about homosexualty

[winoblue1]

I was recently (unfortunately) at a dinner party and of course we got to talking about the "da vinci code" movie and whatnot. As I began to defend the Church, one guest began to 'attack' my views. As the conversation became more heated he began to say that the church now, no longer has a consistent view of homosexuality. He began to quote from the document "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" from 1975. He claims that this declaration has opened up the view that homosexuality is morally neutral because it is now viewed as an unchosen or natural condition and that one cannot be held morally responsible for behaviors that come as a result of a morally neutral or unchosen natural condition.

 

Here is the quote:

"A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homoseuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development from habit, from bad example or from similar causes and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definately such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable."

 

The argument says that before this document the church had a coherent view that homosexuals didn't really exist, it was just a form of perversion of heterosexuality, it was an abuse of an essential heterosexual orientation. Homosexual acts were condemned the same way as other acts... premarital sex, adultery etc etc..

 

Now my question to all of you is to help me refute this argument... Is this another example of the Church giving in to the modern spirit and adopting (perhaps unknowingly) the words and terminology of modern psychology and therefore putting themselves in a logically inconsistent position, or does the Church have a logical position here?

 

It seems that later, the Church released another document "the pastoral care of the homosexual person" that seems to praise homosexuals as individuals with 'human dignity' and goes on to condemn unjust discrimination etc etc.. but it just seems to add more to the idea that homosexuality is a natural, albeit uncommon, human variation that is intrinsic to the individual... which leads people to believe that this condition is OK and morally netural for those that suffer from it.

 

Any comments would be appreciated.

[Pat]

Modern psychology (or genetics) hasn't conclusively determined whether  people are "born gay" or have an incurable tendency to it, so it would  be presumptuous to assume it. Since this is an area of science, the  Church can only say "the homosexual act is wrong", but not whether or  not people are born gay (etc.). The Church is guided infallibly when it  defends Tradition, but only the evilness of the act falls within  Tradition (in St. Paul and certainly many Fathers), not the scientific  fact that people may or may not be born gay.
 
 So when a  document comes out saying that people are "born gay" or certain people  have an incurable tendency to homosexuality, that is the opinion of the  author, not the Church.
 
 I am inclined to believe that it's  curable, but I may be wrong. If so, it is a cross like any other that  we have. The Catechism says that, assuming it's incurable, such persons  are called to celibacy (IIRC does not specifically mention non-religious  celibacy, unfortunately).
 

[Ceildric]

I'm not particularly well versed in recent Church documents, especially when it comes to seemingly settled issues like homosexuality.  However, I did read a rather interesting "introduction" one might say, to John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" which defends the traditional outlook on homosexuality as I see it in light of the TOB.

Bishop Baker of Charleston's "The Redemption of Our Bodies"

Its very short and should be easy to find the section about homosexuality (it has a title heading).

[DominusTecum]

I think it is preposterous to suggest that people could be "born gay" without some kind of conclusive proof. It's like proving to me that the Sun gives off light. If some idiot says that it does not, I don't have to say "well, we should suspend judgement until science establishes for sure whether it does or does not."

 

The sin of sodom is an evil temptation, and an evil sin. Those who "have it" should be treated just like any other human, but with the knowledge that they are tempted to this abomination.

[kjvail]

A) as others have pointed out there is no scientific proof of a gay gene (good article here from Homelitc and Pastoral Review on that point )
 
  B) most people who believe in "the gay gene" also believe in Darwinian  natural selection... so I have to ask. If, according to Darwin, the  primary process of life is a struggle to reproduce how exactly does  this "Gay gene" accomplish this? It would seem to me that if such a  gene ever existed it would have died out very quickly.
 

[miss_fluffy]

In my early twenties, before I converted (I was rather pagan back  then).  I kept company mostly with the gay community.  There  are a few things about gays that I can state with some authority (at  least in my city).
 
  In general, an exclusively homosexual person is extremely rare.   By far the majority of homosexuals have relations with both sexes, and  do so with reckless abandon.  This is probably more prevalent  amongst men in the gay community than it is with women.  Gay women  tend to be a little less promiscuous than gay men.  There are a  few rare exceptions out there where you think... this person is like a  woman trapped in a man's body, or vice versa.  But this is rare,  and the men especially who are like this tend to be shunned by their  own communities, because when a gay man wants to have a "boyfriend" he  wants him to be a man, not a woman.  Another thing about the  extreme, who I think of as transexuals, is that they are very mentally  off kilter.  They are often extremely self-destructive, and suffer  from delusions.  I think it's like some form of schizophrenia  almost.
 
  Basically my take on homosexuals is that they either suffer from an  obsession with sexual gratification, having to push the envelope in  order to gain fleeting pleasure from their increasingly perverse  behaviors.  Or, in the rare case, they are very sick in the head,  and suffer a form of delusion.
 
  I think it's appropriate that the church should teach that we have  charity and compassion for these people.  But nowhere is it  suggested that their behavior is fine.  Their behavior needs  correction.  In the end, they keep having broken families, and  broken lives.  No matter what their politically correct nonsense  tells us, they will not find peace with their present  association.  Besides, the church holds to the moral precept that  any relations outside of marriage are intrinsically wrong, and a very  grave mortal sin.  How can the kind of promiscuous activity that  homosexuals revel in ever be condoned by the church?
 
 

[CampeadorShin]

If there is a "gay gene" then wouldn't it be considered a mutation that needs to be cured?

If it's a psychology thing, then wouldn't it be considered a mental disorder?

Even if the cause is identified, they'll still be tempted by Satan to remain that way instead of becoming cured.  The best we can do is pray.

[kjvail]

There are a few rare exceptions out there where you think... this  person is like a woman trapped in a man's body, or vice versa.

 
  You may think that but its very bad philosophy.
   The soul is the unique form of the body (de fide)  therefore a male soul forms a male body and female soul a female body.  This above idea is platonic (the soul is "trapped" in the body and one  body is just as good as the next)
 
 
 

[Ceildric]

Here is a quote from St. Jerome's "Against Jovinianus"

.²⁶¹ “In the resurrection of the dead they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be like the angels.” What others will hereafter be in heaven, that virgins begin to be on earth. If likeness to the angels is promised us (and there is no difference of sex among the angels), we shall either be of no sex as are the angels, or at all events which is clearly proved, though we rise from the dead in our own sex, we shall not perform the functions of sex.

²⁶¹ S. Matt. xxii. 30.

Thusly, I draw light to the question I have of whether it be correct to identify one's sex merely with what bodily organs one may have or lack.

Sex, to my current understanding, defines one's role in the cosmic scheme until one is spiritually in matrimonial union with God.

I am not defending homosexuality however, as it is inherently self-indulgent and disordered as a practice.

It seems to me that there has been a nuance lost in translation somewhere, and over time, as to the notion of what a body is when ancient writers were talking.  There were physical bodies, which we have, but ancient writers also had a notion of a spiritual body.  The spiritual body, birthed from the death of the physical worldly body, was one likened to the angels, as St. Jerome stated.

Just something to ponder.  I am yet working something out here, God willing, so do please correct me if you will.

[kjvail]

Here is a quote from St. Jerome's "Against Jovinianus"
 
 

 

.²⁶¹  “In the resurrection of the dead they will neither marry nor be given  in marriage, but will be like the angels.” What others will hereafter  be in heaven, that virgins begin to be on earth. If likeness to the  angels is promised us (and there is no difference of sex among the  angels), we shall either be of no sex as are the angels, or at all  events which is clearly proved, though we rise from the dead in our own  sex, we shall not perform the functions of sex.

   

²⁶¹ S. Matt. xxii. 30.

 

 
  Thusly,  I draw light to the question I have of whether it be correct to  identify one's sex merely with what bodily organs one may have or lack.
 
  Sex,  to my current understanding, defines one's role in the cosmic scheme  until one is spiritually in matrimonial union with God.
 
  I am not defending homosexuality however, as it is inherently self-indulgent and disordered as a practice.
 
  It  seems to me that there has been a nuance lost in translation somewhere,  and over time, as to the notion of what a body is when ancient writers  were talking. There were physical bodies, which we have, but ancient  writers also had a notion of a spiritual body. The spiritual body,  birthed from the death of the physical worldly body, was one likened to  the angels, as St. Jerome stated.
 
  Just something to ponder.  I am yet working something out here, God willing, so do please correct me if you will.
 
 

   
    This interpretation is colored by St. Jerome's neo-Platonism. The dogma  of hylomorphism was not proclaimed til the 19th century (Council of  Vienne; V Lateran; Brief of Pius IX, 15 June, 1857), so it remained an open question at this time (roughly 4th century).
    Remember St. Jerome did have have access to Aristotlean metaphysics, those writings were lost to the West til the 12th Century.