Gay Catholics struggle to maintain faith in church

Boston Globe ^ | 10/13/03 | Yvonne Abraham

[HapaxLegamenon]

If we banned every Catholic in Massachusetts (or Georgia, or Illinois, or Oregon...) from church who had had premarital sex or used contraception while married, you'd lose 90% of the congregations. Are you married? Lots of married people use contraception unless they're actively trying to have kids.

No one is talking about "banning from Church". Nevertheless, if more priests would follow the rules and refuse absolution to those who refuse to renounce their sinful lifestyles, a lot more people would wake up. If they do not, the Church has an obligation to warn them (Active Homosexuals and contraceptors) that they are going to go to hell, if they do not conform their lives to the teachings of Christ.

[Blzbba]

""'I answer to a higher person than the Vatican,'' said John F. Kelly, also a member of the Jesuit Urban Center. "


I'm a straight husband with twin babies and I too answer to a "higher person" than the Vatican - The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Vatican is not my God either. So many events throughout history have thoroughly disproven the misguided, invented notion of Papal Infallibility. Anyone who disagrees with this is in direct violation of a Commandment, as God says to not worship false gods and idols.

[Blzbba]

"I've seen the pain some of these Catholics live with. I wouldn't laugh it off without considering the many straight Catholics who don't examine their own sins (contraception) as thoroughly."


Good point, but expect much disagreement from your introduction of reason and self-introspection into this thread.

[B-Chan]

So many events throughout history have thoroughly disproven the misguided, invented notion of Papal Infallibility

Oh, really? Would you mind naming just one such event?

[Blzbba]

"It might be a little harder to get around the homosexual sin than contraception. The Bible is a lot more direct in stating that homosexual acts are sinful."


"It might be"? What if it's not - and God views each sin equally?

The Bible also is harsh about out-of-wedlock pregnancies, but only the idiotic Muslim faith still advocates the Bible-recommended punishment of stoning women who commit this sin. In fact, I believe that the same passages from Leviticus that abhor homos also require that the brothers of dead husbands should be able to legally impregnate the widows to guarantee a male heir, yet no Christian advocates this. Is our failure to advocate these punishments a sin? Biblically, the answer is yes.

[Varda]

" It's much easier to identify gay Catholics"

It is not at all easy to identify homosexuals unless they make a public showing of their sexual preferences. Along with the quiet divorced, contracepting and otherwise sinful communicants are quiet homosexuals. It's the ones with an agenda that are being called to disavow a sin they bring to display in church.
"And [other Catholics] get to see me and my family"

[Blzbba]

"Oh, really? Would you mind naming just one such event? "


The Inquisition.

Their misguided, superstitious, failed reaction to the Black Death (which according to the Pope was a result of sinful behavior).

Their sad, wrong treatment of Galileo in the face of all evidence that he was (and is) right.

Their near-complete ignorance and failure of condemnation of the Holocaust, until it was convenient to do so.

Charging money for the forgiveness of sins, resulting in Martin Luther's Protest.

[Blzbba]

"Oh, really? Would you mind naming just one such event? "

I almost forgot...


The changes of Vatican I.

followed by the changes of Vatican II, which have been loudly protested by many Catholics here.

The ignorance of the child-abuse scandal, in the face of mounting evidence.

[TenaciousZ]

"I am very seriously considering how much longer I can stay in a faith tradition that is so hostile to me," said Chuck Colbert, a gay Catholic journalist

Me, me, me. I wonder if he has seriously considered how much longer he can stay in a lifestyle that is so hostile to his faith tradition.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Translation: God is whomever I want him to be.

Interpretation: I worship my own opinions as god.

[B-Chan]

The Bible also is harsh about out-of-wedlock pregnancies, but only the idiotic Muslim faith still advocates the Bible-recommended punishment of stoning women who commit this sin. In fact, I believe that the same passages from Leviticus that abhor homos also require that the brothers of dead husbands should be able to legally impregnate the widows to guarantee a male heir, yet no Christian advocates this. Is our failure to advocate these punishments a sin? Biblically, the answer is yes.

Biblically, the answer is “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

Forgive me for noticing, but your knowledge of what is Biblical and what is not leaves something to be desired.

[Qwinn]

None of those cases involve Dogma, which is the only point around which Papal Infallibility applies. But of course you prescribe to the ridiculous misrepresentation of papal infallibility that the Pope can't stub his toe.

"Their near-complete ignorance and failure of condemnation of the Holocaust, until it was convenient to do so."

This is an abhorrent and unjust lie of ghastly proportions - Albert Einstein himself praised the Catholic Church as the only institution in Europe willing to condemn Hitler, and Roman Catholic priests were Hitler's 2nd preferred target after Jews.

Qwinn

P.S. I intend to answer other posts directed to me, I just can't at the moment, am very hungry and can't find my dedit card to order some food, argh. But I couldn't let that ABHORRENT propaganda about the Catholic Church stand.

[HostileTerritory]

It is not at all easy to identify homosexuals unless they make a public showing of their sexual preferences.

People socialize after Mass over doughnuts and coffee. Unless parishioners want to endure lots of awkward silences and unwanted blind dates, or the sinner in question is extremely homely or unpleasant, this sort of information will come out naturally.

[Qwinn]

"People socialize after Mass over doughnuts and coffee. Unless parishioners want to endure lots of awkward silences and unwanted blind dates, or the sinner in question is extremely homely or unpleasant, this sort of information will come out naturally."

So does this mean that in the event it comes out, the proper response is to say "Yes, and I'm proud of it! Gay pride! Gay pride!"?

Qwinn

[B-Chan]

It’s obvious to me that have a mistaken idea of what infallibility is. Here is the official teaching of the Church on the subject, straight from the Catechism:

“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

[Source]

None of your examples meet the criteria of a case of Papal infallibility.

[HostileTerritory]

Only if "Gay Pride!" is accompanied by jazz hands.

[fr_freak]

The conclusion is that gay Catholics experience a lot of pain that other Catholics have been unnecessarily spared.

I think the bulk of the problem lies with the perception of homosexuality as an identity, almost like a racial identity, rather than seeing homosexuality as a set of unusual sexual desires within a person. That attitude is demonstrated in the statement "I am a homosexual" rather than "I am a person with homosexual desires".

Once these people start thinking of themselves as people first, the rest is relatively easy. We are all sinners, but that doesn't preclude any of us from being Catholics or believing in the Bible, any more than homosexual sin precludes a person from being a Catholic. You simply must recognize your sin and work to overcome it. Those Catholics who use birth control, or have sex outside marriage are not subjected to the same level of rejection as many homosexuals because they don't attempt to adopt their sin as an inseperable identity and elevate it to the level of virtue. Many homosexuals do. Therefore, the pain that the homosexual Catholics experience that you refer to is largely of their own making. I cannot imagine what church would turn away a person who confesses to homosexual acts but detests their own sin. However, I can't imagine what church would NOT turn away a person who is proud of his sin and expects the church to change its views to accomodate him.

[Eala]

"but I believe God made me as I am, and that's not a bad thing," said Charles Manson.

[Qwinn]

"I don't think the ideal of the chaste homosexual is really much of a solution. It resolves problems of church doctrine, but does nothing to resolve the conflicts individuals feel."

Why? A person who never gets married is required to be chaste all his life. A priest is required to be chaste from the moment he becomes a priest.

The secular notion of modern psychiatry that gives rise to the sentiment you're talking about is that sex is some basic impulse as necessary to human beings as breathing - which is simply not true. Now don't get me wrong - it can be very hard to follow the Church's prescriptions toward sex - and being of Spaniard descent, lack of libido has -not- been something I've been fortunate enough to have. But it is ridiculous, as secular mythology today attempts to proclaim, that if you are chaste in the face of the urge to have sex, you'll somehow be damaged or traumatize yourself. This type of argument is made all the time, as when people try to blame celibacy of the clergy for pedophilia.

Here, look at it this way: In Catholic principle, everyone has a cross to bear. Now, what cross do we, in the most prosperous nation, have to bear? People in poor, third world countries have far greater temptations and miseries to overcome - a greater need to steal from others , lack of a supportive environment, drug abuse, dictatorial regimes and mass murders and genocides that force people to question how God can allow people to suffer in such a way, etc.

Comparatively speaking, we here in America have it -great-. There is no reason someone really needs to sin here to have a wonderful, happy life. Most of us, at least in Middle Class America, don't have to look at the world around us and be daily jolted with the inevitability and prevalence of gross evil. So what cross do we have? Well, we have the cross of a very sexually permissive society, which means we can have all the pre-marital sex we want and none of our neighbors will judge us very harshly for it. I doubt God is looking down at -us-, the most fortunate of people, and saying "Oh, boo hoo, not being a slut was -all- I asked you to do, was it really THAT hard?"

When you look at it in -that- light, methinks, the notion of having to feel all this compassion for the "internal conflicts" of gays who criticize the Church on the first sign that they should be expected to be ashamed of their promiscuous behavior, is kinda silly. In fact, I'd guess it'd probably really annoy Him.

But that's just a silly agnostic's opinion.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

Excellent post, very well said.

Qwinn