Saddens me how riddled this column is with blatant falsehoods presented as facts. If compassion for homosexuals were really the writer’s goal, she’d actually get to know some gay folks… and that would illuminate for her the glaring falseness of those stereotypes she believes are truths.

I’ve insufficient time, space and patience to touch on all the erroneous statements, but how about the biggest: I’ve known many gay people, and each of them would back me up in saying it is NOT TRUE that homosexuals are who they are because of some abusive or otherwise harmful experiences in their pasts. They just are.

And Janet, be careful not to confuse “compassion” for condescension or pity.

This is an unbelievably biased article filled with misnformation and outright lies.  My jaw dropped whilst reading.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  May God forgive you.

Referring to NARTH as one of the “good resources about the facts of homosexuality” pretty much destroys any credibility this article might have aspired to.  NARTH is probably the source of the claim that the “average homosexual male has hundreds of partners in his lifetime” ... a claim that was, the last time I check NARTH sources, based on old studies of gay people located at places like brothels, massage parlors, and porn shops.  (This is the same NARTH that claimed that Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, denied genetic contributions to homosexuality when, in fact, he believes quite the opposite and said so in a rebuttal accusing NARTH of totally distorting his views.)  And as for the activities that homosexuals engage in, no ... lesbians do not have to use “artificial devices,” though many do ... as do many straight couples.  And the incidence of anal cancer in gay men is actually not a whole lot different than the incidence of cervical cancer among women was prior to wide-spread testing ... not surprising given some commonalities having to do with HPV.  Viewing the high incidence of anal cancer in gay men as indicative of “unnaturalness” is no more valid than the comparable incidence of cervical cancer in straight women being indicative of the “unnaturalness” of straight sex.

It would take a response longer than the original article to highlight all the factual errors, distortions, and flawed logic it relies on.  Instead I would just encourage any reader who feels inclined to take it seriously to dig into the details behind its “facts.”  Groups like NARTH have been widely discredited among mental-health professionals, for reasons that really aren’t all that hard to identify.  And reliance on such groups by the Catholic Church only serves to undermine their credibility as well.  Probably even more fundamentally, the picture of the “average” homosexual painted in the article doesn’t describe any homosexuals I know.  Nor does it describe the vast majority of homosexuals people I’m acquainted with know.  If the Catholic Church is having a problem convincing people of their position, perhaps it’s just because they don’t have the facts to back up their position.

So few answers on what Catholic parents do if you actually have a college age child who, out of the blue, begins to develope and persue an interest in a homosexual lifestyle. I’m talking a person who always was crazy about the opposite sex growing up and does not at all try to act like “one of the boys” or “one of the girls”. What do you do when they want to bring a “friend” home? When they stop attending Mass becasue they don’t want to be hypocritical? When they express it’s unfair when a heterosexual sibling is aloud to bring their dates in the house…etc. Where do you draw the line on “compassion” and “justice”?

You are right @Dave, cervicall cancer is indicative of how unnatural straight sex is, outside of marriage.
And you know, some people are so set in their conviction and so determined to defend their side that they deny the cause. On forums and IRL I met many homosexuals who could pinpoint what triggered their homosexuality, the abuse and neglect factors are not lies, we just don’t know for sure what the incidence rate is, many studies do indicate that it’s very high!

“It is a rare TV show or movie that does not feature some form of sexual immorality as perfectly acceptable.”

I don’t know about any of you but when it comes to TV the only Catholic school uniform I’ve seen exploited sexually have been those with girls in them.

Dave, you said “Viewing the high incidence of anal cancer in gay men as indicative of “unnaturalness” is no more valid than the comparable incidence of cervical cancer in straight women being indicative of the “unnaturalness” of straight sex.” Actually, The incidence of cervical cancer in straight women is indicative of the unnaturalness of fornication. And yes, fornication is just as immoral as homosexual acts.

It may be easy to write off Janet’s comments as untrue and hateful, but as someone who has struggled with same-sex attraction, and chosen not to live the lifestyle, I often feel lost in a culture that affirms my need to supposedly act on those attractions. If you think about it, who but the church openly accepts people in my situation. The mainstream media says that I am “being untrue to myself” or “repressing my true feelings” when such lies only hurt those trying to live faithfully to our faith and God. I understand some people cling strongly to the identity as a gay man or lesbian woman, but in many cases it’s because they have to “choose” the lifestyle to feel welcomed by society. We have to readdress the ideas about sex in our society because Janet is completely right in saying that we have entered where we are today because of the devaluation of committed marital relationships which are the foundation of sexuality as handed down from God. Though my cross is heavy, I always feel a great sense of belonging in the Catholic Church and know that she will stay faithful to the teachings of marriage as we all ought to. Homosexual acts are no worse than heterosexual acts if done outside the bonds of marriage. Sex, like anything else, has its purpose and I always have to remember that in times of true temptation to “give-in” to what our society pushes daily. It’s easy to attack others in the light of this situation, but please do not say that you know how we all feel, when Janet and the Catholic Church helps people like me stay faithful to true teaching. Teens are inundated with these societally placed ideals when they couldn’t be further from the truth. It is important that they know where sex and marriage come from because this understanding will put the whole situation into context. I know I will be attacked for my views, but accept them with prayer for all those commenting against them. Until you are in my shoes, you will never know, so keep an open mind, open heart, and realize we have a God who loves us dearly.

Joe, you are an inspiration.  If you could see the fruit of your suffering, united to the cross, it would take your breath away.  All of those hidden sufferings will come to light someday.  How blessed you are to know THE LOVE.  I tell my sons and daughters to fall in love with the SOURCE of all love, and nothing in this world will have the power to break their hearts.  Thank you for sharing your beautiful story.

@Julia and catholicwife—sorry, but if you are going to use cancer rates as measures of “unnaturalness,” as Prof. Smith does, you can’t cite anal cancer rates in gay men as a characteristic that applies to all gay men while quoting cervical cancer rates in straight women as characterizing only promiscuous women.  That kind of double standard is just a blatant form of intellectual dishonesty ... and Prof. Smith should have known better.

Joe—You certainly have the right to adhere to your Catholic teachings regarding marriage and homosexuality.  Do keep in mind, however, that official Catholic teaching on homosexuality begins with an assertion in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the Bible presents homosexuals, even those in loving, committed, monogamous same-gender relationships, as committing “acts of grave depravity” (CCC2357).  And it bases that assertion on four scriptures (ref. 141).  The first is the Sodom story, which is quite explicitly about same-sex gang rape.  The other three are from Paul’s letters (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1).  Romans 1 is explicitly about same-sex activities of people “inflamed with lust.”  All three NT passages are acknowledged by the translators and commentators of the Church’s own NAB Bible to be referring to practices like pederasty.  (Check out the USCCB website for commentary on 1 Corinthians 6.)  No matter how elegantly Catholic leaders try to sugar-coat it, the core Scriptural arguments at the heart of Catholic teachings on homosexuality require belief that homosexuality = rape/prostitution/lust/pedophilia.  (You can see the same way of thinking in much of Prof. Smith’s piece, as well as the comment from catholicwife above.)  I think many people, young and old, understand that such characterizations of homosexuals underlie much of Catholic teaching on the subject, even if they haven’t explicitly seen it in black and white.  And they know from first-hand experience with same-gender couples and their families that such negative stereotypes are simply nonsense.  I don’t think Catholic traditionalists need to look any further than this to understand why they have a credibility problem on the topic.

Thank you Janet!

Dave, my friend, (I say that not with condescension but with compassion for you who seem bent on a particular point of view) homosexuality is equated with sexual immorality because you can’t act on it without behaving immorally.  You are not making the point you think you are making by taking offense at the fact that it is equated with other sexually immoral acts.  Even if you are the nicest person in the world, you are still not allowed to commit immoral acts, such as sleeping around outside marriage.  Everyone sins! Calling out one particular group of sinners, in this instance people acting on same-sex attraction, is, well, simply stating facts.  What I think you want is the Church to deny Scripture (because Scripture doesn’t suit your opinion) which is an impossibility.  This is hubristic on your part!  Be careful there!  The better thing to do would be to stop looking myopically at this one issue and start thinking eternally.  It’s all a mix!  All things work together for good for those who love the Lord.  We, who live in this fallen world, are all given crosses to bear, crosses that can lead to redemption.  Make it so!

Joe - You are a brave and valiant man.  We all have crosses to bear in life, whether heterosexual or homosexual, pretty or plain, rich or poor, lucky or unlucky in time and space.  To make the ‘gay lifestyle’ one’s primary identity is to set oneself up for heartache.  Our relationship with God is the only lasting thing, and the Catholic church is the best place for saints and sinners alike.  I will ask Our Lady in prayer to lift you up…

Joe - You are a brave and valiant and humble man.  We all have crosses to bear in life, whether heterosexual or homosexual, pretty or plain, rich or poor, lucky or unlucky in time and space.  To make the ‘gay lifestyle’ one’s primary identity is to set oneself up for heartache.  Our relationship with God is the only lasting thing, and the Catholic church is the best place for saints and sinners alike.  I will ask Our Lady in prayer to lift you up…

@Dave:”.... Even those in loving…....relationships”. We can stop right there. I’m not sure what “loving” means to you but in the Catholic church, love means _choosing_ the good of the other above your own. It means desiring the other’s salvation: not pleasing the other, enjoying things together or having the same interests. Similarly, in the context of marriage, where love most closely resembles God’s love, love must be free, total, faithful and fruitful. Perhaps the first 3 aren’t so obviously hampered in homosexual relationships- though not much theology is required to see how evidently they are lacking- but the 4th certainly is. Not the same can be said of infertile couples who do not have it in their power to have children. As such, the homosexual lifestyle does, completely undermine the dignity of the human person who is created BY love, TO LOVE.

I believe that our next generation, today’s children raised in homosexual environments and in the complete subjugation of morality to pleasure will be the most accurate witness of this depravity. It will be ugly, to say the least.

And I am sorry to insult your intelligence, but you do realize that the homosexual act is biologically different from the heterosexual one and inherently more prone to infection and cancer, whether monogomous or not. Not the same can be said of women in monogamous relationships and who do not use contraception.

Thank God for people like Joe who has the courage to speak the truth! As Janet Smith says, get to know the people involved in Courage(as well as EnCourage which is the support group of parents and friends of Courage advocates).  In some states Courage is well-known because the bishops and cardinals publicly inform people of the success that is possible for those who have been involved in the same-sex attraction lure to live according to,the flesh, but have realized that it is a deadly,destructive and delusional relationship life style. With the help of Courage they are able to shed this lure into that attraction and live deeply spiritual lives because they are so grateful to God for giving them the grace to get out from under the despair of the lifestyle that had encouraged them to live according to the flesh and not the spirit. They now can live freely according to the Spirit!
Perhaps the day will come when bishops and cardinals in other states will get the Courage to publicly speak out and inform their parishioners about Courage/EnCourage! We are waiting for that to happen in the Boston area.

We need to begin by refusing to define anyone according to sexual attraction, for to define someone as heterosexual, homosexual, etc., sexually objectifies the human person and is in direct conflict with God’s Commandment regarding the sin of adultery and lust. It should always be clearly stated that the term homosexuality refers to an inclination to engage in a same-sex sexual relationship. A person is not an inclination. Learning to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships requires recognizing God’s intention for Marriage to be a life-long committed relationship of authentic Love, and thus within that committed relationship God desires that that married couple does not engage in any act, including any sexual act, that demeans our inherent Dignity as human persons. Acts that demean the inherent Dignity of the human person are not, nor can they ever become, acts of Love.

I will say, that as a biologist, from a strictly biological standpoint homosexual lust is very perplexing. It seems like a complete short-circuiting of normal reproductive pathways.  However, much of Ms. Smith’s arguments are absurd. She says that homosexual boys “felt rejected by their fathers.”  This implies causality.  Any person with a brain would realize that a homosexual boy is going to seem very different from heterosexual boys growing up, especially to their fathers.  Doubtless many fathers experience confusion and sadness as they face raising a son who does not enjoy their traditional “male” activities.

Sex is one most important aspect in life which needs “control”.  The faculty of control and its possible application is the speciality in human beings which is absent in animals. The heterosexuals get attracted to many women They have to control and maintain a sacred family of love. The same way the so called gays have to control their sexual desires . Most of the cases are blown up by media and the few cases projected in the West may be able to be corrected if religious faith is inculcated in them.  The faith in the sacredness of married life—-the life of a committed man and woman—- and in natural laws is a must for all.

I think it was then Cardinal Ratzinger who said that it is only science that will make the determination as to how one aquires a homosexual orientation. Assuming it is through nurture rather than through nature (being born that way), why would we permit a homosexual cultural tsunami to wash over our children if it may, over time, cause some to accept homosexcuality? We must treat people with a homosexual orientation with respect, compassion and sensitivity but the same for our heterosexual children. Why is it that what used to seem commonsensical in the recent past is now hotly debated and contested? Why is it that we do not hear from our Bishops on these moral cultural issues? Are sixty-five million of us to independently come to the conclusion that The Church may have writeen on this and then begin the seach for something that was written perhaps twenty years ago? Where are the Shepherds, the “authentic teachers”?
http://www.rpconradio.com

This article asserts statements and speculation that are grossly unsupported in reality.

“If one’s desire for sexual intimacy with a same-sex partner can be traced to abuse or the perception of rejection, how natural and healthy can it be?”

The author did not establish the statistics on such abuse nor any supporting evidence of such a correlation. This would therefor not be “fact” as she claimed she was to put forth. To assume it’s truth one needs to ask how can anyone, including heterosexuals, have a healthy relationship if they have been abused? Can’t therefor a heterosexual be of the same dysfunction if abused? Do you teach this belief too? ( and yes, this is only your belief) Is the church or anyone else trying to prohibit abused heterosexuals from having relationships? Would that be appropriate?  How could such an attraction be unhealthy if based on something as natural as brain function, hormones, genetics and love? Are those not God given traits based on his own image?

As for all those diseases-don’t you think that if gays were allowed to have healthy relationships respected by others around them that those relationships would be more stable with less promiscuity? The claim is that monogamy is “natural” yet this is never allowed in any circumstances for a homosexual. How is forbidding a relationship or any sexual expression then “natural” if monogamy is natural? I can’t find a respected institution devoted to humanity that supports these opinions.

Where did the author get her information on the rates of sexual contact of gay men? There is no reference and the nonfactual information aimed at defamation are piling up. She may call this “religious liberty” but this would not be a religiously supported belief, rather slander which is sinful and not deserved by those who are supposed to be treated with “dignity” and “respect”. As a matter of fact, there is no point in the statements that gay men are so pervasively dysfunctional, other than the assumptions mere claims that gays are incapable of having relationships. This is easily refuted once one looks at the successful relationships that gays do have. But that’s ignored. So the logic here is to claim we’re not capable and use the results of that very oppression and slander to support that claim.

The author makes on attempt at legitimizing her comments by referring to a piece when she claims “Fidelity among gays is almost nonexistent; when they say they have been faithful to their partner, they generally mean they have not brought another partner home, but will readily admit to having had other sexual partners. (See “An Open Secret: The Truth About Male Homosexuals” by Joseph Nicolosi online.)”

And of course there is no reference on Mr. Nicolosi’s website for this misinformation. The above post is only paraphrase of someone who provides no evidence of his claims.  This calls into question the entire basis for such claims particularly when referring to someone (Nicolosi) who feels he can change one’s sexuality. This is something that every respected social and psychological association feels is fraudulent and harmful. Has anyone ever tried to change your sexual orientation? Would you allow a religious institution to make this standard?

“While “gay pride” parades are not typical of homosexual behavior, a quick look at the pictures of such parades will give a flavor of what the “gay lifestyle” celebrates.

So when a gay couple decide to settle down in the ‘burbs and get married raising a child that would be “the gay lifestyle”. Is what we already heard mentioned about what we see on TV with heterosexuals-including underage girls—a “heterosexual lifestyle”? I look at sitcoms on TV and realize it’s not indicative of most heterosexuals. I hear bigotry and have been called horrendous slurs while having my life threatened by catholics. I realize this is not “typical” heterosexual catholic behavior. Yet I don’t see the church admonishing it, just a footnote from time to time from a 25y/o document, never with any elaboration. But I am acutely and chronically aware of the fact that no catholic (including those preaching love and family-even in my family) has ever made any attempt to support me or even protect me in the face of hatred and violence-this is my very real experience.

“I think many of those who experience homosexual appetites have trouble having normal relationships with heterosexual males and females. Many gays report feeling like outsiders around heterosexual males and a sense of longing to be just one of the guys. Nor do they feel normal around females.”

Aside from the clear stereotype you draw you clearly say “[you] think”. This depends on how you define normal. Not every heterosexual feels comfortable around the opposite sex-ask any Muslim. Since the catholic church’s opinion that gays are just not normal (“objectively disordered”) being the basis of your statement you can pretty much blame anything on the abnormality you choose to perceive someone has. Gays have different needs than yours, yes, but you have no authority to base your claims of normalcy on what you “think” as a result of your religious beliefs and impose it on someone of a different belief. You can teach your kids this if you want them to only see one facet of people or worse: to assume how inferior they are if they are homosexual and that their love interest “leads to an intrinsic moral evil”, as stated by your church. But that almost always results in bullying. Trust me I grew up like that as have all my friends the vast majority catholic and it is not in any way “compassionate”.
I was that kid getting beaten up at the bus stop and on the bus while no adults did anything to intervene. Because of childhood effeminacy I was assumed to be homosexual, This includes teachers, parents-mine and others- my parents’ friends and the bus driver. From what I read here, by previous example and the church’s policy on protecting children from bullying, it is ok to beat up a child perceived as homosexual. The church has claimed repeatedly they can’t have organizations that aim to protect children based on perceived homosexuality because that would mean it’s ok. Look up what’s been happening in Toronto—school board was subjected to a jeering audience of parents when they discussed protecting children.
Let’s talk about compassion, actually understaning what someone is going through, trying to understand, empathize and respect that person. But I never see this. It is not mentioned here how you show this in any way. The catechism requires it. Yet you claim it’s going to make people realize gays do deserve relationships. You reject compassion since it would make you realize the expectations of homosexuals are unreasonable.

You’ve not described what it’s like to hear that your feelings of sexuality would only lead to “intrinsic evil” through your “disordered” existence should you ever pursue romantic or sexual love. Then there’s the accusations of causing the church’s pedophile crisis by church officials including the vatican secretary of state cardinal Bertone and others. The statement that gay marriage will result in the downfall of society. Gross accusations all of them. All made by the church at one point or another. These statements are easily verified with any of the key words on google.
Again, where is the compassion?
And how is it that people respond to homosexuals when they hear this? How do you think? Do you even consider how it is to hear the pressure, blame and resultant violence along with the denial of one of the strongest human urges leading to the strongest forms of family stability? You don’t consider this. You feel comfortable assigning it to people though.
So aside from hearing one is disordered and the reaction from those around your regarding your “disorder”, there is the societal backlash on you which often results in violence. Yet the only attempt at opposing violence is a footnote regarding a twenty five year old statement. I have never seen the catholic church protect or uphold the dignity of a homosexual in practice. Perhaps the church feels calling people in the public square evil is doing so, but no it does not. Trust me I have have lived this. It’s violence. It is without any dignity or compassion. It is not Christian or Godly in any way shape or form.

You do say “I think we have to recognize that the homosexual orientation is a particularly heavy cross.”
Again: how so? You have not described how. Tell us how it is please. You do not describe what you expect of homosexuals and how it is to live this way. You do not describe the results I touch upon above. Truth is you have not considered this. It’s obvious you never have.  Had you, you would be able to show the compassion you claim is there and you could describe for us how it is. You touch upon compassion as if it can only be to a limit. You do claim that compassion leads others to support gays in relationships.
When someone is raised to feel it’s a spiritual reality that their love is inferior while later having the church attempt to demand legislation based on such assumption the feelings are endless and yet you devote one sentence in the most abstract way possible. Until you actually try to understand this and develop empathy you cannot, by definition, say you are compassionate in any way.

I challenge you to find a scriptural example of others having to make sure with legislation that your neighbors can be told who they are allowed to love despite being of a different faith. I challenge you to tell me how your “religious freedom” means I have to follow your religious rules rather than mine. I challenge you to tell me exactly what Jesus said about same-sex relationships.
I’ve pointed out some serious arrogance here and would really like to hear some answers to it.

The Catholic Church has to be against same-sex actions for at least theological reasons.

Jesus has referred himself as the bridegroom of his Church. The bridegroom back then was always a man. The bride in Revelations & elsewhere in the NT, is always referred to as Jesus’ Church. The bride back then was always a woman. Jesus is united w/His bride the way a man & woman is united in marriage. A father married to the mother of his children is a mirror of the relationship we have with God. The family unit of man, woman, & child is the basic unit of the Church.

Also, the human reproductive system is for procreation as the digestive system is for bodily nourishment & the excretion system is to expel bodily wastes. God gave us the pleasure associated w/sex as an incentive to use the organs so that we can “be fruitful & multiply.” To use these systems for other purposes is a bit disordered. A perfect example for this & I was absolutely shocked to hear this from my OB-GYN is that the medical societies are encouraging the administration of the HPV vaccine to boys. Why? I originally thought it was to prevent the transmission of HPV to girls. No. It is to be used in boys to prevent the HPV from infecting their esophaguses in the future.

Prof. Smith, thank-you for such an honest, compassionate article and your courage in fighting the lies being thrown at us from the homosexualist agenda.

Janet Smith has hit another home run. Her article is quite accurate despite what the naysayers try to have the reader believe. Much can be learned here. The problem I have encountered when discussing this issue with Catholics is their overwhelming naivete. They have been in their happy sappy folk masses for 45 years, and they just can’t believe that such things go on. Until that is addressed, don’t look for much to improve.

@Dave
“And they know from first-hand experience with same-gender couples and their families that such negative stereotypes are simply nonsense.”
I knew many same sex couples… none of them have lasted past ten years.  One of these relationships had infidelity, one had substance abuse, and another had emotional manipulation that involved the adopted children.  None ended prettily and the one with children ended really ugly, at the heartbreak of the children.
So, homosexual activists needn’t look any farther than experience to see that they have a credibility problem.
The Catholic Church teaches that sexual intercourse is between one man and one women within the bonds of marriage and always open to children.  Anything else is wrong.
@Joe
I second that you are an inspiration.

Dave- You have the right to your own opinion on the matter but the teaching of the Catholic church is clear. No one is forced to be a Catholic.
In my opinion, Joe has chosen the right path and will be blessed for it.
I know I am going to compare apples with oranges but ...
A pedophile, who is strongly attracted to a child would have to refrain, would you not agree? His battle with his specific kind of attraction might be a hard one. But he would have to win that battle or end up in jail some day after committing a heinous crime.
Sodomy practiced by a married couple would not make it right (see book of Romans). Someone would have to refrain. And there are many other such examples.
So, it may be a difficult road and it is definitely a cross but the Catholic with SSA (same sex attraction) would have to refrain.
The love of God is largely untapped. His love fills all our needs, it is the greatest love of all. I know because I was an unloved woman for a long time and now I am loved. And if other things go well in my life then, it is the icing on the cake.
Thank Janet for this helpful article.We are swimming against the tide for sure.
God bless.

When my daughter came out as a teen, I showed her nothing but love although I cried inside for months. I prayed for months for guidance. I a Catholic retreat I was comforted by the Holy Spirit and was sent 2 people to assure me that I was right to just show love and acceptance of my child. Will I stop praying for her? absolutely not. We just don’t know if this is a natural occurance, an evil influence or a psychological anomaly but we know that humans are alot more than their sexuality. I told my daughter not to let ANYONE tell her that God does not love her and that she does not belong to Him. Will she someday accomplish great good and philanthropy? Maybe, I hope so but in my heart I know she is God’s beloved.

Ok, dear writer, the messanger of devil! I know you. I accept, that you are right in that, homosexuality is a matter of civil right as man’s marraige with the chimpanzes would be in the future a matter of civil right. Please sit down, be alone and investigate into how you were brought up, and the way you think and the like,....

By the way for whom are you going to pray. To your lord the devil? definetly. He will accept your prayer and will give you more cheating wisdom to try to mislead the innocent teens. No doubt God will pay you the price!!

I think it was then Cardinal Ratzinger who said that it is only science that will make the determination as to how one aquires a homosexual orientation. Assuming it is through nurture rather than through nature (being born that way), why would we permit a homosexual cultural tsunami to wash over our children if it may, over time, cause some to accept homosexcuality. We must treat people with a homosexual orientation with respect, compassion and sensitivity but the same for our heterosexual children. Why is it that what used to seem commonsensical in the recent past is now hotly debated and contested? Why is it that we do not hear from our Bishops on these moral cultural issues? Are sixty-five million of us to independently come to the conclusion that The Church may have writeen on this and then begin the seach for something that was written perhaps twenty years ago? Where are the Shepherds, the “authentic teachers”?
http://www.rpconradio.com

There is a difference between same-sex attraction and same-sex “genital/sexual” attraction: The former is healthy, the latter is not. By way of example, I think Janet alluded to those who long to be “one of the boys” - if they are male - and “one of the girls” if they are female. As children, we long for acceptance, approval, affirmation from the same-sex parent as part of our formation. This is healthy. There is nothing unnatural about that: to desire the love from the same-sex parent. As we mature, it is perfectly normal to want to spend time with other same-sex friends in activities. In other words, it’s natural to be attracted to same-sex relationships - so long as we don’t mix it with sexuality. That’s the distortion. Just because you may like someone from the same sex does not mean I wish to sleep with them or make a life-long commitment into marriage with them.

All the articles are interesting in trying to support there belief about whether they support the lifesyles of a homosexual or hetersexual person. The attack on Janets article only shows how the mind of the attackers have been formed by this world views on sexuality. It is a feel good world requardless of whether it is right or wrong. So anyone can justify any lifestyle if they look around long enough for the support they need in accepting it. The worlds view on right and wrong has been distorted so much that many tend to believe sin doesn’t exist. Well it is not rocket science to figure out when something is right or wrong. God instilled in all his children the feeling of what is right or wrong. The world has desensitized those feeling in many ways, that is why people like Janet have tried to reach out and take a stand so those like Joe and others have the support that all of us need whether, homosexual or heterosexual in living out a healthy lifestyle accepted by God in this world today.

Notify me of follow-up comments.I did not check this in the original Thank you

@Deb—I can only tell you that your experiences are pretty much the exact opposite of mine, and the opposite of pretty much everyone I know who is acquainted with same-gender couples.  Perhaps it is a function of where you live.  I live in a part of the country where same-gender relationships are relatively accepted.  Homosexuals who live in areas where such acceptance is more commonplace tend to be much healthier (physically and emotionally), and tend to enter into much more successful relationships than those who live where homosexuals face social stigmatization.  (Relationships in general - including heterosexual - seem to do better, based on divorce rates and such, in areas of the country that are more accepting of same-gender relationships.)

@Most everyone else who responded to my comments, I am not a Catholic, so am not particularly swayed by arguments based on Catholic dogma.  That is why I focused primarily on some of the rather blatant factual inaccuracies in Prof. Smith’s article ... they are destructive quite apart from any theological considerations.  And my response to Joe was primarily to point out that Catholic views on homosexuality presume that homosexuals in general are defined primarily by a desire for sexual self-gratification, rather than by a desire for the same mix of physical, emotional, and spiritual bonds straight people have.  (An equally destructive viewpoint, as far as I’m concerned.)  By and large, I haven’t seen any additional posts that really respond in specific ways to the inaccuracy issues of the original article, and I have only received confirmation that Catholics—at least those commenting here—by and large actually do view homosexuals as lust-driven crazy people.  And since, again, I’m not particularly interested in the dogmatic aspects of the issue, I don’t see much more to comment on.

“primarily to point out that Catholic views on homosexuality presume that homosexuals in general are defined primarily by a desire for sexual self-gratification, rather than by a desire for the same mix of physical, emotional, and spiritual bonds straight people have.  (An equally destructive viewpoint, as far as I’m concerned.)”

It is destructive. I’ve lived it. To be told that I’m incapable of loving someone in a romantic, sexual, romantic and familial way with the claim that it is all just lust and nothing else is dehumanizing. There is nothing in the new testament to support this. To base public policy or or expect others to believe this in the name of Christianity just does not fit in with my freedom of religion.

“I think it was then Cardinal Ratzinger who said that it is only science that will make the determination as to how one aquires a homosexual orientation.”

The idea of nature/nurture comes up and if rantzinger ever did look at the science he would hear ample evidence of hormonal balances in the womb and genetics. Yet he refuses to acknowledge saying it doesn’t matter, after all, gays just have to live with the humiliation you put on us and not ever have sex or start a family.

Not exactly showing that compassion people always mention.
I see at least a couple of people here who feel the above article was compassionate. Could you please explain to me how any of this is compassionate? I am a homosexual and see no compassion in this at all and can’t understand by how it would be to any homosexual. By definition it should be apparent but it is not.

Joseph,

“Not exactly showing that compassion people always mention.
I see at least a couple of people here who feel the above article was compassionate. Could you please explain to me how any of this is compassionate? I am a homosexual and see no compassion in this at all and can’t understand by how it would be to any homosexual. By definition it should be apparent but it is not.”

By definition, “compassion” means “to suffer with” somebody. In the same way that we are called as Christians “to suffer with” someone who has a terminal cancer, or leprosy, or mental retardation, or AIDS, or an addiction. We “suffer with” those who have a disordered sexual attraction to someone of the same sex because we can only imagine the cross they bear. So, we are compassionate because Jesus also spoke about genuine love. So much was the society at odds with Him, thay they killed Him. But, he chose to suffer the cross. That’s compassion!!!! And as Christians, we too will suffer ridicule and unpopularity because we are demonstrating the same love as Jesus. And we truly desire that you come to know the fullness of God’s love. Jesus said hate the sin, love the sinner. We do love the sinner: ALL of us. But, it would not be true compassion if we also did not speak the Truth. Knowing the Jesus would die on the cross, it did not stop him from Him saying what needed to be said.

May God Bless You!

“We “suffer with” those who have a disordered sexual attraction to someone of the same sex because we can only imagine the cross they bear.”

Please describe in detail my and supposedly your suffering. As I already pointed out there is no attempt here or anywhere else in catholic culture and I can say most forums I’ve been to refuse to discuss.

Show your compassion and describe to me what it is like to be homosexual including violence and being told you are not capable of romantic love while the author makes gross speculation.

No one would choose to be gay. I have seen the pain first hand in my sister and now in my child. The pain is so overwhelming that they both contemplated suicide. The feeling of not being loved for who they are, the loneliness, the not belonging, the rejection. I would not wish this pain on anyone. We have compassion for every illness or disease but somehow homosexuality has only been met with hatered. Again, who would CHOOSE this pain for themselves and their families? I raised my child in a Christian home and a Christian school. Now her friends text “How do you feel about going to hell?” Really, who is violating the commandment of Love? the commandment second only to loving God aboveall. Pray

Joseph-There is such a thing as deep friendship and that is available to all. Many people live a very productive and satisfying life while they have no romantic involvement.
If you put anything before God, it is an idol. Most times it is money, can be children, intellectualism, food, entertainment, romance, sex, alcohol, etc…etc…
A homosexual whose conscience is not bothering him/her would be perfectly happy with their lifestyle. But as it is, many homosexuals want not only freedom (which they have) but approval. They may get approval from the government but they will never get approval from the Catholic church. It would be like encouraging someone to do something destructive (for body and soul) and opposite to compassion. The church does more help to AIDS patient than any other organization and always goes where no one else wants to go, that is compassion.
But as people having free will, homosexuals can choose to live any way they want, within the law of course.
My last word would be : IS GOD MADE IN OUR IMAGE OR ARE WE MADE IN GOD’S IMAGE?  Many of us want to make God in our own image and that is a big mistake.

Joseph said,

“Please describe in detail my and supposedly your suffering. As I already pointed out there is no attempt here or anywhere else in catholic culture and I can say most forums I’ve been to refuse to discuss. Show your compassion and describe to me what it is like to be homosexual including violence and being told you are not capable of romantic love while the author makes gross speculation.”

Suffering with someone DOES NOT mean that I am suffering WHAT they are suffering. I don’t need to ALSO have cancer/AIDS/addiction to be qualified to be there with them. Jesus told us to clothe the naked, visit those in prison, etc… He didn’t tell us also BE naked, or BE in prison. If the citeria for helping others was that I had to have what they have, or go through what they’re going through, then NONE of us - including yourself - would be qualified to help out anyone. You’re confusing EMPATHY with compassion - 2 different things, although closely related. I also don’t need to be empathetic to recognize that someone is hungry, or naked, or thirsty. I need to be compassionate and help them out. But if I follow your criteria, then I would not even be able to help them out because I am NOT hungry, or thirsty, etc… Mother Theresa was not a leper, or dying of hunger, or dying of AIDS, etc… Yet, she is a model of how we can be charitable. By the way, the word “charity” is rooted in the Latin “caritas”, which literally translates to “love”. Pope Benedict’s first encyclical was all about that. If you’re interested, it’s called “Deus Est Caritas”: God is Love.

Also, suffering is not limited to external conditions. One can suffer emotionally, mentally, spiritually. In fact, there are 2 types of works of mercy that the Catholic Church speaks of: Corporal Works of Mercy and Spiritual Works of Mercy. BOTH are necessary. It’s not just the Corporal Works of Mercy. FYI, the Corporal Works of Mercy are the things we do for the “body” (“corporal” comes from “corpus”, which literally means “body”). We cannot neglect the spirit, though, which is why we ALSO do the Spiritual Works, too.

Lastly, romatic love is only a part of love. But, to understand love, you need to go to the source: Jesus. There are many distorted understandings of love. Lust, for instance, is not love. Erotic love is a part of love: it is not love alone.

@Joseph—Trying to argue the kinds of points you’re raising on an ultra-traditional Catholic website like this is utterly futile.  I generally try to limit myself when on sites like this to arguing against blatantly false statements from Catholic leaders pertaining to simple, objective facts unrelated to theology.  And I generally find even that to be a mostly futile effort that gets me into more than enough trouble.  (A similar site—lifesite.net—has actually booted me off their site twice for politely pointing to very obvious factual misrepresentations by their writers.)  So trying to argue points that are even more subjective and visceral will only lead to a lot of frustration for you.

You are, for example, correct when you say in an earlier post that the NT does not address committed, loving, same-gender relationships at all.  As I noted earlier, even the Catholic scholars behind the NAB and the USCCB acknowledge that the three key NT passages commonly used to condemn homosexuality are addressing things like pederasty.  But that doesn’t matter to traditionalist Catholics ... because in the end it’s not about what the Bible says, or about what science says ... it comes down to a complete reliance on what the Catholic Magisterium says.  If the Magisterium says that homosexuals are all disordered because they are all driven purely by lust to commit any manner of sexual acts they need for self-gratification—and that is a legitimate reading of the Catechism—nothing you or I or science or reality says will change their minds.  Hence, assuming you are a typical homosexual male, you have, according to Prof. Smith, had hundreds of sexual partners.  You are not looking for “Mr. Right” but “Mr. Right Now.”  As Rafael and others have said, straight married couples may have relationships that are accurately characterized as “love” but same-gender couples only relate to each other out of “erotic love” ... or lust.  Do you really have any hope that people who are that blind to objective realities about typical same-gender couples can be convinced of even the possibility that the Bible actually might not condemn committed, monogamous same-gender relationships as sinful??

I actually believe that many people here actually do feel the compassion they claim to feel.  It is just a tragic irony that because their compassion is born out of such negative, misguided stereotypes of homosexuals and manifested in such destructive ways, these people who wish to alleviate your suffering are, in fact, among the main sources of your suffering.

Dave,

According to your logic:

Pedophilia/ephebophilia should be OK because “the NT never mentions anything specific about it.” So the media and the justice system should get off the backs of the priests that molested children. Jesus never directly mentioned pedopelia. Also, we should not be able to adopt children because adoption is also not mentioned by Jesus. Also, Jesus never speaks directly about abortion, or embryonic stem-cell research, or euthanasia. These are not specifically mentioned by Jesus, either. What about cloning? Jesus never talks about that. What about nuclear weapons? What about racism? What about feminist rights? What about environmentalism? That’s not mentioned in the Bible specifically either. So, let’s kill the environment. How far do you want to go with this????

The Bible is not a self-interpreting book. That’s why there is such a thing as a Magisterium.

Our problem is NOT with homosexuals: It’s with homosexuality. Stop for a minute and think if Jesus would actually approve of a sexual relationship between 2 people of the same-sex. As it is, he DOES NOT approve of adultery, which is sex outside of marriage between 2 hetero-sexuals. Do you think He is going to make an exception for 2 same-sex adults?

Dave,

Don’t forget, too, that the Catholic Church existed BEFORE the Bible, not the other way around. The Bible came out of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church DID NOT evolve from the Bible….

“But as it is, many homosexuals want not only freedom (which they have) but approval.”

What I want is to have equal freedoms under the law which our constitution already guarantees me, freedom to practice my religion, not to be forced to follow arbitrarily cherry picked religious requirements to be forced on me through legislation. Or school bullying, or slander and slur.  I want to be safe without bigots taking ideas, like catholic claims that my pursuit of a relationship would be the downfall of society,  and using it to harass threaten and batter me.

I also want you to realize just how cruel this is to your own children.

I do not want approval from the catholic church. I want it to leave me alone and at least treat their own homosexual children like human beings.
Your children will inevitably realize their lack of support and respect and move on with animosity.

Rafael
the point is that none of the people who claim compassion have ever tried to actually imagine what they are putting people through.  By definition they would.  When asked they refuse to acknowledge. If the life you prescribe someone is that unthinkable then you really can’t, in any ethical sense at all, expect others to accept that. It’s not us wanting you to accept us. It is us not wanting to have to accept you. You can’t expect one without the other.

Rafael—thank you for illustrating the exact kind of irrational response and blind devotion to the Magisterium I cited in my previous comment.  First, I never said anything remotely like “anything not explicitly condemned by the Bible must be OK.”  So it’s too bad you went to the trouble coming up with your list of other things not explicitly condemned in the Bible, because it is entirely irrelevant.

What I did say is that while the NT may condemn certain practices involving same-sex activities (e.g., pederasty ... which actually is a form of pedophilia), it doesn’t condemn same-gender relationships that are committed, loving, and monogamous.  As to whether that makes it OK, or not, I didn’t say.  But I will say that Christ gave a very foundational definition of sin: the failure to love God and failure to love others with a selfless, self-sacrificing love.  From that viewpoint, it is clear why adultery ... a betrayal born primarily out of a need for self-gratification ... is sin.  It is also clear why pedophilia is a sin; I don’t know anybody who has suffered sexual abuse as a child that would consider it a loving act.  Two people who are in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship??  I don’t see that as being a violation of Christ’s definition of sin, regardless of the genders of those involved.  And the fact that neither the Catholic Church nor most state governments recognize them as married doesn’t make them any less married in my eyes, or (IMHO) in the eyes of God.

Your notion that the Bible is not a self-interpreting book is not shared by most Christians, and your use of that as justification for complete reliance on the Magisterium is basically just you saying the Magisterium is the only authority because it says so.

As for which came first—the Bible or the Catholic Church—if you are claiming the Catholic Church came first it is probably because you subscribe to the notion that a very obscure, enigmatic exchange between Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16 represents the beginning of the Catholic Church.  But nobody but traditionalist Catholics actually believe that; it is generally just seen as another attempt by the Catholic Church to reserve sole authority for Biblical interpretation for itself.  All other Christians fully recognize that the writings that were eventually assembled into the Bible existed long before there was anything remotely resembling the Catholic Church.

“Rafael—thank you for illustrating the exact kind of irrational response and blind devotion to the Magisterium I cited in my previous comment.

Dave
In response to this and the questions above to me, I too go away with a certain satisfaction of demonstrating the reality of just how irrational and unchristian many of the interpretations and arrogance is out there.
Rafael,
You continue to avoid understanding in any way what other human beings are going through based on your “teaching”. I’m glad it’s documented.

the point is that none of the people who claim compassion have ever tried to actually imagine what they are putting people through.  By definition they would.  When asked they refuse to acknowledge. If the life you prescribe someone is that unthinkable then you really can’t, in any ethical sense at all, expect others to accept that. It’s not us wanting you to accept us. It is us not wanting to have to accept you. You can’t expect one without the other.

Who’s putting you through anything? No one is telling you not to live a lifestyle you want to live. This is a nation founded on Christian principles/beliefs. So, many - not all - the laws are reflections of that system of belief. The Constitution guarantees people certain rights and liberties. That does not mean that everything one WANTS to do should be given that right. If an adult wants to rape a child, should he have that right? If a person wants to walk around the street carrying a visible weapon or punch someone in the face without civil or criminal consequences, should they be allowed to do so? The point is that just because someone WANTS to do something does not mean that they have the RIGHT to do it. What we’re discussing is NOT a human rights issue - although there are people trying to pass this off as such. Do you deserve protection from harm? Absolutely! In the same way that ANYONE would be deserving of protection under the Constitution from any type of arm. Even criminals are granted that. With that being said, that is a far stretch from passing laws that recognize a union between same-sex couples as permissible. Child molesters should be protected from harm should they be found guilty. Rapists should be protected from harm should they be found guilty. Thieves should be protected from harm should they be found guilty. Does that mean that we now should make it legal to rape, steal, etc…? No. But, they should be protected. AS you should be protected, too.

I’m not quite sure what you meant by what you said at the end (“It’s not us wanting you to accept us. It is us not wanting to have to accept you. You can’t expect one without the other.”) As Christians, we do accept you as you are. It does not mean that you are flawless, just as I am not flawless either. But, it also means that we can condemn certain actions and behaviors as wrong and immoral and express concern that they not become normalized in our society.

Dave,

“Thank you for illustrating the exact kind of irrational response and blind devotion to the Magisterium I cited in my previous comment.” 

Thank you for revealing who you are: a Protestant. This debate isn’t really about Christianizing homosexuality: It’s about your Protest of Catholicism and its authenticity. It is rather difficult to have a discussion about morality if the foundation is not the same. If I try and have a rational debate with some other faith that is not rooted in Christianity, we will not arrive at any reasonable conclusion because our moral founfations are different. There may be some areas that will overlap. But, it will not be 100%. You originally made the case that because you can only find 3 passages in the NT that speak on homosexuality, you, therefore, claim that it must be OK because it “really” doesn’t address the issue. Or it’s very loosely interpreted. So, my citing those examples is just following your thought-process to its natural conclusion: If it’s not clearly spelled out, then it’s left to one’s own interpretation. So, it is relevant.

“What I did say is that while the NT may condemn certain practices involving same-sex activities (e.g., pederasty ... which actually is a form of pedophilia), it doesn’t condemn same-gender relationships that are committed, loving, and monogamous.  As to whether that makes it OK, or not, I didn’t say.  But I will say that Christ gave a very foundational definition of sin: the failure to love God and failure to love others with a selfless, self-sacrificing love.  From that viewpoint, it is clear why adultery ... a betrayal born primarily out of a need for self-gratification ... is sin.  It is also clear why pedophilia is a sin; I don’t know anybody who has suffered sexual abuse as a child that would consider it a loving act.  Two people who are in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship??  I don’t see that as being a violation of Christ’s definition of sin, regardless of the genders of those involved.  And the fact that neither the Catholic Church nor most state governments recognize them as married doesn’t make them any less married in my eyes, or (IMHO) in the eyes of God.”

This is your own interpretation of Christianity from the Bible. This is exactly how non-Catholic Christian denominations get started. This is how heresies get started. You should start your own Christian denomination and join the 30,000 or so other denominations that currently exist and continue dividing the Body of Christ.

“Your notion that the Bible is not a self-interpreting book is not shared by most Christians, and your use of that as justification for complete reliance on the Magisterium is basically just you saying the Magisterium is the only authority because it says so.”

No, it’s because Jesus says so. But, coming from a Protestant - like yourself - you would say that.

“As for which came first—the Bible or the Catholic Church—if you are claiming the Catholic Church came first it is probably because you subscribe to the notion that a very obscure, enigmatic exchange between Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16 represents the beginning of the Catholic Church.” 

Read the Early Church Fathers. Jesus only established ONE Church, not 30,000+.

“But nobody but traditionalist Catholics actually believe that; it is generally just seen as another attempt by the Catholic Church to reserve sole authority for Biblical interpretation for itself.  All other Christians fully recognize that the writings that were eventually assembled into the Bible existed long before there was anything remotely resembling the Catholic Church.”

This is a bunch of Protestant rhetoric. There is no such thing as “traditionalist” Catholics, or “progressive” Catholics or “liberal” Catholics or “conservative” Catholics. You either accept ALL - not some - of the teachings or you don’t. If you don’t, then you’re not Catholic. You may perceive yourself to be Catholic. But, you’re not. And if you’re a Protestant, then why do you care what the Catholic Church says? If it really doesn’t matter, then why do you care? You’re going to do what you what you want to do anyway. And the Catholic Church is NOT going to stop you.

“Who’s putting you through anything? No one is telling you not to live a lifestyle you want to live.”

You are by slandering me and fighting to make sure I do not have the same rights as you.
Our nation was founded on certain principles that allow me to make my determinations about religion and everything I see here is to make sure I don’t have that right. That goal is clearly in order to slur others.

Yes
You are putting people through stuff they should not have to endure. “People” includes your own homosexual children who you obviously don’t want to hear from.

Yes I just want you to leave others alone. Funny how you go on about protecting others from harm but you inspire violence on others all the time-I’ve experienced it all my life.

You are again mischaracterizing what I said about the NT, but I won’t bother repeating myself as to why.  As for my comments on Christ’s teachings about sin, yes that is an interpretation that I (and many other Christians) adhere to, but it is an interpretation that is based pretty directly on the words of Jesus in passages that are quite straightforward and clear.  It is ironic that you would dismiss such an interpretation for being an interpretation, when you point to the highly enigmatic “keys of the kingdom” passage, interpret that as representing the founding of the Catholic Church as it exists today, but don’t even seem to recognize that as an interpretation.  The fact is that Jesus nowhere suggests that sole responsibility for the interpretation of Scripture should be turned over to a body of men like the Magisterium.  That truly is an interpretation that you adhere to ... primarily because the Magisterium tells you is the correct interpretation.  And that is fine ... but don’t kid yourself into believing the argument isn’t transparently circular.

As for denominations, you seem to view their existence as inherently representing a division of the Church, the Body of Christ.  In fact, the Body of Christ is only divided when some members of some of those denominations insist that their beliefs are the only true beliefs, and their denomination is the only one that is truly the Church.  Aside from sch divisive individuals, denominations are mostly a healthy reflection of the diversity of the people that make up the body of Christ ... diversity in theology and Biblical interpretation and diversity in practice.  The fact that there is diversity in how the Bible is interpreted is an unavoidable consequence of the finite, fallible nature of human beings.  But trying to work around that by declaring that one particular way of interpretation is the only correct one, or that the interpretations of one particular group of men are infallible, is an arbitrary, and ultimately fallacious and unhealthy, way of dealing with human limitations.

As for why I care what the Catholic Church says, I’ve already touched on that, but I’ll say it again.  What the Catholic Church says matters to non-Catholics because of the negative impact it has on homosexuals in general, and same-gender couples and their families in particular.  For one thing, the Catholic Church is going to great lengths to make sure its beliefs are enshrined in our marriage laws ... through the maintenance and expansion of discriminatory laws that negatively impact same-gender couples and their families.  Even more fundamentally, Catholic arguments often rely on blatant misrepresentations of the truth that put homosexuals in the worst possible light.  You can find examples of that scattered through out the writings of Catholic Bishops and academics like Prof. Smith.  You can find it in many comments by Catholics on discussion boards like this one.  It even reaches into the heart of the Catholic Catechism which, as I noted, presumes that homosexuals are inherently driven by the same urges as rapists and pedophiles ... a view that is also evident in many comments here, including your own.  If the Catholic Church were truly only concerned with establishing a moral code for its members, it wouldn’t be under the kinds of attacks it faces on this issue.  But because it seeks to incorporate it’s views into laws impacting everybody, and relies on defamatory falsehoods to make its case, you have to expect that people who disagree will react strongly.

Joseph,

“You are by slandering me and fighting to make sure I do not have the same rights as you. Our nation was founded on certain principles that allow me to make my determinations about religion and everything I see here is to make sure I don’t have that right. That goal is clearly in order to slur others.”

Am I denying your right to breathe, or eat, or to have equal opportunity at a job, or medical care, or speech? I think you’re “slandering” me. And why do you get to determine what “rights” are? Do you somehow know something more than God? Our Constitution clearly states our rights come from our Creator. Do you think He will contradict Himself and give you a RIGHT that violates His Commandments? Homoesxuality is NOT a religion. The practice of homosexuality is not a RIGHT: It’s a private thing. And its’ certainly NOT Christian. A person with a homosexual orientation may very well believe in Christ. But, that does not mean that the practice of homosexuality is Christian. In much the same way that I may believe in Christ. But the practice of adultery, viewing pornography, snorting cocaine, stealing from my neighbor, gossiping, etc… are NOT Christian practices.

The problem you have is that you cannot seperate the person you are from WHAT you do, your behaviors. You can’t seperate your sexual orientation from your behaviors. You can’t change your skin color (genetics). You can change your behaviors. You can’t change your sexual makeup (biology). You can stop having sex (behavior). You can stop smoking marijuana (behavior). You can stop stealing (behavior). You can stop gossiping (behavior). You are NOT a homosexual: you are a son of God. You can’t change that. You practice homosexuality (behavior). You CAN change that….

“You are putting people through stuff they should not have to endure. ‘People’ includes your own homosexual children who you obviously don’t want to hear from. Yes I just want you to leave others alone. Funny how you go on about protecting others from harm but you inspire violence on others all the time-I’ve experienced it all my life.”

I don’t know who “you” is. But, I did not start demanding that the governement recognize that same-sex unions be displayed openly in our soceity because same-sex people wanted to be “free” to live openly gay lives in society. If anything, you’re the ones who are trying to cram this lifestyle down society. You’re not the victim’s here. You’re making us the victims of this dictatorship. This “right” you speak of is not equal with the right to eat, or sleep, or be provided a roof over your head, or be protected from violence. I believe your understanding of “rights” is a little bit distorted.

When you say I’ve “inspired violence”, I personally have done no such thing. Again, you’re slandering ME and other Christians who have NEVER done such things. Are there some who have been violent in the name of Christianity? Absolutely. There are many who have been violent in the name of Alah, or “Freedom”, or justice, etc…But, you cannot paint ALL of Christianity with a very thin brush. That’s NOT fair. Now you’re the one not being just. You’re stereotyping in the name of justice. And there is NO justice in that. Haven’t you learned anything from history? Don’t stereotype. Don’t accuse ALL Christians of something that a FEW Christians may have done.

Dave,

“You are again mischaracterizing what I said about the NT, but I won’t bother repeating myself as to why.  As for my comments on Christ’s teachings about sin, yes that is an interpretation that I (and many other Christians) adhere to, but it is an interpretation that is based pretty directly on the words of Jesus in passages that are quite straightforward and clear.  It is ironic that you would dismiss such an interpretation for being an interpretation, when you point to the highly enigmatic “keys of the kingdom” passage, interpret that as representing the founding of the Catholic Church as it exists today, but don’t even seem to recognize that as an interpretation.  The fact is that Jesus nowhere suggests that sole responsibility for the interpretation of Scripture should be turned over to a body of men like the Magisterium.  That truly is an interpretation that you adhere to ... primarily because the Magisterium tells you is the correct interpretation.  And that is fine ... but don’t kid yourself into believing the argument isn’t transparently circular.”

This again is Protestant rhetoric and NOT part of Catholic teaching. And the only reason you (and all other non-Catholic denominations) even attempt to pass this off is because you want to live Christianity according to your own created Christian dogmas. Your “brand” of Christianity is not authentic. You subscribe to something called “Sola-Scritura” Christianity, which means “Bible-alone”, which is incomplete Christianity. We will never see eye-to-eye on this. So, it’s not worth even debating about because YOU will never change the Catholic Church’s teachings.

“As for denominations, you seem to view their existence as inherently representing a division of the Church, the Body of Christ.”

Yes. Jesus established one church.

“In fact, the Body of Christ is only divided when some members of some of those denominations insist that their beliefs are the only true beliefs, and their denomination is the only one that is truly the Church.”

Yes. You and the 30,000+ denominations are guilty of this. There was - and still is - only ONE authentic Christian Chuch: The Catholic Church. Every other one else is a counterfit.

“Aside from such divisive individuals…”

Like yourself…

“...denominations are mostly a healthy reflection of the diversity of the people that make up the body of Christ…”

Yes, that’s true: The Catholic Church has peoples from all nationalities, races, ethnicities, colors, etc… That’s what “Catholic” means: universal.

“... diversity in theology and Biblical interpretation and diversity in practice.”

That’s not Christianity. Opionion and personal interpretation about WHAT Christianity is does not qualify one to be a authentic. The Holy Spirit cannot give 30,000+ different interpretations of scripture.

“The fact that there is diversity in how the Bible is interpreted is an unavoidable consequence of the finite, fallible nature of human beings.”

The Bible is the “inspired” word of God. It is NOT God. The Word of God is not something written: It is a person - Jesus. To make the Bible equal to God is idolatry.

“But trying to work around that by declaring that one particular way of interpretation is the only correct one, or that the interpretations of one particular group of men are infallible, is an arbitrary, and ultimately fallacious and unhealthy, way of dealing with human limitations.”

The Holy Spirit is aware that we are a human body. It is also aware that human beings make mistakes: They’re called sins. But, sin does not change. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever….The Pope is infallable in matters of faith and morals when he speaks on these matters. But, he too goes to confession. So, the person - human being - that sits in the chair of Peter is sinful, but not the teachings…

“As for why I care what the Catholic Church says, I’ve already touched on that, but I’ll say it again.  What the Catholic Church says matters to non-Catholics because of the negative impact it has on homosexuals in general, and same-gender couples and their families in particular.”

No, it’s your interpretation of what the Catholic Church says that has a negative impact “on homosexuals in general.” Truth and Love are NEVER negative: Sin is negative.

“For one thing, the Catholic Church is going to great lengths to make sure its beliefs are enshrined in our marriage laws…”

Catholics aren’t the only ones involved in trying to keep marriage between a man and a woman as part of the law of the land. Most Orthodox Jews and Muslims are involved as well because it’s not just a “Catholic” thing.

“... through the maintenance and expansion of discriminatory laws that negatively impact same-gender couples and their families.  Even more fundamentally, Catholic arguments often rely on blatant misrepresentations of the truth that put homosexuals in the worst possible light.”

There is only ONE Truth: Jesus Christ. There aren’t 30,000+ versions of it. Discriminations isn’t always wrong. There is such a thing as JUST Discrimination. That is not to be confused with abortion, which is ALWAYS wrong. There are instances where it is imperative to discriminate, like seperate locker rooms for boys and girls. 

“You can find examples of that scattered through out the writings of Catholic Bishops and academics like Prof. Smith.  You can find it in many comments by Catholics on discussion boards like this one.  It even reaches into the heart of the Catholic Catechism which, as I noted, presumes that homosexuals are inherently driven by the same urges as rapists and pedophiles ... a view that is also evident in many comments here, including your own.”

Don’t mix sins: Rape is a violent act and pedophelia is abuse. Homosexuality is not a crime - so long as it’s between 2 consenting adults. It’s just sinful in the eyes of God and the orientation towards the same sex is disordered. I never said homosexuals were rapists or pedophiles. I know many adult homosexuals and they’re good people who are good members of society. But, their orientation is flawed. Does that make them evil people, rapists, pedophiles? No. Homosexuality should be kept a private matter. The sin here is trying to impose this “freedom/right” on the rest of society. That’s sinful. 
 

“If the Catholic Church were truly only concerned with establishing a moral code for its members, it wouldn’t be under the kinds of attacks it faces on this issue.”

It faces the kinds of attacks precisely because it’s RIGHT on the issue. Memo: Jesus was crucified because He said and did things that were contrary to the culture of the time. The Catholic Church is also unpopular because it speaks out against abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, war, the death pentaly, communism, socialism, infidelity, racism, etc… Their stance on homosexuality is not the ONLY issue they get attacked on. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. One if free to leave - if they wish. If you choose to stay, then you freely agree to accept it’s teachings.

“But because it seeks to incorporate it’s views into laws impacting everybody, and relies on defamatory falsehoods to make its case, you have to expect that people who disagree will react strongly.”

Excuse me: Who are the people trying to incorporate into law the marriage between same-sex couples? Who are the people trying to pass laws demanding that states require all its citizens to have abortion on demand utilizing Federal dollars, or mandatory distribution of contraceptives? Certainly NOT the Catholic Church.

“... you want to live Christianity according to your own created Christian dogmas. Your “brand” of Christianity is not authentic. You subscribe to something called “Sola-Scritura” Christianity, which means “Bible-alone”, which is incomplete Christianity.”  “There was - and still is - only ONE authentic Christian Chuch: The Catholic Church. Every other one else is a counterfit.”  “Opionion and personal interpretation about WHAT Christianity is does not qualify one to be a authentic. The Holy Spirit cannot give 30,000+ different interpretations of scripture.”  “The Pope is infallable in matters of faith and morals when he speaks on these matters.”
A whole series of statements that basically are flat assertions that you and those who agree with you are right, with no attempt to justify your positions.  And to some extent, that is understandable since ultimately there is a great amount of subjectivity involved in arriving at one’s personal understanding of God and what scripture has to say about God and His will for us.  (The same is true for me and my beliefs.)  What is scary about you, however, is that you seem to have absolutely no awareness of the subjective nature of your beliefs.

“Truth and Love are NEVER negative: Sin is negative.”
Misguided beliefs that are confused with the “Truth” and misguided attempts at expressing “Love” most certainly can be negative.  Again, you are losing sight of even the remotest possibility that you might be wrong.

“Catholics aren’t the only ones involved in trying to keep marriage between a man and a woman as part of the law of the land.”
I didn’t say they were.

“Discriminations isn’t always wrong.”
I didn’t say it was.  But in this country, if you are going to enact discriminatory laws, you need to have non-religious reasons to justify them, as per the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.  And to its credit, the Catholic Church generally does a better job than Evangelical Christians at respecting that Constitutional requirement for this topic.  But as a substitute, the Church too often relies instead ... as I have noted ... on arguments based on malicious distortions, and even complete falsehoods, about homosexuals.

“Don’t mix sins: Rape is a violent act and pedophelia is abuse. Homosexuality is not a crime”
Sorry, but I’m not the one mixing sins.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn’t just include homosexuality in a list of sins along with rape and pedophilia and other sins.  It uses scriptural passages about rape and pedophilia and prostitution to illustrate the essence of what homosexuality is.

“It faces the kinds of attacks precisely because it’s RIGHT on the issue.”
Again, you are simply assuming you are right without justification.  And seeming a bit paranoid in the process.

“Their stance on homosexuality is not the ONLY issue they get attacked on.”
I didn’t say it was.  But homosexuality is the topic at hand.

“The Catholic Church is not a democracy.”
I didn’t say it was.

“Who are the people trying to incorporate into law the marriage between same-sex couples? Who are the people trying to pass laws demanding that states require all its citizens to have abortion on demand utilizing Federal dollars, or mandatory distribution of contraceptives? Certainly NOT the Catholic Church.”
I will ignore the attempt to obfuscate by bringing in abortion and contraceptives.  As far as marriage laws go, current marriage laws do not discriminate against Catholic couples.  In most states, however, they do discriminate against same-gender couples.  The desire to obtain equal rights for same-gender couples does not represent an attack on the rights that Catholic couples currently enjoy.  The desire to maintain and/or expand the discriminatory status-quo that denies same-gender couples the same rights currently enjoyed by Catholic couples does, however, represent an attack on same-gender couples and their families.  Your attempts to portray the Catholic Church as the victim in this debate just does not make a whole lot of sense.

When it comes to the rights, benefits, and protections granted married couples by the state, same-gender couples have the right to equal treatment under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, unless you can come up with valid reasons, based on the public good, why the law should discriminate against same-gender couples.  And again, as per the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, those reasons need to be non-religious in nature.  Pretty much all the arguments I’ve seen here ... either in the article itself or in the comments ... are either religious in nature, or they are based on misrepresentations of more objective factual information.  And that, from the viewpoint of a non-Catholic, is the main problem here.

How does one give ‘consent’ to violent sexual acts that cannot uphold the dignity of man?  Is it whoever is biggest gets his way? 

All that can be said further is ‘The emperor has no clothes.’  We all know that two men cannot ‘marry’ each other - the pieces don’t fit, and never will… Political correctness is behind any assent to the impossibility of homosexual ‘marriage’. 

Every 5 year old child going forward will cringe at the image of homosexual actions, even as he is being indoctrinated by our public schools into thinking that this is in any way ‘normal’.  Further attempts to force approval of homosexuality will not work.  We need to recognize that it is only in loving God and each other, (love in the non-sexual way), that we will coexist in peace.

“A whole series of statements that basically are flat assertions that you and those who agree with you

“As far as marriage laws go, current marriage laws do not discriminate against Catholic couples.  In most states, however, they do discriminate against same-gender couples.”

Not for long - especially with “Emperor Nero” in the White House.

“The desire to obtain equal rights for same-gender couples does not represent an attack on the rights that Catholic couples currently enjoy.”

This is not a civil rights issues: It’s a human issue. And the act of homosexuality goes AGAINST humanity. You’re arguing to pass into law something that is not the norm and violates human biology, psychology, and spirituality.
are right, with no attempt to justify your positions.  And to some extent, that is understandable since ultimately there is a great amount of subjectivity involved in arriving at one’s personal understanding of God and what scripture has to say about God and His will for us.  (The same is true for me and my beliefs.)  What is scary about you, however, is that you seem to have absolutely no awareness of the subjective nature of your beliefs.”

Let’s take the Catholic Church out of the equation for a minute: How is it that other non-Catholic Christians who are ALSO quoting and citing the Bible - the same book you’re referencing -  recognize that homosexuality is a sin, just from scripture alone (no Magisteruim)? Are you claiming they also have it wrong?

“Misguided beliefs that are confused with the ‘Truth’ and misguided attempts at expressing ‘Love’ most certainly can be negative.  Again, you are losing sight of even the remotest possibility that you might be wrong.”

There is a subjective truth (small “t”) and an objective Truth. If I pour you a glass of water and you chose to believe that it’s poison, you BELEIVING it to be poison will NOT change the water to poison: It will remain water. If Congress passes a law saying that the Law of Gravity is an immoral law and it is therefore not subject to following anymore, it will not cancel out the law of gravity: You will fall flat on your face if you jump off a building. No act of Congress will change that. If you believe that God does not exist - like most avowed atheists (which I know is not your case), you may choose to believe that. But, that belief will not make God cease into non-existence.

“I didn’t say it was.  But in this country, if you are going to enact discriminatory laws, you need to have non-religious reasons to justify them, as per the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.  And to its credit, the Catholic Church generally does a better job than Evangelical Christians at respecting that Constitutional requirement for this topic.  But as a substitute, the Church too often relies instead ... as I have noted ... on arguments based on malicious distortions, and even complete falsehoods, about homosexuals.”

Evangelicals, Jews, Muslims also get it and understand where our rights come from. They also understand that, “non-religiously” speaking, that homosexuality is not the norm. Biologically speaking, it’s not the norm. Psychologically speaking, it’s not the norm. On any other ground, it’s not the norm. There is NO scientific evidence to support this. So, we an argue this strictly from science without ever touching upon religion.

“Sorry, but I’m not the one mixing sins.”

You’re trying to lump homosexuality together with rape (violence) and pedophelia (abuse). Homosexuality is a sin - not a crime.

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn’t just include homosexuality in a list of sins along with rape and pedophilia and other sins.  It uses scriptural passages about rape and pedophilia and prostitution to illustrate the essence of what homosexuality is.”

ALL sex outside of marriage - between a man and a woman - is sinful. In the Catechism, all that is explained in the section under the Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery” (look it up). That’s why any mention of sex outside of that between a man and a woman in marriage is considered disordered. Homosexuality isn’t the ONLY disordered sin: masturbation is disordered, sex with an animal is disordered, sex between 2 unmarried heterosexuals is disordered, sex with a child is disordered, etc… They’re not just picking on homosexuality. Are you really trying to go that far as to try and find a “loophole” or an exception for homosexuality? There is not inconsistency by the Catholic Church: it looks at ALL sex outside of marriage as sinful. What’s not to understand?!

“And seeming a bit paranoid in the process.”

By definition “paranioa” is being afraid of something that’s “not real”. If it were a legitimate fear (i.e. terrorist attack), then it’s NOT paranoia. Our understanding is based on reality. You’re trying to create something that’s not real: A same-sex union that will be “blessed” by God. That’s fantasy world. Maybe you need to look into yourself and your own paranoia because we’re living in reality and you are the one that’s afraid of having your fantasy interrupted. To think that you can impose a fantasy on the rest of society, trying to pass it off as a “right”. Should Congress or the Supreme Court ever declare that it’s OK for same-sex couples to be married, it’s still not going to change the fact that it’s a fantasy, that it’s not real, because you can’t fool God….

“I will ignore the attempt to obfuscate by bringing in abortion and contraceptives.”

If by obfuscate (“to confuse”) you are implying that it’s not “relevant”, then you are mistaken because you are saying - in your previous post - that it’s the Catholic Church who is seeking to “incorporate it’s views into laws impacting everybody” which is flat out false because the things I mentioned above (legalizing mandatory abortions by Catholic institutions, violations of conscience) are alreay PASSED into law. But, the Catholic Church opposed those things. They did not support it. In much the same as what happend in New York, Massachussetts, etc…where homosexuality is now law. So, again, I say: “Who is trying to incoporate its views into law impacting everybody?” Reality Check: Look at what’s NEW law - and look at WHO they’re going after: The Catholic Church. So, it is relevant to bring up these issues becasue they’re all things that the Catholic Church opposes. If anything, we are the ones under assault - not you!

“Your attempts to portray the Catholic Church as the victim in this debate just does not make a whole lot of sense.”

Again, reality check: Who is this Administration targetting by imposing into law violations of conscience protection? Look at what is in the law - not in my imagination. This is what I’m talking about: you choose to not live in reality. I think I made a very CLEAR case about who is REALLY under attack, who really is the victim. There is a militant secular movement that is utilizing the “rule of law”, the courts, etc… to go after ALL faith-based organizations that are involved in healthcare, adoption, social services, education, etc… They’re not just going after Catholics: ALL Christians are impacted by this. But, the Catholic Church is the BIGGEST voice - globally - speaking out against these matters. That’s why they’re the biggest target.

“When it comes to the rights, benefits, and protections granted married couples by the state, same-gender couples have the right to equal treatment under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, unless you can come up with valid reasons, based on the public good, why the law should discriminate against same-gender couples.  And again, as per the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, those reasons need to be non-religious in nature.”

I already made the case earlier about non-religious support for this issue. You’re not being denied basic human rights here (food, water, shelter, clothing, jobs). Don’t confuse human rights (needs) with rights to pursue “desires”. You will not die if you do not marry another man. The Civil Rights movement was denying black people fundamental HUMAN rights. The Feminist movement was denying women basic human rights. Please do not incorporate the 2 together. Jews were being masacered beause of their ethnic/religious beliefs. If you truly want to fight for REAL human rights, go to the Middle East (where Jews and Christains are being killed for their faith), or Haiti (where people are starving), or China/Cuba (where people are being tortured for their faith). Those are examples of real human rights - not the right to “marry”. Marriage - even between heterosexual couples is not a need. People survive without marriage. Let’s make this clear: Just because something is legal does not make it moral (i.e abortion). There was a time when slavery was legal. There was a time when denying women the right to vote was legal. There was a time when children were allowed to work. Your attempt here at making something legal that is HIGHLY immoral - utilizing the Constitution (“rule of law”) is based on a faulty Mis-representation of God-given rights.

“Pretty much all the arguments I’ve seen here ... either in the article itself or in the comments ... are either religious in nature, or they are based on misrepresentations of more objective factual information.  And that, from the viewpoint of a non-Catholic, is the main problem here.”

When you cite the Catechsim, of course it’s going to be religious because they’re making arguements from scripture and religious tradition. The Catechism is not a journal of medical or scientific research. However, there is OVERwhelming support in nature (science) - and religion - that has already confirmed what we already know, what you call “objective factual”. God’s religious laws also go in accordance with his natural laws because He is the Creator of BOTH.

I could go on ad nauseum about Rafael’s continued ignorance of others by making every attempt at not acknowledging that his claims are not Christian nor compassionate but his own words prove it.

“Homosexuality is a sin - not a crime.”

My homosexuality cannot be denied or changed. I am not a sinner for being homosexual. The catechism does not support your view. You still can’t describe to me how that would affect the people you are slandering.
You continue to show your ignorance every time you post and are digging a hole deeper and deeper.

The important thing is that your children should not be exposed to your verbal abuse.

“This is not a civil rights issues: It’s a human issue. And the act of homosexuality goes AGAINST humanity. You’re arguing to pass into law something that is not the norm and violates human biology, psychology, and spirituality.”
Again, you are just making flat assertions without even attempting to back them with with objective facts, or acknowledging the part of your argument that arises primarily from subjective reasoning.

“Let’s take the Catholic Church out of the equation for a minute: How is it that other non-Catholic Christians who are ALSO quoting and citing the Bible - the same book you’re referencing -  recognize that homosexuality is a sin, just from scripture alone (no Magisteruim)? Are you claiming they also have it wrong?”
Yes, I believe they have it wrong. Just like I agree with many other non-Catholic Christians, as well as many Jews who, citing scripture, don’t believe that homosexuality in the context of loving, committed, monogamous relationships is a sin.  I find their Biblical arguments much more convincing.  That said, I also recognize that neither side in infallible.  That, more than our respective positions on homosexuality, is what differentiates us most profoundly.  You believe your views are infallible.  You try to gloss that over by claiming to rely, not on your own wisdom, but on certain interpretations of scripture, and certain bodies of men, you claim are infallible.  But your claim that they are infallible, with no recognition that you are making a subjective judgement on that point, is every bit as much a claim of personal infallibility.

“There is a subjective truth (small “t”) and an objective Truth.”
That is true.  The problem is that you, a flawed, finite human being, are claiming to have infallible understanding of objective Truth.

“Evangelicals, Jews, Muslims also get it and understand where our rights come from. They also understand that, “non-religiously” speaking, that homosexuality is not the norm. Biologically speaking, it’s not the norm. Psychologically speaking, it’s not the norm. On any other ground, it’s not the norm. There is NO scientific evidence to support this. So, we an argue this strictly from science without ever touching upon religion.”
First, the largest denomination of Jews in the US (Reformed) allows consecration of same-gender relationships, so you ought not to make such blanket statements about what Jews “understand.”  Second, when you say traditionalist people of faith “understand” these things, what you really mean is that they “know” these things.  And they DON’T know ... they believe.  There is a huge difference.  Again, the fact that you don’t see the difference is really scary.  A significant percentage of Christians and Jews in this country believe differently.  And as for arguing science, again, the science-based arguments I see coming from people like Prof. Smith and groups like NARTH rely heavily on distortions of science.  The large majority of mental-health professionals and behavioral scientists, based on peer-reviewed research, find that the scientific evidence is quite clear.  Homosexuality is part of a range of sexual orientations that represent variability common in human characteristics.  There is nothing inherently abnormal or unhealthy about it.

“You’re trying to lump homosexuality together with rape (violence) and pedophelia (abuse). Homosexuality is a sin - not a crime.”
No, I was pointing out that the Catholic Catechism lumps them together.  You again are trying to portray the Catechism as portraying homosexuality as just one sin in a whole list of sexual sins.  That is a gross understatement of what the Cathechism does. It quite literally uses rape, pedophilia, and prostitution as behaviors that characterize the essence of what drives homosexuals.  And that is, from an objective and scientific viewpoint, nonsense.

“ALL sex outside of marriage - between a man and a woman - is sinful.”
If that is really the driving force behind the Catholic notion that homosexuality is sinful, does that mean that homosexuals who are married are not committing sin??  I’m guessing you’ll say no ... that the only valid marriages are those blessed by the Catholic Church, and that the Catholic Church won’t marry same-gender couples because their relationships are sinful, and that they are sinful because the exist outside the context of marriage.  (More circular reasoning.)

“Should Congress or the Supreme Court ever declare that it’s OK for same-sex couples to be married, it’s still not going to change the fact that it’s a fantasy, that it’s not real, because you can’t fool God…”
More flat assertions about why legal recognition is wrong, with absolutely no justification using scientific, objective reasoning.

“So, again, I say: “Who is trying to incoporate its views into law impacting everybody?”
Again, laws against same-gender marriage directly and negatively impact same-gender couples.  Laws that allow government recognition of same-gender marriage do not negatively impact the rights and benefits granted to Catholic couples in any way.

“I already made the case earlier about non-religious support for this issue.”
No, you didn’t.  You made assertions.  And Prof. Smith made assertions, without anything to back her assertions up ... except that she cited NARTH, an organization that backs up similar assertions using blatant misrepresentations of the scientific research in this area.

“Your attempt here at making something legal that is HIGHLY immoral - utilizing the Constitution (“rule of law”) is based on a faulty Mis-representation of God-given rights.”
Again, your opinion that same-gender relationships are highly immoral are based on the religious views of your particular church.  Many other people of faith disagree.  That’s why there is an Establishment Clause in the Constitution.  And you have a very narrow view of civil rights that is also at odds with the Constitution.  The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that when the government provides benefits, rights, and protections, that it do so in a fair and equitable manner to ALL citizens.  Unless you can make a non-religious and scientifically valid case why same-gender couples should be denied the same rights, benefits, and protections currently afforded to straight married couples, then you aren’t making a case that matters from a legal viewpoint.

“There is OVERwhelming support in nature (science) - and religion - that has already confirmed what we already know, what you call “objective factual”. God’s religious laws also go in accordance with his natural laws because He is the Creator of BOTH.”
Again ... oh, why bother.  You will just continue claiming your religious views are infallible, while denying that you are saying that.  And you’ll claim they are supported by science, when in fact, they aren’t.  I would point you to the websites of any of the major mental-health organizations as a starting point for confirming that point, but I’m sure you’d just dismiss the information they provide ... again without real justification.  You may have the last word if you wish, but we have clearly come to an impasse that goes way beyond the issue of homosexuality.  You simply have no recognition of just how much your views on this and many other topics are subjective.  And that is a very scary thing.

“The Catechism is not a journal of medical or scientific research. However, there is OVERwhelming support in nature (science) - and religion - that has already confirmed what we already know, what you call “objective factual”.

The only “objective fact” that catholicism supports regarding sexual relationships is that men and women reproduce with functional reproductive organs.
There is overwhelming evidence to support homosexuality in nature.

Joseph-You have a lot of faith in your own Bible interpretation. You have been deceived. God knows you and loves you completely just as he loves me as flawed as I am. Remember that Jesus is not 50% man and 50% God, he is 100% God and 100% man, therefore he understands each one of us, what a friend we have in him.
He can help us beyond what we think is possible. Ask and you shall receive, not approval of your sins but help to overcome them, like all of us.

Joseph,

“My homosexuality cannot be denied or changed. I am not a sinner for being homosexual. The catechism does not support your view. You still can’t describe to me how that would affect the people you are slandering.
You continue to show your ignorance every time you post and are digging a hole deeper and deeper.”

Your homosexuality is not part of who you are: It’s what you do. A “doctor” is not who a person is, but rather what they do: they practice medicine. A “lawyer” is someone who practices law, it’s not WHO they are. They can stop practicing law/medicine and that does not change the fundamental make-up of the person. Again, I say to you that you are NOT a homosexual: You are a child of God. Homosexuality is what you DO. It’s a behavior, not an identity.

“The important thing is that your children should not be exposed to your verbal abuse.”

The important thing is that my children should not be exposed PUBLICLY to the behavior of homosexuality. That’s the real danger. It’s funny how you call what I’m saying verbal abuse. YOU are the one coming onto a Catholic web-site and calling us “abusers”. That’s like me going to your house/web-site and calling what you are doing abusive. I did not invite you to come here. If you think that we’re abusive, then don’t come here. But, if you’re trying to change Catholic beliefs, then you’re going to have a very difficult time. And as an advice, let it go because it’s not going to happen. There’s a 2,000+-year history. Good luck with that!

“The only ‘objective fact’ that catholicism supports regarding sexual relationships is that men and women reproduce with functional reproductive organs. There is overwhelming evidence to support homosexuality in nature.”

Let me ask you something: If homosexuality is so “natural”, what’s going to happen after you pass on? Assuming that you adopt children – since you are not capable of producing your own offspring by any “natural” means - how will homosexuality be passed on? For something to be natural means that it has to pass on the way nature intended it. The act of homosexuality does not naturally produce offspring, therefore, not making it possible to be passed on, therefore not natural. Like you said, “reproductive” organs are carried by men and women – together. That’s how they reproduce. If eggs and sperm do not unite, you cannot create life – not “naturally”, at least.

Dave,

Sorry for the long delay in response. It was the weekend and I did not have access to my computer.

“Again, you are just making flat assertions without even attempting to back them with with objective facts, or acknowledging the part of your argument that arises primarily from subjective reasoning.”

For every article you can show me backing up your position, I can show you 3 times as many articles backing up mine.

“Yes, I believe they have it wrong. Just like I agree with many other non-Catholic Christians, as well as many Jews who, citing scripture, don’t believe that homosexuality in the context of loving, committed, monogamous relationships is a sin.”

“You” believe they are wrong. That’s a subjective position. You’re trying to questions the Bible, which means you don’t really believe the Bible.

“I find their Biblical arguments much more convincing.”

Because it goes with your views and justifies your actions/lifestyle. You can justify murder using the Bible. You can justify adultery using the Bible. You can justify drug abuse using the Bible.

“The problem is that you, a flawed, finite human being, are claiming to have infallible understanding of objective Truth.”

It either IS what God says, or it’s not. You’re trying to create a “grey” area.

“First, the largest denomination of Jews in the US (Reformed) allows consecration of same-gender relationships, so you ought not to make such blanket statements about what Jews ‘understand’.” 

Oh, please: The Reform Jews? That’s like saying “liberal” Catholics or “progressive” Catholics. You’re either Jewish or you’re not. I asked an Orthodox Jew about this. Reform Jews are those who are trying to maintain their “Jewish” identity, all the while attempting to thwart the Mosaic Law. To say that they are the “largest” denomination of Jews is irrelevant. The second largest denomination of Catholics are the ones who have LEFT the Catholic Church. And even WITHIN the Catholic Church there are “catholics-in-name-only,” or “cafeteria” Catholics as some refer to them.

“Second, when you say traditionalist people of faith ‘understand’ these things, what you really mean is that they ‘know’ these things.”

No, “knowledge” is intellectual, “understanding” is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It’s the difference between having facts and wisdom, which is also another gift of the Holy Spirit.

“And they DON’T know ... they believe.”

Yes, that’s what FAITH is, just like you “believe” to be true what you’re saying. That’s your “subjective” faith.

“The large majority of mental-health professionals and behavioral scientists, based on peer-reviewed research, find that the scientific evidence is quite clear. Homosexuality is part of a range of sexual orientations that represent variability common in human characteristics.  There is nothing inherently abnormal or unhealthy about it.”

This is bogus because these professionals are just checking among themselves. They aren’t the largest. They don’t bother looking at any other journals that may come from religiously-based journals because they believe they’re “biased” and “not scientific” because they’re from religious positions. And that is NOT objective science. Objective science means that you look for truth WHEREVER it may be found. FYI, in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), which is the manual used by the mental health profession to diagnose disorders, there was a time where homosexuality was called a disorder; it was in the manual. It was removed because of lobbying efforts. To go a step further, they are about to add “pedophilia” as something “normal;” in other words, they’re going to remove it as a disorder.

“You again are trying to portray the Catechism as portraying homosexuality as just one sin in a whole list of sexual sins.  That is a gross understatement of what the Cathechism does. It quite literally uses rape, pedophilia, and prostitution as behaviors that characterize the essence of what drives homosexuals.  And that is, from an objective and scientific viewpoint, nonsense.”

Sin is sin. Homosexuality is a sin. It’s explained in the Catechism as a sin by itself. A person who is a homosexual CAN rape somebody (i.e. prisons). But, that does not mean that ALL homosexuals are rapists. In this country, homosexuality is not a crime: rape is. A homosexual can molest a child. So, can a heterosexual. The crime is pedophilia, not homosexuality or heterosexuality.

“If that is really the driving force behind the Catholic notion that homosexuality is sinful, does that mean that homosexuals who are married are not committing sin??”

Well, that’s the crux of the argument: Homosexuals are NOT recognized as married in the eyes of God – no matter what interpretation you choose to use. There is no marriage. It does not matter whether the state recognizes marriage between same sexes as valid, or whether some Protestant/Reform Jew/Liberal Catholic minister/priest/rabbi “bless” the union.

“More flat assertions about why legal recognition is wrong, with absolutely no justification using scientific, objective reasoning.”

First of all, I know you have an issue with religion. Religion is the way in which morality is often introduced to somebody because it invariably tries to give a person a moral foundation based on God’s laws. ALL of the major religions have – more or less – the same moral fabric. And the moral fabric of this country comes from a Judeo-Christian moral foundation. It’s from this moral fabric that the Constitution was shaped. The understanding of “rights/freedom” comes from this basic foundation. The Founders were religious men. They were establishing a freedom FROM THE GOVERNMENT – not from religion. And scientific evidence can be utilized manipulatively to try and persuade objectivity, by utilizing flawed research methods. So, just because something is scientific does not mean that it is objective. And “reason” comes from logic, which is a process that aims to arrive at truth. But, if reason is flawed (or research instruments), it will not arrive at truth.

“Again, laws against same-gender marriage directly and negatively impact same-gender couples.”

There are not laws against same-sex couples. You can live with someone from the same sex. There’s no law preventing that. You can have sex with this person in your house if you wish to. There’s no law preventing that. To make it a PUBLIC display is an infringement upon those who do not wish to have this made public. And you are the minority. Fundamental understading of the law: Your freedom ends where my rights begin.

“Laws that allow government recognition of same-gender marriage do not negatively impact the rights and benefits granted to Catholic couples in any way.”

Yes they do because the Catholic Church teaches that the family – a mother and father with children – is the basic building block of society. Once that falters, then society begins to fall apart. It’s bad enough that we have problems with unwed mothers/fathers, divorce, etc… To show that there is an “alternative” family is not conducive to society. Forget the Catholic Church: It’s not good for society. And I repeat: there are no current laws out there that are preventing you from living together with your partner. Most of the benefits granted to heterosexual married couples are because of the good of the children. And there is OVERWHELMING evidence that the best scenario for children is when they are raised by a mother and father, not a woman and another woman with “masculine” qualities, or a man and another man with “feminine” qualities.

“Again, your opinion that same-gender relationships are highly immoral are based on the religious views of your particular church.  Many other people of faith disagree.  That’s why there is an Establishment Clause in the Constitution.  And you have a very narrow view of civil rights that is also at odds with the Constitution.  The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that when the government provides benefits, rights, and protections, that it do so in a fair and equitable manner to ALL citizens.”

You have the same rights to exist. A single person cannot get marriage rights because they’re not married. You are single trying to make marriage out of something that does not exist. Therefore, you do not have marriage rights. You can vote, you should be protected by the law, etc…

“Unless you can make a non-religious and scientifically valid case why same-gender couples should be denied the same rights, benefits, and protections currently afforded to straight married couples, then you aren’t making a case that matters from a legal viewpoint.”

Democracy entitles the discussion of different point of view – whether they’re religious or not. I thought that’s what democracy did: respect differences of opinion, religious or not. In the market-place of ideas, ALL ideas are welcome. There is nothing written that says that cases have to be made from a scientific/non-religious point of view. That’s YOUR criteria for determining whether something is valid or not. To hold out “science” as the final arbiter of whether something is valid or not is making Science the determinant of morality. As Christians we believe that’s God’s job. By making Science the final “say” in what is ethical or moral is violating the First Commandment, which trumps ALL Amendments. Some Christians - sadly - hold the Constitution out as greater than the Commandments.

“Again ... oh, why bother.  You will just continue claiming your religious views are infallible, while denying that you are saying that.  And you’ll claim they are supported by science, when in fact, they aren’t.  I would point you to the websites of any of the major mental-health organizations as a starting point for confirming that point, but I’m sure you’d just dismiss the information they provide ... again without real justification.  You may have the last word if you wish, but we have clearly come to an impasse that goes way beyond the issue of homosexuality.  You simply have no recognition of just how much your views on this and many other topics are subjective.  And that is a very scary thing.”

Refer to the arguments from above. I don’t know if there is a “last word.” But, you don’t have to accept God’s teachings. These are there for ALL to benefit from, not just Catholics. But, to follow Jesus, one is required to make a radical change in their lives. But, it’s a change for the better.

With that said, you have the freedom to live with whom you want. There is nothing infringing upon that. The problem we have is the public spectacle of something that is not good for society. There are those who wish to make marijuana legal, make sexual relations between men and boys legal (look at the website for NAMBLA), make all kinds of practices legal that go against the good of society. Just because we “progress” in terms of passing laws that “supposedly” grant some people “freedom”, it does not mean that we’re better off as a society. You can see this by the passing of abortion in ‘73. We’re not better off as a society because abortion is legal: We’re worse off. And now that Catholic hospitals are being forced to comply with Federal mandates that violate Catholic conscience, jeopardizes their ability to continue providing healthcare, which violates the Freedom of Religion. In regards to homosexuality, this “fight-for-rights” you wish to engage in shifts from being a “right” to be married and have the same benefits of married couples, to law suits against Catholic Churches state-wide because they will not marry 2 same-sex couples. What you wish for is not freedom, but totalitarian infringement upon the rights of others. Live with whomever you want. But, keep it a private matter.

I can only speak from a spiritual perspective and pray and hope that you will come to the FULLNESS of God’s love, which is by way of the Jesus’ Church, the sacraments, etc…Isn’t God free to do as He wishes? Have you ever stopped to ask if it’s possible that all the stuff the Catholic Church professes is TOTALLY true? That would truly require an objective mind and an openness to the Holy Spirit. Factually speaking, history is on our side. But, someone can ignore facts and try to re-create divine revelation.

“Your homosexuality is not part of who you are: It’s what you do.”

I cannot change my sexuality. I am attracted to men. I live with homosexuality. If you think otherwise you are wrong. The catholic church agreed that this was immutable till a few weeks ago when it became a better talking point if they made a different claim.

If you have no fundamental understanding of others you have no right to be making these decisions for others. And you certainly are not compassionate. If you want to treat your children in this way you unfortunately can but they will feel much the same as me later on.

“YOU are the one coming onto a Catholic web-site and calling us “abusers”.”“

Yes indeed. You are. You have no understanding of us. You spout claims that distort and defame. You insist on running our lives based on such misinformation and call us evil for our feelings.
I’d say that’s abuse.

Joseph,

“I cannot change my sexuality. I am attracted to men. I live with homosexuality. If you think otherwise you are wrong. The catholic church agreed that this was immutable till a few weeks ago when it became a better talking point if they made a different claim…. And you certainly are not compassionate….”

Just because a person has a “condition” does not give one the “right” to behave as they wish. A person with an addiction that is in recovery will use language like they are a “recovering addict”, meaning that they remind themselves everyday of the fact that they struggle with addiction and that they need to remain abstinent.

How is it that there are other human beings with a homosexual orientation that DO understand this and have seen the truth and have repented? Just because you don’t think it’s possible does not mean that it’s not possible. This is reality, not fantasy. God is BIGGER than ANY sin. There’s a Catholic ministry out there (Courage) dedicated to this. If you don’t think I am “compassionate”, then contact them because it’s run by people who USED to practice homosexuality. They understand what you’re going through. If you don’t want a Catholic one, there are other ones out there (Transforming Congregations, One by One, Exodus International, etc…) Again, don’t confuse compassion with empathy. To be compassionate does not mean that I have to be homosexual. I can help someone with a substance abuse addiction even though I’m not an addict. It’s a myth that I have to BE an addict in order to effectively HELP an addict. We’re talking about sin. So, no one – except Jesus – would be qualified to help another if that were the criteria.

Also, I don’t have a problem – nor the Church- with homosexuals. We love ALL human beings. We have a problem with homosexuality. So, your previous claim (“…I am not a sinner for being homosexual…The catechism does not support your view”) is false because WE ARE ALL SINNERS. That’s what the Catechism says. But, we were not created as sinners originally. That’s why we have sacraments to help Jesus absolve us of sin, to help bring us back to that time in the Garden. Jesus is the new Adam. The Catechism also DOES say that a person can practice the “sin” of homosexuality, which requires repentance. It’s the sin that’s the problem. The orientation is the BEGINNING of the problem. But, the act of homosexuality is the sin. If a person has a predisposition for alcoholism, let’s say, if they never have a drink in their life, then they are not an alcoholic. 

“If you have no fundamental understanding of others you have no right to be making these decisions for others. If you want to treat your children in this way you unfortunately can but they will feel much the same as me later on.”

I’m not making decisions for you. But, you’re not going to make decisions for me and my children either through excessive force by the courts or Congress or the President. The majority of the citizens of the United States DO NOT WANT to have this passed into law. We have the right NOT to be exposed to homosexuality if we feel – as a society at large – that it is not GOOD for the society. And should this pass in the courts, believe me there will be an insurmountable effort to overturn it, as there is right now to overturn/repeal this Obama-care with no conscience protection for religious providers of healthcare.

“Yes indeed. You are. You have no understanding of us. You spout claims that distort and defame. …I’d say that’s abuse.”

Are you trying to get on record that you SAID we’re “abusers” when you have no justifiable claim for it? Just because we don’t want to be exposed to public destruction of the family further does not mean that you are being abused. You’re like a teenager throwing a temper tantrum because you’re not getting what you want. What you WANT is infringing upon the rights of others. So, your understanding of abuse is skewed because what you’re accusing us of is EXACLTY what you’re guilty of. You’re not being forced to stay here at the web-site. You’re free to leave at anytime. There are no rules here holding you hostage. This is freedom of speech. Are you trying to take away my freedom of speech now? You’re already trying to take away my freedom of religion. If you come here to freely try and understand why it is that the Catholic Church professes what it does, then you’re in the right spot. But, to start challenging what the Church stands for or defame us by accusing us of something we’re not guilty of is an attack and full of distortions and defamations.

“…You insist on running our lives based on such misinformation and call us evil for our feelings….”

Who’s trying to run other people’s lives here?!! You remind me of those people who throw out the “race” card in debates because they have no other sound argument to counter what’s being said. You have no good counter-point. So, you throw out the “abuse” card in the hopes that it will stick and get you sympathizers for your cause. You continue to play the “victim” here, when REALITY is showing that the ones – by law – that are under attack are the people with religious consciousness. THAT’S a fact, not your “perception” of reality. Look at the FACTS!!!!

Sorry, previous e-mail intended for James…

Rafael either continues to claim that homosexuality always involves behavior or that controlling behavior somehow means that all sexuality is denied. I’m not sure which. This is directly contrary to any science and his own catholic church’s teaching. Saying one has to consider homosexuality evil when the attraction is always going to be there is putting someone in an impossible situation racked with guilt and frustration. The response from society is for many to view the individual as evil too hence slurs and abuse including violence.

No, not compassionate or understanding. You really need to know what you are talking about if you think you can dictate others’ behaviors and relationships.

by the way you addressed that to the wrong person.

“I’m not making decisions for you.”

Um yes you are. Ever time you say I should not have a relationship and when you lobby for laws for such-you are making decisions for otehrs. You are insisting on telling children to tell homosexuals to change their ways yet you claim you are not making decisions for others?

You are completely out of touch with the reality of pretty much everything you claim and stand for.
This is why we have freedom of religion on the U.S. so you can’t use it to control others.
your abuse was well pointed out. just saying it was not does not make it so.

There are many types and degrees of disordered sexual orientations. God did not create “heterosexuals” and “homosexuals”..., God created male and female to live in relationship as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters…, while orienting us to The Perfect Communion of Love, The Blessed Trinity.

Sexual Love and sex are not the same. While having sex objectifies the human person, Sexual Love is not possessive, nor does it serve to manipulate. Only in an ordered, complementary relationship of Love between a man and woman, united in Marriage as husband and wife, can two become One body, One Spirit in Love, creating a new Family. We are all called to Holiness, thus God desires that all Marriages are Holy and grounded in authentic Love.

Nancy D has contradicted herself and the catholic doctrine on this matter.  According to your church, homosexuality is an attraction to the same sex and does indeed exist. They never claim that the attraction does not exist but they do affirm that it is there. To then say that god didn’t create us in this form is directly against the claim that God created all of us in his image. Recently the archdiocese of Boston confirmed this position after a similar misinterpretation from another one of their lost souls.

If you really think that “God created male and female to live in relationship as husbands and wives” means that god didn’t create heterosexuality or homosexuals, you are denying your own logic and doctrine. God created me as a homosexual which your church does not disagree with.
Also if you think that homosexuals are incapable of loving each other in a relationship you have dehumanized us in a way that you would never allow to be done to yourself. None of this is Christian.

James J,

“Rafael either continues to claim that homosexuality always involves behavior or that controlling behavior somehow means that all sexuality is denied. I’m not sure which.”

Yes. Homosexuality ALWAYS involves behavior. Sexuality – in your case - is not denied because it’s disordered sex; it’s not REAL sex as in the way God intended it. So, there is no denial of sex. You’re not being denied because it was NEVER there to begin with. That’s like saying that I’m taking away money from a person that stole the money. It was never his/her money to begin with. Therefore, I’m not taking away their money.

“This is directly contrary to any science and his own catholic church’s teaching.”

Says who? It’s obvious by your remarks that you lack an accurate understanding of Catholic teaching on sexuality. As far as science goes, please indicate to me which science you are referring to.

“Saying one has to consider homosexuality evil when the attraction is always going to be there is putting someone in an impossible situation racked with guilt and frustration.”

The guilt is there because there is something called “healthy” guilt, which implies feeling guilty for something that you “should” feel guilty for. For example, if I steal something, I should feel guilty about it because that would be the appropriate feeling following an inappropriate action. As far as the frustration goes, I agree that it is frustrating to not get something you think you need. An addict, whether it’s a person struggling with sexual addiction, chemical addiction, gambling, etc…, will be frustrated at first when they begin recovery because the urges will be there and they have to fight the urges. And, as any addict will tell you, it’s very frustrating. It’s not an “impossible situation” because nothing is impossible for God. Also, if it were impossible, then organizations like the ones mentioned above (i.e. Courage, Transforming Congregations, One by One, Exodus International) would not exist – and be successful, I might add.

“The response from society is for many to view the individual as evil too hence slurs and abuse including violence.”

I can’t speak for how society views a person with a homosexual orientation. But, I will tell you that the Catholic Church does not view homosexuals as evil: It views the ACT of homosexuality as sinful. It makes a clear distinction that a person is NOT identified by what they do. What they do (behavior) is a separate issue. If a person chooses to identify themselves according to what they do, then that’s their choice. It has no bearing upon the individual in the eyes of God. God sees beyond labels: “Surfer”, “jock”, “investor”, “rocker”, “gay”, “lesbian”, etc… Labels only tell us what a person does. It’s not who they are.

“No, not compassionate or understanding. You really need to know what you are talking about if you think you can dictate others’ behaviors and relationships.”

Please read earlier posts about the difference between “compassion” and “empathy”. You continue to appear not to understand the difference.

“by the way you addressed that to the wrong person.”

Yes, I apologize for that. I sent a follow-up post once I realized it (I didn’t notice there was someone new joining in the dialogue). My bad.

“Um yes you are. Ever time you say I should not have a relationship and when you lobby for laws for such-you are making decisions for others. You are insisting on telling children to tell homosexuals to change their ways yet you claim you are not making decisions for others?”

By lobbying for your position, you are in essence FORCING the Catholic Church to marry people with same-sex attraction, which violates the Freedom of Religion. I never said not to have a relationship with someone of the same sex. I just said to keep it a private matter. If you wish to be with someone of the same sex, go ahead. I’m not going to go into your house and tell you not to do it. That’s not my business. (As an aside, I will tell you that you shouldn’t do it because as a Christian I do care about your soul and this is not good for your soul). I’m not out there lobbying to make homosexuality illegal. But, that’s exactly what you’re doing: you’re coming into our house and telling us that we HAVE TO marry people with same-sex attraction. Do you see the difference? You guys are out there trying to make legal something that would infringe upon religious liberties.

“You are completely out of touch with the reality of pretty much everything you claim and stand for.”

Reality check: Legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, California, New York, etc… Catholic Social Services being forced to shut down BY THE GOVERNMENT because they will not allow same-sex couples to adopt children. Law suits against other Christian churches because they will not allow same-sex couples to use their facilities. There are many others. But, these are enough to start.

“This is why we have freedom of religion on the U.S. so you can’t use it to control others.”

Freedom of Religion is not for controlling others: It’s for PROTECTION from the Government, like in the examples mentioned above. We’re not trying to control you: You’re trying to MANDATE to us – through the state/government/law – who we should marry or who we should allow to adopt, despite our religious beliefs.

“your abuse was well pointed out. just saying it was not does not make it so.”

I agree that “just saying it was not does not make it so.” You and Joseph have made accusations of “abuse”. However, you still have not cited how I’m/we’re abusing you.  You’re the ones claiming that we’re abusing you. Well, back it up. You still have not made a case.

“Yes. Homosexuality ALWAYS involves behavior. Sexuality – in your case - is not denied because it’s disordered sex”

It is impossible to entirely deny one’s sexuality. the attraction is an inherent part of someone. Therefor when you say homosexuality is a sin it is calling all homosexuals sinners.
therefor you are not following your own church’s doctrine.
You have completely confused most information about homosexuality.
Therefor you are not in any way qualified to teach or make decisions for others. Thank you.

“Freedom of Religion is not for controlling others”

And yet you are the one who wants me to give up all sexuality and to deny myself a family, along with love, based on your religion.
I think we’ve seen enough.

Joseph,

Some quotes from Catholic Church teaching on homosexuality from Fr. John Hardon, S.J. (you can find the rest of it at http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Chastity/Chastity_014.htm):

The basic principle is that the sexual nature of man and the human faculty of procreation are essentially superior to all other lower forms of life. At the root of this superiority is that human sexuality pertains to marriage and to a finality which is unique in the visible world of living beings. (P 5).
It teaches that sexual actions belong to conjugal life. They do not depend solely on sincere intentions or on people’s motives. Sexual morality must be determined by objective standards. These standards are based on the nature of human beings and their acts, while preserving the full sense of mutual self-giving and procreation in the context of true love. (P 5).
Guided by divine Revelation and her authority to interpret the natural law, the Church declares that the use of the sexual function has its true meaning and moral rectitude only in true marriage. One word in the foregoing sentence needs to be emphasized. It is the word “true”, as applied to true meaning and true marriage. Over the centuries, the meaning of sexual activity has been given an ocean of interpretations, which are not true. So too co-habitation between men and women who are two persons of the same sex has been called “marriage.” What is crucially important, especially in our day, is to make sure that sexual morality applies to true marriage and not one of its spurious counterfeits. (P 5).
One of the main contributors to the plague of sodomy which has infected the modern world is the claim that sexual union is allowed before marriage. This erroneous opinion is not only contrary to Christian morality, it opens the door to the claim that two people can have mutual sexual experience independent of the purpose for which God created the two genders of men and women. The desecration of the sexual powers outside of marriage opens the door to the degeneration of homosexuality (P 7).
Unmarried cohabitation either excludes the possibility of children, or is a grave detriment to the welfare of the children who need the stability of a lifelong commitment of married love from their parents.
Homosexuality by its very nature, excludes the procreation of offspring. It is the selfish indulgence in sexual pleasure of two persons of the same gender whose claim of loving one another excludes the love of children who cannot be conceived or born (P8).
People are claimed to be incurable when their homosexuality is some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution of their nature (P8).
As a result, the practice of homosexuality is justified. Homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love are said to be similar to marriage. The assumption is that such homosexuals cannot endure a solitary life (P8).
They are to be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties. Their guilt will be judged with prudence. But under no circumstances is their behavior to be justified (P8)
The verdict is uncompromising. Homosexual relations lack an essential and indispensable purpose. The purpose of sexual activity is for married people to cooperate with God in the beginning of children; and to both express and cultivate their mutual love for each other (P8.)

Joseph,

Some more quotes along with questions from the same source:

“The Church distinguishes between the homosexual condition or tendency and homosexual actions. Homosexual actions lack the essential and indispensable purpose. They are therefore intrinsically disorder. Consequently homosexual actions can never be approved (HP3).
Yes, homosexual inclinations are objectively, that is, by their very nature morally wrong. They are a disorder which is contrary to the purpose for which God has given us sexual desires (HP3).
The Church is especially concerned to have such people believe that living out their orientation in homosexual activities is morally sinful (HP3).
50. What are some of the causes for confusion about the sinfulness of homosexuality?
Among the reasons for this confusion is an unjustified explanation of sacred Scripture, which claims that the bible has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality. Another reason is the claim that the Church somehow tacitly approves homosexuality. Still another reason is that moral prohibition are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. All of these views are gravely erroneous and demand special attention (HP4).
51. What is the first response to the claim that homosexuality is not condemned by Sacred Scripture?
The response is that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is not based on isolated passages in the Bible or clever theological argumentation. Her teaching is founded on the constant biblical witness of the Old and New Testaments. This witness continues to be nourished by the same divine Spirit of Truth whose word they are (HP5).
52. How does the Church’s living Tradition confirm the teaching of the Bible on homosexuality?
The Church’s living Tradition is a basic norm for the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. This Tradition is first of all the unwritten revealed word of God which, along with the Bible, was completed by the end of the apostolic age. It is secondly the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority by which God’s revealed truth will be preserved from error until the end of time (HP5).
53. How is homosexuality contrary to God’s purpose in creating two genders?
In creating the human race, God wants men and women to cooperate with Him in the transmission of life by mutual donation of the self to one another. Homosexuality denies this divine purpose. Men and women are created to complement each other. For two men or two women to have sexual relations with one another is to contradict the divine purpose for their distinct genders (HP6).

Some more Q&A from the same source:

54. What is the root cause for the rise of homosexuality in human history?
The root cause is original sin. Original sin blinded the human mind from clearly seeing the purpose of sexual pleasure. This purpose is for the procreation and education of children and for the mutual exchange of selfless love between two married persons (HP6).
58. What does the Church teach about the professed practice of love between homosexuals?
The Church teaches their claim to practicing love is in contradiction to the purpose of the God given sexual activity. This purpose is the self giving of two married persons cooperating with the Creator in order to transmit human life. Homosexual persons can be generous and loving. But this love may not contradict the divine law which defines why and how human love is to be exercised (HP7).
59. How does homosexuality contradict the purpose of human freedom?
According to the creative wisdom of God, we must use our freedom in conformity with His divine will. Our freedom becomes self debasement when we choice to act in contradiction for the purpose for which God made us free (HP7)
60. Are heavy pressures brought on the Church to approve homosexuality?
Indeed, these pressures are so strong that even Catholics are arguing in favor of homosexuality. It is the materialism in the modern world which is behind this pressure. In effect, the materialistic ideology denies that the human person is no mere animal. Human persons are made for a heavenly destiny which they must earn by their practice of divinely prescribed. Moreover, they have a supernatural vocation to life in God’s friendship here on earth and enjoy His beatific vision in eternity (HP8).
61. What is the basic argument of those within the Church who argue in favor of homosexuality?
Their basic argument is that some people have a homosexual condition, which they claim is not disordered. At root, those defending homosexuality reflect a materialistic ideology which denies both the transcendent nature of the human person, as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual (HP8).
62. Are there pressure groups within the Catholic Church, which promote homosexuality?
Yes. Under various names, they try to give the impression that their ideas represent all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, these professed Catholics who promote homosexuality are, by and large, persons who either ignore the moral teaching of the Catholic Church, or try to undermine this teaching. Their organizations, publicized under allegedly Catholic auspices, are groups of once-believing Catholics who concentrate on protesting the Church’s moral doctrines. They protest that any and all criticism of their position or any reservation about homosexual people are simply different forms of unjust discrimination (HP9).

More Q&A:

63. Do these homosexual protagonists stop there?
No, they strive to manipulate the Church by gaining the support of bishops and priests in order to change the existing civil-statutes and laws. Their argument is that homosexuality is at least completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing (HP9).
64. How do the homosexual protagonists defend their position?
They do so, under the aegis of a pseudo-science in which homosexuality is neither pathological nor reversible. They claim it is a natural, genetic, and biological trait. According to this theory, sexual intimacy with the same sex is simply a normal variation, like left-handedness.
65. Does this theory have sound objective foundations?
No, it has been demolished by a number of systematic studies. It is also contradicted by the fact that many homosexuals have been treated and freed from the chains of their morally and psychologically disordered compulsions.
66. Is sodomy a sign of the Church’s “self-destruction”?
Yes, as Pope Paul VI declared in one of his most outspoken denunciations of homosexuality. In context, he is speaking of the immoral practices among professed Catholics who are defending homosexuality:
“The Church finds herself in an hour of disquiet, of self-criticism, one might even say of self-destruction. It is like an acute and complex interior upheaval, which no one expected after the Council. One thought of a blossoming, a serene expansion of the mature concepts of the Council. The Church still has this aspect of blossoming. But since “bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu,” the aspect of sorrow has become most notable. The Church is also being wounded by those who are part of her” (Allocution to the students of the Lombard Seminary, Dec. 7, 1968).
67. How does Pope John Paul II describe this self-destruction in our day?
He is speaking to the religious and priests participating in the First Italian National Congress on Missions to the People:
“One must be realistic and acknowledge with a deep and pained sentiment that a great part of today’s Christians feel lost, confused, perplexed, and even disillusioned: ideas contradicting the revealed and unchanging Truth have been spread far and wide; outright heresies in the dogmatic and moral fields have been disseminated, creating doubt, confusion, and rebellion; even the liturgy has been altered. Immersed in intellectual and moral “relativism” and therefore in permissiveness, Christians are tempted by atheism, agnosticism, a vaguely moralistic illuminism, a sociological Christianity, without defined dogmas and without objective morality” (L’Osservatore Romano, February 7, 1981).

Joseph,

By the way, the article was written by Fr. John Hardon, but the quotes/Q&A are from John Paul II and Pope Paul IV.

I stopped reading when you claimed that you are superior to homosexuals.

“The basic principle is that the sexual nature of man and the human faculty of procreation are essentially superior to all other lower forms of life.”

Again
There is no reason I have to have a church tell me that that I’m inferior to anyone. It goes against god and it goes against my constitutional rights.
It is sad that you treat your homosexual children that way. It’s also sad that you have no intention of teaching any of your children that Americans are created equal, including homosexuals.

“I stopped reading when you claimed that you are superior to homosexuals.”

That’s a shame because you did NOT read it accurately. And you took it out of context. Read the ENTIRE thing.

“Again, there is no reason I have to have a church tell me that that I’m inferior to anyone.”

It didn’t say that. At least I cannot be accused of not backing up what I say without real Church doctrine to support it. The article was a teaching about homosexuality from the Catechism.

“It goes against god and it goes against my constitutional rights.
It is sad that you treat your homosexual children that way. It’s also sad that you have no intention of teaching any of your children that Americans are created equal, including homosexuals.”

Wow! You are really stretching. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Good luck to you!

Merry Christmas!

I will pray for you!

this jumped out at me:
“By lobbying for your position, you are in essence FORCING the Catholic Church to marry people with same-sex attraction”

Nobody ever proposed the catholic be forced to marry gays. This is a fact.

Also to say that my sexuality was never there to begin with is another falsehood. I have functioning sex organs and a sex drive. This was created by God as recently confirmed by the Boston Archdiocese. You have no right to expect me to deny that. You can ask your children to but it will not ever work.

As for the article you quote: “Yes, homosexual inclinations are objectively, that is, by their very nature morally wrong.”

The catholic church states that the inclination toward the same sex is not morally wrong. To say otherwise is to claim that I am morally wrong for existing as this is an inclination that can’t be changed. It would also technically be blasphemy. The official position of your church: “Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful.” You once again show your ignorance by quoting the ignorant.
Your church also requires that “they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” This cannot be achieved without understanding how someone feels. You have continued to refuse to do that. Such a refusal is not Christian regardless of the issue.
The author, despite orders from her church, warns against compassion as it would tell any compassionate person that homosexuals do not deserve what your church prescribes.

Joseph, you deny yourself a family and love if you identify and act as a homosexual.  We are all children of God, made in His image, and know in our hearts what is right and natural, according to our God-given gender.  Gender confusion is sad.  I don’t understand how a man can have a female brain and vice versa.  It is a mystery.  We are called to love ourselves and one another, but the spiritual works of mercy, gained through the Holy Spirit, include the directive to ‘admonish the sinner’, albeit tactfully and lovingly.  Remonstrance of sin is out duty as Christians.  God Bless Rafael.

Joseph,

“I stopped reading when you claimed that you are superior to homosexuals.”

That’s a shame because those are not my words: Those are the words of either Pope John Paul II or Pope Paul VI. And of course, you are TOTALLY misinterpreting them. It says that the sexual nature of “humans” is superior to all other lower forms of life (i.e. animals, plants, etc…). You should read the WHOLE thing before you start drawing FAULTY conclusions.

“Again there is no reason I have to have a church tell me that that I’m inferior to anyone.”

It says that NOWHERE. You’re really trying to make things up.

“It goes against god and it goes against my constitutional rights.”

Are you an atheist? Why do you keep using lower-case “g” for God? As far as your constitutional rights are concerned, you have your constitutional rights. How can you have a constitutional right to something that doesn’t exist? As far as God is concerned, marriage between same-sex people does not exist in the eyes of God. You have ALL THE OTHER constitutional rights granted to ALL human beings.

“It is sad that you treat your homosexual children that way. It’s also sad that you have no intention of teaching any of your children that Americans are created equal, including homosexuals.”

You ARE created equal in the eyes of God. Can you show me where the Catholic Church says that you are NOT equal to humanity? You continue to fabricate things that have NEVER been said. I think it’s YOU that feel inferior to other human beings. Don’t project your own feelings of inferiority to us or me.

Joseph,

“I stopped reading when you claimed that you are superior to homosexuals.”
That’s a shame because those are not my words: Those are the words of either Pope John Paul II or Pope Paul VI. And of course, you are TOTALLY misinterpreting them. It says that the sexual nature of “humans” is superior to all other lower forms of life (i.e. animals, plants, etc…). You should read the WHOLE thing before you start drawing FAULTY conclusions.
“Again there is no reason I have to have a church tell me that that I’m inferior to anyone.”
It says that NOWHERE. You’re really trying to make things up.

“It goes against god and it goes against my constitutional rights.”

Are you an atheist? Why do you keep using lower-case “g” for God? As far as your constitutional rights are concerned, you have your constitutional rights. How can you have a constitutional right to something that doesn’t exist? As far as God is concerned, marriage between same-sex people does not exist in the eyes of God. You have ALL THE OTHER constitutional rights granted to ALL human beings.

“It is sad that you treat your homosexual children that way. It’s also sad that you have no intention of teaching any of your children that Americans are created equal, including homosexuals.”

You ARE created equal in the eyes of God. Can you show me where the Catholic Church says that you are NOT equal to humanity? You continue to fabricate things that have NEVER been said. I think it’s YOU that feel inferior to other human beings. Don’t project your own feelings of inferiority to us or me.

Quo Vadis,

Thanks for your words!

“sexual nature of man and the human faculty of procreation are essentially superior to all other lower forms of life”

Presumably heterosexual humans unless you can see it meaning something else. It does not take a linguist or philosophy professor to see that this makes that claim that anything other than reproducing human heterosexuals are inferior. Unless of course you’ve changed your mind and think that homosexual humans are superior to other animals. But that would then be contradicting yourself.
You just don’t look at what you are saying.
I do not need a dead leader of a foreign country telling me how to live.

“you deny yourself a family and love if you identify and act as a homosexual.”

Um You are the one telling me I can’t ever have romance sex or start a family - not myself.

I tell you what: Go on for the next few months never thinking or acknowledging sex in any way. Do not toy with any sexual thought. Do not talk about your family or even think about them. Do not self gratify yourself in any way. Each time you do have a sexual thought confess your sins of thought to your priest and consider it a foul insult to your life.

Get back to me in a few months and tell me not only how it is but how it would be if you had to do it every single day of your life while others slur you.
Then we can talk.

Joseph,

“Nobody ever proposed the catholic be forced to marry gays. This is a fact.”

Not true. It’s the same problem with adoption that the Church is having in Massachusetts. They had to give up their license for adoption because the government TOLD them they HAD to let same-sex couples adopt children since they are now recognized BY the State of Massachusetts as valid marriages. So, the Catholic Church, per Cardinal O’Malley chose to turn in their license because they were not going to be mandated by the state to violate their conscience. Where have you been????

“Also to say that my sexuality was never there to begin with is another falsehood. I have functioning sex organs and a sex drive. This was created by God as recently confirmed by the Boston Archdiocese. You have no right to expect me to deny that. You can ask your children to but it will not ever work.”

First of all, I’m not sure what you’re citing from the Boston Archdiocese. I’ve been around long enough not to trust everything that comes out of Boston with the name “Catholic” on it. The OFFICIAL teaching of the Catholic Church comes from Rome PRECISELY because there are “studies” and even priests and bishops who are not in accordance with the Magisterium. FYI, not every priest that says he’s Catholic actually IS Catholic. When you say that I “said” that your sexuality was “never there to begin with”, you’re confusing the issues because I said your “marriage” was never there to begin with because homosexual marriages do not exist. Your sexuality exists to serve God, not oneself.

“As for the article you quote: ‘Yes, homosexual inclinations are objectively, that is, by their very nature morally wrong.’”

Yes, because it’s disordered. Those are the words of either Pope John Paul II or Pope Paul VI.

“The catholic church states that the inclination toward the same sex is not morally wrong.”

Wrong. You seem to have a problem reading. Go back and re-read the entire thing I posted. Stop making up stuff. It’s there in black and white.

“To say otherwise is to claim that I am morally wrong for existing as this is an inclination that can’t be changed.”

Wrong again. That’s NOT Catholic teaching. Dude, how old are you? What grade are you in? I feel like I’m debating a middle-school kid. You probably are. Not because you’re not smart. Just because you keep distorting Catholic doctrine, saying what is OBVIOUSLY not there since I have posted it for you and all others to see. Then again, because you haven’t read it, you case is invalid because you keep creating your own version of Catholic teachings. That’s middle-school-like behavior.

“The official position of your church: ‘Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful.’ You once again show your ignorance by quoting the ignorant.”

Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II “ignorant” on Catholic doctrine. Wow! We’re in trouble!!!!

“Your church also requires that ‘they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.’ This cannot be achieved without understanding how someone feels. You have continued to refuse to do that. Such a refusal is not Christian regardless of the issue.”

You continue to show your ignorance – despite repeated attempts to show you the difference between compassion and empathy in the previous quotes.

“The author, despite orders from her church, warns against compassion as it would tell any compassionate person that homosexuals do not deserve what your church prescribes.”

Pope Paul VI or John Paul II?

There you go Joseph.
They don’t know if what they’re saying comes from which pope over the past several decades, but it must have been said, after all, someone is quoting it. They don’t even know when you’re referring to the author of this article—they just know someone said it and “thinks” it to be true.

The truth of the matter is that empathy is necessary to show sensitivity and compassion. The fact that they refuse to understand this in any way they can’t possibly imagine the unthinkable. They are not practicing Catholicism by ignoring this. They also show, since what they expect of you is unthinkable, that they would never agree to live the way the expect you to if they were in your shoes.

Joseph,

“Presumably heterosexual humans unless you can see it meaning something else. It does not take a linguist or philosophy professor to see that this makes that claim that anything other than reproducing human heterosexuals are inferior. Unless of course you’ve changed your mind and think that homosexual humans are superior to other animals. But that would then be contradicting yourself. You just don’t look at what you are saying.”

So, you’re removing YOURSELF from the human race?

You – and I repeat YOU (since you didn’t seem to get it the first 2 times) – can’t seem to separate your homosexual identity from your HUMANITY. Just look at what YOU’RE saying…

Joseph,

“There you go Joseph. They don’t know if what they’re saying comes from which pope over the past several decades, but it must have been said, after all, someone is quoting it. They don’t even know when you’re referring to the author of this article—they just know someone said it and ‘thinks’ it to be true.”

I guess YOU HAVE detached yourself from humanity. You’re talking in 4th person now (“they”). You’re having a conversation with yourself. Does it matter which Pope? They’re BOTH teaching the truth. Whether it came from John Paul II or Paul VI is irrelevant: They’re BOTH valid. But, if TRULY you care to see which one said what, go back to the original post and follow the link. 

“The truth of the matter is that empathy is necessary to show sensitivity and compassion.”

Not true. Empathy and compassion are 2 different things. But, “Rafael what makes you think that Joseph is going to listen?” “Oh, I don’t know, Rafael. Maybe Joseph will go back and look at the original statement and see what was said about empathy and compassion.” “Do you think he’ll do it, Rafael?” “Well, Rafael, given his track record, it does not appear that he will.”

“The fact that they refuse to understand this in any way they can’t possibly imagine the unthinkable. They are not practicing Catholicism by ignoring this. They also show, since what they expect of you is unthinkable, that they would never agree to live the way the expect you to if they were in your shoes.”

You obviously have very limited understanding of TRUE Christianity because: 1)You keep misrepresenting Catholic doctrine, 2) Following my correcting you by quoting past popes on this matter, you STILL get it wrong, 3) I’ve spelled out the differences between compassion and empathy numerous times – in charity – and you still choose to blind yourself. Therefore, your charges of us practicing “false Christianity/Catholicism” do not stick because you’re just all talk and no FACT-based proof.

Your ongoing problem is that you are too emotionally attached to this issue. And your emotional attachment blinds you to objective reality. If you’re the best defender of homosexuality becoming law of the land, then I see the efforts of the homosexuality movement in trouble. You’re gonna have to do better than that.

Actually that was James J using my computer at work. But the fact is that you have not shown any compassion and sensitivity and have yet to explain how you think you have.

Sexual attraction cannot be just removed from one’s existence and you show no understanding or sensitivity to that. You show no understanding of what you are asking of people. You don’t acknowledge in any way what you are asking homosexuals to give up. You’ve been asked repeatedly and refuse to. Yet you always have something to tell others to do.

Since you have not articulated an understanding, I’m really not looking at all the pot shots but I did notice this:  “You – and I repeat YOU (since you didn’t seem to get it the first 2 times) – can’t seem to separate your homosexual identity from your HUMANITY:”

That tells me that you think a homosexual attraction blots out one’s humanity. Yet another way to dehumanize someone. I have not removed myself from humanity, you and your church have assigned something to homosexuals that is impossible to achieve and use it to claim I am inhuman. That is an assignment that I do not have to accept and one you children most likely will not, it will be because you refuse to understand them. This is why I have religious freedom too. God have mercy on your children.
This also leads to another point touched upon by James. If you can’t even think how terrible it would be to be homosexual under your church you have no right to ask that of anyone else. If you would not consider it or put up with it neither should I. Again: I have freedom of religion too.

Let me know when you actually consider that you are asking of people. No amount of distracting rhetoric will suffice.

“2) Following my correcting you by quoting past popes on this matter, you STILL get it wrong”

Um. you didn’t even know which pope or from which decade you were quoting. And if the quote is contradictory to the actual facts of life, of course I’m going to question it.

Joseph and James J(since you’re sharing computers),

“Sexual attraction cannot be just removed from one’s existence and you show no understanding or sensitivity to that. You show no understanding of what you are asking of people. You don’t acknowledge in any way what you are asking homosexuals to give up. You’ve been asked repeatedly and refuse to. Yet you always have something to tell others to do.”

What’s being asked of someone who is single, or married in the eyes of God, or serving in the vocation of priesthood or religious life is no different than what’s being asked of you: Respect for God’s laws on sexuality. Just because a person is heterosexual does not give them the right to be promiscuous. Someone who is called to marriage (between a man and a woman), is called to live a chaste life with that person, which means that there will be times when they will NOT have sex for different reason and will need to abstain. In religious life/Holy Orders, you are called to complete abstinence. And if a person is called to live as a single person, they are to remain abstinent. Self-control is not impossible - difficult, but not impossible. Ask addicts who have been in recovery for 30+ years.

The question is NOT “what’s being asked of you”: the questions is what YOU’RE asking the Church to make an exception for, which is something that has never been asked for - the impossible. You’re asking for God to bless something which He has clearly stated is not holy: a “marriage” between 2 people of the same sex.

Does he ask heterosexuals to control themselves? Absolutely! I agree that it’s a tall order for ALL humanity. But it’s the laws of God that command this of us. Heterosexuals don’t get a pass on this one because they’re heterosexuals. Remember: ALL sin outside of marriage between a male and female is sinful.

“That tells me that you think a homosexual attraction blots out one’s humanity. Yet another way to dehumanize someone. I have not removed myself from humanity, you and your church have assigned something to homosexuals that is impossible to achieve and use it to claim I am inhuman. That is an assignment that I do not have to accept and one you children most likely will not, it will be because you refuse to understand them. This is why I have religious freedom too.”

I see where you’re getting confused. I go back to “identity” as per the Catholic Church. You have to first start with the premise: You are a human being, a child of God. We were all given sexual desires, some ordered and some disordered. Among the disordered sexual desires are: homosexuality, bestiality, pornography, pedophilia, etc… Your desire – whether heterosexual/homosexual/parasexual – does not define your identity. You are required to demonstrate self-control if you have a disordered sexual attraction not because you’re being punished, but rather because it will take you further from God if you indulge in it. To admit that you have no control over your passions is typically the first step in recovery.

If you choose to define yourself according to your sexual desires, then you are not fully embracing your humanity, but rather enslaving it to a disordered compulsion(s). What the Church offers is liberation because as a human being, you are BIGGER than any desire. Jesus demonstrated this when He walked among us. What you are proposing is enslavement OF YOUR HUMANITY under the guise of freedom/liberation.

“This also leads to another point touched upon by James. If you can’t even think how terrible it would be to be homosexual under your church you have no right to ask that of anyone else. If you would not consider it or put up with it neither should I. Again: I have freedom of religion too.”

What’s “terrible” is how a person with ANY problem would walk away from grace. We are all sinners, Joseph and James. We ALL need HIS love and grace – no matter if the problem is gambling, food addiction, vanity, pornography, etc… So, you’re wrong to conclude that it would be “terrible…to be a homosexual under your church.” No, quite the opposite!!! At least you would be FULLY living out your humanity – in complete freedom (from sin) and with His COMPLETE love. And I say again: what’s being asked of us is no different. So, to think that you’re being singled-out and discriminated against is false. I don’t have any more of a license to engage in sin as does anyone else. I am as accountable before God just like everyone else. There’s NO DISCRIMINATION there. I really believe you have a very misconstrued understanding of Catholicism. As Catholics, our goal is to strive for sainthood. That’s what Jesus asks of us: “Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

“Let me know when you actually consider that you are asking of people. No amount of distracting rhetoric will suffice.”

Remember: It’s not what the Church is “asking of people”. The issue here is what YOU’RE asking the Church to do, which is grant you “special permission” to engage in an activity that clearly violates moral AND natural law. And since the Church will never grant that, you have to resort to the Constitution and try and manipulate it until you get what you want. Should you end up getting permission to marry by the State, you will have become more enslaved, not more liberated.

Listen guys, with names like Joseph and James, you have a Biblical inheritance. You deserve to be truly happy – with Jesus. Don’t deprive yourself of that unconditional love.

Joseph and James,

“Um. you didn’t even know which pope or from which decade you were quoting. And if the quote is contradictory to the actual facts of life, of course I’m going to question it.”

Again, it doesn’t matter which one said it: They’re not contradicting themselves. Here are 2 popes that lived during the same time: one was younger (John Paul II) and the other preceded him (Paul VI). In fact, it was John Paul II who had a tremendous influence on the papal encyclical Humane Vitae, which was the one released by Pope Paul IV in 1968. So, even though Paul VI wrote the encyclical, it was heavily influenced by John Paul II, who succeeded Paul VI and John Paul I (who was only pope for 31 days – roughly) in 1978. The quotes cited in the article were from their different writings because they wrote on a multitude of issues, not just homosexuality.  It’s from these writing that a majority of the teachings in the Catechism on sexuality come from. So, this is right from the source. Fresh from the well!

Now, that you’re going to question it is as “contradictory to the facts of life” is another issue. I understand you wish to questions it, possibly because you don’t agree with it. But, to have a debate as to what is authentic Catholic teaching is what prompted me to attach those quotes. This is precisely why Jesus – in His Divine wisdom – established ONE Church, with ONE authority – so that there would be no confusion as to what is authentic Christian teaching or not. That’s what the term “magisterium” means: “Teaching office”. What’s going on here is a perfect example of WHY there NEEDS to be an authoritative interpreter of TRUE Christian doctrine. You’re saying that your position is valid Christianity and that I’m not representing true Catholic teaching. And all I’ve done is taken you right to the heart of Catholic teaching so the matter can be settled.

“What’s being asked of someone who is single, or married in the eyes of God, or serving in the vocation of priesthood or religious life is no different than what’s being asked of you”

You do not ask heterosexuals to give up sex love romance and any chance at starting a family. Nor do you claim that heterosexuals are incapable of feeling romantic love.
You do however campaign against our rights to do so. f

“If you choose to define yourself according to your sexual desires, then you are not fully embracing your humanity”

My sexual orientation is not going to go away. It is a part of me. It is just one thing that defines who I am. It is part of my humanity. For you to expect me to somehow deny that shows your lack of understanding sensitivity and compassion.
All I’ve ever asked of the church it to explain what its supposed compassion is and to stay out of my personal life. Neither of these things has ever been done.

Joseph R Yungk
No, they have not shown any compassion for homosexuals. Had they, they would explain how. Janet E. Smith, the author of the article discussed actually advises against it since it would lead most people to agree that the church’s position is too harsh.
Like you have pointed out: if what they expect of you is that unthinkable they should not be expecting it from others-especially those whom they refuse to understand.
from websters:
“Definition of COMPASSION”
“: sympathetic consciousness of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it “
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compassion

Sensitivity (In regards to relating to others) “e : awareness of the needs and emotions of others”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensitivity?show=0&t=1324596453

Tonight, Thursday, December 22 on the Religion, Politics & the Culture radio show: I am sick and tired of the USA attempting to foist the homosexual agenda on developing nations. Tonight, we will review what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject of homosexuality. Live 8-9 pm Eastern Time. Radio in SE FL: AM 1040.
Internet: http://www.rpconradio.com Call .in toll free to 866-716-1040. This show will also be available beginning at 11 pm Eastern Time at http://www.rpconradio.com

“I am sick and tired of the USA attempting to foist the homosexual agenda on developing nations.”

You mean like what the Vatican is doing in the US?

Roma,

By the way, you COVENIENTLY left out the origin of the word “compassion.” As a public service, I have done so from the source YOU cited (Merriam-Webster) and from dictionary.com:

1)  Origin of COMPASSION
Middle English, from Anglo-French or Late Latin; Anglo-French, from Late Latin compassion-, compassio, from compati to sympathize, from Latin com- + pati to bear, suffer — more at PATIENT
First Known Use: 14th century

2)  Word Origin & History
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compassion
compassion
mid-14c., from O.Fr. compassion, from L.L. compassionem (nom. compassio) “sympathy,” from compassus, pp. of compati “to feel pity,” from com- “together” + pati “to suffer” (see passion). Loan-translation of Gk. sympatheia.

Sensitivity does not mean “approval”: it means “awareness”.  2 different things

Nice try, though.

Joseph,

“You do not ask heterosexuals to give up sex love romance and any chance at starting a family. Nor do you claim that heterosexuals are incapable of feeling romantic love.”

I don’t: God does. That’s why it’s a difficult decision to enter the priesthood and religious life because you ARE giving that up. But, think of what you’re gaining?! In marital life, you sometimes have to suspend those feelings, too, because there may be times when you can’t engage in sexual behavior for different reasons. It’s called self-control.

I never said that homosexuals are “incapable of feeling romantic love.” I said that the feeling of what you call “romantic love” is disordered when the object of your “feeling” is a person of the same sex. THAT’s what’s disordered.

As far as “starting a family”, your understanding of family goes against the moral law AND the natural law. What your advocating for is YOUR “new” definition of family. But, that “new” definition of family is not part of Judeo-Christian tradition – or biblical understanding.

“You do however campaign against our rights to do so.”

You keep leaving out what I have been telling you for a while now: If you wish to have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex, there is nothing stopping you from doing that in the privacy of your home. I – nor any other Christian – is out there campaigning AGAINST you having any kind of relationship in the privacy of your home. You guys are the ones who started bringing it to the public spotlight. We are advocating AGAINST the public posture of legalizing this.

“My sexual orientation is not going to go away. It is a part of me. It is just one thing that defines who I am. It is part of my humanity.”

You’re wrong. It is NOT a part of your humanity: it’s a part of your thought process and your emotions. But, it DOES NOT define you. Your thoughts CAN be changed, as CAN you emotions. Otherwise, there would not be such a thing as repentance, which comes from the Greek “metanoia” (to change your mind, change your heart). I’m sure you’ve “changed your mind” on many different things before. As for your emotions, they can also be changed – or rather “controlled” – as per the medical profession (psychiatry) through possible medication (i.e. for depression, anxiety). I’m not saying that you need medication. I’m simply saying that to believe that you can’t change your thought/desires/emotions is false and it’s not even backed by science either.

“For you to expect me to somehow deny that shows your lack of understanding sensitivity and compassion. All I’ve ever asked of the church it to explain what its supposed compassion is and to stay out of my personal life. Neither of these things has ever been done.”

I bet you haven’t bothered to talk to people from Courage or any of the other web-sites that I posted for you earlier. Talk to them because they have empathy – and maybe more “sensitivity” – according to Mona’s citing of “sensitivity.” If you don’t think I’m compassionate, I’m OK with that because you STILL don’t understand what compassion ACCURATELY means (Mona left out a BIG part of the definition). By Christian understanding I have compassion for you because I do “suffer together with” you, as Jesus did with all sinners. And He calls us to do the same. He was here among us, suffering with ALL of us: because He loved us. But, HE did not sin, and demonstrated for us how to live that life. Of course we’re going to fall in pursuit of trying to become like Jesus. That’s why He instituted the sacrament of confession. Part of compassion is also to give you the truth.

No one is saying that you have to be Catholic. They are not in your “personal life” – unless you wish to. But, “they” is not a separate entity from Jesus: It’s His Church. In essence, what you’re asking is for Jesus to stay out of your personal life. You want the Church to change its stance on this issue and it’s not going to do so. The same way that many out there who want to practice Catholicism and want the Church to change its position on contraception, “choice”, etc…

If you do not want to practice Catholicism, you have the right not to do so. But, you can’t expect that of others. Also, you have the right to try and impose your definition of “family” and “marriage” on society. But, we also have the right to defend the traditional stance on marriage and family as per the moral law and natural law. We have BOTH on our side. We’re not trying to change you: you’re trying to change us – and the Church.

@Randall J: The Catholic Church does not ‘impose’, it ‘proposes’. Last time I checked, we had freedom of religion in the U.S., not freedom from it, at least until the Obama administration took over. To listen to Catholic teaching on homosexuality, listen to Thursday night’s Religion, Politics &the; Culture radio show available anytime at:
http://www.rpconradio.com

I never asked for your approval as I’ve pointed out before.
Anyway, if you are aware of how it is to be homosexual in your society with your church’s stipulations, please describe how it is.

Roma brings up a good point. There’s really less of a reason to have to listen to you when it’s just a foreign country trying to shove their values town my throat. I already have freedom of religion which will ultimately win but still…

“@Randall J: The Catholic Church does not ‘impose’, it ‘proposes’. Last time I checked, we had freedom of religion in the U.S., not freedom from it,”

And I’m practicing mine which does allow same sex relationships. How is demanding legislation not “imposing”?

Tell me how you are following your religious requirement of showing compassion and sensitivity to homosexuals.

Joseph,

“I never asked for your approval as I’ve pointed out before.”

I realize that. But, you are asking for approval/acceptance from society as a marriage relationship between same-sexes. And that belongs in the privacy of your home. Homosexuality has existed for centuries. It was around during the time of Jesus. And it’s survived without a “public crowning” of it. People have lived lives of homosexuality for centuries. And that will not change if homosexuality is not passed as law of the land. You will go on living in that lifestyle – privately.

“Anyway, if you are aware of how it is to be homosexual in your society with your church’s stipulations, please describe how it is.”

The Church is aware of how it is to be a human being with sinful inclinations. And they NOT ONLY address it, they GIVE the antidote: Jesus!!!

“Roma brings up a good point. There’s really less of a reason to have to listen to you when it’s just a foreign country trying to shove their values town my throat.

The Vatican is a State. But, it is also much more: It’s a moral authority. It has no army, no weapons. How are they “shoving” their values down your throat? One chooses to freely follow the Church. What you guys are doing through the use of the courts and law is what you’re accusing the Church of: “shoving ‘your’ values down my throat.”

“I already have freedom of religion which will ultimately win but still…”

You are contradicting yourself: You say you want the “Church” (religion) out of your life and then shouting that you “have freedom of religion.” Well, which one is it? And, which religion are you practicing? Which practice of “religion” are you claiming is being violated?

On the issue of “compassion”, can I ask you how I’m supposed to be “compassionate” to someone with AIDS, or with someone who has leprosy, or with terminal cancer, etc…? By you – and Mona’s - definition I actually have to HAVE AIDS, or leprosy, or get terminal cancer. That’s what you guys are calling “compassion.” So, based on that formula, YOU can’t help anyone with those conditions either. You can’t even be “compassionate” with a woman who is pregnant because: a) you’re not a woman and b) you’ve never been pregnant.  So, by your criteria only women who have been pregnant can “be compassionate” with women who ARE NOW pregnant. Single women with no children can’t help them either – even if they’re nurses. So, male OB-GYNs need to get out of the business, too.

“It is NOT a part of your humanity: it’s a part of your thought process and your emotions. But, it DOES NOT define you. Your thoughts CAN be changed, as CAN you emotions.”

Now you’ve really shown that you have no understanding of human sexuality. Glad you don’t make US policy but still sad you expect this of your children and other countries. Nobody can just deny or turn off inherent attractions as if they are not there. Have you tried this yourself? Oh, that’s right, it would be dangerous to be compassionate and you’d find out how unchristian it is.
Speaking of children-the focus of this article-and “the USA attempting to foist the homosexual agenda on developing nations”. I have to ask: would you want your children to be sentenced to either 14 years of hard labor or death if they find themselves to be attracted to the same sex? Some developing nations throughout Africa and the middle east prosecute just for being homosexual, some for homosexual activity.

How does any of that relate to Christ’s teaching? Please tell us what the appropriate Christian punishment should be for someone who is homosexual. It’s strange that you acknowledge that being homosexual is not a sin but Mr. O’Donovan feels that it should be so severely punished.

Is that exemplary of catholic compassion?

@Joseph R Yungk: As I said, the Catholic Church does not impose, it proposes. We live in a Democracy. People vote. Every time a piece of legislation is enacted into law, the pluralistic majority imposes its will on the minority. It is not the Catholic Church which does so. Furthermore, as Catholics,we do not want anything enacted into law which would require someone to be Catholic in order to agree with the law. To listen to Catholic teaching on homosexuality, listen to Thursday night’s Religion, Politics & the Culture radio show available anytime at:
http://www.rpconradio.com

““On the issue of “compassion”, can I ask you how I’m supposed to be “compassionate” to someone with AIDS, or with someone who has leprosy, or with terminal cancer, etc…? By you – and Mona’s - definition I actually have to HAVE AIDS, or leprosy, or get terminal cancer.”

You still have not answered. You went on and on about avoiding it. You claim your church does.
Please tell us how you have shown compassion and sensitivity. As fun it would be to answer the contradictory distractions I can’t be bothered till you can tell me how you the author and the church have shown compassion to homosexuals. There are definitions above from one of the most trusted sources in the English language.

I’m not sure if this went through or not
If so sorry for repeating myself.
“compassionate” to someone with AIDS, or with someone who has leprosy, or with terminal cancer, etc…? By you – and Mona’s - definition I actually have to HAVE AIDS, or leprosy, or get terminal cancer.”

You still have not answered. You went on and on about avoiding it. You claim your church does.
Please tell us how you have shown compassion and sensitivity. As fun it would be to answer the contradictory distractions I can’t be bothered till you can tell me how you the author and the church have shown compassion to homosexuals. There are definitions above from one of the most trusted sources in the English language.

“compassionate” to someone with AIDS, or with someone who has leprosy, or with terminal cancer, etc…? By you – and Mona’s - definition I actually have to HAVE AIDS, or leprosy, or get terminal cancer.”

You still have not answered. You went on and on about avoiding it. You claim your church does.
Please tell us how you have shown compassion and sensitivity. As fun it would be to answer the contradictory distractions I can’t be bothered till you can tell me how you the author and the church have shown compassion to homosexuals. There are definitions above from one of the most trusted sources in the English language.

We show compassion to all persons when we we are not afraid to tell them the truth, that any act, including sexual act, that does not respect our inherent Dignity as human persons, is not an act of Love, to begin with.

“We show compassion to all persons when we we are not afraid to tell them the truth, that any act, including sexual act, that does not respect our inherent Dignity as human persons, is not an act of Love, to begin with.”

Please explain to me how you do this compassionately. There’s no evidence of it. You have just told them they can never have a relationship sex or start a family while your church says you are inferior and society takes that ball and turns it into slurs.  How did you do this with compassion?    The catholic requirement is there and the definitions are above, but you have not said anything compassionate.

“is not an act of Love, to begin with.”

You show compassion by telling others their most powerful feelings are a lie and they are actually incapable of sexual love.
How exactly is that compassionate?

To the James and Joseph of this world-  You can really do and feel and think what you want. But before you decide to turn your back to our good God, I will illustrate compassion.
Let us say Mr A and Mr B are in love with each other. Unfortunately, Mr A has been diagnosed HIV positive. Would compassion call for abstinence on his part? Or should he follow his feelings ... The right to sex for Mr A would come with a price (a high risk) for the partner, so should he sacrifice himself for the sake of real love? Should he forfeit his “right” to sex because in his case it is the right thing to do?
I actually know of a couple where the husband contracted HIV through blood transfusion. He is living the rest of his life in abstinence for the love of his wife.
This is what Jesus did for us, he sacrificed himself for us. For 30 years he lived a normal simple life and then, he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified…
What is more important to you, your body or your soul? Those are questions you need to ask yourselves. You seem to be stuck in your homosexual identity.  Pray, pray, pray. This life is not a cruise but a battle. It may sound awful but it is not without joy, the joy of the Lord which is our strength. Have courage!

Joseph and James,

Let me first begin by wishing you a very Merry Christmas. Since we have officially begun the Christmas season, it is only fitting that the very best of this joyful season be extended to you.

Joseph, you mentioned the following in one of your last posts:
“There are definitions above from one of the most trusted sources in the English language.”

In case you forgot, I will re-post my citing of the word “compassion” from BOTH Webster’s and dictionary.com. Please note that the origin of the word is what’s important. It’s the “to suffer together” part that is the root of the word “compassion” (“com” = with/together, “pati” = suffer):

1)  Origin of COMPASSION
Middle English, from Anglo-French or Late Latin; Anglo-French, from Late Latin compassion-, compassio, from compati to sympathize, from Latin com- + pati to bear, suffer — more at PATIENT
First Known Use: 14th century

2)  Word Origin & History
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compassion
compassion
mid-14c., from O.Fr. compassion, from L.L. compassionem (nom. compassio) “sympathy,” from compassus, pp. of compati “to feel pity,” from com- “together” + pati “to suffer” (see passion). Loan-translation of Gk. sympatheia.

The definition Roma cited from Webster’s - “sympathetic consciousness of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it” - is not a contradiction to what we’re saying here. We wish to “alleviate” your “distress” by having you come to the Fullness of the Truth. So, whether you choose to use the origin of the word or the modern-day translation of the word “compassion” as per Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com, there is no contradiction.

“You still have not answered. You went on and on about avoiding it. You claim your church does. Please tell us how you have shown compassion and sensitivity. As fun it would be to answer the contradictory distractions I can’t be bothered till you can tell me how you the author and the church have shown compassion to homosexuals.”

We have answered all your charges of “false Christian” compassion, including definitions, explanation of Catholic doctrine, examples, etc…. We have not been avoiding your questions, or offering “contradictory distractions”. You’re just not in agreement with the answers and you have not answered my questions.

Up to now, you have been asking us how we are being compassionate. Obviously our answers do not meet your criteria for TRUE Christian compassion. So, I ask you to please tell me HOW, as Christians, we need to be compassionate to people who are have a homosexual orientation. Please DEFINE what is Christian compassion to people with a homosexual identity, how we’re supposed to TREAT people with a homosexual identity.

Show us a ““sympathetic consciousness of others’ (homosexuals’)distress together with a desire to alleviate it” .

You claim to be the expert. You have gone on about why you don’t want to answer this, how to avoid answering, changing the subject, picking on details like origin and what compassion and sensitivity do not include, but you can still do this yourself. It is your church that mandates compassion and sensitivity. If you can’t do that I guess you must be sinning.
It’s your church that requires it. it’s you think you show it. tell us what it is. I guess you have absolutely no right to talk about gays if you can’t do it in a way that your church requires. And who is it that you ask to do your homework? A homosexual. Just like with so many other things.

James J and Joseph,

“You claim to be the expert. You have gone on about why you don’t want to answer this, how to avoid answering, changing the subject, picking on details like origin and what compassion and sensitivity do not include, but you can still do this yourself. It is your church that mandates compassion and sensitivity. If you can’t do that I guess you must be sinning.”

It’s unbelievable how you continue to avoid the issue. Despite other people’s attempts here – Danielle, Nancy, Dennis, me, etc… - to give you examples of compassion, you still cannot – and WILL not answer the question(s).

Since you are obviously NOT capable of it, I have taken the liberty of answering MY own question based on some of your previous quotes. As YOU will see, your quotes are NOTHING but attacks against the Catholic Church. You can’t define “compassion” in a positive light, only what it isn’t. And that’s because you DON’T have an answer. See for yourself:

1)“I already have freedom of religion which will ultimately win but still…”

2)“Roma brings up a good point. There’s really less of a reason to have to listen to you when it’s just a foreign country trying to shove their values town my throat.”
3)“The important thing is that your children should not be exposed to your verbal abuse.”

3)“There is overwhelming evidence to support homosexuality in nature.”
4)”Just like I agree with many other non-Catholic Christians, as well as many Jews who, citing scripture, don’t believe that homosexuality in the context of loving, committed, monogamous relationships is a sin.”
5)“The problem is that you, a flawed, finite human being, are claiming to have infallible understanding of objective Truth.”
6)“Unless you can make a non-religious and scientifically valid case why same-gender couples should be denied the same rights, benefits, and protections currently afforded to straight married couples, then you aren’t making a case that matters from a legal viewpoint.”
7)“Saying one has to consider homosexuality evil when the attraction is always going to be there is putting someone in an impossible situation racked with guilt and frustration.”
8)“Your church also requires that ‘they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.’ This cannot be achieved without understanding how someone feels. You have continued to refuse to do that. Such a refusal is not Christian regardless of the issue.”
9)“Also to say that my sexuality was never there to begin with is another falsehood. I have functioning sex organs and a sex drive. This was created by God as recently confirmed by the Boston Archdiocese. You have no right to expect me to deny that. You can ask your children to but it will not ever work.”
10)“This is why we have freedom of religion on the U.S. so you can’t use it to control others.”
11)“It goes against god and it goes against my constitutional rights.”
12)“The catholic church states that the inclination toward the same sex is not morally wrong.”
13)“To say otherwise is to claim that I am morally wrong for existing as this is an inclination that can’t be changed.”
14) “Your church also requires that ‘they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.’ This cannot be achieved without understanding how someone feels. You have continued to refuse to do that. Such a refusal is not Christian regardless of the issue.”
15) “The author, despite orders from her church, warns against compassion as it would tell any compassionate person that homosexuals do not deserve what your church prescribes.”
16) “The fact that they refuse to understand this in any way they can’t possibly imagine the unthinkable. They are not practicing Catholicism by ignoring this. They also show, since what they expect of you is unthinkable, that they would never agree to live the way the expect you to if they were in your shoes.”
17) “Sexual attraction cannot be just removed from one’s existence and you show no understanding or sensitivity to that. You show no understanding of what you are asking of people. You don’t acknowledge in any way what you are asking homosexuals to give up. You’ve been asked repeatedly and refuse to. Yet you always have something to tell others to do.”
18) “I have not removed myself from humanity, you and your church have assigned something to homosexuals that is impossible to achieve and use it to claim I am inhuman. That is an assignment that I do not have to accept and one you children most likely will not, it will be because you refuse to understand them. This is why I have religious freedom too.”
19) “This also leads to another point touched upon by James. If you can’t even think how terrible it would be to be homosexual under your church you have no right to ask that of anyone else. If you would not consider it or put up with it neither should I. Again: I have freedom of religion too.”
20) “Let me know when you actually consider that you are asking of people. No amount of distracting rhetoric will suffice.”
21) “You do not ask heterosexuals to give up sex love romance and any chance at starting a family. Nor do you claim that heterosexuals are incapable of feeling romantic love.”
22) “You do however campaign against our rights to do so.”
23) “My sexual orientation is not going to go away. It is a part of me. It is just one thing that defines who I am. It is part of my humanity.”
24)  “For you to expect me to somehow deny that shows your lack of understanding sensitivity and compassion. All I’ve ever asked of the church it to explain what its supposed compassion is and to stay out of my personal life. Neither of these things has ever been done.”
25) “I never asked for your approval as I’ve pointed out before.”
26) “Anyway, if you are aware of how it is to be homosexual in your society with your church’s stipulations, please describe how it is.”

For the benefit of those who want to know the Church’s teaching on ‘homosexuality’, the first two links are to documents by Cardinal Ratzinger when head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The last is from The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOP.HTM

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOL.HTM

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,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.“142 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.

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.
http://www.rpconradio.com

Um, I’ve answered your questions as evidence by the quotes you show. Some of which are out of context or presented with no context at all so it’s in no way representative of the body of commentary I’ve had. Some of the quotes are from neither myself or James who you are addressing. What you are interpreting as “attacks” are actually facts when applied to my life.

You on the other hand have refused to tell us how you and your church show us compassion. You claim you have but can’t tell me exactly how. Please do.
The only determination I can come to is that you find it unthinkable to be homosexual in the context of your religious requirements. In which case, if it is that horrible, you have no reason to expect anyone else to live that way. Do unto others… you don’t.

Hence my freedom of religion then comes into play. This is exactly why we have freedom of religion which does not mean you have the freedom to circumvent mine.

why exactly are you trying to get your kids to shove it down their friends’ throats?
What do you tell your own homosexual adolescents?

Joseph and James,

Despite repeated attempts by all involved here to give you numerous examples of compassion from the Catholic Church towards human beings – in spite of their sexual identity – I will give you the ULTIMATE sign of compassion: the sacrament of reconciliation/confession. This is the ULTIMATE sign of compassion for ALL sinners, because we ALL need forgiveness.

The problem as I see is that you don’t think you are sinning because you believe that it’s OK in the eyes of God what you are doing. Therefore, you are not tapping into that ULTIMATE sign of compassion, which is the sacrament of reconciliation. So, naturally, you will NEVER begin to experience TRUE compassion until you tap into that. What you are looking from us and the Catholic Church as a sign of “compassion” is what you call “tolerance” and “acceptance” of your lifestyle. And if that is what you understand compassion to mean, then you’re right: You will NEVER get that from us or the Catholic Church.

But, what makes you different than all of us? Do you think that you should be treated differently in the eyes of God as far as sin goes? Do you think you get a “pass” to sin? Are you holding yourself out mandating that you get “special treatment” to engage in sinful behavior that none of us other sinners get? If that’s the case, then you truly are setting yourselves above everyone else. Because the last time I checked, we were ALL sinners and ALL in need of compassion. Unless there is some “special compassion” that I’m not aware of that is granted to other people, then I would say that compassion is available to you via the sacrament of confession. But, you have to go and get it; it’s not going to come to you. God is not going to impose that on you.

You’ve still not shown any compassion homosexuals yourself. If so, when? Your church mandates it.
  Nor have you told me anything the catholic church has done but for one (1) statement twenty five years ago but nothing else other than a celibacy club. Far from “numerous examples”. If you think confession is going to cut it when we’re subject to your amount of judgmentalism along with the slurs and violence that it inspires, you are very wrong. Look at the reality of what you expect from others.
You are what makes me different from others only because you point it out and take issue. One real difference is that I don’t have to follow your dogma and it’s doubtful your homosexual children will nor your compassionate heterosexual children. You children who are not compassionate will have no problem with it

James J

“You’ve still not shown any compassion homosexuals yourself.”

I have no idea what you mean when you say “compassion” since you have YET to define it for me. Show me in any of your posts where you have defined “compassion.” I’m still waiting.

“Your church mandates it.”

You wouldn’t know that because you still don’t understand what Catholic compassion is. And the Church’s criteria for compassion obviously does not match with yours.

“If you think confession is going to cut it when we’re subject to your amount of judgmentalism along with the slurs and violence that it inspires, you are very wrong.”

So let me get this straight: You are telling me and the Catholic Church how to be compassionate. Who made you the authority on setting the criteria for compassion? And why should I have to follow YOUR definition of compassion? You still haven’t defined compassion. Thank God when I die that I’m going to have to face God to JUDGE whether I’ve been compassionate or not - by His standards and not yours. According to your UNDEFINED criteria for compassion, I’ve missed the mark.

“Look at the reality of what you expect from others.”

“Look at the reality” of how you continue to NOT define compassion. You just continue making EMPTY charges. You have nothing to back up your criteria for compassion. 

“You are what makes me different from others only because you point it out and take issue.”

You make YOURSELF “different from others” because you continue avoiding giving us a definition of compassion. You have a standard for compassion. You’re the one continuing to make the charge that we’re not compassionate. So, give us your definition/criteria for compassion. Back it up and stop making assertions.

“One real difference is that I don’t have to follow your dogma and it’s doubtful your homosexual children will nor your compassionate heterosexual children.”

And I don’t have to follow your “dogma” for compassion.
Another thing: I don’t know why you continue to classify “children” by sexual orientation. Children are not “sexual” beings; they’re not “homosexual” or “heterosexual”. You still have a problem with identity and you continue to label children according to “sexual orientation”. They’re children, NOT sexual objects!!! And the fact that you believe children CAN be “homosexual” tells me a lot about you. This is the classic definition of a pedophile.

Joseph,

“Hence my freedom of religion then comes into play. This is exactly why we have freedom of religion which does not mean you have the freedom to circumvent mine.”

You have no freedom of religion because you DON’T HAVE a religion.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/teaching-m1/#ixzz1hytpaDe6

To face that children manifest sexual attraction later on is not sexualizing them it’s facing reality. Some catholic children will be homosexual and some are experiencing same-sex attraction during puberty. To claim that recognizing that makes me a pedophile is absurd and you know it. One more demonstration of a lack of compassion among other dubious behaviors.

You go very far, as you church does, on this issue but we all know as a matter of fact catholic that bishops and even cardinals allowed pedophile priests to take their abuse from parish to parish.

So with that slander out of the way, give us a clear example of your church’s compassion. You have not.

As for my religion: you don’t know anything about my religion and you have no right to make such a claim-remember, I have freedom of religion too.

looks like the people who expect people to give up so much have no interest in what that is. I don’t see why any societal expectations should be built on such a system.

James J,

“One more demonstration of a lack of compassion among other dubious behaviors. So with that slander out of the way, give us a clear example of your church’s compassion. You have not.”

It’s amazing how far you will go to avoid defining compassion. But, I’m not worried because the only definition of compassion that concerns me is the Catholic definition of compassion. So, whether you think I have been compassionate or not, is irrelevant. So, continue making the charges of non-compassion because it doesn’t bother me. And coming from someone who doesn’t have the guts to stand up and back up your assertions is cowardly.

“To face that children manifest sexual attraction later on is not sexualizing them it’s facing reality.”

Yeah, it’s called adulthood. Anything less, is called child-abuse.

“Some catholic children will be homosexual… You go very far, as you church does, on this issue but we all know as a matter of fact catholic that bishops and even cardinals allowed pedophile priests to take their abuse from parish to parish.”

Wrong. Not Catholic children: Catholic adults. If your assertion is true, then why is the media so hung-up over the abuse scandal of the church? If what you say is true, then it should not be a problem what the “bishops and even cardinals” did because “some Catholic children will be homosexual.” So, in essence, what you’re saying is that they - bishops and cardinals and “pedophile priests” - DID do nothing wrong.

“…and some are experiencing same-sex attraction during puberty.”

Puberty is not childhood.

“To claim that recognizing that makes me a pedophile is absurd and you know it.”

I’m glad you recognize it’s “absurd”. So, change your language.

“As for my religion: you don’t know anything about my religion and you have no right to make such a claim-remember, I have freedom of religion too.”

For starters, that was addressed to Joseph. But, since you also seem to be offended by it, I will say that it’s ironic that you come to a Catholic web-site and make all kinds of false charges about Catholicism. And you’re bothered because I have said something false about a religion that you are hiding behind because you don’t have the guts to say what it is? It’s because you don’t have a religion, which makes you even more of a coward. Does your “religion” teach you to slander other people’s religions and falsely accuse them of things that are not true? And also, it seems that your “religion” teaches that “children” are sexual beings. I’ve never heard of a religion that does that – unless, of course, it’s made up.

Rafael
The definition of compassion is there and you have not even said how the church defines compassion let alone met the terms of the dictionary. You have avoided it—not anyone else.

You don’t look compassionate when you actively try to put words in people’s mouths about child abuse. And your tortured logic in this is to be ridiculed.

“Does your “religion” teach you to slander other people’s religions and falsely accuse them of things that are not true?”

As has been pointed out: you have done this all along and claimed it is all because of your religious freedom. Get used to hearing the other side—they have the same freedom.

Joseph,

“The definition of compassion is there and you have not even said how the church defines compassion let alone met the terms of the dictionary. You have avoided it—not anyone else.”

“The Emperor’s New Clothes”. I’m still waiting to see WHERE you have defined compassion. You are delusional because it’s not there – just like the emperor’s new clothes. You just keep trying to point out that we haven’t been “compassionate” according to YOUR definition of compassion. Telling us/me that we haven’t defined compassion is NOT the same thing as defining compassion. The bottom line is that your understanding of compassion is different from the Catholic Church’s understanding of compassion.

“You don’t look compassionate….”

I don’t know what you mean by “compassionate.”

“…when you actively try to put words in people’s mouths about child abuse.”

James and you are the ones calling “children” homosexual and heterosexual. That’s child abuse.

“As has been pointed out: you have done this all along and claimed it is all because of your religious freedom.”

I have a religion, you don’t. How can you exercise freedom of religion for a religion that doesn’t exist? You’re confusing freedom of speech with freedom of religion.

Understanding the inevitability of maturation doesn’t inflict abuse on a child. I thought it was part of parenting and just about any field of human development. I’m also wondering if you would I rather refer to them as “offspring” if my mentioning specific ages leads you to that conclusion. My parents do refer to their “children” when discussing various topics ranging from who graduated from what school to how I received violence from bigots. I’m sure they regret not being there for the latter.

Rafael
Compassion has been defined over and over again. I did in my first post on 12/11 3:20pm and was accurate to the dictionary.
Later 12/13 you claimed I hadn’t and gave a very incomplete definition: “to suffer with” which you could not explain how you meet that criteria and went on to say it was impossible so you can’t.
You did later bring up the term “sympathy” and the origin of the word compassion both of which essentially mean suffer the same way. Again you claim you cannot or will not.
Roma brought up the Merriam Webster definition on 12/22 at 6:32pm.
You have since made all effort to avoid applying this to your actions and words.
You have persistently gone on about avoiding “empathy” but this is part of compassion and sympathy. You are not meeting your own church’s mandate. I’m not going to address whether I have a religion but I do have a freedom to practice it: you are not practicing your own religion.

Joseph,

“Compassion has been defined over and over again. I did in my first post on 12/11 3:20pm and was accurate to the dictionary.”

I would like to first begin by saying that I’m sorry that you went through everything you went through in what you described in your post on 12/11. I don’t think you should have endured what you did for having a different sexual orientation. I’m truly sorry for that. Although I cannot speak for the Church at large, I would like to offer an apology on behalf of the people who were not acting like Catholics yet claiming to be Catholic. When a child of God is hurt in the Body of Christ, we all hurt. That is a common problem that we still face today, where people continue to call themselves “Catholic” and yet fail to live up to the correct teachings of the Church. I believe that many here – including myself - have tried to offer the true understanding of the Church’s teaching. Although you may not agree with it, I do believe that all of us have tried to be sincere in our explanation of Catholic teachings and not tried to further hurt you. Please don’t misunderstand our probably meager attempts at explaining the Church’s teachings as lack of compassion. I can understand how you would draw the conclusion you did about the Catholic Church following your experience of improper treatment by so-called Catholics in your youth.

After having read that lengthy post, I found the 1 thing you said that defined compassion:

1)“Let’s talk about compassion, actually understanding what someone is going through, trying to understand, empathize and respect that person.”

Let’s revisit the dictionary definition of “compassion” from Webster’s: “sympathetic consciousness of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it.” Let’s also revisit the root of the word: “com- ‘together’ + pati ‘to suffer’ (see passion).” Webster’s is deriving the modern-day definition from its root “to suffer together”.  So, there is no contrast to what the dictionary definition is and what the Catholic Church is proposing as “compassion” - and to what I said back on 12/13 and what the others have been saying. When Jesus speaks to the woman caught in adultery, what does He tell her: “Go, and sin no more.” As Catholics we believe that Jesus is the Messiah. We also believe that Jesus knows each and every person by heart and can understand “what someone is going through, trying to understand, empathize and respect that person,” just like He did with the woman at the well. He knew what she was going through and He still told her to “sin no more.” So, all we’re saying is that you, too, can experience that compassion of Jesus through the many avenues that Jesus offers by way of the Catholic Church and the sacraments. Don’t let your anger towards the Church deprive that grace. To not reconcile your anger towards anyone or anything is not good. And it only hurts you further.

“Later 12/13 you claimed I hadn’t and gave a very incomplete definition: “to suffer with” which you could not explain how you meet that criteria and went on to say it was impossible so you can’t.”

Refer to above.

“You did later bring up the term “sympathy” and the origin of the word compassion both of which essentially mean suffer the same way. Again you claim you cannot or will not.”

Refer to above.

“Roma brought up the Merriam Webster definition on 12/22 at 6:32pm.
You have since made all effort to avoid applying this to your actions and words.”

Refer to above.

“You have persistently gone on about avoiding “empathy” but this is part of compassion and sympathy. You are not meeting your own church’s mandate. I’m not going to address whether I have a religion but I do have a freedom to practice it: you are not practicing your own religion.”

Refer to above.

James J,

“Understanding the inevitability of maturation doesn’t inflict abuse on a child. I thought it was part of parenting and just about any field of human development.”

To call children “homosexual” or “heterosexual” is not appropriate. You can refer to them as “adult” homosexuals and heterosexuals. That’s more appropriate. But, there’s still more to you than just your sexual identity. Your sexual identity is just a part of you: it does not define you, it defines what you do. And according to any field of respectable human development, sexuality begins to develop in puberty. But, it does not fully mature until adulthood. That’s why sexual child abuse is wrong as it damages the natural development of children, like a butterfly being made to fly while she’s still a cocoon.

“I’m also wondering if you would I rather refer to them as ‘offspring’ if my mentioning specific ages leads you to that conclusion.”
In the eyes of God, you are “children”. But, in the eyes of humanity there are different levels of human development. And the terms “heterosexual” and “homosexual” are terms that describe adults.

“My parents do refer to their ‘children’ when discussing various topics…”

Parents will always call their 53 year-old sons or daughters “children.” But, that does not mean that they are biologically 7 years-of –age.

“ ranging from who graduated from what school to how I received violence from bigots. I’m sure they regret not being there for the latter.”

I, too, am sorry that you receive violence from bigots. But, bigotry is not acceptable in the Catholic Church either – no matter if these bigots called themselves “Catholic.”

By Rafael’s logic, any time someone points out gender it would be abuse. This would most likely be in order to accuse others. Perhaps this starts at “It’s a boy!”. Then there’s circumcision, sounds pretty abusive to me. But wasn’t that part of leviticus? And despite the church’s use against gays, the church now decides to ignore?
Should everyone have to submit to what a foreign country’s leader dictates? Is it ever fair to expect gays to adhere cherry-picked rules from a 3,000y/o desert survival guide and then deal with the societal abuse it inspires? Reading most of the above I can’t imagine how much hate is inspired toward gays.

“any time someone points out gender it would be abuse. This would most likely be in order to accuse others.”

And he has gone that far to avoid the fact that some their flock will grow up no stranger to violence and slurs.

Nothing anyone should be subjected to.

“Reading most of the above I can’t imagine how much hate is inspired toward gays.”

And we’ve seen right here, refer to above, the dysfunction comes from and leads to.