Vatican - Considerations regarding ... homosexual persons

Zenit ^ | 07/31/2003 | Vatican - CDF

[lrslattery]

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS

TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION

TO UNIONS

BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

INTRODUCTION

1. In recent years, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed with some frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the Holy See.(1) Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element. The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.

I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE

AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS

2. The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

3. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.

Excerpted....See article at http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=39664

[RnMomof7]

Where do the Calvinists stand on this issue? Mom, could you ping your list?

We would stand against any form of same sex marriage , seeing homosexuality as an abomination before God

I will ping for more thoughtful discussion

[lockeliberty]

I don't want to leave any impression that the Reformed position denies a natural knowledge of sexual relations. I think most Reformed theologians would classify sexuality under the general heading of General Revelation. Romans 1 is the basic framework for General Revelation in the Reformed tradition, if I'm not mistaken. What I have seen by the "christian" homosexual community as it relates to defense of their position from a biblical standpoint is that they engage in a form of exegesis that tries to tightly construe those passages, that we would all consider as a commandment against homosexuality, as pertaining to only sexual relations with temple prostitutes. Quite devious exegisis eisegesis.

[ThomasMore]

Thanks mom! :^)

[anniegetyourgun]

There isn't much more to say - it's sin. No better or worse than any other form of fornication.

[ThomasMore]

Quite devious exegisis eisegesis

Personal interpretation certainly leaves the door open for that. Devious, BTW, is an understatement! This is pure evil at work here! Anti-Christ!

[ThomasMore]

No better or worse than any other form of fornication.

Annie, see post #11!

[wideawake]

It's worse than other forms of fornication.

It heaps an offense to God's created order on top of an offense to God's moral law.

In the proper context, intercourse between a man and a woman can be a God-pleasing, holy act.

In no context can sodomy ever be pleasing to God.

[biblewonk]

It's strange that Calvanists would be thought to all have a different opinion than Arminians. Calvanism vs Arminianism is a top level doctrinal debate for those who take the bible to be the inspired Word of God. Homo Marriages are a travesty to Christianity and deserve no consideration at all.

[wideawake]

I don't want to leave any impression that the Reformed position denies a natural knowledge of sexual relations.

You haven't created that impression.

To abbreviate:

The Catholic position is that not only is sodomy an abomination according to positive and specific revelation (i.e. the Scriptures), but that even those who have not been gifted with the grace of revelation can deduce the evil of sodomy by applying right reason and analyzing the evidence of creation.

The Reformed position (as I understand it) is that we only know sodomy as an abomination according to positive and specific revelation (again through the Scriptures) because man's reason, distorted by the depravity of sin, cannot arrive at a sure knowledge of God's truth in this matter through his defective reason alone. What we can do is, being vouchsafed the truth through Scripture, deduce from it the natural reasons for God's ordinance.

[RnMomof7]

If the clergyman is closeted, and most are, this will not be an easy task. However, this task is not impossible. Oaths; investigations where applicable... are a good start. Check out where the clergyman goes on his time off; whether he preaches against homosexality or is silent about it...Undercover investigations have worked as well. I have no reason to fear that in my life. But some out there do fear being exposed

You are a Deacon correct?

Tom you attend functions within your diocese , you must have a pretty good idea about most of them. My husband's pastor is flaming . He used to hold a position of some power in the diocese but the shortage of priests forced him to pastor.I believe according to RC beliefs as long as he is celibate there is no problem.

I will add this. It is a terrible image problem for the Catholic church to have swishing Pastors before the public eye.

I have heard non Catholics comment that "they are all gay". We both know that is not true. But in my diocese it sure seems tilted that way .

A strong stand by the church on this issue would be a very good first step

[anniegetyourgun]

Sin is sin - when we stumble on one, we are guilty of all. And, all are guilty - redemption through the work of the Christ is our only hope. The only difference with sexual sin (all kinds) is that we take the penalty into our own body.

[sinkspur]

We should feel pity for these creatures, but recognize that no one who commits such sins can ever be close to God or deserve the regard of their fellow men unless they renounce them.

The Vatican is less condescending than you, happily. It uses the term "homosexual acts," and clearly distinguishes between the act and the orientation.

Apparently you can't bring yourself to make the distinction.

[Gamecock]

From my FR homepage (so it must be right ;->)

I believe that my sins are no better than anyone else’s. In the eyes of God, a homosexual’s sin is no worse than mine. Yes, there will be homosexuals in heaven (gasp). Those who accept the atoning death of Christ, and renounce their lifestyle, will be there. Those who seek to have the church approve of, and celebrate their lifestyle, will have some explaining to do (as will the church leaders who play into this).

Thanks for including The Swarm on this tread!

SDG

[lockeliberty]

The Reformed position (as I understand it) is that we only know sodomy as an abomination according to positive and specific revelation (again through the Scriptures)

I think you understanding is mistaken. We divide revelation under two specific headings: General Revelation and Special Revelation. General Revelation are those things which we ~inferentially~ know to be true. I think most Reformed theologians would classify sex between a man and a women to be a general revelation to all men as the only role for sex regardless of any knowledge of special revelation.

[wideawake]

All sins are not the same in their gravity. Christ himself makes this plain in the Gospel.

[Salvation]

Thanks, NYer for posting the whole thing.

[wideawake]

Correct, but the question here is the mode of knowledge. Special Revelation is, to the Reformed Christian, Scripture.

General Revelation is known how? By right reason? By instinct? The Catholic would say the former.

[Salvation]

**I take issue with the term "respect."

We should not respect sodomites, any more than we should respect someone who beats his wife or spends his life high on drugs.**

Doesn't this fly in the face of "Love the sinner; hate the sin?" Even Christ loved the goodness in sinners and told them to "Go forth and sin no more." after a healing encounter or simply even a casual encounter.

[Coleus]

Need info on Natural Law and Pantheism, go no further than the many Papal Encyclicals from the 1800's when this crap and Marxism became popular in Europe. And we wonder why tree hugging and saving turtle eggs (where the US Govt. and the state of FL have them protected) are more important than human life in utero. Here is one of the encyclicals which addresses natural law and when finished you can also look up the info listed in the references.

Quanta Cura
CONDEMNING CURRENT ERRORS
Encyclical of Pope Pius IX promulgated on December 8, 1864.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11447b.htm

Lucifer, the First Liberal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/904024/posts

[wideawake]

Apparently you can't bring yourself to make the distinction.

If you read the portion of the post I quoted, viz. "one who commits such sins" you'll see that you've ignored my distinction.

I never said anything about those who are tempted but do not submit.