Ship of Fools: Catholic attitudes on gay and lesbian issues

Thread: Catholic attitudes on gay and lesbian issues Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028578

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Here's a research report that might be of interest. (It's a PDF, but it opens pretty quickly.)

The results surprised me a bit. But maybe they shouldn't have.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The beliefs of many American Roman Catholics are at odds with the official teachings of their church.

I've always said if every Roman Catholic who agreed with The Episcopal Church more than The Roman Catholic Church joined an Episcopal congregation our numbers would grow exponentially. It would offset the numbers we would loose if every Episcopalian who agreed more with the Unitarian Universalists than TEC became Unitarian.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

This is surprising only if you're unfamiliar with the attitudes of American Catholic laity towards contraception.

A better question might be why there is such a large divide between the institutional teachings of the Catholic Church and the personal convictions of their American adherents. It could be argued that for many Americans Catholicism is a form of tribal identity rather than a set of beliefs.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

This is a rather nasty thing to say, but liberal Catholics really are the one religious category I strongly dislike. I just don't see how anyone can in good conscience join an organization which declares that she teaches infallible truth... and then proceed to totally deny her core doctrines.

It's one thing to be a "dissenting" member of some protestant denomination, since by their very nature they do not claim such infallibility. But Rome is different. I'm not a Catholic. But if I ever convert you can bet that I will accept the whole bag of dogma without a murmur.

So if you want to be pro-gay, pro-choice, or whatever, then fine. But in that case please be honest with yourself and the world. Go join some other church or no church at all, and stop calling yourself a Catholic.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I thought the RCs taught the primacy of conscience ?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The thing that really jumps out at me from the report is the comparisons with OTHER Christian groups. Such as 'black Protestants' and 'white evangelicals'.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
So if you want to be pro-gay, pro-choice, or whatever, then fine. But in that case please be honest with yourself and the world. Go join some other church or no church at all, and stop calling yourself a Catholic.

Which is a fine position to take, except that the Catholic Church holds the position that once you're baptized, you're in for life (unless excommunicated). Given the age at which most people join the Catholic Church it's a fairly safe bet that their opinions on gay rights or contraception or divorce are far from fully formed.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
So if you want to be pro-gay, pro-choice, or whatever, then fine. But in that case please be honest with yourself and the world. Go join some other church or no church at all, and stop calling yourself a Catholic.
Which is a fine position to take, except that the Catholic Church holds the position that once you're baptized, you're in for life (unless excommunicated). Given the age at which most people join the Catholic Church it's a fairly safe bet that their opinions on gay rights or contraception or divorce are far from fully formed.

Okay, I see what you mean in that according to Rome these people are still sacramentally Catholics. But that's different from saying "I follow the Catholic religion" when you obviously don't. So if you want to be technical, you're welcome to call yourself a heretical Catholic. [Smile]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Of course there are many who claim to be Catholics who do not understand or follow the minutiae of Catholic dogma.
Love of God and love of neighbour as oneself are the essentials of Catholic doctrine as is a belief in Jesus Christ as the Way,the Truth and the Life.

There are many who wish to identify themselves with the Catholic religion,but who do not see themselves as having time to investigate all theological opinions nor even the formal teachings of the Magisterium.

It is,however,not for us to judge,who is worthy but rather to leave it to God to judge our brothers and sisters.

Should they present themselves at the tribunal of God's mercy (Confession and Reconciliation) and ask questions ten they would find out whether their beliefs are consonant with those of Catholic teaching.

Should we assume that all non Catholic christians have a firm grasp of what their form of christianity teaches or is it the case that others can believe whatever they want to ? If that is the case why are there all the discussion forums here ?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
So if you want to be pro-gay, pro-choice, or whatever, then fine. But in that case please be honest with yourself and the world. Go join some other church or no church at all, and stop calling yourself a Catholic.
Which is a fine position to take, except that the Catholic Church holds the position that once you're baptized, you're in for life (unless excommunicated). Given the age at which most people join the Catholic Church it's a fairly safe bet that their opinions on gay rights or contraception or divorce are far from fully formed.

Technically though the Catholic Church believes in such a thing as "automatic excommunication." For example if a Catholic doctor provides an abortion, the Church considers such a person "automatically excommunicated" even though it might not officially issue the actual paper. The question is whether or not one is automatically excommunicated simply for dissenting from Catholic teaching.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
I'm not a Catholic. But if I ever convert you can bet that I will accept the whole bag of dogma without a murmur.

Me too-- as to the actual dogmas. But then, as far as I know, homophobia is not a dogma of the Roman Catholic church. Am I misinformed?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Alogon, I don't think you'll find a question in the survey that asks 'are you homophobic'.

I can see at least one question there where the beliefs of 'ordinary Catholics' seem to be in line with Catholic teaching. My understanding is that it's now accepted that orientation is not changeable.

But the Catholic church is pretty clear that it does not accept same-sex marriage, for instance. And a fair slab of survey respondents hold a different view.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
This is a rather nasty thing to say, but liberal Catholics really are the one religious category I strongly dislike. I just don't see how anyone can in good conscience join an organization which declares that she teaches infallible truth... and then proceed to totally deny her core doctrines.

Is the magesterium's position against gay marriage really a "core doctrine"? On the level of the Incarnation or the Trinity or even the Assumption of Mary? I can't see it.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
This is a rather nasty thing to say, but liberal Catholics really are the one religious category I strongly dislike. I just don't see how anyone can in good conscience join an organization which declares that she teaches infallible truth... and then proceed to totally deny her core doctrines.
Is the magesterium's position against gay marriage really a "core doctrine"? On the level of the Incarnation or the Trinity or even the Assumption of Mary? I can't see it.

From what I understand, though I could be wrong, is that the RCC rejects the notion that there are some doctrines more important than others. The notion is that the Church is infallible whether it teaches the doctrine of the Trinity or that white is not an appropriate liturgical colour for Lent. You either accept the whole package or not.

The whole notion of "core doctrines" seems to be a Protestant idea.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
From what I understand, though I could be wrong, is that the RCC rejects the notion that there are some doctrines more important than others. The notion is that the Church is infallible whether it teaches the doctrine of the Trinity or that white is not an appropriate liturgical colour for Lent. You either accept the whole package or not.

Then why are some of their doctrines called dogma and promulgated as infallible utterances from the chair of Peter, and some aren't? They do seem to be making a bigger deal out of some than others. Before 1870 you could disbelieve in the immaculate conception and still be a Catholic in good standing; since 1870 you cannot. Surely such pronouncements are more "core" than ones without anathemae tied to them?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
From what I understand, though I could be wrong, is that the RCC rejects the notion that there are some doctrines more important than others. The notion is that the Church is infallible whether it teaches the doctrine of the Trinity or that white is not an appropriate liturgical colour for Lent. You either accept the whole package or not.
Then why are some of their doctrines called dogma and promulgated as infallible utterances from the chair of Peter, and some aren't? They do seem to be making a bigger deal out of some than others. Before 1870 you could disbelieve in the immaculate conception and still be a Catholic in good standing; since 1870 you cannot. Surely such pronouncements are more "core" than ones without anathemae tied to them?

Wikipedia is your friend

I still find this a tad confusing. From what I can gather the Church does hold that some doctrines are more core than others, but at the same time the Church does not hold that one can dismiss its secondary teachings at whim. I suspect that is because the old "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty" is a bit simplistic.

Christian moral teaching is not of course traditionally viewed as creedal, but at the same time, one can't say that it can be dismissed as arbitary and irrelevant. Do we need to have the Church say "Believe this or be damned" before we can find it credible or acceptable?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I though that there was some kind of 'hierarchy of truth': "dogma, doctrine and discipline" was the way I learned it at school.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
This is a rather nasty thing to say, but liberal Catholics really are the one religious category I strongly dislike. I just don't see how anyone can in good conscience join an organization which declares that she teaches infallible truth... and then proceed to totally deny her core doctrines.
Is the magesterium's position against gay marriage really a "core doctrine"? On the level of the Incarnation or the Trinity or even the Assumption of Mary? I can't see it.

Nor me. Seems more like the position of the Anglican Communion, where 'the gay issue' has become the touchstone of orthodoxy.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Seems more like the position of the Anglican Communion, where 'the gay issue' has become the touchstone of orthodoxy.

No it hasn't. You exagerate massively.

Even here in soppy England priests have been kicked out of the CofE for not believing in God. None of them have been defrocked for believing in gay marriage.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Unless it is they, themselves, who are gay and partnered.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Christian moral teaching is not of course traditionally viewed as creedal, but at the same time, one can't say that it can be dismissed as arbitary and irrelevant. Do we need to have the Church say "Believe this or be damned" before we can find it credible or acceptable?

Quite.

Conservatives take quite a lot of stick (IMO deservedly) because of their emphasis on belief over behaviour - as if it doesn't matter how we behave as long we believe the right things.

I agree that I wouldn't want this issue to become the test of orthodoxy but surely AB is right to say that Christian moral teaching is important?

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Seems more like the position of the Anglican Communion, where 'the gay issue' has become the touchstone of orthodoxy.
No it hasn't. You exagerate massively.

Even here in soppy England priests have been kicked out of the CofE for not believing in God. None of them have been defrocked for believing in gay marriage.

I have had folks cut themselves off from me because of my views on sexuality. So for some it is clearly a mark of orthodoxy - even if not for the Bishops. Yet.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

An Act of contrition,(Catholicspeak for sorrow for sin) does the trick. This could be spoken aloud or even be simply a thought in the mind.
Genuine sorrow what what we have done when we know that we have sinned brings God'smercy to us and puts us into a 'state of grace'
(Even sorow that we are not really sorry for our sins may help.)

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
It's one thing to be a "dissenting" member of some protestant denomination, since by their very nature they do not claim such infallibility. But Rome is different. I'm not a Catholic. But if I ever convert you can bet that I will accept the whole bag of dogma without a murmur.

So if you want to be pro-gay, pro-choice, or whatever, then fine. But in that case please be honest with yourself and the world. Go join some other church or no church at all, and stop calling yourself a Catholic.

But this is the voice of the convert. As a Convert to Anglicanism I feel uncomfortable with excesses of doctrine and practice in either direction that are un-Anglican. Cradle Anglicans are far more comfortable with Benediction or Adult 'Re'-Baptism to look at different extremes.

To my Catholic Anglican mind I have no issue with saying 'This is the teaching of the Church, but I have these questions'. As an Anglican I believe I am free to do so on issues of human sexuality and gender for example. The Catholic laity obviously feel they have the same freedom. I imagine some of the clergy do too.

I don't find this dishonest at all. Indeed I find it a more sustainable understanding of Church than a protestant integrity which results in division.

Posted by Fugue (# 16254) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Okay, I see what you mean in that according to Rome these people are still sacramentally Catholics. But that's different from saying "I follow the Catholic religion" when you obviously don't. So if you want to be technical, you're welcome to call yourself a heretical Catholic.

Having "joined" the RC Church when I was a few weeks old I guess I really didn't know what I was letting myself in for.

I actually consider myself a (virtually) lapsed Catholic these days, but I'm glad to know that when I was merely a heretical one that would have been ok with you, too. [Biased]

Posted by Fugue (# 16254) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It could be argued that for many Americans Catholicism is a form of tribal identity rather than a set of beliefs.

This is certainly true to a large extent from my own experience growing up Catholic in the UK. I'd express it more in terms of cultural or social identity, perhaps, but maybe that's the same thing as tribal?

It seems to me that it's only outsiders or, sometimes, converts who really confuse the Catholic Church with the Vatican. Go to any parish church in a fairly working or lower middle class area of, say, East London, or Liverpool, and it's all rather more down to earth and human than that.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:But this is the voice of the convert. As a Convert to Anglicanism I feel uncomfortable with excesses of doctrine and practice in either direction that are un-Anglican. Cradle Anglicans are far more comfortable with Benediction or Adult 'Re'-Baptism to look at different extremes.

To my Catholic Anglican mind I have no issue with saying 'This is the teaching of the Church, but I have these questions'. As an Anglican I believe I am free to do so on issues of human sexuality and gender for example. The Catholic laity obviously feel they have the same freedom. I imagine some of the clergy do too.

Yes, they may "feel" that. But they feel wrongly. Catholicism is inherently different from protestantism, there are no grounds for a "loyal opposition" in an "infallible" organization. Either you believe the Church of Rome is just one of many denominations (in which case you are by definition a Protestant), or else she has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I don't think it's as clear-cut as that.

The Council of Constance might have the status of an Ecumenical Council, but I doubt you'd find many Catholics - even the most conservative - who think it was right to sentence Jan Hus to death (or to be "relinquished to the secular court" as it is euphemistically expressed).

ETA: Likewise, it can hardly be denied that the Catholic Church's position on lending money at interest has somewhat changed over the centuries, and that therefore some of the earlier condemnations of usury must have been mistaken in at least some elements.

[ 30. March 2011, 09:17: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I would beware of using the word 'infallible' too much when talking about the Catholic church.Can't we all talk about the infallible Word of God and yet it'snot always easily clear.Not only catholics have infallibility on their side.

The Catholic church is not like the British Parliament with the pope's government on one side and His Holiness's loyal opposition on the other side. There must be a core belief expected in the tenets of the historical creeds,however we best seek to explain them.But to say that there is no room for discussion about various topics ( which some might describe as dissent) is just totally wrong.

As another poster said it is a mistake to assume that everyone who claims to be a Catholic and even a practicing Catholic,is up to speed with what is going on in the Vatican and that is true not only for a working/middle class parish in Liverpool or London but equally true in Paris,Madrid,Vienna,Munich,Sydney and all over the world. For most Catholics,as indeed for many other christians, the Church is principally their own parish,the dynamics of the parish,the personal relationships within the parish,the hope of finding something through that community which helps to guide us through life.

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

quote:
For most Catholics...the Church is principally their own parish,the dynamics of the parish,the personal relationships within the parish,the hope of finding something through that community which helps to guide us through life. [/QB]

One would hope that, though the Mass and the Sacraments, the Church is nonetheless also a bit bigger than the local parish community.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Of course it is much bigger than the local parish,but nevertheless the ideas we have of the Church stem from our experiences,both good and bad, within the local church,either parish or group of parishes.

Indeed Catholics are generally aware and proud of the world wide extent of the Church,but that is all 'out there' Few people have wider horizons than they have in other parts of their life.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
I just don't see how anyone can in good conscience join an organization which declares that she teaches infallible truth... and then proceed to totally deny her core doctrines.

So if you want to be pro-gay, pro-choice, or whatever, then fine... Go join some other church or no church at all, and stop calling yourself a Catholic.

I know I've already responded to this post, but it still rankles me. The title of the report linked in the O.P. is "Catholic Attitudes on Gay and Lesbian Issues". You are not even a Roman Catholic; yet you claim, apparently, that it is possible for some attitude on gay or
Lesbian issues not just to deny a core doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, but to "totally deny" them in the plural-- to the point where one is only play-acting at being a member. Or did you accidentally post in the wrong thread?

How do you distinguish between core and non-core doctrines? You must acknowledge a distinction, since the word is yours. I would think that a core doctrine would be something like (1) A required belief, i.e. a dogma; (2) A belief enumerated regulary in a statement of faith, i.e. an article of a creed; (3) A belief specifically stated during an initiatory rite, i.e. a baptismal vow; or at least (4) A belief mentioned in the liturgy, i.e. lex orandi, lex credendi.

Can you cite how any of the above sources specifically determines an attitude on gay and Lesbian issues?

As I noted yesterday in the thread speculating how far up the candle gays are and why, IMHO they have been and will continue to be somewhat higher than average because of Incarnational theology.

Now, the Incarnation is a dogma. It is in both the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds and as such is taught to and recited by catechumens and confirmands. I would call it a core doctrine in every sense. If, as I believe, the attitudes reported are a consequence of believing in the Incarnation, then, far from their being the sign of pseudo-Catholics, they are the result of people who have grasped the core doctrines of the church very well.

We get the same blustering in the Anglican Communion. How can a good Anglican deny such a core doctrine as the requirement to keep "practicing" gays away from the table? [Mad]

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Alogon's post reminds me of a General Assembly meeting in which the status of gay and lesbian members was being debated hotly, mostly in the negative. It all came to a crashing halt late in the day when the church's lawyer (a very devout Presbyterian indeed) got to his feet and said, "Am I to understand that you are recommending that the entry criterion for membership is no longer baptism?"

After a most trying and noisy day, the nearly five minutes of silence that followed this question was like the Holy Spirit descending.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I know I've already responded to this post, but it still rankles me. The title of the report linked in the O.P. is "Catholic Attitudes on Gay and Lesbian Issues". You are not even a Roman Catholic; yet you claim, apparently, that it is possible for some attitude on gay or
Lesbian issues not just to deny a core doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, but to "totally deny" them in the plural-- to the point where one is only play-acting at being a member. Or did you accidentally post in the wrong thread?

How do you distinguish between core and non-core doctrines? You must acknowledge a distinction, since the word is yours. I would think that a core doctrine would be something like (1) A required belief, i.e. a dogma; (2) A belief enumerated regulary in a statement of faith, i.e. an article of a creed; (3) A belief specifically stated during an initiatory rite, i.e. a baptismal vow; or at least (4) A belief mentioned in the liturgy, i.e. lex orandi, lex credendi.

Can you cite how any of the above sources specifically determines an attitude on gay and Lesbian issues?

As I noted yesterday in the thread speculating how far up the candle gays are and why, IMHO they have been and will continue to be somewhat higher than average because of Incarnational theology.

Now, the Incarnation is a dogma. It is in both the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds and as such is taught to and recited by catechumens and confirmands. I would call it a core doctrine in every sense. If, as I believe, the attitudes reported are a consequence of believing in the Incarnation, then, far from their being the sign of pseudo-Catholics, they are the result of people who have grasped the core doctrines of the church very well.

Well I was too harsh saying "totally deny". Clearly pro-homosexual Catholics don't necessarily disavow the Trinity. But they certainly are denying, indirectly, the Church's claim to possess the truth carried down from the Apostles.

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
We get the same blustering in the Anglican Communion. How can a good Anglican deny such a core doctrine as the requirement to keep "practicing" gays away from the table?

As I had said before, I see a difference between this, and the question in the Anglican or any other non-Catholic denomination. Although I certainly disagree with them, I can understand pro-homosexual protestants. It's reasonable to expect that there could be disagreement about what Leviticus and Romans mean. But I don't see how one can interpret

They 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.

to mean anything other than what it says.

Now yeah I know your can go on and say the Catechism isn't formally infallible, it was never officially dogmatically proclaimed, and so on. But that's really just taking refuge in technicalities. For the past thousand years and more, Rome has taught the evil of sodomy. Now if she's wrong then the protestant can claim she was wrong, and now thankfully we reclaim the inclusive truth of the Gospel. But the Catholic has no such option. A thousand years of teaching a lie is such a monstrous fraud that it cannot possibility be undertaken by a Church whose visible and institutional organization is the One True Body of Christ on Earth.

[ 08. April 2011, 21:56: Message edited by: Bran Stark ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
For the past thousand years and more, Rome has taught the evil of sodomy. Now if she's wrong then the protestant can claim she was wrong, and now thankfully we reclaim the inclusive truth of the Gospel. But the Catholic has no such option. A thousand years of teaching a lie is such a monstrous fraud that it cannot possibility be undertaken by a Church whose visible and institutional organization is the One True Body of Christ on Earth.

Forgive my ignorance of Catholicism but are you saying, Bran, that the Catholic Church is incapable of teaching anything but 100% truth? If you're not saying this, then Catholics have the option of simply believing that the Church hasn't quite got it right regarding sexuality, don't they?

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Forgive my ignorance of Catholicism but are you saying, Bran, that the Catholic Church is incapable of teaching anything but 100% truth? If you're not saying this, then Catholics have the option of simply believing that the Church hasn't quite got it right regarding sexuality, don't they?

The Catholic Church is incapable of teaching anything but 100% truth while remaining what she claims to be. As a protestant I believe she both teaches (a comparatively small amount) of falsehood, and is not what she claims to be. You certainly have the option of believing Rome is wrong, but in the act of exercising that option you become a protestant.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Alogon's post reminds me of a General Assembly meeting in which the status of gay and lesbian members was being debated hotly, mostly in the negative. It all came to a crashing halt late in the day when the church's lawyer (a very devout Presbyterian indeed) got to his feet and said, "Am I to understand that you are recommending that the entry criterion for membership is no longer baptism?"

After a most trying and noisy day, the nearly five minutes of silence that followed this question was like the Holy Spirit descending.

I think I love that man. And I've never even met him.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Amen! Now, can we clone that man, and station a clone in every church?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Most of what the Catholic church teaches as '100% truth' cannot be verified by scientific means.It is faith which helps us to believe that God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible.It is Faith which helps us to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God,born of the Father before all ages who came down from Heaven for our salvation,was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and was made man.

In dealing with human sexuality the present catechism of the Catholic church reminds those who read it that :
2331 God created man in his own image..male and female he created them.He blessed them and said,'Be fruitful and multiply.'
2332 Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul.
2333Everyone,man and woman,should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity
2334 God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity .. both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God
2335 the union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity.All human generations proceed from this union.

The catechism goes on to discuss chastity and homosexuality using the words cited earlier on by BS.But it also says :
2357 Homosexuality .....has taken a great variety of forms throughout the centuries and in different cultures.Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.Basing itself on Sacred Scripture,..tradition has always declared that'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered' It is difficult to claim that this was not the official view of the overwhelming majority of christians until fairly recently.
In speaking of generation of new life it is difficult to claim that homosexual acts are open to the gift of 'new' life.
Are they indeed ,as the Catholic church claims ,'contrary to the natural law'? Well ,they are if one thinks of sex as the way in which new life in generated 'naturally'.

The catechism,however goes on to say :
2358 The number of men and women who have deep seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.They do not choose their condition.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 fulfil God's will in their lives and if thet are Christians,to unite to the sacrifice of the Cross the difficulties they may encounter.

All Christians,whatever their sexual identity,are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they encounter.

It is up to each Catholic Christian to interpret these words as they best understand them,within the context of their own life situation.

One can indeed argue that the Catholic church in its official pronouncements (be they considered as infallible or not) speaks and often acts harshly in regard to homosexuality but certainly in the catechism there is a recognition that homosexuality exists and has always existed and will probably always exist and should in a pastoral context be dealt with sensitively.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
tradition has always declared that'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered' It is difficult to claim that this was not the official view of the overwhelming majority of christians until fairly recently.

It is also difficult to claim that this has 'always' been the case.

The error that many people make is to think that the last few hundred years are definitely representative of the last few thousand.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Sorry, I should have put 'Tradition' with a capital T which for the Catholic church means Christian Tradition and Jewish Tradition.

All this not withstanding,of course it is absolutely clear that there have been since time immemorial men and women who are attracted in a sexual sense to those of the same gender.Tradition has certainly allowed and even encouraged close friendships between people of the same sex,but a veil would be drawn over possible genital sexual activity,as would indeed arguably be better today also.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Sorry, I should have put 'Tradition' with a capital T which for the Catholic church means Christian Tradition and Jewish Tradition.

All this not withstanding,of course it is absolutely clear that there have been since time immemorial men and women who are attracted in a sexual sense to those of the same gender.Tradition has certainly allowed and even encouraged close friendships between people of the same sex,but a veil would be drawn over possible genital sexual activity,as would indeed arguably be better today also.

Ahem. We have an entire thread here on Dead Horses about why homosexuals come out. No veils, thanks all the same. They might help you, but they don't help the homosexuals in the slightest.

[ 10. April 2011, 10:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I understand your 'no veils' idea and also understand why some homosexuals are 'out and proud'
On the other hand many homosexuals say ( and rightly in my opinion) that they are really no different from the more numerous ( I think) heterosexuals. Many heteroexual couples do not talk openly about what genital sexual activity they engage in and I think that it is a good idea that many homosexual couples are equally reticent.

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

Most hetero couples don't have to talk about their exact preferences. They can marry, walk down the street holding hands with their beloved, kiss them in public etc. All public statements of their preferences. And I'd suggest no-one would think to shout abuse or send hate mail or indeed beat them up for it (in this country). Not so for the gay community, where such things are greeted by some with hate, contempt or worse. It's not a level playing field (to use an expression).

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Amber - I totally accept what you say.
There are in life innumerable examples of the lack of level playing field - sexuality,poverty,power,health,geographical and geological conditions.
Each thinking and caring human being has to work to alleviate difficulties caused by the lack of level playing field.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Why do I feel like I'm hearing a recitation of a book of "regs" reminiscent of my days working in the public sector...and a similar sort of vetted-by-superiors-for-dissemination-to-the-public ways in which we were encouraged to communicate?

Posted by Otter (# 12020) on :

One can be out without going into the details of what they do with who. One can be out and celibate. Some people slam the closet door, some people don't make any Serious Statement at all, they just stop pretending and using vague pronouns. Being out is about not hiding your orientation, not the physical details.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Many heteroexual couples do not talk openly about what genital sexual activity they engage in and I think that it is a good idea that many homosexual couples are equally reticent.

A point of order here. My experience of two different denominational arguments around sexuality, and having lived through the process of homosexual law reform: I don't think I ever once heard a lesbian or gay man talk about their sexual practices in those settings. I do remember straight people having the most astounding fantasies about what lesbian and gay people did in bed and talking about it at great length in synods, assemblies and Parliament. Almost as though they were getting off on it, which was rather icky for those of us who were being discussed.

In fact, when the Homosexual Law Reform Bill finally passed into law, one of the promoters of it (a straight woman) famously said to the media, "I'm going to miss sodomy in the House on Thursdays."

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Now yeah I know your can go on and say the Catechism isn't formally infallible, it was never officially dogmatically proclaimed, and so on. But that's really just taking refuge in technicalities. For the past thousand years and more, Rome has taught the evil of sodomy. Now if she's wrong then the protestant can claim she was wrong, and now thankfully we reclaim the inclusive truth of the Gospel. But the Catholic has no such option. A thousand years of teaching a lie is such a monstrous fraud that it cannot possibility be undertaken by a Church whose visible and institutional organization is the One True Body of Christ on Earth.

So when we say in the Nicene Creed "I believe one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" we're actually signing an intellectual blank check? I trust, anyway, that you say it. Roman Catholics say it. Eastern Orthodox say it. And I say it. But that is not my understanding of the clause. If it should be, then you and I had better swim the Tiber pronto because we don't belong on these other shores. If our ancestors in the church who started saying it in the fourth century did so without signing an intellectual blank check, but Roman Catholics who say it today have done so, then it seems that we have an interesting historical question: Exactly when and how did laity, priests, and even bishops agree to give their brains away to their superiors? And are their descendents in the RCC still held to that unhappy ancient surrender?

But, speculating as one outsider to another, I don't believe that Roman Catholics are required to accept everything in the catechism. The church has more dogmas today than it used to have. These were not promulgated just by the pope's suddenly getting a phone call from God one day. They were first debated in a collegial process. True, according to John Henry Newman, Immaculate Conception, for instance, was not emitted as a dogma so that Catholics would believe it but because they already believed it, and its proponents cited evidence that they had always believed it. But if some people had not questioned it and been allowed to express their doubts before the decision was made, there would be nothing to discuss.

Years ago one Roman Catholic apologist of my acquaintance (and a very conservative one, actually) cited the variety of thought among Roman Catholics on many issues as a rebuttal to the claim that they've given away their right not to march in mental lock step. This idea is a slur commonly read in Protestant tracts appealing to those whose own intellectual equipment is hardly formidable.

Perhaps it is inadequately appreciated that medieval universities developed in Europe under the sponsorship of the church-- and of the Pope in particular, who was known to defend their academic freedom against more censorious local bishops. Does this sound like the policy of a man, or an office, hostile to thought?

Finally, we have the case of usury. To paraphrase you: For a thousand years and more, Rome taught the evils of lending money at interest. But it no longer does so. Why not? I'm content as an Anglican to assume that the teaching of the church changed. But to those for whom this idea is itself heresy (such as Ingo, who patiently explained it once in terms that nearly require a degree in economics as well as theology to understand), it was the nature of money that changed. If today we were to lend precious metal objects and charge a fee for their use by the borrower, we would be usurers as much as ever. But modern money does not carry this restriction.

Beside such convoluted reasoning (which Blaise Pascal, back when it was still a live issue, called the quintessence of casuistry)-- on the premise that the church adapts its doctrine to changing circumstances by introducing distinctions real or imagined-- perceiving a difference between gay people today and what S. Paul arguably had in mind in the first century ought to be child's play.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I understand your 'no veils' idea and also understand why some homosexuals are 'out and proud'
On the other hand many homosexuals say ( and rightly in my opinion) that they are really no different from the more numerous ( I think) heterosexuals. Many heteroexual couples do not talk openly about what genital sexual activity they engage in and I think that it is a good idea that many homosexual couples are equally reticent.

What on earth?...

Any heterosexual married couple below the age of about... 40?... doesn't HAVE to talk openly about genital sexual activity. They're married. They're presumed to be doing it.

Also, any time the wife gets pregnant there's direct evidence of sexual activity. How much more flagrant can you get. A couple of friends of mine have proof positive that they've done the deed at LEAST 6 times. How indiscreet of them to have so much evidence!!

Heterosexuals are not required to be discreet about who their sexual partner is. So it is the height of hypocrisy to suggest that homosexuals should be discreet about it. That is what I was saying. I don't see how you get from that to the notion that I was advocating a blow-by-blow account of bedroom activities.

[ 12. April 2011, 03:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Finally, we have the case of usury. To paraphrase you: For a thousand years and more, Rome taught the evils of lending money at interest. But it no longer does so. Why not?

The question of usury is an interesting point. We were just talking about it in my history class last week. But I don't think it's quite the same thing. Unlike human nature, economies are created by man not God, and hence can be changed by man as our society evolves. And the prohibition against usury was never total. Jews were allowed by Torah to lend at interest to foreigners, just as long as they didn't to themselves. And likewise Christians were allowed to borrow from the Jews in later times. So I don't think it was ever quite in the category of "intrinsic evil".

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

I can't hear "intrinsic evil" as anything but an oxymoron.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I can't hear "intrinsic evil" as anything but an oxymoron.

Haha well what's the alternative? Relativistic evil? That's quite a bit more oxymoronic.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

The alternative is not to use "evil" as a noun at all. Talk of intrinsic evil makes the whole idea of moral reasoning incoherent. If you, I, or anyone else is stuck with evil regardless of behavior, then thinking about right conduct is a cruel waste of time.

Where does any trait come from which qualifies to be called intrinsic?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Yes, they may "feel" that. But they feel wrongly. Catholicism is inherently different from protestantism, there are no grounds for a "loyal opposition" in an "infallible" organization. Either you believe the Church of Rome is just one of many denominations (in which case you are by definition a Protestant), or else she has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

I would nuance this a bit. One cannot dissent from dogma (by definition); if you don't believe in the Trinity, you're not Catholic. You may dissent from doctrine or discipline, but as a Catholic you are still bound to obey the Church in those matters. In other words, you can believe that birth control is really no big deal, but that doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of obeying the Church's rules around it. You may believe that priests should be allowed to marry, and even argue the point in the academic environment, but as a priest you yourself cannot take a wife.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't see how you get from that to the notion that I was advocating a blow-by-blow account of bedroom activities.

How? To be obsessively intrigued with how it is done and how much fun those who allow themselves to do it must be having is almost a definition of being deeply in the closet. Hence the slightest approach to the subject conjures up such visions in the hearer that he exaggerates what has actually been said,
when a happy hetersexual would just yawn. I guess it is one way in which those who try so hard to hide often tip their hands.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0