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

[1990Domer]

Of course…what would be the point of staying?

 

[1990Domer]

That is a fair statement. If you do not accept the teachings of the Church then don’t. But, you can not have it both ways. If you believe that the Church is wrong then, walk away from Her.

The Church will not back away from this. She teaches Biology 101. That is the truth. Furthermore, I often wonder how, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is taught in the gay community. The survival of the fittest sounds very bigoted to me.

 

[Contarini]

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.)

So what exactly do you mean by “made gay men and women”?

Are you saying that everything about creation is the way God wanted it to be?

The premises behind this language just aren’t clear.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

IMHO, yes. If you do not believe all the dogma of the RCC, then why belong? The RCC is not a Chinese buffet where you can pick and choose. There are many other churches that would probably serve the person better.

Church isn’t about "serving the person better.

A person may believe the Catholic Church to be the true Church while believing that this particular stance will turn out not to be the permanent teaching of the Church.

Edwin

 

[1990Domer]

**

Church isn’t about "serving the person better.

A person may believe the Catholic Church to be the true Church while believing that this particular stance will turn out not to be the permanent teaching of the Church.

Edwin

Humbly respected, you are incorrect. You cannot pick or choose Catholic dogma to your liking. If you believe something against the dogma of the RCC and are acting on it, you are committing scandal. As I said, the dogma of the RCC is not a Chinese buffet.

As far as I can tell, 2000 years of revealed wisdom will not be overturned anytime now or in the future.**

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Church isn’t about "serving the person better.

A person may believe the Catholic Church to be the true Church while believing that this particular stance will turn out not to be the permanent teaching of the Church.

Edwin

The Catholic Church claims to be an instrument of God that can infallibly discern objective truth; truth that is independent of the church’s opinion or wishes. If the church says something is true, and then changes its mind and says it was wrong, then the church logically cannot be infallible.

 

[Thorolfr]

I guess it’s OK for you to use a statistic but not me. Ok. That’s fine. I recognize an impasse when I see it. However, I thinks statistics are important about dangerous lifestyle choices. I am not going to judge the morality of what an individual does. I will educate but not judge. Big difference.

I’m not saying that you can’t use statistics. Only that the message taught by statistics is not always what some people claim. I could probably make an argument that people living in predominantly Protestant countries live longer than people living in predominantly Catholic countries, therefore being Catholic is bad and a dangerous choice of religion. For example, the life expectancy of people in Brazil (a Catholic country) is 73.62 whereas the life expectancy of people in Sweden (a Protestant country) is 81.7. But is that a valid argument to make? Maybe the life expectancy of Catholics worldwide (many in Latin America, Africa, etc) is less than that of Protestants (many in Europe and the US) because more Catholics live in poor countries. So the difference in life expectancy doesn’t have anything to do with people’s religion.

 

[edwest2]

I hope that some gays would enter “marriage” with the idea of fidelity and life long relationships. They would certainty lower their health risks. However we know that ALL gays are not interested in marriage. We are also seeing many who do “marry” include " open marriage" clauses in their marriage agreements. They have no intention of maintaining a monogamous relationship and will continue to lead a risky (health wise) lifestyle.

There is evidence of this.

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

Ed

 

[Contarini]

**

Humbly respected, you are incorrect. You cannot pick or choose Catholic dogma to your liking. If you believe something against the dogma of the RCC and are acting on it, you are committing scandal. As I said, the dogma of the RCC is not a Chinese buffet.**

So if you could give advice to a sixteenth-century Catholic, what would you tell them about Pope Leo’s condemnation of the claim that it is against the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretics?

Would you tell them, “go on believing something I in the 21st century do not believe”?

Would you tell them, “leave the Church”?

Or, God forbid, do you actually think that the burning of heretics was possibly according to the will of the Spirit?

The position you are advocating just isn’t defensible historically.

As far as I can tell, 2000 years of revealed wisdom will not be overturned anytime now or in the future.

 

[Contarini]

The Catholic Church claims to be an instrument of God that can infallibly discern objective truth; truth that is independent of the church’s opinion or wishes. If the church says something is true, and then changes its mind and says it was wrong, then the church logically cannot be infallible.

Define “the church.”

Did the Church say that it was not against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics?

Pope Leo said this in Exsurge Domine.

Did the Church say that because of the difficulty of Scripture it might sometimes not be a good idea for the laity to read Scripture? Pope Clement XI said that in condemning the Jansenist Quesnel.

Popes and bishops have said all sorts of things.

Not all of them are “said by the Church” in the full doctrinal sense of the word.

The problem with the position as you’re stating it is that you are equivocating on the meaning of “the Church”–or else you are saying something patently absurd and unbelievable.

Edwin

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

Many of us in the Church are very proud of the Episcopal Church’s decisions - when we shut the door on people, turn them away from Christ’s table, it is not the Church.

Look around you. There are loving and Christ-like individuals and families who are gay. Welcome them rather than throw stones. Please.

This is one of the reasons why I want to become Catholic. I do not want SSM in my face. I have not been to an Episcopal church in over three years. I will not take Communion at an Episcopal Church because that would mean that I agree with them conducting SSM. Naturally, I do not take communion in the Catholic church, since I cannot.

I want to become Catholic for many reasons, and one of them is that I will never have to worry about SSM being in my face.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Define “the church.”

The Holy Roman Catholic Church

Did the Church say that it was not against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics?

Pope Leo said this in Exsurge Domine.

Yes, he did say something along that line, but you may want to take a look at the history and reason he said what he said.

Don’t be a “one texter”.

Did the Church say that because of the difficulty of Scripture it might sometimes not be a good idea for the laity to read Scripture? Pope Clement XI said that in condemning the Jansenist Quesnel.

Yes he did…and he was right. Most of the laity was illiterate anyway.

Popes and bishops have said all sorts of things.

Yes. they have. There have also been political decisions that have been indefensible, such as diverting troops heading to retake Jerusalem to attack Constantinople instead. There have been management decisions that were morally repugnant, such as allowing predatory priests access to children, whatever the mitigating circumstances.

However, none of these decisions impute the constant maintenance of the deposit of faith.** Immoral popes and leaders have never attempted to justify their actions with theology that conflicted with established doctrines.**

Not all of them are “said by the Church” in the full doctrinal sense of the word.

The problem with the position as you’re stating it is that you are equivocating on the meaning of “the Church”–or else you are saying something patently absurd and unbelievable.

There are numerous issues that were not explicitly defined in the bible or by the early apostles. There have been long debates to discern the truth. Some sides in these debates were wrong. It was the church (the Holy Roman Catholic Church) as a whole that discerned the truth, and in most instances, the incorrect side humbly submitted to the church.(the Holy Roman Catholic Church)

When the church (the Holy Roman Catholic Church) says something is TRUE…it is true…not because the church (the Holy Roman Catholic Church) says so. It is true because it IS true.

When the church (the Holy Roman Catholic Church) says that marriage is between one man and one woman…it is true.

When the church (the Holy Roman Catholic Church) says that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity, contrary to the natural law, close the sexual act to the gift of life. and do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.…it is true…because it is true. Not because the church (the Holy Roman Catholic Church) said so.

If you acknowledge that truth exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not I or the church (the Holy Roman Catholic Church) correctly understands the truth of this matter. But if you deny that there is such a thing as truth that is, the truth, not just my truth and your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.

 

[Rau]

Part of the problem with using scientific studies that show that LGBT people have shorter life spans as a method of attacking them is that it is not very charitable and doesn’t solve any problems. To use another kind of example, studies also show that black people have a lower life expectancy than white people and uneducated black people have an even lower life expectancy:

businessinsider.com/huge-racial-gap-in-life-expectancy-2014-1

So should we use this statistic to argue that it’s a sin and morally wrong to be black and uneducated? I hope not. The reasons for the lower life expectancy might be due to poverty, poorer mental and physical health which ultimately arise from oppression and discrimination, etc.

If we had a scientific study of gay men who adopted the Catholic solution and lived celibate lives, we might find that they also had a lower life expectancy because they were poorer living in single person households and suffered more from loneliness and depression. But none of those things would be a sin.

Thor, do not confuse the wisdom of starting with reliable data from the error of drawing flawed conclusions from it, or the wrong of attacking people. Let’s agree good data is always preferable to suspect data.

 

[1990Domer]

So if you could give advice to a sixteenth-century Catholic, what would you tell them about Pope Leo’s condemnation of the claim that it is against the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretics?

Would you tell them, “go on believing something I in the 21st century do not believe”?

Would you tell them, “leave the Church”?

Or, God forbid, do you actually think that the burning of heretics was possibly according to the will of the Spirit?

The position you are advocating just isn’t defensible historically.

Of course. But there have always been debates about just which bits of belief and practice current at any given time are part of that revealed wisdom.

See my posts 421 and 422 on this thread.

As long as a person is not more certain that
a) the Church permanently teaches the thing in question, and
b) the thing in question is wrong,
they can and should remain Catholic.

You can’t help but pick and choose. I am seeing people picking and choosing all the time with regard to things Pope Francis says.

And yes, I understand about levels of papal teaching and the limits on infallibility, etc. That is precisely my point. It is not a simple matter of “over here in this corner we have a well defined, precise body of teaching which must be accepted whole, and over there we have everything else.” It’s all on a spectrum, and there are all kinds of legitimate debates over where on the spectrum something falls.

And even when the debate isn’t legitimate–when you think a person is clearly wrong in rejecting something that really is a teaching of the Church–it still doesn’t follow that you should tell the person to leave the Church. That’s the main point I’m trying to make.

Advising people to leave the Church is scandalous and wicked, and the people who do it should be ashamed of themselves.

I say this all the more fervently because I’ve never quite made it inside myself.

Edwin

Catholics representing teachings of the Church that are immoral–and presenting them as moral to others–is wicked and scandalous. I need to agree to disagree with you. I will pray for you. I simply don’t need to waste more of time of this thread.

 

[HelenRose]

Is that what the Catholic Church teaches, that if a Catholic doesn’t agree with every one of the Church’s teachings, they should leave?

It is more of an attitude. Instead of saying, “The Church is wrong. The Church must change.” to “I don’t understand why the Church teaches this. I will study and try to understand the rationale behind this teaching.”

But if someone finds that they are absolutely opposed to what the Church teaches and speaks out to the world about how wrong the Church is… well there needs to be some soul searching going on here.

Certainly, it takes time to learn and to understand and we all have questions as to why. But the open defiance against a fundamental teaching of the Church is an entirely different matter.

I can not imagine staying with in any organization that I fundamentally disagreed with. It would cause me and those around me a great deal of discord emotionally.

If you want to protest. Become an honest Protestant and be who you are.

 

[drac16]

By the way, my friends, when I called a certain mosque a ‘whore house’, I meant it as a spiritual whore house (i.e. a mosque that invites all kinds of spiritual smut). It was not intended as a jab at muslims, homosexuals or muslim homosexuals themselves. I know it may a case of “too little too late”, but that’s all I can offer. I’m sorry for not being clear in the first place. Please forgive me.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

You can’t help but pick and choose. I am seeing people picking and choosing all the time with regard to things Pope Francis says.

And yes, I understand about levels of papal teaching and the limits on infallibility, etc. That is precisely my point. It is not a simple matter of “over here in this corner we have a well defined, precise body of teaching which must be accepted whole, and over there we have everything else.” It’s all on a spectrum, and there are all kinds of legitimate debates over where on the spectrum something falls.

And even when the debate isn’t legitimate–when you think a person is clearly wrong in rejecting something that really is a teaching of the Church–it still doesn’t follow that you should tell the person to leave the Church. That’s the main point I’m trying to make.

Advising people to leave the Church is scandalous and wicked, and the people who do it should be ashamed of themselves.

I say this all the more fervently because I’ve never quite made it inside myself.

Edwin

Edwin, you are wonderful. Thank you for these words. I think I’ll print them out and hang them where I can ponder them each day. What you have articulated is so very true.

Thank you.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I want to become Catholic for many reasons, and one of them is that I will never have to worry about SSM being in my face.

Do you anticipate that there will never be any gay or lesbians in your parish? Or families? I am asking quite seriously.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

Do you anticipate that there will never be any gay or lesbians in your parish? Or families? I am asking quite seriously.

I am sure there are lesbians/gays at the RC church that I currently attend. I have had gay friends over the years.
What I mean by “in my face,” is allowing lesbians and gays to get married. That will not happen in the Catholic Church. I know my church allows it, and I don’t like it.

 

[Bradski]

The Catholic Church claims to be an instrument of God that can infallibly discern objective truth; truth that is independent of the church’s opinion or wishes. If the church says something is true, and then changes its mind and says it was wrong, then the church logically cannot be infallible.

I hope that you realise that that makes no sense.