conservative” Catholics (the ones who get accused of “worshiping the Pope”) hold 123 for most doctrines.

On women’s ordination, for instance, I have a traditionalist friend who says that if the Church changed her position on this, he wouldn’t be able to believe in the Church any more. That’s a statement of 213.

132 and 312 are the “faithful dissenter” positions, when applied to something that the Magisterium proposes as true. People who hold one of these two positions on a doctrine are more confident that the Church is true in general than that the Church actually teaches the doctrine in question. Thus, they dissent from a particular official stance not just because they think it’s false but also because they don’t think it is, in fact, the permanent teaching of the Church. The difference between them is that the 132 dissenter would submit to the Church if convinced that X was really a teaching of the Church. The 312 dissenter would not. So 132 has a better claim to be a “faithful dissenter” than 312.

321 and 231, finally, are the positions that really do seem incompatible with being a faithful Catholic. If you are sure that the Church teaches something and that it is false–more sure of both of these things than of the truth of the Church in general–then yes, under those circumstances it does seem dishonest to go on being a Catholic.

The only difference between them would be the possible path back to reconciliation with the Church. For 321, this would be more likely to involve being convinced that the Church really didn’t teach the thing in question. For 231, it would be more likely to involve being convinced that the thing was in fact true. So, for instance, there are 321 dissenters who have what most of us on this forum would consider seriously mistaken views of Church teaching. They don’t actually reject what the Church teaches but what they think it teaches. There are others who may reject things that many on this forum believe, but regarding which there is real debate among Catholics (that a faithful Catholic must believe in Mosaic authorship of the Pentatuch or Matthaean priority, say).

Edwin