It makes sense for large Christian organizations to target sin, doesn't it?
It doesn't make sense for organizations claiming to foster love to tell people that the way they are born is somehow wrong. It would be far better to try and raise awareness on issues such as poverty rather than put out what is essentially a hate message.
[Again, I'm playing devil's advocate because I'm not Catholic and don't have a problem with gay people, but:]
There's a good body of evidence that alcoholics are "born that way" or that alcoholism arises from physiological conditions that are beyond a person's conscious control. That doesn't mean we say "you were born that way so it's ok." A typical Catholic sees gayness as akin to alcoholism - a really tough problem that people need to try to change. And a catholic would say it's precisely because they love gay people that they want to tell them that being gay is a sin and help them change. If you hate or are indifferent to an alcoholic, you won't care whether they're an alcoholic. If you love them or care about them, you would try to help them address their condition.
While I disagree with the Catholic stance on homosexuality, I don't think your argument is a very good rebuttal to it.
Minor correction: The Catholic Church doesn't teach that *being a homosexual* is a sin, rather the Church teaches that *engaging in homosexual acts* is a sin. It's a minor wording change, with a very large implication.
True, and another thing people often miss in these debates is that the Catholic church doesn't single out homosexuality as some kind of special, super-bad sin. A Catholic would consider my lifestyle (in an out-of-wedlock straight sexual relationship) equally sinful.
So I think it's really inaccurate to characterize Catholics as "hateful" or "bigoted" toward gay people*, unless you also think they're hateful and bigoted toward straight agnostics like me. The word "hate" to me implies some kind of special animus, not just disagreement.
I think a better analogy is that friend we all have who's super into fitness and going to the gym. That guy looks down on the sedentary lifestyle of others and posts Facebook statuses like "if you just started eating a paleo diet and going to the gym every day you'd be so much happier and feel better in the long run." Whether he's right or wrong about this isn't the point. The point is, he says this stuff because he thinks he's found the right way to live, and he wants to tell all his friends about how to get rid of all the "wrong" things in their lives so they can be happy like him. Maybe it's obnoxious when he "evangelizes," but no one in their right mind could beleive he's coming from a place of hate. He's genuinely trying to help people. Maybe his help is misguided, but it's not bigotry or hate.
(* I'm sure, as with any large group, there are plenty of bigoted Catholics. I'm talking about Catholic teachings here. I'm not saying that every single Catholic thinks this way.)
These last three comments are spot on. The Greek word used in the New Testament that we translate as homosexuality only identifies the active and passive participants in homosexual acts, not those that experience same-sex attraction. The Catholic Church understands this and I personally think that the Evangelical Church is slowly beginning to understand it as well.
Also I really like your analogy. Like you said, there are a lot of Christian bigots but bigotry is not inherent in the belief that homosexuality or any other thing is wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH Decks
RFeldon of the Third PathR UBWrexial, the Risen DeepUB BGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGW (2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)Reaper King(2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)
Everyone agrees that poverty is a bad thing, but there's still an awful lot of poverty going around. I don't think it's crazy for Catholics to decide, "Hey, we've got finite resources, and we should devote more of them to tackling this."
Poverty isn't a sin, homosexuality is a sin.
It makes sense for large Christian organizations to target sin, doesn't it?
Poverty>homosexuality and it's one of the leading causes of abortion. They have the statistics, they know this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
I think there is an argument to be made that calling someone's natural sexual desires "objectively disordered" goes beyond condemnation of a person's acts, and enters the territory of condemnation of the person's being.
I think there is an argument to be made that calling someone's natural sexual desires "objectively disordered" goes beyond condemnation of a person's acts, and enters the territory of condemnation of the person's being.
So anyone who condemns bestiality or necrophilia must also believe that the people who feel these sexual desires are objectively bad people?
These desires are probably the result of some serious mental issues, but I don't think that they automatically "condemn a person's being" (whatever that means). And I don't think a Catholic necessarily "condemns a person's being" by thinking gay sex is a sin.
Again, a Catholic following Catholic doctrine would believe gay sex, premarital straight sex, and masturbation are all equally sinful. A devout Catholic believes the desire to masturbate is "objectively disordered" too.
I think there is an argument to be made that calling someone's natural sexual desires "objectively disordered" goes beyond condemnation of a person's acts, and enters the territory of condemnation of the person's being.
That is definitely a legitimate argument and it would be true if we assume a person's sexuality is the core of their identity. Christianity argues that our identity comes from being created in the image of God. That said, we are not primarily heterosexuals or homosexuals but reflections of God's nature as a creative, rational, relational, and personal being. Our sexuality is secondary or even lower.
Also (I am not saying that all of these are the same) heterosexual premarital sex (oral, anal, or vaginal(am I allowed to say this here?)), lust, rape, masturbation, homosexuality, polygamy(amory) etc. are all identified as sexual immorality within the Christian worldview. If God intended sex to be practiced within a heterosexual, monogamous relationship then all of the previously mentioned sexual practices and desires are "objectively disordered", not just homosexuality.
Edit: I say this second part to show that the goal is not to single out one group of people as deserving condemnation. Ultimately we are all guilty of sin in some form or fashion
So anyone who condemns bestiality or necrophilia must also believe that the people who feel these sexual desires are objectively bad people?
These desires are probably the result of some serious mental issues, but I don't think that they automatically "condemn a person's being" (whatever that means). And I don't think a Catholic necessarily "condemns a person's being" by thinking gay sex is a sin.
It sounds like what you're saying is that bestiality and necrophilia do not constitute "natural sexual desires". So I don't think those are effective counter-examples to what I said.
Again, a Catholic following Catholic doctrine would believe gay sex, premarital straight sex, and masturbation are all equally sinful. A devout Catholic believes the desire to masturbate is "objectively disordered" too.
The Cathecism condemns the action of masturbation as disodered. "masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." By contrast, the Cathecism condemns as disordered the inclination of homosexuality, as well as the action: "This inclination, which is objectively disordered"
That is definitely a legitimate argument and it would be true if we assume a person's sexuality is the core of their identity. Christianity argues that our identity comes from being created in the image of God. That said, we are not primarily heterosexuals or homosexuals but reflections of God's nature as a creative, rational, relational, and personal being. Our sexuality is secondary or even lower.
Let's see what the Catechism says!
"Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others."
So anyone who condemns bestiality or necrophilia must also believe that the people who feel these sexual desires are objectively bad people?
These desires are probably the result of some serious mental issues, but I don't think that they automatically "condemn a person's being" (whatever that means). And I don't think a Catholic necessarily "condemns a person's being" by thinking gay sex is a sin.
It sounds like what you're saying is that bestiality and necrophilia do not constitute "natural sexual desires". So I don't think those are effective counter-examples to what I said.
I don't know what a "natural sexual desire" is, how to determine whether something meets that criteria, or why this concept is relevant to the discussion.
My point is, a Catholic can think being gay is bad without hating or condemning people who feel gay sexual desires. I can think that being a necrophiliac is bad without hating or condemning people who feel that sexual desire.
If one of my friends came up to me and said "I have a confession to make, I'm a necrophiliac," my reaction would be to try to get him or her some help. I wouldn't start hating them or "condemning their being" based on this fact. I think a Catholic could reasonably feel the same way about homosexuality. My point is that believing a particular sexual desire is bad or disordered is not equivalent to hating or condemning people who feel that desire.
I don't know what a "natural sexual desire" is, how to determine whether something meets that criteria, or why this concept is relevant to the discussion.
My point is, a Catholic can think being gay is bad without hating or condemning people who feel gay sexual desires. I can think that being a necrophiliac is bad without hating or condemning people who feel that sexual desire.
If one of my friends came up to me and said "I have a confession to make, I'm a necrophiliac," my reaction would be to try to get him or her some help. I wouldn't start hating them or "condemning their being" based on this fact. I think a Catholic could reasonably feel the same way about homosexuality. My point is that believing a particular sexual desire is bad or disordered is not equivalent to hating or condemning people who feel that desire.
A particular sexual desire, fetish or paraphilia is not comparable to sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a core component of our sexual identity, and our sexual identity is a core component of our personal identity. Thus, condemnation of sexual orientation is condemnation of identity (or being, as I called it previously).
I apologize for bringing you back to this thread after nearly two weeks but I felt the need to say that, among the communities of biblical Christendom, God is very well defined. Whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Evangelical (Protestant), Christians understand God to be the personal, all powerful, triune (existing as three distinct persons who share the same essence and nature) creator of the Universe. Man fell from relationship with God as a result of sin and, in response, God sent Christ to pay the price of that sin. The Apostle's Creed (https://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html) sums up the core beliefs of the Christian faith. Any person who would disagree with that basic statement of faith would, by definition, not be a Christian.
Nope. Christianity is a far more complex term than just those sets of viewpoints, and the term "Christian" encompasses more viewpoints than Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant denominations who adhere to it.
For instance, if you went back to the first century and talked about a triune God to Paul, he wouldn't know what you were talking about. And if we're not including Paul as a part of the Christ movement, then we have a serious problem with regards to definitions.
Also, neither the theory of evolution nor the big bang theory invalidate anything about the Christian faith.
Genesis.
In regards to how things came to be, the Bible is only concerned with communicating that God created all things.
And also HOW God created all things. The HOW is REALLY important to Catholic/Orthodox doctrine.
It says very little about his process. Nothing about God's nature, role, or character is conceded if evolution happens to be the way in which things became what they are.
That's the official doctrine. But it seems absurd to imply that Catholic culture regards homosexuality and sex before marriage as equally wrong. There is definitely a special disgust for homosexuality.
And that may be what the Pope is trying to change.
He might be trying to change attitudes towards homosexuals, but he's made no statements of change to homosexuality.
These last three comments are spot on. The Greek word used in the New Testament that we translate as homosexuality only identifies the active and passive participants in homosexual acts, not those that experience same-sex attraction.
Well, building on this, the word specifically used is porneia, which translates to sexual immorality.
So basically, to feel same-sex attraction is grouped in with other feelings of illicit perversion, such as adultery, incest, etc.
I don't know what a "natural sexual desire" is, how to determine whether something meets that criteria, or why this concept is relevant to the discussion.
My point is, a Catholic can think being gay is bad without hating or condemning people who feel gay sexual desires. I can think that being a necrophiliac is bad without hating or condemning people who feel that sexual desire.
If one of my friends came up to me and said "I have a confession to make, I'm a necrophiliac," my reaction would be to try to get him or her some help. I wouldn't start hating them or "condemning their being" based on this fact. I think a Catholic could reasonably feel the same way about homosexuality. My point is that believing a particular sexual desire is bad or disordered is not equivalent to hating or condemning people who feel that desire.
A particular sexual desire, fetish or paraphilia is not comparable to sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a core component of our sexual identity, and our sexual identity is a core component of our personal identity. Thus, condemnation of sexual orientation is condemnation of identity (or being, as I called it previously).
You're stating this as though it's irrefutably true. You're also stating this as though there is some principled way to distinguish between an "orientation" and a "desire." I'm not aware of any objective basis for saying that necrophilia is a "desire" but homosexuality is an "orientation." Surely there's no scientific basis for this distinction. What if a necrophiliac feels his desire is a part of his identity? Can you prove him wrong?
But setting this aside, let's say I agree with you. Necrophilia is just a fetish, but homosexuality is a core part of one's identity. The question we're asking here is not "do gay people feel hated by Catholics?" The question we're asking here is "does adherence to Catholic doctrine require Catholics to feel hatred towards gay people?" So in order for your fetish/identity dichotomy to matter, it has to be something that Catholics buy into. If Catholics are unaware of this distinction or don't agree with it, it's not a relevant way evaluate their thought processes. And Catholics emphatically do not buy into the idea that being gay is a core part of someone's identity. They think it's a disorder, as you noted above. So a rational Catholic certainly can condemn the "disorder" of being gay without hating gay people in the same way bitterroot can condemn the disorder of necrophilia without hating necrophiliacs.
Orientation encompasses sexual, romantic and emotional attraction. Fetishes, particular desires, parahilias, etc. do not. Does necrophilia involve the establishment of romantic and emotional relationships with corpses? No, so it is not an orientation.
Before I address your second paragraph, I want to make clear that I am not arguing that Catholicism "hates" gay people. I have not used that word, and it does not reflect my position. What I have said is that the Catechism condemns as disordered a core component of people's identity, and therefore condemns as disordered those people. This is different from, and a step above, merely condemning a particular action.
Adherence to Catholic doctrine requires Catholics to condemn as disordered not only the actions of gay people, but gay people themselves. The Catechism agrees that sexual identity is a core component of personhood, and condemns as disordered the sexual identity of homosexuals. It says that they are called to chastity - they therefore lack the capacity to engage in romantic sexual relations that are stated paragraphs earlier to be so important. Homosexuality is a fundamental component of their identity as persons, and they therefore must live a life free of sexuality.
Compare this with the evangelical churches that believe homosexuality can be "cured" or changed. At least they do not believe that they are condemning homosexuality that is inherent to someone's identity. They have a legitimate claim to the idea that they view homosexuality as a temporary disorder that masks someone's true identity.
Regardless, whether anyone believes or doesn't believe that homosexuality is a core part of someone's identity is irrelevant. If sexual orientation is in fact a core part of our identity, then condemning orientation is in fact condemning the person.
Orientation encompasses sexual, romantic and emotional attraction. Fetishes, particular desires, parahilias, etc. do not. Does necrophilia involve the establishment of romantic and emotional relationships with corpses? No, so it is not an orientation.
Before I address your second paragraph, I want to make clear that I am not arguing that Catholicism "hates" gay people. I have not used that word, and it does not reflect my position. What I have said is that the Catechism condemns as disordered a core component of people's identity, and therefore condemns as disordered those people. This is different from, and a step above, merely condemning a particular action.
Adherence to Catholic doctrine requires Catholics to condemn as disordered not only the actions of gay people, but gay people themselves. The Catechism agrees that sexual identity is a core component of personhood, and condemns as disordered the sexual identity of homosexuals. It says that they are called to chastity - they therefore lack the capacity to engage in romantic sexual relations that are stated paragraphs earlier to be so important. Homosexuality is a fundamental component of their identity as persons, and they therefore must live a life free of sexuality.
Compare this with the evangelical churches that believe homosexuality can be "cured" or changed. At least they do not believe that they are condemning homosexuality that is inherent to someone's identity. They have a legitimate claim to the idea that they view homosexuality as a temporary disorder that masks someone's true identity.
Regardless, whether anyone believes or doesn't believe that homosexuality is a core part of someone's identity is irrelevant. If sexual orientation is in fact a core part of our identity, then condemning orientation is in fact condemning the person.
I think at this point we're arguing semantics. Catholics believe that gay people need to abstain from sex the way someone with a gambling addiction needs to stay away from slot machines. They believe that person has a disorder that has a long-term impact on their behavior and desires.
To say they condemn "gay people themselves" rings false to me, however, because Catholics absolutely would accept a celibate person with gay attraction as a member of their church. Catholics would believe this person can go to heaven. This person, in theory, could become a priest or even the pope. So to say Catholics condemn the person, rather than the person's desires, is not really an accurate statement.
Now, I agree with you that this condemnation is bad and is the result of some screwed up ideas about sexuality. And I agree that a gay person would probably feel condemned, as a person, by the Catholic church. But Catholic doctrine emphatically says that the person, regardless of their desires, is redeemable and capable of being welcomed into the church on the same footing as everyone else.
The slot machine comparison doesn't strike me as relevant. We're talking about the additional step of condemning as disordered homosexual inclinations themselves, rather than just condemning actions.
It is simply false that these people could become a priest or Pope.
"In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"[10].
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies."
Would you care to revise your assessment in light of this fact?
Orientation encompasses sexual, romantic and emotional attraction. Fetishes, particular desires, parahilias, etc. do not. Does necrophilia involve the establishment of romantic and emotional relationships with corpses? No, so it is not an orientation.
I don't know (or want to know) about necrophilia, but I know objectophiles can develop emotional attachments to the objects of their desire. Emotional attachment is a natural consequence of sexual activity. For what you say to be true, fetishistic sexual activity would have to specifically turn off that part of the sexual response. And I see no evidence to suggest that's the case.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't know (or want to know) about necrophilia, but I know objectophiles can develop emotional attachments to the objects of their desire. Emotional attachment is a natural consequence of sexual activity. For what you say to be true, fetishistic sexual activity would have to specifically turn off that part of the sexual response. And I see no evidence to suggest that's the case.
Object sexuality (meaning the development of emotional and romantic bonds with an object) appears to represent a small fraction of those with fetishistic or paraphiliac sexual desires. It may be reasonably defined as an orientation, but it's such a small corner-case and is under-researched.
So we've got one example of a paraphilia that definitely can be what you define as an "orientation", and zero examples of paraphilias that can't. You're not doing much to convince me that the distinction you're making is real.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm not sure I understand your post. Object sexuality is a very rare subset of people who have an object paraphilia, and is poorly understood. The overwhelming majority of people with paraphilias do not display this sort of behavior. If there are people for whom paraphilia and orientation overlap, they appear to be an extremely small number.
The overwhelming majority of people with paraphilias do not display this sort of behavior.
I'm asking you to support this half of your claim. Because from what I've seen, people who have kinky sex can fall in love with their kinky-sex partners just as readily as anyone else. If it's possible for an inanimate object that can show no emotional reciprocation or emotions of any kind, it's all the more possible for another intelligent adult human being who shares one's fondness for, I dunno, whips and chains. But you're trying to tell us that sex without any emotional response at all is the norm among this somewhat-arbitrarily-defined category of sexual activities.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That is definitely a legitimate argument and it would be true if we assume a person's sexuality is the core of their identity. Christianity argues that our identity comes from being created in the image of God. That said, we are not primarily heterosexuals or homosexuals but reflections of God's nature as a creative, rational, relational, and personal being. Our sexuality is secondary or even lower.
"Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others."
Sorry, by sexuality I meant specifically sexual orientation. Sexuality is much more holistic than that. Even the quote you used tells us that sexuality encompasses more than just one's sexual desires. They aren't the same thing
I'm asking you to support this half of your claim. Because from what I've seen, people who have kinky sex can fall in love with their kinky-sex partners just as readily as anyone else. If it's possible for an inanimate object that can show no emotional reciprocation or emotions of any kind, it's all the more possible for another intelligent adult human being who shares one's fondness for, I dunno, whips and chains. But you're trying to tell us that sex without any emotional response at all is the norm among this somewhat-arbitrarily-defined category of sexual activities.
I'm lost. I think there must be some misunderstanding here. What I'm saying is that, for example, necrophiliacs do not generally form romantic and emotional bonds to a corpse. Someone who is into whips and chains forms emotional and romantic bonds with their partner, not with the whips and chains. People who do form emotional and romantic attachment to objects appear to be an extremely rare phenomenon.
When we talk about sexual orientation, we're talking not only about what sort of sex you want to have, but also who you feel romantic attraction to. A kink or fetish is about what sort of sex you enjoy, not who you form these attachments to. That is not to say that people with fetishes do not form such attachments - they have an orientation in addition to those fetishes. The orientation is what guides their attractions and attachments, not the fetish.
Sorry, by sexuality I meant specifically sexual orientation. Sexuality is much more holistic than that. Even the quote you used tells us that sexuality encompasses more than just one's sexual desires. They aren't the same thing
Right, so the Catechism says that homosexuals lack that capacity for non-disordered sexuality. The only way they interact with human sexuality, which the Catechism holds to be a core component of one's identity, is "objectively disordered".
I apologize for bringing you back to this thread after nearly two weeks but I felt the need to say that, among the communities of biblical Christendom, God is very well defined. Whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Evangelical (Protestant), Christians understand God to be the personal, all powerful, triune (existing as three distinct persons who share the same essence and nature) creator of the Universe. Man fell from relationship with God as a result of sin and, in response, God sent Christ to pay the price of that sin. The Apostle's Creed (https://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html) sums up the core beliefs of the Christian faith. Any person who would disagree with that basic statement of faith would, by definition, not be a Christian.
Nope. Christianity is a far more complex term than just those sets of viewpoints, and the term "Christian" encompasses more viewpoints than Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant denominations who adhere to it.
For instance, if you went back to the first century and talked about a triune God to Paul, he wouldn't know what you were talking about. And if we're not including Paul as a part of the Christ movement, then we have a serious problem with regards to definitions.
Also, neither the theory of evolution nor the big bang theory invalidate anything about the Christian faith.
Genesis.
In regards to how things came to be, the Bible is only concerned with communicating that God created all things.
And also HOW God created all things. The HOW is REALLY important to Catholic/Orthodox doctrine.
It says very little about his process. Nothing about God's nature, role, or character is conceded if evolution happens to be the way in which things became what they are.
These last three comments are spot on. The Greek word used in the New Testament that we translate as homosexuality only identifies the active and passive participants in homosexual acts, not those that experience same-sex attraction.
Well, building on this, the word specifically used is porneia, which translates to sexual immorality.
So basically, to feel same-sex attraction is grouped in with other feelings of illicit perversion, such as adultery, incest, etc.
While I agree that Christianity is complex, there are still foundational truths that all people who would not be labeled apostate by the greater Christian community adhere to. Many people identify as Christian who would not be called such by the rest of the body.
It makes sense that Paul would not know what was meant by the word triune. It's a word that we came up with later to give a named to theology that Paul himself taught. The doctrine of the Trinity exists to explain why God identifies himself as singular and yet Jesus Christ is also God. I assume Paul would affirm this because he affirms Christ's deity multiple times.
Sorry, Genesis? What about evolution and/or the big bang invalidates the entire book of Genesis? I would understand if a person assumes that God created the world in literally seven days but that is an issue of genre. Genesis 1 is a poem, meaning that it doesn't have to be seven days. The rest of the book stays the same, evolution or not. Perhaps you could help me understand what you mean? (not sarcasm)
The how is that God spoke it into being. What would that look like? If the how is anything beyond that I have neither heard nor read anything about it.
Perhaps Genesis chapter 2 does shed some light on the process but it is not nearly as specific as you make it sound. Is God's character or nature changed? I'm not sure which part of the statement you are addressing.
Porneia is sexual immorality as it pertains to action. Adultery, bestiality, fornication etc. Those are all acts, not the propensity for them. The word I am actually referring to is arsenokoítēs. It's used in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Cor. 6:9 and is more specific to a man who lies with another man. An action again. Lust, as it is used in the Bible, is different than an attraction because it involves an active dwelling and consideration of the thought. A man can commit adultery in his mind just as a man can commit murder in his mind.
Everyone agrees that poverty is a bad thing, but there's still an awful lot of poverty going around. I don't think it's crazy for Catholics to decide, "Hey, we've got finite resources, and we should devote more of them to tackling this."
Poverty isn't a sin, homosexuality is a sin.
It makes sense for large Christian organizations to target sin, doesn't it?
It doesn't make sense for organizations claiming to foster love to tell people that the way they are born is somehow wrong. It would be far better to try and raise awareness on issues such as poverty rather than put out what is essentially a hate message.
[Again, I'm playing devil's advocate because I'm not Catholic and don't have a problem with gay people, but:]
There's a good body of evidence that alcoholics are "born that way" or that alcoholism arises from physiological conditions that are beyond a person's conscious control. That doesn't mean we say "you were born that way so it's ok." A typical Catholic sees gayness as akin to alcoholism - a really tough problem that people need to try to change. And a catholic would say it's precisely because they love gay people that they want to tell them that being gay is a sin and help them change. If you hate or are indifferent to an alcoholic, you won't care whether they're an alcoholic. If you love them or care about them, you would try to help them address their condition.
While I disagree with the Catholic stance on homosexuality, I don't think your argument is a very good rebuttal to it.
Ah, yes, I didn't cover all of the bases of the argument I was trying to use. Essentially what I was trying to get across is that, unlike some dispositions such as alcoholism, homosexuality comes with no detrimental effects that cannot come of the vastly more accepted orientation of heterosexuality. Meaning that there is little basis on which Catholicism has little grounds on which to condemn homosexuality other than their holy book telling them that homosexual sex is an abomination which is of itself the opposite of the love that the religion claims to champion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pop in, find a dragon, roast a dragon."
-Chandra Nalaar
Sorry, by sexuality I meant specifically sexual orientation. Sexuality is much more holistic than that. Even the quote you used tells us that sexuality encompasses more than just one's sexual desires. They aren't the same thing
Right, so the Catechism says that homosexuals lack that capacity for non-disordered sexuality. The only way they interact with human sexuality, which the Catechism holds to be a core component of one's identity, is "objectively disordered".
Ohhh, that's interesting. So are you saying that the Catechism makes no distinction between one's orientation and one's sexuality? If that is what it is actually saying here then I disagree with the Catechism slightly. It's probably relevant to say that I am an Evangelical and not a Catholic. I do, however, believe that a homosexual sexual orientation is rooted in a broken sexuality. I just don't think that the two are synonymous and therefore the belief that homosexuality is wrong is not an attack on an individual's core identity. I hope that I'm being clear, this is such a complex issue that it is easy to miscommunicate. Thank you for explaining the Catechism quote to me, I didn't know that prior.
I think at this point we're arguing semantics. Catholics believe that gay people need to abstain from sex the way someone with a gambling addiction needs to stay away from slot machines. They believe that person has a disorder that has a long-term impact on their behavior and desires.
To say they condemn "gay people themselves" rings false to me, however, because Catholics absolutely would accept a celibate person with gay attraction as a member of their church. Catholics would believe this person can go to heaven. This person, in theory, could become a priest or even the pope. So to say Catholics condemn the person, rather than the person's desires, is not really an accurate statement.
Now, I agree with you that this condemnation is bad and is the result of some screwed up ideas about sexuality. And I agree that a gay person would probably feel condemned, as a person, by the Catholic church. But Catholic doctrine emphatically says that the person, regardless of their desires, is redeemable and capable of being welcomed into the church on the same footing as everyone else.
If you believe that one can affirm the full personhood and the integrity of a human being, while at the same time denying the validity and reality of the love he feels in his heart, then you would have an argument.
While I agree that Christianity is complex, there are still foundational truths that all people who would not be labeled apostate by the greater Christian community adhere to. Many people identify as Christian who would not be called such by the rest of the body.
Yes, but, so what?
I mean, yes, the more orthodox movements of Christianity would deny the validity of the others. They would also deny the Christianity of anyone who isn't one of them. The Catholic Church would deny the Christianity of anyone who isn't Catholic. I fail to see how that invalidates the fact that "Christian" clearly encompasses multiple religious traditions who identify as following Christ. Indeed, no modern sect of Christianity would be recognizable to the Christ movement in the first century, and if anyone's going to be called Christian, they would.
It makes sense that Paul would not know what was meant by the word triune.
No, I'm saying Paul would disagree with Trinitarian thought.
The fact of the matter is that the early Christ movement was very much divided as to whether Christ was man, God, or man and God at the same time. Which side you believe to be correct is up to you, but the issue I think is important is that they were, despite their disagreement on this issue, very much Christians.
Sorry, Genesis? What about evolution and/or the big bang invalidates the entire book of Genesis?
Seriously? Read Genesis. You get two accounts of the creation of the world, and neither of which are the way the world came about.
I would understand if a person assumes that God created the world in literally seven days
God does create the world in literally seven days in Genesis 1. It's very explicit (and immediately contradicted in Genesis 2, but that's besides the point.) It's why the Sabbath exists. The Sabbath is not a metaphorical seventh day, it is a literal seventh day.
Genesis 1 is a poem, meaning that it doesn't have to be seven days.
No, it very explicitly is seven days. One of many reasons why belief in infallibility of the Bible — literal or metaphorical — is incorrect.
The rest of the book stays the same, evolution or not. Perhaps you could help me understand what you mean? (not sarcasm)
How important is Adam and Adam's fall?
Pretty big deal in Christianity, isn't it? Ok, so what happens if there isn't an Adam? What happens if Genesis 2 and 3 are revealed to be things that never actually happened?
Yeah. That becomes a problem.
The how is that God spoke it into being. What would that look like?
We know it didn't look like what either Genesis 1 or 2 describe.
Perhaps Genesis chapter 2 does shed some light on the process but it is not nearly as specific as you make it sound.
What are you talking about? It's very specific. It's also very specifically wrong, precisely because it denies evolution, and specifically inconsistent, because it denies what Genesis 1 said.
Porneia is sexual immorality as it pertains to action. Adultery, bestiality, fornication etc. Those are all acts, not the propensity for them.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, I wasn't disagreeing on that point. The propensity for homosexual acts are assumed of all people, as it's lumped into "lust" with every other form of sexual perversion and sexual immorality.
Now, what is worth noting is that homosexual love is not something that was ever considered. No, homosexuality is purely in act in the Pauline Epistles, and purely a perversion.
Ah, yes, I didn't cover all of the bases of the argument I was trying to use. Essentially what I was trying to get across is that, unlike some dispositions such as alcoholism, homosexuality comes with no detrimental effects that cannot come of the vastly more accepted orientation of heterosexuality. Meaning that there is little basis on which Catholicism has little grounds on which to condemn homosexuality other than their holy book telling them that homosexual sex is an abomination which is of itself the opposite of the love that the religion claims to champion.
I'm pretty sure Catholics would disagree with you on "no detrimental effects".
Obviously, then, the question becomes- who's right? Can we even objectively determine who is right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
These last three comments are spot on. The Greek word used in the New Testament that we translate as homosexuality only identifies the active and passive participants in homosexual acts, not those that experience same-sex attraction. The Catholic Church understands this and I personally think that the Evangelical Church is slowly beginning to understand it as well.
Also I really like your analogy. Like you said, there are a lot of Christian bigots but bigotry is not inherent in the belief that homosexuality or any other thing is wrong.
RFeldon of the Third PathR
UBWrexial, the Risen DeepUB
BGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGW
(2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)Reaper King(2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)
Poverty>homosexuality and it's one of the leading causes of abortion. They have the statistics, they know this.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
So anyone who condemns bestiality or necrophilia must also believe that the people who feel these sexual desires are objectively bad people?
These desires are probably the result of some serious mental issues, but I don't think that they automatically "condemn a person's being" (whatever that means). And I don't think a Catholic necessarily "condemns a person's being" by thinking gay sex is a sin.
Again, a Catholic following Catholic doctrine would believe gay sex, premarital straight sex, and masturbation are all equally sinful. A devout Catholic believes the desire to masturbate is "objectively disordered" too.
That is definitely a legitimate argument and it would be true if we assume a person's sexuality is the core of their identity. Christianity argues that our identity comes from being created in the image of God. That said, we are not primarily heterosexuals or homosexuals but reflections of God's nature as a creative, rational, relational, and personal being. Our sexuality is secondary or even lower.
Also (I am not saying that all of these are the same) heterosexual premarital sex (oral, anal, or vaginal(am I allowed to say this here?)), lust, rape, masturbation, homosexuality, polygamy(amory) etc. are all identified as sexual immorality within the Christian worldview. If God intended sex to be practiced within a heterosexual, monogamous relationship then all of the previously mentioned sexual practices and desires are "objectively disordered", not just homosexuality.
Edit: I say this second part to show that the goal is not to single out one group of people as deserving condemnation. Ultimately we are all guilty of sin in some form or fashion
RFeldon of the Third PathR
UBWrexial, the Risen DeepUB
BGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGW
(2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)Reaper King(2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)
It sounds like what you're saying is that bestiality and necrophilia do not constitute "natural sexual desires". So I don't think those are effective counter-examples to what I said.
The Cathecism condemns the action of masturbation as disodered. "masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." By contrast, the Cathecism condemns as disordered the inclination of homosexuality, as well as the action: "This inclination, which is objectively disordered"
Let's see what the Catechism says!
"Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others."
I don't know what a "natural sexual desire" is, how to determine whether something meets that criteria, or why this concept is relevant to the discussion.
My point is, a Catholic can think being gay is bad without hating or condemning people who feel gay sexual desires. I can think that being a necrophiliac is bad without hating or condemning people who feel that sexual desire.
If one of my friends came up to me and said "I have a confession to make, I'm a necrophiliac," my reaction would be to try to get him or her some help. I wouldn't start hating them or "condemning their being" based on this fact. I think a Catholic could reasonably feel the same way about homosexuality. My point is that believing a particular sexual desire is bad or disordered is not equivalent to hating or condemning people who feel that desire.
A particular sexual desire, fetish or paraphilia is not comparable to sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a core component of our sexual identity, and our sexual identity is a core component of our personal identity. Thus, condemnation of sexual orientation is condemnation of identity (or being, as I called it previously).
For instance, if you went back to the first century and talked about a triune God to Paul, he wouldn't know what you were talking about. And if we're not including Paul as a part of the Christ movement, then we have a serious problem with regards to definitions.
Genesis.
And also HOW God created all things. The HOW is REALLY important to Catholic/Orthodox doctrine.
Genesis 2-3.
He might be trying to change attitudes towards homosexuals, but he's made no statements of change to homosexuality.
Well, building on this, the word specifically used is porneia, which translates to sexual immorality.
So basically, to feel same-sex attraction is grouped in with other feelings of illicit perversion, such as adultery, incest, etc.
You're stating this as though it's irrefutably true. You're also stating this as though there is some principled way to distinguish between an "orientation" and a "desire." I'm not aware of any objective basis for saying that necrophilia is a "desire" but homosexuality is an "orientation." Surely there's no scientific basis for this distinction. What if a necrophiliac feels his desire is a part of his identity? Can you prove him wrong?
But setting this aside, let's say I agree with you. Necrophilia is just a fetish, but homosexuality is a core part of one's identity. The question we're asking here is not "do gay people feel hated by Catholics?" The question we're asking here is "does adherence to Catholic doctrine require Catholics to feel hatred towards gay people?" So in order for your fetish/identity dichotomy to matter, it has to be something that Catholics buy into. If Catholics are unaware of this distinction or don't agree with it, it's not a relevant way evaluate their thought processes. And Catholics emphatically do not buy into the idea that being gay is a core part of someone's identity. They think it's a disorder, as you noted above. So a rational Catholic certainly can condemn the "disorder" of being gay without hating gay people in the same way bitterroot can condemn the disorder of necrophilia without hating necrophiliacs.
Before I address your second paragraph, I want to make clear that I am not arguing that Catholicism "hates" gay people. I have not used that word, and it does not reflect my position. What I have said is that the Catechism condemns as disordered a core component of people's identity, and therefore condemns as disordered those people. This is different from, and a step above, merely condemning a particular action.
Adherence to Catholic doctrine requires Catholics to condemn as disordered not only the actions of gay people, but gay people themselves. The Catechism agrees that sexual identity is a core component of personhood, and condemns as disordered the sexual identity of homosexuals. It says that they are called to chastity - they therefore lack the capacity to engage in romantic sexual relations that are stated paragraphs earlier to be so important. Homosexuality is a fundamental component of their identity as persons, and they therefore must live a life free of sexuality.
Compare this with the evangelical churches that believe homosexuality can be "cured" or changed. At least they do not believe that they are condemning homosexuality that is inherent to someone's identity. They have a legitimate claim to the idea that they view homosexuality as a temporary disorder that masks someone's true identity.
Regardless, whether anyone believes or doesn't believe that homosexuality is a core part of someone's identity is irrelevant. If sexual orientation is in fact a core part of our identity, then condemning orientation is in fact condemning the person.
I think at this point we're arguing semantics. Catholics believe that gay people need to abstain from sex the way someone with a gambling addiction needs to stay away from slot machines. They believe that person has a disorder that has a long-term impact on their behavior and desires.
To say they condemn "gay people themselves" rings false to me, however, because Catholics absolutely would accept a celibate person with gay attraction as a member of their church. Catholics would believe this person can go to heaven. This person, in theory, could become a priest or even the pope. So to say Catholics condemn the person, rather than the person's desires, is not really an accurate statement.
Now, I agree with you that this condemnation is bad and is the result of some screwed up ideas about sexuality. And I agree that a gay person would probably feel condemned, as a person, by the Catholic church. But Catholic doctrine emphatically says that the person, regardless of their desires, is redeemable and capable of being welcomed into the church on the same footing as everyone else.
It is simply false that these people could become a priest or Pope.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
"In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"[10].
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies."
Would you care to revise your assessment in light of this fact?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Object sexuality (meaning the development of emotional and romantic bonds with an object) appears to represent a small fraction of those with fetishistic or paraphiliac sexual desires. It may be reasonably defined as an orientation, but it's such a small corner-case and is under-researched.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sorry, by sexuality I meant specifically sexual orientation. Sexuality is much more holistic than that. Even the quote you used tells us that sexuality encompasses more than just one's sexual desires. They aren't the same thing
RFeldon of the Third PathR
UBWrexial, the Risen DeepUB
BGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGW
(2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)Reaper King(2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)
I'm lost. I think there must be some misunderstanding here. What I'm saying is that, for example, necrophiliacs do not generally form romantic and emotional bonds to a corpse. Someone who is into whips and chains forms emotional and romantic bonds with their partner, not with the whips and chains. People who do form emotional and romantic attachment to objects appear to be an extremely rare phenomenon.
When we talk about sexual orientation, we're talking not only about what sort of sex you want to have, but also who you feel romantic attraction to. A kink or fetish is about what sort of sex you enjoy, not who you form these attachments to. That is not to say that people with fetishes do not form such attachments - they have an orientation in addition to those fetishes. The orientation is what guides their attractions and attachments, not the fetish.
Right, so the Catechism says that homosexuals lack that capacity for non-disordered sexuality. The only way they interact with human sexuality, which the Catechism holds to be a core component of one's identity, is "objectively disordered".
While I agree that Christianity is complex, there are still foundational truths that all people who would not be labeled apostate by the greater Christian community adhere to. Many people identify as Christian who would not be called such by the rest of the body.
It makes sense that Paul would not know what was meant by the word triune. It's a word that we came up with later to give a named to theology that Paul himself taught. The doctrine of the Trinity exists to explain why God identifies himself as singular and yet Jesus Christ is also God. I assume Paul would affirm this because he affirms Christ's deity multiple times.
Sorry, Genesis? What about evolution and/or the big bang invalidates the entire book of Genesis? I would understand if a person assumes that God created the world in literally seven days but that is an issue of genre. Genesis 1 is a poem, meaning that it doesn't have to be seven days. The rest of the book stays the same, evolution or not. Perhaps you could help me understand what you mean? (not sarcasm)
The how is that God spoke it into being. What would that look like? If the how is anything beyond that I have neither heard nor read anything about it.
Perhaps Genesis chapter 2 does shed some light on the process but it is not nearly as specific as you make it sound. Is God's character or nature changed? I'm not sure which part of the statement you are addressing.
Porneia is sexual immorality as it pertains to action. Adultery, bestiality, fornication etc. Those are all acts, not the propensity for them. The word I am actually referring to is arsenokoítēs. It's used in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Cor. 6:9 and is more specific to a man who lies with another man. An action again. Lust, as it is used in the Bible, is different than an attraction because it involves an active dwelling and consideration of the thought. A man can commit adultery in his mind just as a man can commit murder in his mind.
RFeldon of the Third PathR
UBWrexial, the Risen DeepUB
BGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGW
(2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)Reaper King(2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)
-Chandra Nalaar
Ohhh, that's interesting. So are you saying that the Catechism makes no distinction between one's orientation and one's sexuality? If that is what it is actually saying here then I disagree with the Catechism slightly. It's probably relevant to say that I am an Evangelical and not a Catholic. I do, however, believe that a homosexual sexual orientation is rooted in a broken sexuality. I just don't think that the two are synonymous and therefore the belief that homosexuality is wrong is not an attack on an individual's core identity. I hope that I'm being clear, this is such a complex issue that it is easy to miscommunicate. Thank you for explaining the Catechism quote to me, I didn't know that prior.
RFeldon of the Third PathR
UBWrexial, the Risen DeepUB
BGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGW
(2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)Reaper King(2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)
But of course you cannot.
Yes, but, so what?
I mean, yes, the more orthodox movements of Christianity would deny the validity of the others. They would also deny the Christianity of anyone who isn't one of them. The Catholic Church would deny the Christianity of anyone who isn't Catholic. I fail to see how that invalidates the fact that "Christian" clearly encompasses multiple religious traditions who identify as following Christ. Indeed, no modern sect of Christianity would be recognizable to the Christ movement in the first century, and if anyone's going to be called Christian, they would.
No, I'm saying Paul would disagree with Trinitarian thought.
The fact of the matter is that the early Christ movement was very much divided as to whether Christ was man, God, or man and God at the same time. Which side you believe to be correct is up to you, but the issue I think is important is that they were, despite their disagreement on this issue, very much Christians.
Seriously? Read Genesis. You get two accounts of the creation of the world, and neither of which are the way the world came about.
God does create the world in literally seven days in Genesis 1. It's very explicit (and immediately contradicted in Genesis 2, but that's besides the point.) It's why the Sabbath exists. The Sabbath is not a metaphorical seventh day, it is a literal seventh day.
No, it very explicitly is seven days. One of many reasons why belief in infallibility of the Bible — literal or metaphorical — is incorrect.
How important is Adam and Adam's fall?
Pretty big deal in Christianity, isn't it? Ok, so what happens if there isn't an Adam? What happens if Genesis 2 and 3 are revealed to be things that never actually happened?
Yeah. That becomes a problem.
We know it didn't look like what either Genesis 1 or 2 describe.
What are you talking about? It's very specific. It's also very specifically wrong, precisely because it denies evolution, and specifically inconsistent, because it denies what Genesis 1 said.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, I wasn't disagreeing on that point. The propensity for homosexual acts are assumed of all people, as it's lumped into "lust" with every other form of sexual perversion and sexual immorality.
Now, what is worth noting is that homosexual love is not something that was ever considered. No, homosexuality is purely in act in the Pauline Epistles, and purely a perversion.
I'm pretty sure Catholics would disagree with you on "no detrimental effects".
Obviously, then, the question becomes- who's right? Can we even objectively determine who is right?