www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Tony Blair questions teaching on homosexuality

Does anyone think, as I do, that the matter of the vocal opposition to the question of homosexuality stems from the idea that sexuality itself isn't something that should be or needs to be proclaimed from the housetops?

I think this whole area is something sacred that needs to be discussed less in the public forum. I think the reaction is the same as the reaction to so many other misuses of the gift of sexuality. No one needs to shout from the housetops that he engages in sexual activity with children or with his daughter or son. And people seem to be as disturbed by this sort of activity as to homosexual acts so proclaimed.

I think the strong reaction stems from the agenda of the homosexual movement to make this activity and lifestyle to be normal and to have children taught as much.

We're all called to chastity particular to our state in life, whether married or not married. We've all got struggles to remain faithful to our Baptismal promises to be faithful to Christ's teaching, being perfect as our Heavenly Father is. The married don't get a pass; there are many activities forbidden to the married as well. And I'd venture to say that anything that makes a partner uncomfortable or left feeling degraded ought to be included in this area.

My two cents tonight.

BOB

Memo said: "My point is that my peception is that a good number of our conservative church members appear to be more vocal and agressive in their condemnation of those who practice homosexual intercourse than those who commit adultery."

Memo, you may have just written the first sentence here on ByzCath with which I can agree! I do think that there is a double standard. In fairness, though, I think that the double standard might arise from the fact that although adultery is morally evil, it is based on a non-disordered sexuality. That is to say, desire for heterosexual sex is not objectively disordered and can be practiced in a way in total conformity with the teachings of Christ. Desire for homosexual sex/homosexuality is an objective disorder and cannot be practiced in conformity with those Our Lord's teachings.

Although this may be splitting hairs, I think that that probably accounts for what I can agree with you is often a "double standard."

I'm not defending it, just merely trying to lend my two cents to why I think it may be the case.

Alexis

Dear Bob,

We are definitely on the same page, and I think this is what people just are not comprehending!

Adulterers are not, to my knowledge, marching in major cities of the world proclaiming their 'adulterating pride'.

Adulterers are not imposing upon schools that children must learn to accept adultery as an acceptable alternative to regular marriage.

Adulterers are not simulating acts of adultery in public venues to shock and offend.

Adulterers are not storming St. Patrick's and other RC cathedrals and churches insisting that their adultery be accepted as non-sinful.

Adulterers have not set up clubs in middle schools, high schools and colleges for students who would like to be considered 'adulterers'.

THIS is the stuff that makes many rational and logical people crazy. Most of us don't bat an eye at someone being gay and could care less if they chose to be, but please do not impose it on the Church, on children, and on society at large.

The thing I would like to share with all of you is that I have seen churches do some fairly horrible things to gay people. In all my years of hospice AIDS ministry I cannot tell you how ashamed I've been of some of our churches in the manner that they treat their sons and daughters. Here in Mississippi it has not been unusual for a father (seldom, if ever, a mother) to declare "you are no longer my son". Where can this parent possibly come up with that kind of behavior? I don't see any Christian compassion in this anywhere. One of the things that
I've found is that in many churches here (mostly
fundamentalist, conservitive churches), the pastors preach that these folks are all going to hell. There is no attemept to reconcile the patient with the church or the teachings of the church. In fact, in some of the Baptist churches they have "shunned" entire families for their childrens behavior.

In my episcopal tradition, I take seriously the question addressed to the congregation in our baptismal rite and in the Renewal of Baptismal Vows:

"Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?" The people respond with "I will, with God's help."

I understand the resistance to see homosexual sex as acceptable but I am ashamed of the many clergy and lay people who remain so "unpastoral".

Christos Voskrese!

Fr Mike

This has little to do with Tony Blair and/or homosexuality, but is intended to support Father Mike's point: during the Vietnam War I was serving in Canada and, being an American citizen, took an active interest in the problems of the young men who fled to Canada to avoid military conscription in the USA. This phenomenon was of considerable size, particularly for the Canadians, and the Canadian Churches were heroic in providing much-needed help and assistance for these young men.

But it reached the point where maintaining even basic services for these young men required more resources than we had, so a delegation from the Canadian Churches went to Detroit for a large meeting of the US National Council of Churches to present the situation and ask for support in our programs.

Anybody would have thought that we were advocating leprosy or cholera - the Canadian delegates were subjected to a great deal of verbal abuse from the Americans, to our surprise. Finally the chief of the delegation had had just about enough and said into the microphone: "face it, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing the needs of YOUR sons!"

This produced yells and more abuse, and endless repetitions of the theme "he's no son of mine!"

I am proud to report that the overwhelming majority of these young men settled happily into Canadian life and may of them entered the caring professions; they have contributed significantly to the quality of life in Canada, and those of us who went to much trouble to make them welcome feel thoroughly rewarded!

Fr. Serge

What does the teaching of the Scriptures say on this issue?
And I dont mean a myopic view.
Stephanos I

"And I dont mean a myopic view."

Not even if you squint your eyes and read upside down?

Can the "teaching of Scripture" be separated from the infallible teaching of the Church?

In my view, absolutely not. So to ask that question is to ask what the teaching of the Church is, which is fairly clear.

Alexis

I agree with Father Mike on the first point. Those who need care due to HIV or any other disease deserve to be cared for without judgment. Families should not abandon those who become ill no matter what. But what has been posted so far in this thread does not indicate that anyone has suggested turning their backs on those in need. Indeed, we should treat others like Christ at all times - especially those in need. Those of us in the Church have a responsibility to instruct and lead others in what is right.

Father Mike's comment about "resistance to see homosexual sex as acceptable" is confusing. If we are followers of Christ then we cannot see homosexual sex as acceptable. If we see it as acceptable then we are not followers of Christ but rejecters of Him and the moral teachings of His Church. Treating others like Christ and caring for those in need does not mean approval of immoral behavioral choices (indeed, Scripture is clear not to have anything to do with people who reject Christ and His Teachings, but we still treat them as if they were Christ). There is an appropriate time to witness Christian morality. And there is an appropriate time to provide care. Once someone is ill judgment on how they acquired their illness is inappropriate. Yet I think that most family members who reject (wrongly) do so not mainly out of moral judgment but out of fear. They need care and education, too.

For another view: go to:

http://forusa.org/articlesandresources/wink-homosexuality.html

Administrator: I'm out of this painful discussion.
Perhaps it's time to shut it down.

Fr. Mike

I guess this is where I revert back to my old Evangelical memorization ... this one being "love the sinner and hate the sin."
abby
<*)))><

Father Mike,

Yes, I've seen that article. It essentially rejects Church Teaching and as such is unacceptable. I don't have it handy but there is an analysis of it done from a biblical perspective that shows it to be fiction. I can only call people to follow what the Church has clearly taught because it is the only thing that is true, the only thing that saves.

There are numerous summaries of Catholic Teaching on this issue. I'll reference just one:

On the Care of Homosexual Individuals [vatican.va]

The Letter [vatican.va] that is linked provides a very good but brief refutation of that promoted in the article you linked.

But we are now off topic. I won't close the thread yet, but will do so if no one returns to the original topic.

John

Hogwash!!! Even if the teachings of the scriptures were unclear on the matter, (which they are not) the infallible voice of the Church is clear.

And of course we care for those in need without judgment.

Stephanos I

But the Churches infallible voice is only a reflection of its members, in union with the faith of the past, and should be ever evolving to represent the changing times and views of the people... (snicker.)

So what is your point?