Ah, so being a gay clergyman (i.e. a celibate homosexual, at least in the Roman Catholic Church) is a sin.

Hmmmmm, not exactly the brightest article, if you ask me.

Ahh if there had to be a respondent, it had to be the person who was convinced beyond doubt that Iraq had WMDs.

Firstly, Eugene Robinson was appointed as bishop to the Episcopal Church, which is part of Anglicanism, not Catholicism. Secondly, being a practising homosexual is definitely a sin, whether you are clergy or not, and that goes for Anglicans and Catholics alike. Thirdly, it is true that there is a doctrinal debate over whether non-practising homosexuals are sinful.

Regardless of the third point, Eugene Robinson is not celibate, and is acknowledged to be a practising homosexual. That is most definitely a sin. The fact that he is clergy does make it worse.

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make Nate, but I guess that’s not entirely unexpected, given that it’s you.

I’m expecting you to raise something about general religious hypocrisy, but that’s really not relevant to this case.

Iraq did have WMD. Even France believed that. You’ll see in due time, Mr. Kneejerk. (By the way; how many Iraqis would be dead now if you had gotten your way? Tough questions, hey? Or don’t you care about proportionality?)

I’m a Catholic, and I know (see any Catechism) the Catholic church has absolutely zero qualms about saying categorically that non-practicing homosexuals are NOT sinful. My point obviously has nothing to do with Robinson (who is not celibate). It has to do with the numerous (perhaps >50%) celibate, gay clergy that reside in any mainstream Christian religion (Catholocism especially). You’re obviously suggesting that these people are sinful. I think that’s an objectionable, puritanical (funny, we Americans are always accused of being the reactionary puritans) viewpoint. I have no idea why you started in with the smartass character attack. A civil elaboration of your view would have been preferred.

Btw, you never mention Robinson in your article anyway.

Some clarification is needed. It is clear that the article was in response to the Episcopal Church’s appointment of Robinson, who as we both mentioned is not celibate, despite not explicitly mentioning his name.

Regarding the distinction between practicing and non-practicing homosexuals, there is much doctrinal debate surrounding this, which differs amongst different denominations (and arguably even within the Catholic denomination, despite what Catholic Catechisms may say). Indeed, this stance is affected by the scientific view of whether homosexuality is unchangeable (like race or gender) and therefore whether it is a product of personal choice – if it is not personal choice, then it cannot be sinful. This is still contentious – it’s still a matter of opinion and there’s research that points both ways.

Perhaps I should have made it clear in the article that having practising homosexuals as clergy is unacceptable. Whether having non-practising homosexuals as clergy is sinful is more open to debate depending on your scientific views on homosexuality as a “condition”, and what denomination you belong to (as the Bible, given a strict interpretation, mentions the act of homosexual sex and not homosexuality per se). I do say that clergy in principle should be subjected to requirements of higher moral standards than congregation members. Would you agree with that?

Smartass character attack? Pot, kettle, black.

BTW, why don’t you write your response and mail it into Backbench instead? It’s going to reach a bigger audience than my site.

I’ve never (1) seen any scientific literature that could be construed as suggesting that homosexual orientation itself arises through any sort of free “choice” (the very suggestion is, I’m sure, anathema to most homosexuals) (2) heard any Catholic, whether within the hierarchy or not, suggest that celibate homosexuals are in any way more sinful than celibate heterosexuals (I’m sure some such Catholics do exist, but to suggest that their voices constitute any kind of substantive “doctrinal debate” is, I think, very misleading).

I’m interested in Nate’s comments.

1. Show me some scientific literature that indicates that homosexuality is a definite result of some other factor other than free choice.

2. Define the word “celibate homosexual”

Celibate homosexual: someone with homosexual orientation (i.e. an attraction to others of the same sex) who chooses not to act on that orientation (i.e. to remain celibate). While homosexual acts, in the strict sense, are “chosen,” it’s impossible to say (I can substantiate this if you like) that we “choose” who we are attracted to.

So are you suggesting that homosexuality is genetic? Surely that would be the first thing to give way to natural selection. Or that God created some people with homosexual tendencies? Surely that would go against the most basic Christian tenet that sin is a result of man’s free will rather than God’s design.

Regarding the morality of non-practising homosexuality, I would point out Matthew 5:28 – “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” I think it should be clear that “woman” and “her” could be replaced with “man” and “him” without invalidating the verse.

ehehehhe… Go Shish! :)

“Surely that {homosexuals} would be the first thing to give way to natural selection.”

… so true :)

You’re creating a false dilemma. I’m not saying that homosexuality is genetic. I’m saying that homosexuals have no control over their sexual orientation. That could be a result of any number of factors — social/cultural, familial, and perhaps biological (which is definitely NOT the same thing as genetic — biological conditions often arise as a result of environmental pressures rather than through simply an inherited human genome). Your “natural selection” crack is intellectually shallow and moronic on its face. Homosexuality need not be a heritable trait (i.e. of the sort that would be naturally selected agaist) for its origins to be neurological or biological.

I actually don’t believe that God (if he exists) “designs” a person’s nature in any meaningful sense. I believe that things like sexual orientation, taste in food, and personality traits are largely a result of chance factors (for example, an inherited genome and environmental pressures). Moreover, I don’t believe that homosexuality or homosexual acts are ipso facto sinful (and so I would have no theoretical problem with a God who “created” homosexuals).

Your attempt at quoting scripture is as laughably stupid as the rest of your “argument”. Being homosexual (i.e. being attracted to others of the same sex) is nothing more than the opposite of being heterosexual (i.e. being attracted to others of the opposite sex). Are heterosexuals also guilty of the sin of “lusting” in their hearts? Obviously not — to know the sex to which one is attracted is not equivalent to expressing sexual lust for the opposite sex. To suggest a moral equivalency between homosexual orientation and base lust is insulting and deeply, deeply bigoted.

Once again, it’s nice to see that all the religious nuts aren’t just concentrated in America’s Bible Belt.

“To suggest a moral equivalency between homosexual orientation and base lust is insulting and deeply, deeply bigoted.” Ad Hominem.

It is only natural (by natural, I mean God’s intention) for opposite genders to attract. It is NOT natural for same sex attraction.

To say that non-practicing homosexuals commit no sin, is to ignore the fact that the thought that goes with it is wrong (i.e. Homosexuality is normal).

Say for instance pedophiles. Yes, a practicing pedophile is wrong. BUT even a non-practicing pedophile commits an error, as one should NOT be that inclined.

If one finds that their actions are out of line with what the Word teaches, naturally one should take steps to remedy such problems. Similary, if one finds themself thinking evil thoughts, and especially “DEFINING” themselves by it, that is wrong, and they should seek council to remedy it.

E.g. A non-practicing beastialist, or a non-practicing rapist.

By defining your character as something biblically abhorrent (e.g. homosexual)

is to insult the work of the creator.

Once again, it’s nice to see that there’s at least one more soul to save.

“[Homosexuality] could be a result of any number of factors — social/cultural, familial, and perhaps biological”

You also earlier said that there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality arises out of free choice, and that that is an abhorrent idea to most homosexuals.

This is nonsensical. The two statements above taken in conjunction with each other would imply that homosexuality is morally (in a religious sense) justifiable, along with other sinful acts such as (non-practising) pedophilia, habitual adultery, and other habitual deviant behaviour arising from a person’s upbringing. You seem to be essentially saying this because socio-cultural, familial and biological/develomental factors can conspire to give people no real “free choice” over who they develop in to, thereby denying all moral culpability for anything that is apparently intrinsic to their character (such as homosexuality). They can’t help it.

Thankfully, even the secular criminal justice system is not as gullible nor tolerant as you.

Point taken about the difference between “knowing” about your attractions and “lusting” after them… but I think you’re also creating a false dilemma (as Stu was driving at) by saying, in effect, that if you don’t make a fully conscious choice about something then you’re not responsible for it.

Without even going into social, cultural, environmental factors and so on, there are plenty of emotions, urges and impulses that are at some level “natural”, but are still sinful to entertain. (At the risk of keeping the “religious nut” label, why else do you think Paul refers to our sinful nature as “the flesh”?) Lust, whether it’s an issue here or not, starts with a physical urge. Hatred starts with an emotional impulse, not a rational conscious decision that “I choose do dislike this person starting now”.

I’m not saying that the initial impulse itself is sin; but it’s also not helpful, and when someone not only feeds the impulse but is openly proud of it and asks for public acceptance of it, it is definitely in their realm of responsibility.

Your entire argument, Stu, rests upon a hyper-religious conviction that homosexuality and homosexual acts (which often — though as with heterosexuals, not always — takes the form of a loving and responsible relationship) are ipso facto sinful (not only sinful, but morally comporable to gross abuses of the rights of other human beings — adultery, pedophilia, etc.) Sorry, but that’s not my conviction (nor is it the conviction of most of the civilized world, though Australia has never been squeamish about being on the wrong side of civilization, has it?) It’s useless to argue this point. I look at many homosexual relationships and see love, nurturing, monogamy, and responsibility (read http://andrewsullivan.com often for a wonderful expression of this positive side of homosexuality). You see deviance; you see two human beings in light of only their sexual habits. I’m of the opinion that in this postmodern hellhole of a world, we should encourage these types of emotional bonds between human beings, not stigmatize them.

Once again you confuse the act and the psychological motivation for the act. You have a very optimistic vie the human condition to believe that we actually control our psychological motivations. You are right that even though action occurs in light of certain psychological motivations, human beings are responsible for their acts. You are not right in thinking of the psychological motivation as an act in itself.

Nate, your argument has come full circle and entirely missed the point of my original article.

My conviction that homosexual acts are “ipso facto” sinful does not stem from what you call “hyper-religious” tendencies. It merely stems from religious doctrine. Homosexual sex is sinful and the Bible doesn’t leave any space for constructing another interpretation of the relevant verses from Leviticus.

You are also completely confusing secular opinion with religious opinion.

You’re also putting words into my mouth and in a typical case of reverse bigotism, stereotyping my views of homosexuals as individuals. I never mentioned anything about homosexuals as individuals. I never mentioned the secular moral incorrectness of their lifestyle. I have no problem with them as acquaintances or friends. I do not hold prejudices against them, in the same way that I do not hold prejudices against Muslims or atheists. I cannot agree with their beliefs though, and this is the essence of tolerance.

If you believe that homosexuality is not morally incorrect from a secular perspective, then who is to say that adultery or non-monogamy is ipso facto morally incorrect? You must be basing these assertions upon some absolute moral base. And this base shifts with the cultural evolution of society.

(If I were to adopt a purely secular viewpoint, I could point to statistics regarding the comparative anomaly of homosexuals as opposed to the norm of heterosexuality, but as with all secular arguments, it is quite debatable. As I said in my article, secular arguments are not bound by any absolute morals, therefore can be argued until the cows come home. A religious viewpoint precludes all this, which was the main argument in my article.)

From a secular point of view, there are definitely arguments either way for the moral status of homosexuality. From a (mainstream) Christian viewpoint, there is no argument.

Concerning your statement about inability to control psychological motivations – we may not be able to control the thoughts that arise from the subconscious, but it is how our conscious mind reacts in response to these “uncontrollable” motivations. And for conscious thoughts, we can be responsible. Therefore, we can control our psychological motivations at the conscious level, if not the subconscious level. The conscious level also determines our physical acts. However, if our conscious thoughts are impure, then that may be construed as an act in itself, for it is chosen.

“Your entire argument, Stu, rests upon a hyper-religious conviction that homosexuality and homosexual acts … are ipso facto sinful”

The article written by Stu is based on a religious context. Your latest approach to this topic is entirely flawed.

The article of Stu’s is based on mainstream biblical beliefs, even the Catechism would agree with what he has written. Don’t be a fool and make this into a secular debate, for even then, your arguement is flawed.

If we stick to the parameters, of homosexuality being wrong from a biblical/Christian/Catholic stand point, there is no room for interpretation: homosexuality is an “abomination” of which all associations with it are to be abhorred. I’m not being argumentative, I’m just stating the facts. Read your bible, read your catechism, homosexuality is sinful.

Don’t continue with your flawed approach of mixing a religious argument with a secular one.

“I look at many homosexual relationships and see love, nurturing, monogamy, and responsibility ” … a classic example of you missing the point entirely. In a secular arguement this point may have some weight, but from a religious context, you have failed to land any punch. I’m sure there are many fornicators and liers who are all involved in loving, nurturing, monogamas, and responsible relationships. But this does not detract from the point that their behaviour is sinful, and should not be condoned.

“You have a very optimistic vie{w} {of} the human condition to believe that we actually control our psychological motivations.”

To a large extent we do. This is failry basic psychology, so don’t be a fool and argue this.

It hasn’t taken long for your intolerant and prejudicial views of mainstream Christians/Catholics to reveal themselves.

“You see deviance; you see two human beings in light of only their sexual habits.”

No one has made any claim to this. No one has claimed that homosexuals are evil in all their ways. No one has claimed that homosexuals can’t be nice people. What has been claimed, is that homosexuals (acts or beliefs) are sinful.

Seriously Nate, get a clue, and don’t be so bigotted against Christians and Catholics.

I thought we were past the original article (the thesis of which was basically that it’s morally problematic to expect a religion to contradict its theological moorings — gee, obvious, but not particularly interesting) and getting to something more substantive.

I’m sure you follow Leviticus to the letter, by the way. This is an old argument, but one I’ve never heard a satisfactory answer to: why are some bits and pieces of the Bible accepted literally, while others (for example, all of the prescriptions for execution for various transgressions) are not?

My description of your views is not tantamount to religious bigotry. You think homosexuality (which involves two consenting adults and the promotion of positive things like love) morally comparable to both adultery (which generally involves the victimization of an individual [i.e. the individual being cheated on] and the desecration of the marriage bond) and pedophilia (which involves the gross victimization of a defenseless individual). So obviously there IS a standard (NOT a relativistic standard, but a fixed, objectively valid stadard) by which these last two acts can be judged sinful, while the first act can be judged morally permissible (or even desirable) — the libertarian standard. It requires a “special” kind of theological perspective (one that I think involves a debased vie homosexuality) to take seriously the drawing of a moral equivalency between these practices.

I like your reasoning by the way. “Secular arguments are not bound by any absolute morals … A religious viewpoint precludes all this.” Secular arguments are actually bound by REASON. Religious arguments are too often bound by irrationality (i.e. an excessive attachment to an obviously flawed scripture). Apparently you prefer adherence to scripture over adherence to reason. It’s kind of enjoyable to hear you sound like Antonin Scalia, though. But I don’t think Kant would be pleased.

And sexual attraction, if nothing else, is “subconscious” in origin.

By the way, to the next wanker, I’m a Catholic (so how can I be an anti-Catholic bigot?). And my Catechism actually says BEING homosexuality is morally neutral.

Nate’s latest round of “reasoning” has improved in some elements (e.g. use of Levitical laws), however, the use of modernist-reasoning to create a semi-tangible arguement is still flawed.

“I’m sure you follow Leviticus to the letter… why are some bits and pieces of the Bible accepted literally, while others are not?”

Well that all depends on which parts of the Levitical Law you’re talking about. Leviticus consists of about 3 main sets of laws: Ceremonial, Civil and Moral.

Obviously the ceremonial/civil laws were changed with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (the ultimate sacrifice). The moral laws, to the best of my knowledge have not changed, can you show me a moral law that has changed?

BUT even without using Leviticus, the New Testament has enough ammunition against homosexuals to be classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The next exciting section: “My description … moral equivalency between these practices.”

The best place to see what sins are comparable to homosexuality are in the bible. You don’t need to research very hard, the bible mentions in the same chapter, that one should not have same-sex intercourse, immediately followed by “Do not have sexual relations with an animal…” Verses previous to this, are both verses regarding pedophilia and adultery.

So while the moral equivalency of these sins may confuse you, the bible sets out these sins in a pretty standard fashion (Lev 18).

I particularly found these statements interesting:

(1)”Religious arguments are too often bound by irrationality”

AND

(2)”Secular arguments are actually bound by REASON.”

In response to 1. Religous arguements don’t have to have secular reasoning attached. Why should they? They are based on absoulute values. Christian reasoning and values have been around for over 2000years (Jewish reasoning has been around for over 4000years), whilst post-modernist pro-gay reasoning has only recently been around for the last 30 years or so.

In response to 2. Secular arguements are based on relative reasoning. There is no set standard anywhere. The rules that apply to one nation (e.g. Sierra Leone) don’t have to apply to those of another nation (e.g. The USA). With no set values or absolute values, how can you claim that one set of values is more “right” than another?

“And sexual attraction, if nothing else, is “subconscious” in origin.”… are you still trying to push the hypothesis that homosexuality has no choice?

“By the way … I’m a Catholic (so how can I be an anti-Catholic bigot?).”

I know how you can be. One answer is by being partially ignorant to what your own denomination postulates. GO and seek your priest for guidance.

“…my Catechism actually says BEING homosexuality is morally neutral.”

ehhehe.. Yeah, the Nate Catechism may say that homosexuality is neutral, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in accordance to Pope John Paul II… the standard) states the following:

“…homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to natural law… Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (2357)

No one here has condemned you, for no one has had to, for you condemn yourself each time you write your ignorant and confused posts.

So am I a modernist or a post-modernist? Or don’t you know the difference (you certainly don’t seem to from your post)? Your post is so philosophically obtuse that I won’t bother responding. Though I did like the bit about how reason (which I always thought provided a fixed, absolute standard) is really relativistic. Oh well… there I go thinking like Kant again.

“So am I a modernist or a post-modernist?”

You tell me, I wouldn’t want to presume that you’re either, considering that the Nate’s Catechism wasn’t very authorative.

“Your post is so philosophically obtuse that I won’t bother responding.”

Which parts in particular? So far you haven’t yet come up with a decent defence that homosexuality isn’t a sin, and that homosexual priests shouldn’t be admitted into leadership roles in the church.

“Though I did like the bit about how reason … is really relativistic.” I’d be interested to read any literature that could point out that secular morals or ethics could be anything else.

Please Nate, enlighten me.

Read Kant (or any other of the RATIONALISTS), you jackass. LOL.

“Read Kant you jackass.”

Right… Read the bible and your Catholic Catechism, you ignorant fool.

Similarly, why claim any association to Catholicism if what you believe is so far away from what the Holy Catholic Church holds to be true? You bring shame to the sacred Church.

Look, we didn’t even have to raise any new arguments to put you shame, the assumptions and statements you made were false from the start (e.g. There’s no choice in sexual preference/ e.g. The Catechism is neutral on homosexuality/Leviticus is the only source in the bible against homo’s/ etc).

Live and Learn.

Go seek your priest/local parish for spiritual and intellectual assistance. They’ll be more than happy to assist you in a kind and nuturing manner.

You’re a poor representation of the generally well informed and right-minded Catholic body.

*w.a.a.f*

I’m not wedded to the Bible (and neither, in fact, is the current Pope, who views much of the Bible as religious allegory). Like Aquinas, the greatest of Catholic theologians, I’m wedded to reason. Like Kant, I think anything that cannot be even somewhat substantiated by reason (a standard which exists *independently* of God, if God in fact exists at all) is not worth believing.

And I’d take Kant or Aquinas over the Bible any day of the week. But perhaps that’s just me.

You’re a windbag and a bigot who enjoys proclaiming victory when, in fact, you’ve only succeeded in proving (to me, at least) what an intellectually shalloool you really are (“reason is relativistic!”). Go back to thumping your Bible. Argument isn’t your strong suit.

…and we arrive at the fundamental problem of religious debate.

“Like Kant, I think anything that cannot be even somewhat substantiated by reason… is not worth believing.”

This argument will never be resolved because we’re not arguing about the morality of homosexuality or homosexual acts – we’re arguing about whether nate’s powers of reasoning are superior to God’s Word. He obviously believes that they are. So we’re arguing on fundamentally different terms and it’s not going to go anywhere.

I realise that this post is probably more likely to dralames and more off-topic argument than to actually settle anything. :) That’s okay, I’m probably going to let it rest after this anyway.

Sorry, Stu, I double posted again, can u delete one? Thanks.

Oh, and “dralames” in the last paragraph was meant to be “dralames”. Bad backspacing skills.

Hehe…. another amusing post from Nate.

“I’m wedded to reason” … are you kidding? What reason have you brought to the thread? It’s no use throwing around names if you can’t make a coherent point.

Every single point of yours has been shot down.

Come up with a decent “rational” or “reasonable” arguement.

Hehhe… you’re a good laugh.

*W.a.a.f*

I’ve rebutted everything you’ve attempted to argue (hint: citing the Bible is NOT an argument, or at least a very bad one). Now you’re claiming victory. One word, five letters: LOSER.

I’ve rebutted everything you’ve attempted to argue (hint: citing the Bible is NOT an argument, or at least a very bad one). Now you’re claiming victory. One word, five letters: LOSER.

Heehe… you’re a fool. It’s a debate about homosexuals in the church, of course the bible is central you ignorant loser.

You claim to be catholic, yet have no idea of what the official claims of the faith are. READ your bible, read your catechism, talk to your Priest, you FOOL.

“Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to natural law.” ACTS ACTS ACTS. Not orientation. ACTS. ACTS ACTS ACTS. Acts. Acts. Got it, jackass? This passage in the catechism refutes both of the points you’re trying to make. Since I also seem to remember a bit in the same passage about sexual orientation being out of a person’s control, and that because of this fact, gays were to be treated with compassion, it’s obvious that the catechism does not view homosexuality itself sinful. And since the church makes its argument from a NATURAL LAW standpoint (i.e. NOT a biblical standpoint; this was developed principally by Aquinas as a source of moral knowledge independent of the flawed Bible, and a standard upon which the Catholic has founded its entire moral theology), it’s also obvious that the church recognizes the inadequacy of Scripture as the sole source of morality (this is substantiated by the Pope’s own belief in Darwinian evolution).

I really don’t see how you could possibly think you’re right.

BTW, you’re a bigot, a moral neandertal, a fundamentalist, and generally a religious crackpot. It’s too bad about most of you weirdo evangelicals. Society seems to be leaving you behind!

“sexual orientation being out of a person’s control” …we’ve been through this already Nate. Geez you’re thick.

“Aquinas… a source of moral knowledge ” … You jugde a person’s view as more authoratative as the bible; you are a fool.

“it’s also obvious that the church recognizes the inadequacy of Scripture as the sole source of morality” … I’d go and talk to your priest about that. You really do make the majority of good catholics look bad.

“…gays were to be treated with compassion” … I totally agree. But that doesn’t mean we should make them church leaders or priests, does it? :)

“I really don’t see how you could possibly think you’re right.” … Easy. How can you put into a church position someone that does not stand for what the bible agrees with. This isn’t a soccer club they’re joining, this is a sacred institution, with boundaries.

Have some respect for the Church.

Please don’t try to get into a pissing contest with me about Catholic Doctrine — I have 13 years of instruction in it under my belt.

The majority of Catholics (and the Church itself) see the Bible (and especially the Old Testament) as allegorical and, often, a flawed product of its historical era. Which is why we don’t observe Jewish dietary custom, allow usury, don’t (for the most part) believe in the creation story, the Tale of Jonah, the Exodus, or Noah’s Ark. It’s why Aquinas’ natural law theology forms the foundation of modern Catholic doctrine.

You keep thinking Catholics are fundamentalist Protestants like yourself. You’d do well to reconsider.

Hehe… You really are joke.

Nowhere in the Catechism, nor any public documents from the Vatican, does it describe the bible (especially the old testament) as “allegorical.” … If they do, show me.

“…Catholic Doctrine — I have 13 years of instruction… ” That’s impressive, it’s a shame that it doesn’t show.

How can you, a supposedly good Catholic, defend the role of homosexuals, when even the current Pope has over the years, released documents against them?

If you were an aetheist, it would be easy to understand how you could believe that homosexuality is not a moral issue.

Disturbingly however, is that you claim to be catholic, yet disregard huge chunks of your catechism, and make light of the bible when the catechism calls on all Catholics to venerate the sacred text as one would the body of Christ (141).

Similarly, your own Pope has openly discredited the homosexual movement as a “troubling moral and social phenomenon.”

Futhermore, if the Catholic church reflected the views that you claim (i.e.ordaining homosexuals is perfectly moral and just), why did the vatican (just this month) issue a broad denunciation of homosexuality?

I’m not Catholic, and I don’t claim to have 13years of Catholic instruction, but at least I know what your Pontiff preaches.

You should seriously seek some Catholic councilling. You have many issues to resolve.

Just wondering, do you also believe that Homosexuals should be allowed to get married?

Perhaps we’ve gone too far away from the topic.

Essentially, correct me if I’m wrong, you’re claiming the following:

1. That there is nothing wrong with someone who is attracted sexually to the same gender.

2. That it is ok for a person that is sexually attracted to the same gender to assume a church leadership position.

3. That the bible is flawed.

Is this correct so far?

1. The Pontiff actually has never condemned homosexuality itself (which is why perhaps half of Catholic clergy fall into the “celibate homosexual” category). In my religion, Priests are not punished for acknowledging that they are celibate homosexuals. Perhaps you’re too stupid to note the difference between homosexuality itself (which the Church sees as innocuous) and homosexual acts. I’m sorry, but you haven’t made one valid point about Catholic doctrine yet (and yet you try to portray me as ignorant of it — nice try, but it only makes you look more stupid).

2. What kind of Catholic swallows everything the Church says simply because the Church or the Catechism says it? A mindless one. I know that the Pope doesn’t like practicing homosexuals (or the homosexual movement which seeks to legitimate these individuals). But that doesn’t mean I submit unconditionally to his will. You’re suggesting, like Rousseau, a recipe for totalitarianism through conformity. Sorry, not my bag.

3. You keep trying to suggest that the Church sees the Bible in the same way that you do — as a perfect, non-allegorical, literal text. THEY DO NOT. How else to explain the Pope’s belief in evolution? In the moral permissibility of eating pork? The Catholic religion certainly is a revelation-based faith, but **it does not hold that revelation to be infallible or literally true.** The Bible, I have been told trillions of time during my education, is a document which suggests broader truths — the Old Testament often makes obvious that it is a flawed product of historical eras that should be viewed allegorically, NOT LITERALLY. The Pope has made clear that he views revelation to be reconcilable with scientific evolution — how could he say this without taking an allegorical vie the creation story? Obviously, no one wants to disregard the Bible (Catholicism is not a secular faith).

1. Yes, I think most Christians/Catholics do see the difference between the act and the orientation.

Whilst hopefully we agree that the act is wrong, the adamant belief that one is “created” by God as a homosexual is also wrong.

I do not see how it can be natural (or God ordained) in anyway that a man could be sexually attracted to another man (and vice versa), nor why God would “make” a person a homosexual.

I have a background in psychology, and it is a fact, totally undeniable, even by the most hardline homosexual, that being a homosexual is not entirely (or even predominantly) genetically driven.

A person is not born gay, they choose to be (whether due to social/cultural influences, they choose to be).

To then openly defy the purposes of God in creating genders, by being proud and indeed declaring that “I disagree with the natural la gender complimentarity” is wrong.

Now obviously the act is worse, but to condone the perverse belief of homosexuality, is also wrong.

2. Now whether you think that being a practicing/non-practicing homosexual is right or wrong doesn’t entirely matter for this point.

It is unwise to put a person into a position where they are frequently tempted to stumble (choir/altar boys, other priests, etc).

This is the same reason why it would be unwise to let previous drug addicts administer rehabilitation houses, or reformed alcoholics to run liquor stores. Sure they are helpful in mentoring other addicts, but it is unwise to put them into a position of power where they are likely to abuse/falter.

3. Now whether you see the bible as “allegorical” or not, doesn’t really matter on this issue. We’re not debating creation, Jonah, Exodus, etc. The bible however it’s spun, does not condone homosexuals. Simple fact. Not only in the OT, but also in the NT. So unless you’re claiming that the bible does condone homosexuals, you have to agree.

———–

Now i’m not quite sure of your keen interested in this topic, but am I correct in assuming you believe the following:

1. It’s ok to be homosexual.

2. It’s ok for homosexuals to take leadership roles in the church.

3. The bible is wrong in addressing homosexuals as sinful.

4. Homosexual relationships are good and healthy, and should be promoted (http://andrewsullivan.com)

Hmm, perhaps you could explain homosexual orientation in other, lesser animals, Mr. Free Choice. If it occurs naturally in flies, why not in human beings?

You’re muddling a number of things together here. Even if someone is not born gay (a fact I don’t wish to concede), even if social or environmental (flies can be induced to homosexual acts through a simple change in temperature) pressures cause a homosexual orientation, you cannot say with any certainty that the homosexual chooses their orientation (or at least with any more certainty than you can say that I choose to be allergic to potatoes, a condition that I developed as a result of environmental pressures, not genetic inheritance [my identical twin brother, who has an identical human genome, can eat potatoes just fine]). This is just sloppy — just because someone isn’t born with something does not mean that that person “chooses” that condition. This is a bigoted and extremely unscientific view (funny how those two things are so often bedfellows) — one which, I should add, the Catholic Church denies outright.

Your comparison of homosexuals to alcoholics and drug abusers is extremely offensive and, once again, bigoted. Homosexuality itself implies in no way a predispositon toward the victimization of others (just as heterosexuality implies in no way that sort of disposition). Homosexual priests are no more tempted to “stumble” than are heterosexual priests (to suggest otherwise is pretty disgusting and ignorant). Should we demand that all priests eschew sexual orientation entirely? Sorry, but you’d be left with a clergy of eunuchs. There is no such thing as a human being who naturally has no sexual orientation.

I do believe in the moral praiseworthiness of healthy homosexual relationships. In themselves, I believe that homosexual relationships, like heterosexual ones, are morally neutral — they are morally positive or negative only insofar as they promote things which may be considered morally positive (love, selflessness, etc) or negative (lust, objectification, etc). And I do not believe that a Bible that might be so flawed as to prescribe execution for those who do not observe the Sabbath or who do not observe Kosher should be taken any more seriouly when addressing issues of homosexuality.

P.S. Where is that New Testament condemnation of homosexuality you’ve been alluding to? I’m just dyyyyyyying to see it!

[Enter Shish]

1 Corinthians 6:9.

[Exit Shish]

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.”

Here’s a pretty good discussion of what that passage actually means (and on whether the KJV translation is in fact the most accurate one): http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

“…perhaps you could explain homosexual orientation in other, lesser animals…”

Yes, on two levels (Brain and Chemical).

Due to the lack of higher brain function (cognitive thought, etc), they rely heavily on external cues (e.g. Temperature). All things remaining ideal, I can’t think of a case where an animal would be naturally “gay.” E.g. Rat studies. Overcrowded Rat cages increase the likelihood of anti-social behaviour (e.g. infanticide, homosexual behaviour, etc) vs normal conditions (where there are few, if any cases of antisocial behaviour).

If you cut the balls off a dog, or a dog has internal testicles, other male dogs will treat the “testicle-less” dog as a bitch (engaging in homosexual dog behaviour). They rely heavily on cues such as smell (and they reasonably can’t smell the other dogs sperm/testosterone). Fortunately, most humans, with our higher cognitive abilities can discern better.

“This is a bigoted …view” Just because it doesn’t sound “nice” doesn’t mean it’s not true. E.g. Many people who reject the Saviour Jesus Christ will go to hell… It’s not nice, it discriminates, but I’m sure that you’ll agree, is true.

“…extremely unscientific… ” Any reasonable person, who has done their reading, will clearly see the discrepancy between what the socially accepted vie homosexuals, and the reality. Talk to your local CDC (Centre for Disease Control), they’ll have a nice wad of scientific papers revealing, Homosexuals are more likely to suffer suicide, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, viral infections, anal cancers, anti-social behaviour and STDs. Naturally people will claim that it’s due to discrimination, etc… But even in countries where it is socially acceptable (e.g. Holland), the stats are overwhelming.

Once more, it’s might not sound “cute and cuddly” but it’s the truth.

“Your comparison of homosexuals to alcoholics…bigoted”

The bible put’s them in with the adulters and people who have sex with animals. Similarly, it a good example, since there’s more evidence that people are “genetically” prone to drug and alcohol addiction, than they are to becoming a homosexual. It’s a legitimate scientific example, but you can consider it “allegorical” if you want.

“There is no such thing as a human being who naturally has no sexual orientation.”

Absolutely true. But the heterosexual orientation is the most natural, whilst the homosexual orientation is wrong, and should be (and can be) changed.

“I do believe in the moral praiseworthiness of healthy homosexual relationships.”

Well, unfortunately, that’s just a view that is diametrically opposed to both mainstream Christian views, and also the Catholic Church. Seek Catholic councilling, and if they excommunicate you over those views, there are many good protestant churches you can attend.

“And I do not believe that a Bible that might be so flawed as to prescribe execution for those who do not observe the Sabbath or who do not observe Kosher should be taken any more seriouly when addressing issues of homosexuality.”

Where under the new covenant does it encourage the death penalty for any sin? But it does clearly say that the unrighteous (which I’m sorry, DOES include homosexuals) will not inherit the kingdom of God.

“http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm” … This website is hilarious. Go and find a “credible” website; or is it that the Pope and all mainstream denominations just got it wrong?

Here’s an interesting thought. If homosexual condition is so strong that “choice” has no part in it, how can it be that the majority of gays will at one point or another switch between homo and hetero-orientation?

1. It’s not due to discrimination (Holland studies).

2. It’s not confusion (people know when they are attracted to one type of gender, or sometimes both)

…Maybe it’s the temperature.