Catholic bishops discuss treatment of homosexuals in the Church

[Monachos News Agent]

The following news item from an RSS feed might be of interest to Monachos readers:


This week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will vote on guidelines for ministering to homosexual Catholics. Some church officials say just talking about these issues is a step forward, while many gay and lesbian Catholics say that if the proposal passes, it will push them away from the church.

This news item is from the NPR Religion service.

Click here for fuller text... (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6479583&ft=1&f=1016)

[John Charmley]

The following news item from an RSS feed might be of interest to Monachos readers:


This week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will vote on guidelines for ministering to homosexual Catholics. Some church officials say just talking about these issues is a step forward, while many gay and lesbian Catholics say that if the proposal passes, it will push them away from the church.

This news item is from the NPR Religion service.

Click here for fuller text... (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6479583&ft=1&f=1016)

Since the report does not say what is in the guidelines, one supposes that either there must be something in them that is objectionable, or that homosexuals find being grouped together for special treatment unacceptable; since the whole 'gay rights' movement proceeds on the presumption that sexual orientation is a defining phenomenon, it would be somewhat strange if it were the latter.

We are commanded to love the sinner whilst hating the sin; those who dislike the concept of 'sin' might be best advised to avoid Christianity altogether; the secular world provides many, and varied, other ways of being, and those who do not wish to think of their preferred sexual activity as 'sinful' might be better off staying in that world; after all, homosexuality is not the only form of sexual behaviour which the Church would regard as sinful. Much of what passes for 'normal' heterosexuality also falls under the censure of the Church.

Looked at from this angle, we might well find that fornicators, adulterers and serial monogamists also resented having their behaviour censured by the Church. It would only go to show that unrepentant sinners disliked having their sins highlighted - a not uncommon phenomenon. We shall have the avaricious, selfish and heartless complaining next; thank goodness that the slothful can't be bothered!:rolleyes:

INXC

John

[Andreas Moran]

Dear John,

Many many thanks for your last comment - I needed a good laugh!

I often think, why single out homosexual conduct? All forms of sexual conduct are considered sinful by the Church except normal (by the standards of the Church) relations between husband and wife. There is a difference between the condition of homosexuality and homosexual activity.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Scott Pierson]

We are commanded to love the sinner whilst hating the sin; those who dislike the concept of 'sin' might be best advised to avoid Christianity altogether; the secular world provides many, and varied, other ways of being, and those who do not wish to think of their preferred sexual activity as 'sinful' might be better off staying in that world; after all, homosexuality is not the only form of sexual behaviour which the Church would regard as sinful. Much of what passes for 'normal' heterosexuality also falls under the censure of the Church.

Thats a great point. I was listening to the radio today and a certain article written by a Baptist minister was being discussed in which he claims that homosexuality has been "proven" to be the result of genetic factors and for that reason the Church is wrong when it teaches that acting out homosexually is a sin. He claims the modern Church is doing "the same thing the Church did in opposing the scientific truth of Galileo " and is fighting against science. I'm not sure the exact place in the Bible that states " If someone is born with a predisposition to a certain sin he shall indulge it and it shall no longer be called sin" but I guess it must be in there somewhere?:rolleyes: If it is found to be genetic then I would assume genetic predispositions could be found for attraction to little children as well I sure hope we don't need to remove sex with children from the list of sins too. Or maybe someone will have a predisposition to anger and therefore that person can kill people without it being sinful.... I think its lame really, the fact that one is born with or without a predisposition to commit a certain act in no way prevents the act from "missing the mark" and thus being sin. Sure you might want to give people who suffer from such predispositions** a little more understanding and empathy but for the Church to say “go ahead do whatever you feel” is outrageous. I have empathy for people who struggle with things like that I used to be addicted to heroin and know how hard it can be to overcome enslavement to passions and addictions but I don't think anyone will be helped by being told “ keep up the good work nothing wrong with what your doing “! I mean it would be like someone having told me back when I did drugs “ God made you that way just embrace your inner junky and be proud of it!”

** Assuming they even exist as of yet no "gay gene" has ever been found. I tend to think it has more to do with emotional problems, environment, relationship with parents, etc... I think it would be hard to explain the success of ex gay ministries in helping people reconnect with their masculinity or femininity and “become straight” if it was genetic. For the longest time homosexual attraction was just considered a psychological disorder (until political correctness made that label too controversial) like depression or any other disorder.

[John Charmley]

I was listening to the radio today and a certain article written by a Baptist minister was being discussed in which he claims that homosexuality has been "proven" to be the result of genetic factors and for that reason the Church is wrong when it teaches that acting out homosexually is a sin. He claims the modern Church is doing "the same thing the Church did in opposing the scientific truth of Galileo " and is fighting against science.


Dear Scott,
Good points. The idea that because something is 'natural' it is not sinful to indulge in it, is very common in our society; I have no problem with it, except that it is not what Christianity has preached.

The Incarnate Logos was like unto us in everything save sin, which means sin is natural to us in our fallen state. There is a whole pile of stuff that comes naturally to us, from gluttony, avarice and various forms of addiction, and therefore, for a Christian, to say 'oh, I can't help it, it is in my nature', is to go against one of the fundamental tenets of our Faith, which is that through Christ we are redeemed. Asceticism is a reminder to us that there are some 'natural' instincts which we are called to struggle against.

Of course, in western society where the motto seems to be that of the late Aleister Crowley, 'do what you will is the whole of the law', such ideas of restraint and self-discipline are bound to seem weird, just as, to a Christian, the license that prevails in this society seems a sign of the work of the Evil One.

As Andreas reminds us, sexual conduct has often been the subject of comment by the Church. If I might make so bold, it seems to me that on the whole the Eastern Churches have been better balanced on this than some of the Roman Catholic teachings, but from whatever side you come at this, what Andreas says is correct.

We are all called to follow the Lord; He never said the way would be easy and the path strewn with primroses for our delight; nor did He say we could do what our wills demanded.

Homosexuals who say that it is hard that their Church should condemn their sexual practices are no different to heterosexuals who complain that the Church is keen they should not commit adultery. One man has an urge to have sexual relations with another man, the other wants to have sexual relations with someone who is not his wife. And I'd like to eat steak whenever I want. Sure, OK, but no one made me be a Christian, and no one in this society does that to anyone.

Perhaps it is another example of the way in which single-issue pressure groups in our society are always blind to a bigger picture?

One thing is clear, and that is that by knowingly ordaining sexually active homosexuals, let alone by consecrating them to the episcopate, my own communion, the Anglicans, has broken with the apostolic teachings of the Universal Church. Pretending, for form's sake, that it does not know whether they are sexually active, is the sort of weaselly device one expects from politicians, not Archbishops.

INXC

John

[Andreas Moran]

As I've said before: if you don't like the rules, don't join the club. You can't join the club and then seek to change the rules or adapt them to your own predilections: otherwise, we 'd be changing the rules continually, and then everything would be relative and the absolute lost. We are out of the times (thank God!) because we know the Absolute exists.

[Scott Pierson]

Saint Antony in his "Texts on the Ascetic Life" writes something I think is applicable to the discussion of homosexuality being a trait one is born with and how it relates to the sinfulness of acting out homosexualy :

"People who have no natural inclination to good must not be discouraged and give way to despair. They must not cease striving after a virtious life pleasing to God, however inaccesible and unattainable it is to them. They too must take thought and have a care for themselves as best they can. For, although they may not reach the summit of virtue and perfection, by taking thought and caring for themselves in every possible way they will either become better or, at least, not worse- and this is no small profit to the soul."

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Scott,

Very many thanks for that - very comforting! See also the thread, 'The inescapable sin'. It is humbling to recall how strict the great ascetic fathers were with themselves and how compassionate with others.

In Christ,


Andreas.