Wrong to Support LGBT?

  • Thread starter Thread starter xdz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What are you looking for?
I am a Catholic, in good standing with my parish.
I teach Confirmation classes, support my parish and my diocese.

I believe all that the Church teaches and try to live a good Christian life.
Isn’t that what we are all called to do?

I was not aware that it was my job to go around telling all my non-Catholic friends that they will burn in Hell if they don’t stop living their deviant lifestyles. :roll_eyes:
 
There is a certain celebrity Catholic author who fervently promotes changing the Catechism language, among other changes. He always dodges questions about what he, personally believes, usually along the lines of “I accept that this is what the Church teaches.”
Not that there’s any doubt about what he really believes, or what his goals are.
 
Last edited:
xdz said:
I have a few friends that r part of the movement (well not rlly but yh), would you say it’s ok to support them but at the same time do not support their moral values? (The sexual part etc…)
Click to expand...
Support them as people. But do not support the sin.

Having a friend who identifies as LGBT is like having a friend who is committing adultery. There are ways to love them as friends/people without approving of their sin.

But SOMETIMES, you have to cut them off if they (whether the LGBT or adulterer) insist that you must approve of their sin.

God bless
 
Fr. Martin does not want to change Church teaching.
He, much like Cardinal Tobin, wants to see how we talk about homosexuality changed.
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
I believe all that the Church teaches
Click to expand...
And that’s all I was asking. Thank you.
That’s certainly more than a certain celebrity Catholic author who shall remain nameless will say.
 
Last edited:
Changing the Catechism language on same sex attraction is changing Church teaching…or reflective of such change.
And as I’ve said elsewhere: change the Catechism language to read that the same sex attraction is “differently ordered” (and thereby obviously equal), then the act itself can no longer be condemned as sinful, and that language must be changed as well. Once that occurs, the pressure to change the definition of sacramental marriage will be overwhelming.
That is simple logic. If homosexual intercourse can be as virtuous as heterosexual intercourse, then the Church must sanction homosexual relationships.
Church after Protestant church has gone down this exact path.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with being friends people. I have several homosexual friends. In fact being their friends is a good way to evangelize to them. That being said they all know I am Catholic and know my stance on the issue. In the few times they have asked me specifically about it I kindly but truthfully explain the Church’s position.
 
No offence taken but why shouldn’t I go? I love my friend, I have known him since we were in school together, incidentally we were in catechism class together too. We aren’t really close these days as we dont have lives that mix and we dont live near
each other. He knows I go to church, I know he doesnt. He thinks he’s done for and I don’t. Who is going to pray for him if I dont? I can’t say much for his choices and I dont see them as as unavoidable as he does, but if he ever see’s clearly then who will
he turn to if everyone has disowned him. But that’s not what you are asking really. I went to his party because I am blessed enough to be pretty sick, which he knows so I can go for a short while to say hey friend, I care for you and support him, he’s a pretty
traumatised person. I think you’ll find a lot of people with SSA are. I happen to believe that love and mercy will be the thing that wins people over in life, from any kind of sin, actually. He certainly didnt force me to go. We seldom see each other cos he
lives in London and I in Hove, I am not well or rich enough to travel so I only see him if he comes down here to visit. He travels a lot all over the world, so it is rare he’s in UK anyway. I am quite happy to see him when he is here, he is actually a very
kind person, once he brought me a packet of my favourite crisps from our home country all the way to my doorstep, just because he had been home visiting his dying mom and somehow had the time to think of me. That’s sweet. God puts his grace in all sorts of
places. The Divine is in all of us. It may do you well to remember that. I would want a friend like that.
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
Fr. Martin does not want to change Chruch teaching.
He, much like Bishop Tobin, wants to see how we talk about homosexuality changed.
Click to expand...
You mean Cardinal Tobin, not Bishop Tobin.

Bishop Tobin is in Providence and doesn’t support Fr Martin.

The problem with Fr Martin & Cardinal Tobin is that they both want to change the Catechism.

The Catachsim already sympathizes with same sex attracted people, what could it be changed to that wouldn’t be disastrous?

Fr Martin also goes around saying on Twitter that gay people are created by God that way - which is NOT true. God does not create people gay, blind, deaf; He doesn’t give them cancer, diabetes, Down Syndrome, etc.

All of these things are a result of environmental factors inside or/and outside the womb - caused by the Fall.

Fr Martin should know this, but he’s more dedicated to his liberal ideology than to orthodox Catholic theology.
 
Last edited:
For far too many people, the term “disordered” does not mean what the Church says it means.

I understand that it is used to mean “against the natural order”, but since “natural law” is not something that is taught by the main-stream education system anymore, it is very easy to understand why there are issues with the terminology.
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
For far too many people, the term “disordered” does not mean what the Church says it means.
Click to expand...
What would you change it to?

This is what it currently says:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

The only thing I can possibly think is changing this sentence: “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial,” to “This inclination constitutes for most of them a trial.“

You cannot change anything about the sin. But the problem with this slight change is that it implys that the previous language was wrong that they same sex attraction is a natural / God given inclination, which it is not.

What people have to remember is that the Catechism isn’t a pastoral book. It’s a reference book / textbook, and arguably a Canon Law textbook.

The language needs to be exact, not pastoral.
 
Last edited:
I saw one article that seemed to intone, one could attend such a wedding but not advocate for it. Say, if who was in the wedding was a son, daughter, brother, sister or perhaps even good friend. You just can’t advocate for such.

But I’ve also seen it said, we should not even attend such. It is such a commonly asked question. Once I read something about not being able to attend it but perhaps, attending the reception after was permissible.

The main gist of this forum from what I see, is Catholic apologetics… and this issue is right on the mark concerning that.
 
Support meaning-I love you like you a brother/sister in Christ. I hope nothing bad happens to you, I want to be your friend, and I’ll protect you from bullying. Sure, that’s fine.
 
Victoria33 said:
I saw one article that seemed to intone, one could attend such a wedding but not advocate for it. Say, if who was in the wedding was a son, daughter, brother, sister or perhaps even good friend. You just can’t advocate for such.

But I’ve also seen it said, we should not even attend such. It is such a commonly asked question. Once I read something about not being able to attend it but perhaps, attending the reception after was permissible.

The main gist of this forum from what I see, is Catholic apologetics… and this issue is right on the mark concerning that.
Click to expand...
I think part of the the issue here is one about human nature:

If you go to the wedding and have a great time, the message you give is that you approve of the wedding

If you go and are uncomfortable, that too sends a message that you strongly do not approve and/or that you are a jerk.

If you don’t attend you don’t send any mixed messages. No one says you have to actually tell the person that you are not attending because you do not approve. Yes, that would be a brave thing to do, but it’s not required.

You can simply say, “I’m sorry, but I make your wedding.”

God Bless
 
phil19034 said:
the problem with this slight change is that it implys that the previous language was wrong that they same sex attraction is a natural / God given inclination, which it is not.
Click to expand...
And that’s my point. If the Church starts teaching that the attraction is “natural / God-given,” then there is no longer any basis for teaching that the sexual activity based on that attraction is inherently evil.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
But I’ve also seen it said, we should not even attend such. It is such a commonly asked question. Once I read something about not being able to attend it but perhaps, attending the reception after was permissible.
Click to expand...
No, skipping the ceremony but attending the reception makes no logical sense.

The reception is a party to celebrate the gay marriage. If anything, it would be better to attend the ceremony (out of personal respect) and skip the reception.
 
I wouldn’t attend either. If someone were my friend, they’d know me well enough to know my faith comes first, and they wouldn’t invite me in the first place.
 
Same here.

However, if I felt forced to attend at least one for some reason, I would attend the ceremony and not the reception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top