apparently Ree and Hobbs (and others) have committed a mortal sin

[BigGiant]

The belief is instead that acting on those desires is sinful, and generally it's held pretty much on-par with adultery, because really, that's what it boils down to.

Adultery? What, because you're not having sex with a woman?

Sorry, I can't agree with that whatsoever.

But again, basically your argument is that, oh, it's cool to be homosexual, you just can't act it out, because that's bad....?

Think about that for a moment......Thinking about doing something is just fine. It is just the act that's bad?

And really, what act is it that is bad in particular? Certainly it isn't the act of loving another person? That's still ok, right? And it isn't kissing another person, regardless of sex...that's still ok, right?

So it is basically that God is worried about where someone puts their privates? Really? God is worried about that? All the other stuff is fine, just watch where you put your thing, dammit!

I'm sorry, I don't mean to rant.....but to me all of this is incredibly outdated. The idea that sex should only be for making offspring, and only in the bond of holy matrimony, comes from a time when birth control was incredibly unreliable. These 'rules' were set up to ensure that children had the proper support structure around them.

Now....although a bit unrealistic, these ideas still make plenty of sense. (making sure that kids have adequate support structure)

But, to warp them into homosexuality=adultery (basically because man+man =/= children) is just plain wrong.

Sorry....I think I rambled a bit....and sometimes I have trouble putting into words what's in my head....

[infinitemonkies]

I came across a term I really like a short while ago:

"Cafeteria Catholic" (or cafeteria christian, etc)

Someone who picks and chooses which parts of their religion to follow, and which to ignore.

The same book of the bible (leviticus) which states that homosexuality is an abomination also says that eating shellfish is an abomination, and the penalty for both is death. So my question is why aren't guys like Rev. Rodriguez as equally vocal in their condemnation of surf n' turf? Why are there no outraged firebombings of Red Lobsters all throughout the biblebelt?

The same goes for wearing poly-cotton blend clothing (a garment woven of two different threads.) The bible says this is equally a death penalty sin as homosexuality, and for the same reasons.

I think if you're going to argue that any part of the bible is valid, then you have to take the whole thing. Any man of god who speaks out against gays is a hypocrite unless after the sermon he heads over to the 7/11 to beat employees to death with rocks for working on a sunday.

Just remember, the bible says that everyone who has ever had a garden with more than 1 type of flower or vegetable in the same soil will go to hell after being executed by concerned family & neighbors.

[Kheldarson]

As to earlier points, Kabe is my hero and has answered quite nicely.

To your current question, Smiley, it's kinda both. Because if you had followed my link, you'd have seen that the Church has no problem with any sexuality. They have a problem with acting upon sexuality in an unchaste way. And unfortunately, the current definition of being chaste means that homosexuals have the greatest challenge.

On the other hand, the growing number of people discussing it and wishing a change does mean that this question is going up the ladder again. Whether or not it will change is a different matter as is how long it might take (to give an idea: for Catholics in America to be allowed to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer--a fairly minor preferential difference from the rest of the world--was a 50 year debate).

Who knows? Maybe they'll gain greater insight into the Biblical interpretation. Maybe it'll be for the way some wish. Maybe it'll be the opposite. Maybe they'll keep the status quo. But until then, the lay Catholic may say they wish a change, but to be in full communion with their chosen religion/faith, they have to say they are against homosexual acts.

That said, that doesn't mean that you don't have the choice of free will. Which is why I personally wouldn't stand against you gaining legal rights. If you choose to do as you wish, be it a sin or no, then under separation of church and state, or simple fairness, you should at least be legally protected. Everything else is up to God.

And yes, I had a long talk with my priest about that viewpoint once and he saw no problem with it.

[smileyeagle1021]

(Oh, by the way...to set the record straight, I don't support abortion rights. It was a little disturbing to see my name lumped in with that part of the issue.)

Mea Culpa.
For some reason I was under the impression that you supported abortion rights as well as gay rights.

Pepper, I think you prove my point quite well.
I was trying to focus more on the aspect that this Priest, from my take on the piece, was trying to enforce guilt by association by making it a sin to even not oppose LGBT rights. That is something I find interesting, because I was under the impression that Catholicism taught that we are responsible for our sin, and our sin only, not the sin of others around us.
So, I guess I should ask outright (I opened that article after finishing a graveyard shift so my original post was probably not as clear as it sounded to me this morning ), does this minister speak for the church when he says that those who don't oppose homosexuality are committing the same sin as the homosexual (okay, so not quite, but my understanding of the hierarchy of sin is flawed) or do the growing number of Catholics saying that it isn't my sin I shouldn't concern myself with it the ones who represent the church's teachings?

[Peppergirl]

:raises hand:

Catholic here (albeit a lapsed one). And I support gay rights.

I'm also a *gasp* republican. And I support gay rights.

I live in a very conservative city. And I support gay rights.


If the generalizations were true, I'd be running around - buring rainbow flags and spewing venom at same-sex couples who are holding hands.

But I'm not. And if this makes me some shit bag, 'mortal' sinner, so be it. And I'm frankly sick and tired of the fucking generalizations.

[KabeRinnaul]

Now, I may be wrong about a good deal of this, as I'm not actually a part of the church or anything, but...

Guess that must mean a few of my friends are going straight to hell. Seeing as they are Catholic and support gay rights. Hell, one of my gay friends IS catholic.

It's not that being gay or having feelings for the same sex is inherently sinful. The belief is instead that acting on those desires is sinful, and generally it's held pretty much on-par with adultery, because really, that's what it boils down to. The Catholic Church holds that a same-sex marriage is not a valid union (in the religious sense), and as such any same-sex intercourse is by definition outside of marriage.

Um....what if it is god's design that some people be gay? Just like it is god's design that some are infertile?

I also take issue with you saying that sexual preference is a choice. That's the equivalent of saying that someone would chose to be black in Alabama in the 50's....who the heck would make that 'choice'?

Perhaps it is. Perhaps it's a challenge for them to overcome. Perhaps the majority are entirely wrong and it's perfectly acceptable. The church is comprised of people, and people are fallible. They simply try to interpret the commands of, and emulate, the infallible as best they can. In any case, the choice isn't in who you are attracted to, but instead whether or not you act on that attraction. A better comparison to racism might be found in the case of homosexuals who live in extremely anti-gay areas (such as Smiley living in Utah). In that case, the question is not "Why would someone from Alabama/Utah choose to be black/gay?" but instead, "Why would someone who's black/gay choose to be in Alabama/Utah?"

I notice Smiley gets asked that a lot, and I think the hypothetical 50s black Alabama citizen would probably give you pretty much the same answer he does - they can't afford to go anywhere else.

Sorry, that analogy always bothered me a bit.

Perfect, my ass. I'm sorry there isn't a hell for the pope to go to.

I think Kimmik actually specifically said that no one is perfect, and that this category of non-perfect people included the Pope.

Tell that to Galileo. Tried and convicted of heresy for teaching the earth revolved around the sun. Took them 500 years to recant.

Galileo's case is frequently exaggerated. He was actually aquitted of heresy, and simply had to agree to quit publicly promoting his theory. He agreed, but kept at it anyway. That's when he was retried and actually punished.

Tell that to William Tyndale. Tried, convicted, and burned at the stake for translating the bible into english. Oh wait, the church was oh so merciful as to have him strangled before burning him, how generous.

Tell that to the victims of the inquisition.

The Inquisition occured nearly 400 years ago. Referring back to it constantly is a bit like saying "The United States supports freedom? Tell that to the black slaves!" After all, our government has been in continual existence since then. Furthermore, the inquisition, like the crusades, was frequently used as a political tool by the governments of the time.

Tell that to the aforementioned alleged sex abuse victims, whose trial was swept under the rug.

Tell that to the African AIDS sufferers, who might have caught or spread the disease because they believed the pope's lie about condoms.

Again I'll say that the people who make up the church are fallible. They can make mistakes. A large enough group (like a major religion) making a large enough mistake (both these examples) can be disastrous. But that same large group doing the right thing can be a powerful positive force, as well.

And don't blame the church for the entire epidemic. Lack of education about the disease is what keeps the AIDS epidemic going. In some parts of Africa, there is a belief that sex with a virgin cures AIDS. You can imagine how counterproductive that is.

It just might help people to see, as clearly as I do, that not only does a person not need religion to be moral, that morality and religion are often incompatible. Once you realize that, what is the point of the church?

Unthinking adherence to an organization's beliefs is incompatible with morality. However, not all followers of religion are unthinking slaves to it's ideas, despite that being an insult commonly flung their direction. Both religious people and atheists can be moral or immoral, the main difference being how they justify it. Neither one is really better than the other.

And informing it's followers of what is and is not moral has never been the point of churches or religion, at least not to their followers. The point of religion is to provide order and reason to a world that seems to be lacking those things, and provide comfort when faced with the realization that life must one day end.

[Talon]

No human on this planet is perfect, not even the pope.

You mean like Ratzinger? The pope who lied about the effectiveness of condoms stopping HIV/AIDS, in the middle of the African AIDS epidemic?

(Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...a-condoms-aids)

The same pope who, before he become pope, ordered the stop of a canonical trial of a priest accused of molesting deaf boys over the course of 20 years? I am glad another archbishop raised a protest, but I can't help but wonder if he was punished for rocking the boat.

(source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8587082.stm)

Perfect, my ass. I'm sorry there isn't a hell for the pope to go to.

And the Church will fight for Truth.

Tell that to Galileo. Tried and convicted of heresy for teaching the earth revolved around the sun. Took them 500 years to recant.

Tell that to William Tyndale. Tried, convicted, and burned at the stake for translating the bible into english. Oh wait, the church was oh so merciful as to have him strangled before burning him, how generous.

Tell that to the victims of the inquisition.

Tell that to the aforementioned alleged sex abuse victims, whose trial was swept under the rug.

Tell that to the African AIDS sufferers, who might have caught or spread the disease because they believed the pope's lie about condoms.

I could go on about the church's crimes, but back to the OP.
In spite of everything I've said, I'm completely in favour of Rodriguez condemning people like Hobbs and Ree for the abominable sin of not actively trying to oppress other people. It just might help people to see, as clearly as I do, that not only does a person not need religion to be moral, that morality and religion are often incompatible. Once you realize that, what is the point of the church?

[BigGiant]

Homosexuality is wrong because it closes the body to God's design for us.

Um....what if it is god's design that some people be gay? Just like it is god's design that some are infertile?

I also take issue with you saying that sexual preference is a choice. That's the equivalent of saying that someone would chose to be black in Alabama in the 50's....who the heck would make that 'choice'?

[Ree]

Huh...
Interesting.
Thanks for sharing that. I hadn't heard of that priest before.

Gonna read the information in the link when I get some time.

(Oh, by the way...to set the record straight, I don't support abortion rights. It was a little disturbing to see my name lumped in with that part of the issue.)

[Plaidman]

Guess that must mean a few of my friends are going straight to hell. Seeing as they are Catholic and support gay rights. Hell, one of my gay friends IS catholic.

[Kheldarson]

See, now that's interesting to hear, lupo. That makes me wonder how much of what he teaches is actually in-line with Catholic doctrine at all, including this little piece.

[lupo pazzesco]

As someone born and raised in El Paso, I just have to chime in here for a second.

An op ed piece by that particular priest doesn't hold much water with me. He's notorious in our community for his views and how they tend to clash. On the one hand he preaches about love and understanding and respect, but then turns around and says that genuine love requires his flock to judge because it is all in the attempt to bring salvation to souls who commit sins (i.e. homosexuality) The fact that he references the Greeks however obliquely kind of prove the point. He says in his letter something about them accepting the natural law? Erm, ok.

http://www.religionfacts.com/homosex...ent_greeks.htm

In ancient Greece, same-sex romantic and sexual attractions were often regarded as a matter of taste or preference rather than a moral issue.

Kind of odd he's arguing morals using a topic that was largely that of social status more than morality. Homosexuality among ancient Greeks was considered ok in some social circles, not so much among others because it was tied into the social heirarchy of the culture.

I've met Rev. Rodriguez. Not all that impressed, personally. He's quite good at using inflammatory language to stir up social outrage (like likening homoeexuality to rape, for example), but I don't think he follows the ideals of genuine love that he likes to preach about.

Just my opinion.

[Hobbs]

Seriously Smiley?

"...the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin."

Where did I get this from?

On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

[Kheldarson]

Smiley, you really should stop with the conspiracy theories. They're not healthy.

Yes, by supporting gay marriage, we're committing a sin. And that's something we'll have to deal with, just like you'll have to deal with your own choices in dealing with your sexuality. And the reason it's a sin is the reason of heresy. The thing about being a Catholic is that it is the "one, holy, apostolic Church" in that we all believe the same things as handed down to us by Faith, Tradition, and the Magesterium (the council of cardinals and bishops). To actively stand against the Church is to "wound the unity of Christ's body" (Catholic Catechism 817).

Now, as to why the Church stands against the two so hard, you have to understand Theology of the Body (ToB) and the culture of Life. Theology of the Body was a work written by Pope John Paul II from before his tenure as pope and solidified into Church canon sometime after. The essence of what he teaches is that all life is sacred, particularly humans as we are all made in God's image and have been described by Christ as being temples to God. To harm our bodies is an affront to God. To harm another person's body is an affront to God. To close our bodies from God's gift of life is an affront to God. ToB teaches that we must be open to the culture of Life, not the culture of Death. We must be open to whatever God has in store for us.

So abortion is wrong because it harms another person's body and overrides God's design for us.

Homosexuality is wrong because it closes the body to God's design for us.

Couple of links from the Catechism. Homosexulaity starts on paragraph 2357 and abortion starts on paragraph 2270.

So the answer to your main question as to why the Church is fighting it so hard? This is what we are to believe as Truth until such time as the Holy Spirit reveals a new Truth to us. And the Church will fight for Truth.

[blas87]

Is this limited to just Catholics or anyone who is Christian?