Why do Catholics not accept Gays into their religion?

Post Reply New Topic

Because they have a stupid double standard and think some sins are worse than others. In other words, it's hypocrisy. They like to imagine that the priests have repented and won't do it again, and a person who has committed murder is also capable of realising that they have sinned and turning his back on it. Practising homosexuals however haven't repented.

Of course, paedophile priests, or so the statistics seem to prove, haven't repented either. Like I say, it's a double standard, and hypocritical. To be consistent they would have to hold their clergy to the same standards as they hold the laity to.

But you know, just to remind you it's not "us and them", or "why is my sin so bad, and others don't care about their own." All sin is sin, whether it's gluttony, covetousness or whatever.

Why do you want to be accepted by the Catholic church anyway? I'm glad to be out of it!

TBH, you're probably much better off without a religion that rejects you because of your sexual orientation. In fact, there's no "probably" about it.

We do have to bear in mind that we are talking about a religion that reluctantly accepted evolution back in 1992 (well, at least they did).

And they put Giordano Bruno into a dungeon for eight years, and then drove a nail thru his tongue, tied him to a metal post, put wood and some of his books under his feet, and burned him to death. His misdeed was to speculate things like Heliocentrism, that the sun is a star, that Jesus might not have god-like powers and that souls can't go to heaven. The Catholic church has still refused to apologize for this.

NO! Jesus died so that you wouldn't go to hell for your sins, not so you can sin at every whim. There is a difference between the former and the latter. Is that clear?

They're supposed to repent. You aren't repenting if you want to be gay, as homosexual sex isn't allowed, and lust is considered sinful.

in the quick-and-dirty tradition of history:

several hundred years ago the leaders of the various factions of the western branch (Roman Empire) of christianity got together under the direction of the ruler of the time, and they hashed out one mega-christianity that they pretty much all found acceptable from their numerous beliefs. this was used as the "glue" to hold the empire together. it cut down on the in-fighting, served to unify the people, and was useful to the emperor as a method of control of the population of his realm.

as i understand it, at some point either then or soon therafter, one of the things they decided to make part of "the rules" was that the purpose of sexual relations was procreation. therefore, relations that were not for procreative purposes became, over time, "illegitimate" and, later, "a sin". since homosexuals are not creating babies....

now, since this is all basically the result of a bunch of different sect leaders getting together to hash out something they personally thought was acceptable, all those years ago, and since they were heavily prejudiced by their own regional customs and social beliefs, how much credence are you going to put on it? when i was in catechism class we were told we didn't need to read the bible, as it was just a bunch of illustrative stories that, while useful for educational purposes, were not to be taken literally. if that is true, it would shoot the bible down as a "higher guide" than the catholic church's teachings. which would put the catholic church in a position of telling you what you had to believe. which would give it a tremendous amount of power in your life (and, generally, power in the global political sense).

i guess my question to you, given the above, is what difference it really makes to you? if you buy into what they have decided is "truth", you will have to live with what they tell you is "right" and what is "wrong" - and that you are a sinner.

if you read the bible (or any other "holy" book) and find a different message, how will you reconcile it?

my final comment is - since it is almost assuredly a genetic predisposition, that you were born to be gay, and if you believe that god (gods, whatever) created you, and that god (gods) cannot make errors, then you are a creation of the almighty and there's nobody on this planet who has any right to tell you you're either "wrong" for existing or a mistake. the logic doesn't follow.

your treatment is an excellent example of why the church is in the condition it's in today. good luck, son. there's nothing wrong with you, you're just a different color in the rainbow.

Making it simple.

1. Catholics/Christians believe homosexual conduct is sin.
2. Jesus died for your sins.
3. God sends the Holy Spirit to EMPOWER you to live FREE FROM sin.

Result. Homosexual acts are still sin and are wrong. Forgiveness from this sin is available, but it is not a license to continue on with a cycle of sin, forgiveness, sin, forgiveness. There is the empowerment to break the cycle and no longer pursue the sin.

I think you are making it too simple. Not all Christians think that way. Anybody from Sweden here? I just read that in Sweden, it was possible for homosexuals to be married in the state church.

There have been gay marriages in England too... even two priests being married in church by a bishop. But it's worth remembering that any country's state church doesn't represent Christianity. It just represents what society and government deem to be an acceptable version of church.

Er, Sweden doesn't have a state church, we dumped the damn bastards back in 2000.

But yes, in Sweden homosexual marriage is legal, and it has been proposed that priests who refuse that should lose their license.

Sorry for the inaccuracy. I hope i'd know you guys living in my Western Neighbor better

Sin freely that we may call on the abundant grace of God? Is that what you are trying to say?

Yes, there are a few references banning man on man action in the old testament. But it also allows slavery and seems to smile on genocide, while eating shrimp is clearly stated as an abomination. And men were allowed to have multiple wives or mistresses, provided he chose single women or slaves for that. There is nothing about lesbianism, since women were possessions and two women having sex did not trangress against a man's ownership. So really, you should admit that some of the biblical mores were arbitrary and screwed-up, and that no one really lives by them today. The choice to make shrimp and pork OK, while keeping homosexuality prohibited was a choice reflecting the decision of men ... nothing to do with God.

I already referenced Romans 6, so using similar terminology seems pointless.


Well... actually this is based upon the interpretation of the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1 Timothy 1:10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; (27) and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

for homosexuality

Mark 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself

Food cleanliness(the parenthesis for Mark is actually in the version of the ESV that I am copying from)

In addition, the Catholic church bases itself upon the natural law of Aquinas, which can be seen in Summa Contra Gentiles, which I only quoted a small bit of so that others may get the gist of it.

In addition, the Catholic church's own positions(and to some extent, secretly the protestant's positions despite the claim of sola scriptura) is derived from the theological ideas of the early church. I apologize if I am not more familiar, however, the claim of arbitrariness that you make seems a bit overstated as one can argue from scripture to a reasonable extent the validity of making one accepted and the other not accepted.

In any case, Catholics hold their tradition as key, so... yeah... even if you argue that the interpretation isn't legitimately derived from the Bible or the fathers, they can just still claim that this is their interpretation, that they are infallible, and that being in their club(the Catholic church) demands that you agree with their theological ideas. So... yeah.

I thought you said I was brainwashed, but now I'm really a conformist? You're in high school, no?

Well, I didn't outright say that you were brainwashed or conformist, but based on what I've read in the thread so far, you do seem like that to me. You've been to church and 'raised' in the Catholic religion, but you have never read the bible, and you seem quite confused over very fundamental parts of Christianity, so yes it seems to me that you have been exposed to this without knowing much about other viewpoints. On the other hand you do question a few things. So perhaps you do seem a bit conformistic to me, but perhaps it will change if you really do have an open mind, I don't know.

BTW, isn't it quite logical that someone who is brainwashed is also a conformist? You made it seem like a contradiction.

And yes, I am in a school targeted to prepare students for higher levels of education, is that something that disturbs you?

I don't agree with the catholic church on their stance towards homosexuality or jesus. I don't think jesus ever condemned homosexuality himself, I think the men who organized his teachings threw that in there and the catholic church is a rule based church, they don't question or challenge the rules, they just accept and enforce them, I'd hate them too if I felt singled out by them.