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

[1990Domer]

Jesus is the incarnation - therefore as God judges so might he - but we are sinners and have no right to throw stones (ie, to Judge others)

If I am trying to give guidance to someone on how to get to Heaven, which is what all Catholics should strive to do because it is agapic love we are showing, then we are judging? My gosh, you have a terrible misconception.

 

[Brendan]

Jesus is the incarnation - therefore as God judges so might he - but we are sinners and have no right to throw stones (ie, to Judge others)

We can certainly not judge people, but we CAN judge actions. You yourself just did so, stating that the action of judging others is wrong.

Actions are not people, and people are not actions. Therefore, if we point out to others than an act they did, or are participating in, is wrong, that, by definition, is not judging a person.

Surely if you saw, say, a Klansman burning a cross on a black persons front yard, that would would judge the ACTION to be wrong. You would be mistaken if you judged the PERSON (only God can do that). But it would be doing a person a spiritual benefit if you dissuaded them from committing immoral ACTIONS, would it not?

 

[Corki]

There are only a handful of references to homosexuality in the entire Bible, but they are found in the Old Testament and Paul’s writings. To put it in perspective, while there are only seven references to homosexuality, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of references to economic justice and the laws governing the accumulation and distribution of wealth. Why is it we set these economic sins aside and concentrate of sexual sins ? Are we Calvanists or Catholics ?

False dichotomy.

I don’t know a single parish that is not involved with helping the poor or a single Catholic that would “set aside” economic sins. But I know dozens of self-identified Catholics who are willing to look the other way regarding sexual sins or public depravity. We are a universal Church. We cannot focus only on the poor and ignore the moral downslide any more than we can ignore the poor. We must be attentive to all of it.

 

[Peccavi]

Support for Capitalism was a Calvinist inspired virtue which is why many of the Worlds poor are seduced by pentecostal churches these days into believing God will reward them with earthly wealth. The outside the US Catholic Church tends to hold such economic sins as being somewhat more urgent than the sexuality of the laity in the light of the sexual preferences of many clergy.

 

[edwest2]

False dichotomy.

I don’t know a single parish that is not involved with helping the poor or a single Catholic that would “set aside” economic sins. But I know dozens of self-identified Catholics who are willing to look the other way regarding sexual sins or public depravity. We are a universal Church. We cannot focus only on the poor and ignore the moral downslide any more than we can ignore the poor. We must be attentive to all of it.

Well said.

Ed

 

[Contarini]

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.

I would put it the other way round.

I want to be Catholic because if they ever do accept SSM (which I don’t think they will), I can be confident that it’s the right thing to do.

That is to say, I am a 123 on this as per my paradigm in posts 421-22. I respect that others are 213–more certain that the Church rejects SSM definitively than that the Church’s claims are correct in the first place. I am 213 on some things too, like the Trinity.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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”.

Your tone is patronizing and insulting. As a matter of fact, it’s precisely because I do understand the historical context (in fact, I have a Ph.D. in the subject) that I am so convinced that what he said was indefensible.

It is your job to point out elements in the historical context that you think justify Leo’s condemnation.

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

That second statement (which I’m not sure was true in 17th-century France) is obviously irrelevant, since the issue concerned whether those who could read Scripture should be encouraged or discouraged. The Pope’s condemnation of Quesnel on this point also implicitly condemns the Church Fathers (such as Jerome, who said “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”) and Vatican II, which quoted Jerome and affirmed that access to Scripture should be opened wide to all the faithful.

In short, Quesnel was exactly right on this, according to the Fathers and the modern Catholic Church. Scripture is difficult. Scripture is dangerous. Protestant claims of the “perspicuity” of Scripture are pernicious nonsense. But that’s not a reason to close off access to Scripture for the Christian faithful.

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.

Actually they were originally headed for Egypt, not Jerusalem, and the Pope didn’t divert them. The Pope condemned what they did. However, his big mistake was to accept it as a fait accompli and see it as an opportunity to reunite Eastern and Western Churches by force.

And that’s relevant to my point. This wasn’t a matter of corruption or malice. It was the act of a good Pope who condemned the attack itself. The fundamental problem was a flawed understanding of what the unity of the Church involved.

There have been management decisions that were morally repugnant, such as allowing predatory priests access to children, whatever the mitigating circumstances.

And again, the fundamental problem there was clericalism–a tendency to treat priests as if they are more fully part of the Church than laity. Hence, forgiveness and mercy for priests trumped protecting innocent lay victims.

In other words, just as Protestant churches’ bad decisions and endemic corruptions (of which there are plenty) indicate flaws in their theology, I have no reason to think that similar bad decisions and endemic patterns of corruption have any other implication with regard to Catholicism.

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.**

I should have distinguished more carefully between two different things:

a) corrupt behavior that clearly violates Church teaching. You want to reduce all the problems in the Church to that.

b) behavior by Church leaders that appears to be in good faith according to teaching as it is understood at the time, plus actual teachings that are now seen as not being part of the permanent deposit of faith but appear to have been seen that way at the time.

b is the real problem, though I think even a is a bit more of a problem than many Catholic apologists seem willing to admit.

Edwin

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Jesus is the incarnation - therefore as God judges so might he - but we are sinners and have no right to throw stones (ie, to Judge others)

I am going to try that to avoid jury duty.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Your tone is patronizing and insulting. As a matter of fact, it’s precisely because I do understand the historical context (in fact, I have a Ph.D. in the subject) that I am so convinced that what he said was indefensible.

It is your job to point out elements in the historical context that you think justify Leo’s condemnation.

Thanks for the assignment, Doctor.

I am surprised that in finding my tone to be “patronizing and insulting”…you still took time to comment on my statements. I guess academics just can’t help themselves.

Pope Leo X’s Exsurge Domine, remains a source of controversy to us theologians even today. Remember it was a Papal Bull that censured forty one propositions extracted from Luther’s 95 theses. It was not a teaching document.

The Church did not teach that heresy should be punished by death, rather that the state has certain rights, given by God, and it should use them in a christian fashion.

In a country that claims all citizens MUST be Catholic, then someone who denies the faith and leads others astray are treasonous. If the state decides the proper course of action is death, it is also up to the state to determine what is the punishment and how it is to be applied.

Leo was defending the rights of the state. A particular state, in a particular century. Times change, governments, monarchies, people, culture all change. Not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

That second statement (which I’m not sure was true in 17th-century France) is obviously irrelevant, since the issue concerned whether those who could read Scripture should be encouraged or discouraged. The Pope’s condemnation of Quesnel on this point also implicitly condemns the Church Fathers (such as Jerome, who said “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”) and Vatican II, which quoted Jerome and affirmed that access to Scripture should be opened wide to all the faithful.

In short, Quesnel was exactly right on this, according to the Fathers and the modern Catholic Church. Scripture is difficult. Scripture is dangerous. Protestant claims of the “perspicuity” of Scripture are pernicious nonsense. But that’s not a reason to close off access to Scripture for the Christian faithful.

Here again we have a Papal Bull: “Unigenitus Dei Filius” by Clement XI, in which he condemns the 101 Jansenist propositions of Pasquier Quesnel. Another non teaching document.

One of Quesnel’s propositions maintained that scripture reading by the laity should be discouraged. To which Clement wrote:

“To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.”

“To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication.”

So What’s the point of bringing up Unigenitus Dei Filius ??

I should have distinguished more carefully between two different things:

a) corrupt behavior that clearly violates Church teaching. You want to reduce all the problems in the Church to that.

b) behavior by Church leaders that appears to be in good faith according to teaching as it is understood at the time, plus actual teachings that are now seen as not being part of the permanent deposit of faith but appear to have been seen that way at the time.

b is the real problem, though I think even a is a bit more of a problem than many Catholic apologists seem willing to admit.

Edwin

Frankly, Edwin I do not see it that way at all. I see members of the “inteligencia” misinterpreting the teachings of the Church and revising history in order to reduce the stature of the Catholic Church.

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for the assignment, Doctor.

But you refuse to take it up. That is to say, you refuse to back up your original claim that I’m somehow ignoring the context by any actual discussion of the context.

I am surprised that in finding my tone to be “patronizing and insulting”…you still took time to comment on my statements. I guess academics just can’t help themselves.

Most academics don’t come onto forums like this. So I won’t speak for all academics. I’m interested in substantive discussion. We all get carried away and say things that are inappropriate sometimes. When someone insults me, I point it out and move on. (Admittedly, I do tend to use a harsher tone myself from that point on, which I probably should not do.) Why would I stop the conversation as long as there is something substantive to be said?

Pope Leo X’s Exsurge Domine, remains a source of controversy to us theologians even today.

My own Ph.D. is in church history, so I would be slow to call myself a theologian.

Remember it was a Papal Bull that censured forty one propositions extracted from Luther’s 95 theses. It was not a teaching document.

Not just from the 95 Theses, actually. And if a censure isn’t intended to teach something, why issue it? But of course it wasn’t a systematic teaching document.

The Church did not teach that heresy should be punished by death, rather that the state has certain rights, given by God, and it should use them in a christian fashion.

And this was understood to include the death penalty for obdurate heresy. Major theologians like Aquinas said it explicitly; Inquisitors (i.e., judges working directly for the Church) carried through on it by handing over condemned heretics to the secular arm with the full expectation that they would be burned; and Luther was condemned for saying that it was against the will of the Spirit.

I understand of course that none of this added up to infallible teaching. But it sure looked, at the time, as if “the Church” was teaching that heretics should be burned at the stake.

Only in retrospect is it clear that, in the narrow sense Catholics mean by the phrase when speaking of doctrinal matters, “the Church” was not “teaching” this at all.

That’s my point.

In a country that claims all citizens MUST be Catholic

Which of course not all countries did, and the Church actually did generally come down on the other side on that one. That is to say, the Church did not call for the expulsion of Jews and actively condemned (at least in theory) their forcible conversion. So your argument fails at its very first premise. Heresy was a crime of the baptized (except for the attempt of some Inquisitors to say that rabbinic Judaism was a heretical interpretation of the OT)–its possible practitioners were defined by their membership in the Church, not by their subjection to the state. That’s why the Church wanted to be able to try heretics itself first, and only hand them over to the state if they were stubborn or if they kept relapsing into heresy. (Also because the Church wanted to give people a chance to avoid death–I am not claiming that Church leaders were generally bloodthirsty. The fact that they weren’t makes the doctrinal problems of the Church’s stance all the more serious.)

then someone who denies the faith and leads others astray are treasonous.

Untrue. Treason was a separate crime with a separate punishment. Many people are misled by the fact that Pope Innocent III (I think it was) called heresy “treason against Christ.” But obviously that’s not the same thing as saying that it’s treason against the state. heresy was analogous to treason and was seen as being even worse, because it was treason against the ultimate King rather than a mere earthly ruler. And it was seen that way because of Church teaching. A government that punished traitors against itself by death but let traitors to Christ off the hook would not have been seen as a very good Christian government. And by “would not have been seen,” I mean “by Church authorities.” Hence, you can’t get the Church off the hook this way. It is precisely this kind of shady dodge that discredits Catholicism in many people’s minds.

If the state decides the proper course of action is death, it is also up to the state to determine what is the punishment and how it is to be applied.

But again, it’s well documented that theologians and Popes defended and advocated for the death penalty.

Leo was defending the rights of the state. A particular state, in a particular century. Times change, governments, monarchies, people, culture all change. Not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

So if Catholics were to come to power in America, abolish the Constitution, establish a Catholic state, and decree that anyone openly contradicting Catholic doctrine or advocating for another church should be burned at the stake, the Church would be fine with that?

After all, the Church’s teaching doesn’t change

 

[Contarini]

Here again we have a Papal Bull: “Unigenitus Dei Filius” by Clement XI, in which he condemns the 101 Jansenist propositions of Pasquier Quesnel. Another non teaching document.

One of Quesnel’s propositions maintained that scripture reading by the laity should be discouraged. To which Clement wrote:

“To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.”

“To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication.”

So What’s the point of bringing up Unigenitus Dei Filius ??

Actually, the passages you quoted are from Quesnel. As you said, this was, like Exsurge Domine, a bull condemning propositions which were held to be either heretical or harmful to the faith in some lesser way. All the propositions listed are being condemned.

The fact that you jumped to the conclusion that these propositions were being affirmed speaks to just how obviously true and orthodox they are. (Also to your own desperation to get the Church off the hook.)

I think you’ve made my point very nicely.

Frankly, Edwin I do not see it that way at all. I see members of the “inteligencia” misinterpreting the teachings of the Church and revising history in order to reduce the stature of the Catholic Church.

Well, if being a member of the “intelligentsia” means that I can tell the difference between what the Pope is affirming and what he is condemning, maybe there’s something to be said for it:shrug:

Edwin

 

[kozlosap]

Actually, the passages you quoted are from Quesnel. As you said, this was, like Exsurge Domine, a bull condemning propositions which were held to be either heretical or harmful to the faith in some lesser way. All the propositions listed are being condemned.

The fact that you jumped to the conclusion that these propositions were being affirmed speaks to just how obviously true and orthodox they are. (Also to your own desperation to get the Church off the hook.)

I think you’ve made my point very nicely.

Well, if being a member of the “intelligentsia” means that I can tell the difference between what the Pope is affirming and what he is condemning, maybe there’s something to be said for it:shrug:

Edwin

Thanks for the thought provoking posts, Edwin. I think we all become so wrapped up in our own opinions that we forget there is REAL history to look back on.

 

[edwest2]

Thanks for the assignment, Doctor.

I am surprised that in finding my tone to be “patronizing and insulting”…you still took time to comment on my statements. I guess academics just can’t help themselves.

Pope Leo X’s Exsurge Domine, remains a source of controversy to us theologians even today. Remember it was a Papal Bull that censured forty one propositions extracted from Luther’s 95 theses. It was not a teaching document.

The Church did not teach that heresy should be punished by death, rather that the state has certain rights, given by God, and it should use them in a christian fashion.

In a country that claims all citizens MUST be Catholic, then someone who denies the faith and leads others astray are treasonous. If the state decides the proper course of action is death, it is also up to the state to determine what is the punishment and how it is to be applied.

Leo was defending the rights of the state. A particular state, in a particular century. Times change, governments, monarchies, people, culture all change. Not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Here again we have a Papal Bull: “Unigenitus Dei Filius” by Clement XI, in which he condemns the 101 Jansenist propositions of Pasquier Quesnel. Another non teaching document.

One of Quesnel’s propositions maintained that scripture reading by the laity should be discouraged. To which Clement wrote:

“To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.”

“To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication.”

So What’s the point of bringing up Unigenitus Dei Filius ??

Frankly, Edwin I do not see it that way at all. I see members of the “inteligencia” misinterpreting the teachings of the Church and revising history in order to reduce the stature of the Catholic Church.

I totally agree with your last sentence. It’s been an ongoing problem. From Humani Generis:

"Disagreement and error among men on moral and religious matters have always been a cause of profound sorrow to all good men, but above all to the true and loyal sons of the Church, especially today, when we see the principles of Christian culture being attacked on all sides.

"2. It is not surprising that such discord and error should always have existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely speaking, human reason by its own natural force and light can arrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by His providence watches over and governs the world, and also of the natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts, still there are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful.

"3. It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present condition of the human race, may be known by all mean readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error.[1]

“4. Furthermore the human intelligence sometimes experiences difficulties in forming a judgment about the credibility of the Catholic faith, notwithstanding the many wonderful external signs God has given, which are sufficient to prove with certitude by the natural light of reason alone the divine origin of the Christian religion. For man can, whether from prejudice or passion or bad faith, refuse and resist not only the evidence of the external proofs that are available, but also the impulses of actual grace.”

Ed

 

[catholic1seeks]

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.

How old are you? Just curious.

 

[catholic1seeks]

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.

Yes because gays’ being able to marry really is a load of crud being thrown at your face, isn’t it.

 

[Corki]

Yes because gays’ being able to marry really is a load of crud being thrown at your face, isn’t it.

Yes, it is.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

But you refuse to take it up. That is to say, you refuse to back up your original claim that I’m somehow ignoring the context by any actual discussion of the context.

No. That was not my original claim. You told me to “to point out elements in the historical context that you think justify Leo’s condemnation.”

But of course it wasn’t a systematic teaching document.

Nor was the other you mentioned.

This is where this entire discussion should end. Your examples have nothing to do with the teachings of the Church. Bringing them into the discussion without a proper historical or theological explanation only diminishes the credibility of the Church.

The damage you do could be serious. Take the case of a non-Catholic going through a period of discernment who visits CAF out of curiosity. He can deduce…"Wow! …there’s this guy on CAF with a Ph.D. in church history and he says that the popes contradict Church teaching all the time. He even has references to encyclicals…
When he brings that up at RCIA the Religious Ed. director will probably go into a tailspin.

But again, it’s well documented that theologians and Popes defended and advocated for the death penalty.

As well they should…until capital punishment is condemned.

So if Catholics were to come to power in America, abolish the Constitution, establish a Catholic state, and decree that anyone openly contradicting Catholic doctrine or advocating for another church should be burned at the stake, the Church would be fine with that?

After all, the Church’s teaching doesn’t change

Interesting concept. I would agree with all except the burning at the stake…that sort of practice is reserved for the “Religion of Peace”.

 

[Mark121359]

Yes, it is.

Yes, and it’s all the more bothersome when it’s other Catholics throwing it into your face. It’s one thing when one who’s struggling with SSA attempts to embrace Church teachings, and is at least open to what the Church has consistently taught and thus respects the Church’s position. It’s quite another when one is defiant and seemingly mocks the Church because she won’t conform the way that the rest of the world has done. Those who fall into the latter category should re-read HelenRose post # 656.

Peace, Mark

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I think you’ve made my point very nicely.

Actually your original point was…"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."

“…this particular stance…” = homosexuality/SSM (Topic of thread)

Come on Edwin PhD…do you really contend that the Church will change it’s “stance” on homosexuality or the definition of marriage??

Well, if being a member of the “intelligentsia” means that I can tell the difference between what the Pope is affirming and what he is condemning, maybe there’s something to be said for it:shrug:

Yes, you probably know the difference between affirming and condemning. Just remember that popes do not condemn what the Church affirms or affirm what the Church condemns.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Yes because gays’ being able to marry really is a load of crud being thrown at your face, isn’t it.

Well, I wouldn’t put it that strongly. I simply take it as a mockery of a beautiful traditional institution.The re-definition of which only serves to promote the the social acceptance of a deviant form of sexual behavior.