A Catholics View On Homosexuality

Kristina Keneally was the Premier of New South Wales. She is also a Catholic, and she explains why she believes that homosexuals should be entitled to marry. She has some good opinions, I think.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2942868.html

I think she brings up a few good points - at least IMO:

And also this:

I wish more politicians in my country felt the same. Of course, some will say you cannot be a Christian/Catholic and support same sex marriage, but I think you can. Many Catholics do support same sex marriage, and Kristina Keneally is one of them.

 

A Catholic is a follower of the example of Jesus first, and the church second. You turn to the church if you dont think you know what Jesus's position is. Thats how I think people have to see it. As a result what the church says about homosexuality is irrelevant because I feel I'd know what Jesus would think about it. How that relates to the question of marriage seperates when we consider the social changes since then where now marriage is less about creating a family, and more about being with the person you love the most. The religious marriage is about a spiritual bonding of souls to faciliate the creation of new biological life... its aiming for an ideal synthesis of spirit and body. This is not possible with homosexual relationships. I dont mind if they legally get married, but it should not be a position to enforce church's to change their beliefs and practises.

 

This is only a valid point if you also oppose marriage in case of sterility. Are you ready to argue that, say, hysterectomized women do not qualify for marriage?

 

Dont you believe in miracles!?

 

My other response was part tongue in cheek.

The point of the ceremony is not the result, so sterility is not an issue.... but the physical and spiritual union. If you have a simple or nonexistant spiritual understanding then yes it would look unfair, but if the spiritual belief incorporates the polar feminine flesh and masculine spirit in ritual relationships with feminine spirit and masculine flesh etc then the body and soul of the participants are equally relevant. Some might look at the relationship Jesus and humanity as a similar relationship of man and women bla bla. My point is society or individuals should not force an organisation to change their beliefs if the reasons for those beliefs are founded in things other then pure bigotry. The Catholic church might also require priests to be male simply because Jesus was male, and the spiritual nature of the male is intended to be carried by the leader of a congregation. There can be very relevant reasons for discrimination on gender, especially if we are talking about traditions of religious matters because the nature of religious matters is metaphysical in nature which by definition is unknow and therefore not only more reliant on tradition to maintain validity but also impossible to be proved or unproved.

 

Good.

By all means. I couldn't care less about dogma. Churches can say that only virgins and unicorns can marry each other for all I care. It's the perogative of any church and religion to cling to whatever dogma it must.

However, the argument that marriage is only for facilitating the creation of new biological life (by which I take it you mean life created by the spouses in unison and not by adoption, surrogacy etc.) carries with it certain criteria that, if not complied with, annihilates the argument. Using the argument and still allowing marriage between knowingly sterile couples is a contradictory position (also known as hypocritical when, as in this case, it applies to values).

 

AFAIK I already answered your point.

That wasnt my argument, I said a spiritual and physical union within a religious marriage as the ideal for creating life as understood within a particular belief. As outlined the ritual of marriage within a belief might very well be directly associated with two different genders as integral to the ritual.

I dont care if homosexuals have a legal marriage or not, thats their business... just so long as they dont care if a church only allows heteroesexual marriages. The issue of fertility doesnt seem to be related, wheras the gender does.

 

if she approves and expresses gay copulation, she aint a catholic.

she may claiming

she may have belonged at one time to that church

but if she had an audiance with the pope and claimed such nonsense, she would either have to recant or be excommunicated.


basically, going against church doctrine makes the choice for you.

for example, i know jesus wasnt christ

and i know homosexual preference is a choice rather than a sexual orientation

 

Literally quoted, you said that marriage is about "spiritual bonding of souls to faciliate the creation of new biological life", and that's what I replied to. If you now say that you meant procreation as some kind of ideal rather than a direct purpose then by all means (I will refrain from opening up the can of worms that the implication of non-ideal marriages is).

Take away the legal ramification of the church ceremony then we are in agreement. Then a church can exclude one-legged, blind people with disagreeable political convictions, or whomever. And for whatever reason.

 

OK that explains that then. Here is the whole sentence you refer too;

The religious marriage is about a spiritual bonding of souls to faciliate the creation of new biological life... its aiming for an ideal synthesis of spirit and body.

Well yea, go to another church, or make up a new church for one legged blind people with disageeable political convictions only. Just how much freedom of religion is meant by freedom of religion is defined by laws and anti-discrimination law is new ground for this and probably a concern for religious people who fear their beliefs being comprimised by external influences.

 

LOL, if the Pope was to excommunicate every single Catholic who thinks homosexuality is not a sin, who happily engages in pre-marital sex and uses artificial contraception without the slightest twinge of conscience, the Pope would be a very very busy man and the Catholic Church would be left with very few members.

And you seem to be making the very common mistake to mix up knowing with thinking and believing.

 

<<<Mod Edit: Response to Flameabit Removed>>> and reread my post:

In no way did I doubt that the Vatican thinks homosexuality is not fine. I just doubted your statement that every Catholic who disagrees with the Vatican on that (and other points) is not a Catholic and ought to be excommunicated.
If that was so, the Vatican would indeed be very busy and would suffer from a sudden lack of personnel. Here are 311 more people the Holy See would need to exclude from the Catholic Church: http://www.memorandum-freiheit.de/?page_id=390 All these Catholic Theologians signed an open letter saying amongst other things:

http://www.memorandum-freiheit.de/?page_id=518

Luckily you're not the one who decides who's Catholic and who isn't.

 

Mak:
Althought I have great sympathy for homosexuals in general, and, as the legislator does in the article, support greater rights for homosexuals in general, the article only takes a passing glance at the issue of homosexuality within the churches teachings.

#1 - In choosing to follow God, we choose to follow God - not our own desires. For example, there is nothing inherently evil about alcohol, but many Christians abstain from or severely limit consumption of alcohol and many ban it outright from their followers. And in appropriate comparison?

Well, sex is no different. Sex can become the center of your life as well, and Christians, many anyway, abstain from promiscuity and many other deviant forms of sexuality despite societal pressures that are increasingly tolerant and even encouraging in this regard.

To abstain from homosexual conduct is, in a sense, no different the turning down that hot girl or boy who offers himself to you sexually. Hard? No doubt, but avoiding temptation is not always easy.

#2 - The Bible has definitions of about the roles of husbands, fathers, wives, mothers, and children. This is presented as the ideal, the structure to strive for, and, as the article off handedly points out, a structure that has proven scientific benefits for all participants.

No doubt there are homosexual couples who love deeply and any family would be lucky, indeed fortunate to share in the love of two deeply commited adults.

However, 'marriage' in this sense is a theological construct. What we are asking churches to do is accept that a homosexual marriage is a blessing bestowed by God and sanctified by God. That is going to be a difficult threshold for the homosexual community to meet, and indeed, they are simply not making any case about these aspects.

Imagine for a second what would happen if I walked into my church with a 14 year old girl on my arm, proclaimed my love for her and her, her love for me? Imagine me demanding that the church marry us and bestow the blessings of Almight God upon our Love based union? My church would excommunicate me in short order.

Certainly, within a few years, I would be able to make the marriage legal, but the fact that I 'married' a 14 year old girl would prevent from returning to the church.

The church, or many at least, view homosexuality in much the same light. There is tremendous compassion for homosexuality in almost all churches, but ... they cannot sanctify the relationship before God.

As difficult a choice as it may be to make, the choice in view of the theology is that a person can either choose to put God at the center of their lives .... or they can put sex at the center of their lives.

The burden, unfortuantely, falls upon the homosexual community to demonstrate that the lifestyle can, and indeed is, centered around God rather than sexuality.

There are many, many churches that allow openly gay men and women to participate, but their marriages are treated no differently that unmarried couples who live together outside the bounds of matrimony, and indeed, in both cases, there are many churches that accept neither form of relationship.

It comes down to how various denominations deal with sin, and especially sexual sin. There are, to be blunt, no easy answers when it comes to human sexuality.

 

Let me see if I can throw another analogy out there to understand the church's position on this one.

In many cases, the acceptance of homosexuality is argued that it is natural, born of love and to deny love, honest, genuine, compassionate love is crime - a sin in and of itself. There is certainly truth to this, but, even in love we follow standards.

For example, if I am married and I meet another woman who is also married and fall madly in love with her .... I have a choice to make. If we both decide to stay focused on our marriages, to deny our feelings, that is no doubt a difficult path to walk. That desire is at this point merely a desire.

And what happens we act on those feelings? If we choose to fornicate and commit adultry? Worse, can you imagine coming into the church and demanding that the church, indeed God, sanctify this action? The concept that your love was simply too deep and strong to hold back takes away nothing of the pain that has been caused by two spouses. It does not change the reality of adultry.

Its not as if the church can say, "Well, I see your love is genuine, therefore you are good to go, but John, hes a jerk about HIS adultry so out he goes."

Again, as homosexuality comes into the main stream and achieves legal equality, the bar for acceptance in a theological construct is going to be a tougher road to hoe.

The bar is set by a relationship centered in God first and sex second ...

 

The difference is that when you commit adultery you hurt another person, in that case your wife and maybe also your mistress. (Seeing that according to Jesus you already commit adultery the very moment you lust for another woman, there is indeed little you can do about it. Sometimes life sucks and we can just ask for forgiveness)
Two homosexuals who live in a loving and caring relationship don't hurt anybody. To deny them the love and intimacy heterosexuals can find in their relationships would be not loving them as we do love ourselves.

You rightly classified sin as being far from God and I might add that seeing that what you do to the least of us you do to Him, sin also involves not loving others as we love ourselves.
In that sense I can't see how two people who don't violate the double commandment of love can be classified as sinners, only because their sexuality doesn't conform with sexual norms. Isn't it rather us who sin, when we belittle their love while wanting our own being honoured?

That is of course not the official opinion of the Catholic Church, but a point of view many believing Catholics who don't regard homosexuality as a sin, share with me.

 

I don't think she said she approved, just that she didn't see why homosexuals should be treated differently if they love each other.

The Catholic Church disagrees with you.

 

But for those who do follow God, they also follow their own desires. Don't people desire to be with their husbands/wives? Or desire to have children? We desire things each and every day. That doesn't mean a Christian doesn't appreciate God, it just means they are human.

Of course, we can look at a hot boy/girl and ignore them, not get involved. If we are already in a relationship, then even flirting would be wrong, as it is a betrayal. If you are single, it isn't so bad. Besides, looking and flirting at cute people is a natural reaction for humans.

If someone is gay, sure, they can deny their feelings. Or embrace them and never have a relationship with a person of the same sex. But then they can't have a relationship with someone of the opposite sex either as they feel no attraction to them. So a homosexual must live alone, and all by themselves because to express any feelings of love would be 'wrong'. I couldn't imagine having to live like that.

And we can have the argument that pedophiles living with their desires, unable to act on them is also unfair, but there is one big difference - pedophiles are not only breaking the law, they are causing great harm to a person. Homosexuals harm no one - maybe they offend God (assuming he exists) but I think that after tens of thousands of years of seeing humans walk the earth, God would learn to accept that things change.

No one is saying that allowing homosexuals to marry would mean that God is having to bless the relationship. I don't think even Kristina Keneally believes that. Homosexuals could marry in a court room, on the beach etc, anyway but in a church. That way, God doesn't play a part in the union - just like God doesn't play a part in many marriage these days - ones performed outside the church, by a civil celebrant.

I think Miss Keneally loves her God, and she has come to know a few gay people well. She mentioned that she knew a few gay Catholics who were upset because their church didn't approve of the love they had for their partners. It must be hard to feel like you don't fit in.
I think she just looked at everything and wondered why they can't be treated like everyone else. She doesn't really mention her opinion on homosexuality. Maybe she does believe it is wrong? But she also believes that they deserve the same rights as everyone else, and I like that.

 

It does not conform to what God commands. That is the theological problem.

Let's actually look at what the church says:

"Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior&#8212;that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner."

And:

"It is a fundamental doctrine and the proper use of the church's moral agency to overcome the natural man and tame our appetites and passions. The tendency toward homosexuality is sometimes unfairly stigmatized but homosexuality is not treated any different than adultery, fornication, or any other sinful act. The natural tendency toward sin is no excuse. There are genetic theories for tendencies toward most anything, but the disposition toward any wrongdoing does not justify it or make it less sinful. Although temptation may be strong, self-mastery is a spiritual goal of the faithful, and any sinful act must be repented of."

Again, if I am lusting after a married woman, it is wrong to act on those feelings, no matter the strength of those feelings. And truely, as you say, if we do this privately and discreetly, no harm is done - right brother?

If I am deeply and powerfully attracted to a sheep, well .... that would be wrong? Correct? Or would the denial of my affection and sexual intimiacy with an animal be a cruel and inhumane thing?

Again, I do not deny that homosexuals have deep and empassioned feelings for one another.

But I also acknowlegde that the ideal from God, in multiple denominations, is that of husband, wife, and children, all with roles found in the Bible. Indeed, science back up the benefits and primacy of these roles, and indeed, as the Bible state, the destruction of the family is the ruin of society.

A homosexual can be legally married, and there are a few churches who will support a continued relationship with God. But there are clear theological boundaries for sexual sin, and homosexuality, however honest, runs up against where that standard begins - for better or worse.

Not even Buddhism offers homosexuals much in terms of spiritual succor.

"Celibacy is in most traditions considered to be a requirement for those seeking higher levels of development as Buddhists. Monks and nuns take vows of strict celibacy, and even pious lay people undertake to be celibate at certain times in order to pursue their mental and spiritual development."

In Buddhism, the suffering of denying the sexual impulses is but a step toward nirvana.

To be homosexual is a choice. The homosexual community is vigorous and successful, and there are indeed many gay couples that live monogamous and loving lifestyles.

However, there is a question that is posed. Homosexuality is NOT new. Yet just about every spiritual community out there, the practice is frowned upon. The question is why?

 

The Bible councils to drink while celebrating God. (Law of the Tithe)

The only parts of the Bible that is anti sex are the writings of Paul who did not even know Christ and may well have been a homo himself given his dislike for women.

<<< Mod Edit: Flamebaiting >>>

 

Adultery in the OT was not sleeping around on your wife.

Adultery was "specifically" when you slept with another mans wife.

The crime was like to stealing but worse. What you were stealing was another mans property, his wife.

So .. Married men could sleep with other women so long as that woman was not married. Women however, once married, could not sleep with other men.

All the patriarchs had multiple wives from Noah to Moses to Solomon.

 

Not if you wish to be a nun, a Catholic priest, etc. In this case, this is a sacrifice to serve God - a choice.

Not all people desire children either, and indeed, they do not all have them whether they chose to marry or not. In this case it is also a choice, and the choice to not to recieve a blessing but explore different aspects of a relationship with God.

Flirting is just another word for being friendly in most cases. When you start dropping sexually suggestive lines as a lead into the desire for something more ... that is different.

No one considers being friendly, a bit of harmless banter, to be a sin - except an exceptionally possessive partner - in which case, the partner needs some help.

That is not true.

They cannot have a SEXUAL relationship with a person of the same sex.

My best friend is a man. I love him like a brother, indeed when we are together there is a tremendous and open affection and deep respect for one another. I cannot imagine NOT having him in my life. At no point will those feeling ever progress into a sexual relationship.

Indeed Mak, you are an attractive woman, kind, honorable, intelligent, and posses many other wonderful attributes. Indeed, I am a man, and though I appreciate the fact that you are an attractive woman, I appreciate more the fact that you have good head on your shoulders, your compassion, reason, and judgement far more than your gender.

I choose to notice and appreciate the aspects of your character more than your gender attributes. In short, I respect you as a human being, not simply see you as a woman.

Or, would you rather I saw you as only an attractive woman and potential sexual mate?

Indeed, being gay does not mean that you will find a partner and be swept away in passion, it means you find yourself sexually attracted to men (or women, apologies my profession favors the masculine use of grammar for some reason) - the question is what to do with it?

And, take for a minute the consideration of a relationship from theological standpoint. Assuming you desire marriage, etc. would you want a man who found you interesting? Who enjoyed your company? Found you genuinely interesting? Looked forward to meeting you because you were you? whose fondness for you deepens? Whose affection grew for you and yours for him grows and deepens? Who sought to touch you and express affection for you? Whose words, mannerisms, expressions all conveyed profound affection and respect? All before sex even enters the equation?

That is love. That is what God, thousands of years ago, said was best. That is how you view people (or at least seek to view them) when you choose God over sex.

All of that is possible before sex enters the equation. Before marriage. all of it.

Not according to NAMBLA.

Indeed, we focus on the aspect of homosexuality that is mongamous, but, and this is particularly so of homosexual men, the homosexual community is not defined by monogamy. It is defined by multiple sex partners, in many if not most cases.

Again, in a theological sense, why would God ordaine homosexual marriage? There are roles assigned to husband father, wife mother, and children. All churches acknowledge that there are many situations outside this ideal, but that does not mean the church can or should condon sexual immorality.

Again, I acknoweldge the case of homosexuality, support equal right in a legal sense, but in a theological sense - well, it hurts no one is the first domino in a long line of rationalization that ultimately ends in sin.

Where do you draw the line?

I agree with her, but she involked the Catholic Church in her views ... and that means the Catholic Church, indeed almost all modern religions views of homosexuality are what she is rebutting.

Again, I began with a choice: God or Sex.

We can legally support that choice, but in a theological sense, that is the choice.

They do. People are going to make their choices, and if they fulfill them, then I wish them all the best of luck. But when they demand the church sanction their choices? When they rebuke the churches stance on their choices?

Those choices should be examined.

 

We all know it does not conform with what the Catholic Church demands, as to God's commands I just tried to give you an alternative interpretation that is followed by many other Churches.

Jesus Himself and his disciples broke the law of their time on severeal occasions and drove the Pharisees mad with anger by that. When being questioned on the law Jesus replied:
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38(*)This is the great and first commandment. 39(*)And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40(*)On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

So I suppose Jesus saw that there would come a time when a lot of the Old Testament laws that may have been useful in their time, would become meaningless to most people and He extracted these two as a general guideline on how to follow God's will that would be timeless.

And in fact the Catholic Churches decision to discard many of the OT's sexual behaviour-codes but to stick with that one seems to be more rooted in a medieval moral code than in a reasonable interpretation of the Scriptures.

Jesus begs to differ (Matthew 5:27-29). Hard stuff! But I certainly would not want my husband to lust for other women, regardless whether he acts upon it or not. Seeing that it's unrealistic to assume he never will, it indeed goes to show that we're all prone to sin and just can trust on the Lord's grace.

A relationship with a sheep would make you quite lonely because it is unlikely that the sheep will reciprocate your feelings in an equal manner.

Just out of interest: where does the bible state that the destruction of the family is the ruin of society?
However: Homosexual relationships don't threaten family-ideals. The fact that my best friend has a lesbian relationship has no negative effect whatsoever on my heterosexual marriage.

Scientific research and personal experience of many homo- and heterosexuals suggest the opposite.

Because churches are part of this world and usually a rather conservative part of this world. They are not free from historic contexts they live in and that influence their ethical ideas.
Fifty years back it would not have surprised a congregation if a Priest had given a roaring condemnation of Rock Music and wild dancing as immoral. These days most congregations have a youth club embracing both.
The discrimination of women was ancient, before the feminist movement changed a lot of our Churches views on it.
The gay-movement that has opened our eyes to how bad it is to discriminate on others solely because they are not within our sexual norms is much younger than that. Give it time.

 

Doesnt matter what people think.

The Bible is pretty clear being a homo is a sin.

You either believe in the Bible or you dont.

The End.

 

The bible is also very clear that sitting on the same seat that a menstruating woman has previously sat on makes you unclean for the rest of the day. So you either believe in the Bible and never take the risk of sitting down in a waiting-room or you don't?

 

they aint treated differently

each human being is a human being

what they do is what invokes a judgment

i posted a quote from the vatican which point black shared 'IT" was wrong

but apparently the moderation around here dont wanna have truth by the very source that contradicts your opinion.

i mean, if the catholic foundation itself (the vatican) represents it aint right, it does not matter what a rogue site claims..........

the catholic church itself shares that homosexuality is wrong (ie.. against nature)


and although i aint a catholic adherant, the facts of the representation stand

you and i both know it Mak!

Fact!