Skip to comments.Vatican - Considerations regarding ... homosexual persons
Posted on 07/31/2003 5:55:16 AM PDT by lrslattery
click here to read article
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.
In the first place, man, the image of God, was created "male and female" (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level the personal level where nature and spirit are united.
Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24).
Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.
Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).
4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts "close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved".(4)
Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts "as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered".(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.
Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided".(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however "objectively disordered"(9) and homosexual practices are "sins gravely contrary to chastity".(10)
II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.
Where the government's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.
From the order of right reason
The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.
It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They "play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour".(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.
From the biological and anthropological order
7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
From the social order
8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.
The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.
Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.
From the legal order
9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.
Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)
IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, "could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality", on condition that his "absolute personal opposition" to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Angelo Amato, S.D.B. NOTES (1) Cf. John Paul II, Angelus Messages of February 20, 1994, and of June 19, 1994; Address to the Plenary Meeting of the Pontifical Council for the Family (March 24, 1999); Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2357-2359, 2396; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), 8; Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986); Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons (July 24, 1992); Pontifical Council for the Family, Letter to the Presidents of the Bishops' Conferences of Europe on the resolution of the European Parliament regarding homosexual couples (March 25, 1994); Family, marriage and "de facto" unions (July 26, 2000), 23. (2) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life (November 24, 2002), 4. (3) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 48. (4) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2357. (5) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), 8. (6) Cf., for example, St. Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, V, 3; St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 27, 1-4; Athenagoras, Supplication for the Christians, 34. (7) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986), 10. (8) Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2359; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986), 12. (9) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358. (10) Ibid., No. 2396. (11) Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 71. (12) Cf. ibid., 72. (13) Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 95, a. 2. (14) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 90. (15) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum vitae (February 22, 1987), II. A. 1-3. (16) Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 63, a.1, c. (17) It should not be forgotten that there is always "a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons [July 24, 1992], 14). (18) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 73.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
(1) Cf. John Paul II, Angelus Messages of February 20, 1994, and of June 19, 1994; Address to the Plenary Meeting of the Pontifical Council for the Family (March 24, 1999); Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2357-2359, 2396; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), 8; Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986); Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons (July 24, 1992); Pontifical Council for the Family, Letter to the Presidents of the Bishops' Conferences of Europe on the resolution of the European Parliament regarding homosexual couples (March 25, 1994); Family, marriage and "de facto" unions (July 26, 2000), 23.
(2) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life (November 24, 2002), 4.
(3) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 48.
(4) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2357.
(5) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), 8.
(6) Cf., for example, St. Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, V, 3; St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 27, 1-4; Athenagoras, Supplication for the Christians, 34.
(7) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986), 10.
(8) Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2359; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986), 12.
(9) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358.
(10) Ibid., No. 2396.
(11) Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 71.
(12) Cf. ibid., 72.
(13) Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 95, a. 2.
(14) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 90.
(15) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum vitae (February 22, 1987), II. A. 1-3.
(16) Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 63, a.1, c.
(17) It should not be forgotten that there is always "a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons [July 24, 1992], 14).
(18) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 73.
Where do the Calvinists stand on this issue? Mom, could you ping your list?
The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society.
President Bush says Americans should respect homosexuals, but he wants to make sure marriage is defined strictly as a union between a man and a woman. Government lawyers are exploring measures to enshrine that definition in the law, the president said Wednesday. ``I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other,'' he said.
Ted Kennedy wouldn't know this if it bit him in the ass! Someone needs to rattle "the swimmer's" cage!
The hedonist left is certainly trying to do so. Clean up the priesthood of all the gays and we'll have a better go at fighting these false ideologies.
We should not respect sodomites, any more than we should respect someone who beats his wife or spends his life high on drugs.
The Church has always taught that the sin of sodomy is one of the four sins crying out to Heaven for vengeance (along with willful murder, oppression of the poor and defrauding the laborer of his wages).
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.
These people do evil on purpose, are intent on destroying Christian civilization to satisfy their lusts, and prey on children. I will never show them an ounce of respect.
This will stick in the craw of every gay activist.
Yes, but how does one identify the homosexual priest (other than perhaps exaggerated mannerisms, and a penchant for color coordinated floral arrangements). There is no 'gay' gene.
We know there are gay priests. They slipped in or were invited by other gays in the seminaries and dioceses. Now, here is the conundrum. If the church bans the admission of admitted homosexuals, it may well force them to remain silent. If the church accepts them, it will open the floodgates to the more militant gays.
Until now, the issue was moot since all priests must practice a celibate lifestyle. This rule does not change ... unless they open the door to married priests.
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.
Here's a link to a review of the Reformed objection to Natural Theology.
Please be sure to accurately explain the Reformed position. Perhaps you could e-mail any questions to Dr. Sudduth at firstname.lastname@example.org
We would stand against any form of same sex marriage , seeing homosexuality as an abomination before God
I will ping for more thoughtful discussion
Personal interpretation certainly leaves the door open for that. Devious, BTW, is an understatement! This is pure evil at work here! Anti-Christ!
Annie, see post #11!
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.
You haven't created that impression.
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.
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
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.
I believe that my sins are no better than anyone elses. In the eyes of God, a homosexuals 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!
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.
General Revelation is known how? By right reason? By instinct? The Catholic would say the former.
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.
Tom you attend functions within your diocese , you must have a pretty good idea about most of them.
I know about one quarter of the 256 active priests. I also know some of the ones that are blatantly homosexual and a couple who are known widely for having gay affairs. The bishop has been told numerous times. One associate pastor was moved because of his "whistle blowing". This is REAL spiritual warfare.
I believe according to RC beliefs as long as he is celibate there is no problem.
This is not so. Celibacy pertains to marriage and chastity (implicitly). This is a line of BS the libs have been pushing for some time; that is, I'm celibate so it don't matter! The hell it doesn't!
I will add this. It is a terrible image problem for the Catholic church to have swishing Pastors before the public eye.
You are absolutely right! It is SCANDALOUS!
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.
Some diocese have gay clergy at very high levels. Even as bishops! (MORE SCANDAL) I believe that this has been the reason for so many to be able to infiltrate the ranks and further their agenda. My diocese is not like that. We are probably at the low end of the scale. I know all the priests and deacons in my deanery. Not a one of them has an effeminate bone. Other deaneries have their problems, but overall the problem is less than usual in my diocese. BTW, effeminate priests are not a good attraction for future vocations. This is part of the problem. The "Harvest Master" has given us enough "harvesters", but many will not answer the call.
A strong stand by the church on this issue would be a very good first step.
The Church has always had a strong stand on homosexuality. It gets beatup all the time for it. But the liberal forces within the Church have worked against Her for years. Pray for our perseverance.
Churches have no business placing the unregenerate into a state of holy matrimony (regardless of whether this state is considered an ordinance or a sacrament). I see a terrific church-state battle developing here-what will happen when the state says that gay marriage is okay, but churches refuse to perform the ceremonies? How long until someone sues?
That's my 4-point inconsistant Calvinist $.02.
Not in the slightest. Showing respect to someone who is committing serious sin encourages them and confirms them in their course of action.
If you encountered someone who was in the habit of bragging or flaunting the fact that he was an adulterer and proclaiming his adultery as an "identity" of which he was "proud" you would do your best to avoid the company of someone like that. You certainly wouldn't show him respect.
You shall not commit adultery.113
You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.114
Please note the references to chastity and the offenses against chastity as well as the guidlines for marriage and procreation.
God bless you in putting this all out for people to hear on the radio and/or television. Communication is our ally here.
We Calvinists have a mixed view on the Governmental issue, but are in absolute agreement on the Moral issue of Homosexuality, and Homosexual unions. So the above statement is correct, but it is not complete.
OrthodoxPresbyterian, CCWoody, and i represent the Libertarian wing of the Reforned faith...put your visions of hedonism and Ayn Rand aside for a minute.... Our wing of Calvinism holds that the State has no business at all regulating marriage, or relationships between conscenting ADULTS. The institution of marriage is a matter that should be exclusively within the sphere of the Church. As such, it is the Church that recognises or refuses to recoginse any given 'relationship' as a marriage. Before one can discuss the legalisation of any relationship as a marriage, the issue of unwarrented state interference into the realm of the Church must be considered...that would even include the issuance of "Marriage Liscenses", which is nothing more than getting state permission to marry!
Although i may be mistaken on the details, i believe that the "Common Law" marriage was an innovation brought about by American Catholics. At a certain time in our history, there was a shortage of Catholic Priests, and Catholic couples who desired Church Marriage could not be accomodated. The result was the declaration of the Common Law marriage, which offered all the legal protections of marriage, until such a time that a circuit Priest could perform the Sacrament...usually with the couple's children in attendance.
BRAVO! Bravo for the RCC!
It's good to see somebody reacting to this nonsense.
(Protestant denominations are you listening...?)
As such, it is a psychological disorder and needs therapy and spiritual guidance to overcome.
Before adolescence, boys and girls are same-sex oriented. During puberty, hormones kick in and create a "desire" for the opposite sex. If the child has been "sexualized" before puberty, that child will identify future sexuality by that experience. If that sexual experience is with the same sex, it will be more difficult to make the natural transition from same sex to opposite sex after puberty.
But certainly it can be done.
However, when all of society, media and even one's church is saying it's "okay" and "normal" to have homosexual feelings, that young adult is reinforced in their conflicitng attachments, and is more likely to give in to his/her previous experience.
Freud knew this and wrote about it extensively. However, he was vehemently criticized for it by the theosophic majority of his peers. When he relented and changed his diagnosis from "childhood sexual abuse" to "female hysteria" he was welcomed back into the fold.
I use the example of Ellen Degeneras when she was asked by Barbara Walters, "when did you know you were gay?"
After bemoaning the fact that parents wrongly worry she's out to seduce their children, Ellen explained that she first realized she was a lesbian when her nineth grade P.E. teacher seduced her.
Do they even know what they're saying?
You cannot watch your children too closely. Period.
That is one of the reasons we will be homeschooling.