Catholic Bishops: Homosexuality is ‘Normal’ and ‘Unchangeable’

[TomSea]

The original document also says:

"Consensus prevailed on the question that human sexuality encompasses a pleasure, reproductive and relationship dimension."

So, if the author is talking about what the Bishops said (they might be proposing this and it might only be a minority), they still say "human sexuality encompasses ... reproductive ... dimension", so that is included. That definition of human sexuality to me, somewhat leaves out homosexuals. I guess one can talk about lesbians being inseminated and all of that, if one must but that seems to leave out the "relationship" part.

[libertybele]

Interesting.   It appears that I am more "liberal" than most on the question of acceptance of homosexuality,  but more "conservative" than most on the question of tolerance of promiscuity.   I am fine with folks - gay or straight - who are faithful to their partners,  and not so fine with folks - gay or straight - who betray their partners.   

As long as gay "folks" keep it in the bedroom and don't try to impose their inmoral behavior on others or expect preferential treatment; I have no problem with what they do.  The problem does arise for me when they decide and are allowed to raise a child.

[TomSea]

Again, no religious discussion.

[roamer_1]

The original document also says:

"Consensus prevailed on the question that human sexuality encompasses a pleasure, reproductive and relationship dimension."

But those aspects (granted) have long been interoperable in Christian ethics, and interdependent...
The intention being to define them as inseparable.

[Jazzhead]

That is not true @Jazzhead .  I specifically related adultery, fornication, and homosexuality as intolerable... Which inevitably covers promiscuity.

Adultery,  fornication and promiscuity represent intolerable behavior.   Homosexuality practiced within the bounds of a monogamous, covenant relationship?  Just how is that intolerable?   

[Free Vulcan]

Funny, sexual 'orientation' is fixed and rigid, yet gender is fluid, even though the former is far less defined by science.

Typical liberal pretzel logic.

[thackney]

Again, no religious discussion.

Pretty silly to post a article about Catholic Bishops deciding what is normal and what is a serious sin, then pretend to not have a religious aspect in the discussion.

[Absalom]

When an inflammatory issue such homosexuality explodes in the media,
pro or con; count on assorted "know-nothings" to rant and rave. Predictable!
After Man emerged from caves, the earliest non-tribal cultures formed
near/in the Fertile Crescent more than 12,000 years past; their first impulse
being to define what permitted their survival and allowed them to develop/thrive.
Thru the logic of reason, they arrived at the Natural Law, a body of unchanging
moral principles being the basis for all human conduct.
The Natural Law was independent of all structured religions, predating them
by thousands of years.
It's first precept and the foundation of the social order, was the vital importance
of the Family Unit of Father, Mother and Children. Any behavior harming the Family
in any way, such as homosexuality or abortion was forbidden and punished w/finality.
Yet more than 12,000 years later, the wisdom of the Ancients, is currently a matter
of debate /opinion! Further it identifies why we are in this cesspool of our own making.

[roamer_1]

Adultery,  fornication and promiscuity represent intolerable behavior.   Homosexuality practiced within the bounds of a monogamous, covenant relationship?  Just how is that intolerable?

@Jazzhead
Because it is defined as such by the Bible. Both in Torah, and by Yeshua (and apostles).
It is definitely covered by Grace, but with repentance, teshuva (turning back around to face YHWH). That requires ceasing the practice, just like every other sin.

That is what it says, no matter how one might care to wing it.

In apologetics, I would argue that sin of any kind is confusion and distraction from true purpose - As an example, 'anti-Christ' as it were, is not 'against Christ', but rather, an alternate...

Marriage and family are a functional picture, just like 'father' is a functional picture, depicting or symbolizing that which is greater in heaven - Your father is designed to be an image of our Father... Marriage is designed to be an image of Yeshua and his Bride... and the greater aspect of Family in the House of YHWH. Those pictures are there for our understanding.

That which does not prove that image distracts from it. and that distracts from the message, which is the whole purpose.
 
So while you may wiggle with the ethics, there is no doubt about the image. The true imprimatur.
Anything else is confusion, and distracts from (is alternate to, anti...) the message...

[TomSea]

No religious discussion. If these are our markers, do we say we stone adulterers and homosexuals? This is why we don't have religious discussions, forums exist for such.

[MOD8]

It is possible to have Religious discussions, even here, without it devolving into a 'You're going to hell' locked thread, I've seen it on numerous occasions. I believe that it why Management usually shy's away from them. I have seen nothing so far to indicate this Thread is headed in that direction.

Tis the season to be jolly.

[libertybele]

If we just touch upon the homosexual issue of the article, there are still several countries where homosexuals are not tolerated.  I am sure that is in part why some in the Middle East hate us; we allow homosexuality (and we have one running for President) and abortion.  Both issues are seen by many in the country as WRONG!

[TomSea]

Pretty silly to post a article about Catholic Bishops deciding what is normal and what is a serious sin, then pretend to not have a religious aspect in the discussion.

If we quote the Bible, then we argue that adulterers and homosexuals are to be put to death as well? You can't have it both ways.

Leviticus 20

[libertybele]

Adultery,  fornication and promiscuity represent intolerable behavior.   Homosexuality practiced within the bounds of a monogamous, covenant relationship?  Just how is that intolerable?

Well the argument seems to be that homsexuality is a behavior for some that is preferred or learned, so can they later in life prefer heterosexuality??

[mountaineer]

Homosexuality practiced within the bounds of a monogamous, covenant relationship?  Just how is that intolerable?

Perhaps you should ask God, not TBR members.

[Victoria33]

So, is this to say if one remarries after divorce, they should not have sexual relations still in the new marriage? I'm not sure if I agree with that. @thackney

@TomSea
@roamer_1

Sexual orientation discussion is between the person and God.  Period.
Bishop's opinions mean nothing and neither does mine or anyone on this forum.

[Absalom]

TomSea, a query for you?
Why is it that when an explosive subject such a homosexuality is ventilated,
so many instantly race behind their barricade of religion, quoting the Bible?
Ancient wisdom is pervasive in Books such as; The Epic of Gilgamesh, The
Amenemope of Egypt, The Rigveda of Hinduism and Zoroastrian Texts,
predating the Bible by thousands of years. More importantly, the
lessons/messages of these Books are derived from logic and emphatically
not religious hysteria.
Why isn't the destructive impact of homosexuality on the family unit
a sufficient reality to condemn that behavior to the outer darkness???
Perhaps we have become so effete and sanctimonious that we can no longer
make the hard choices about behavior that culture/society must be able to
affirm/forbid in order to sustain itself!!!!! 


 

[roamer_1]

TomSea, a query for you?
Why is it that when an explosive subject such a homosexuality is ventilated,
so many instantly race behind their barricade of religion, quoting the Bible?

@Absalom
Because the bible is the basis of the Western Ethic, and the prism through which our laws are viewed.
What good does it do to act as if it is not so?

Ancient wisdom is pervasive in Books such as;

The Epic of Gilgamesh,

Hold on, hold on now...

The Epic of Gilgamesh.... Paying homage to Enki and the gods/goddesses of Akkad and Urartu? ... Not religious? Really?

The Amenemope of Egypt...

A way of observing Maat... Which you won't study (Maat) very far without running smack dab into the Egyptian pantheon...

The Rigveda of Hinduism

Hinduism? Not religious? C'mon.

and Zoroastrian Texts,

Zoroaster.... Prophet of Ahura Mazda.... Not religious. 

predating the Bible by thousands of years.

Pardon me, but it seems your bias is showing... Or you may be listening to the 60's hippies that govern archaeology and have succumbed to their anti-Judeo/Christian bias.

More importantly, the
lessons/messages of these Books are derived from logic and emphatically
not religious hysteria.

With the possible exception of a surface reading of Amenemope (out of the direct context of Maat), that is just plain false... And denies the wisdom and logic texts of the Bible to boot.

Why isn't the destructive impact of homosexuality on the family unit
a sufficient reality to condemn that behavior to the outer darkness???

Truly that should indeed be enough. There is a reason why it is unacceptable through the vast majority of history... But regardless, that is nothing but reinforced and confirmed by the Judeo-Christian Ethic, for the same reason you espouse... which ethic is the basis of right and wrong in Christendom, and the primary interference within the topic of the OP.

To wit: Why would an interference within the very walls of Christendom *not* reflexively initiate quotes from the Bible - The very text upon which Christianity itself is founded?

[sneakypete]

Catholic Bishops: Homosexuality is ‘Normal’ and ‘Unchangeable’
Keely Sharp
December 11, 2019

The German Catholic bishops’ conference issued a statement that homosexuality is “normal” and unchangeable. They also added that adultery is no longer a “serious sin.”

For one, it will never be normal,.....

Yes,but you aren't a Priest.

[sneakypete]

Wow, vows on the alter to God not important...

@thackney

No more important than a vow you make to your mate,or your country. If you can't be taken at your word for one vow,how can your word be trusted with any other?

This is NOT about "God" or a religion. It is about YOU and your ability to honor your promises. You can either be trusted,or you can't. It really is that simple.

[Absalom]

@Absalom
Because the bible is the basis of the Western Ethic, and the prism through which our laws are viewed.
What good does it do to act as if it is not so?

Hold on, hold on now...

The Epic of Gilgamesh.... Paying homage to Enki and the gods/goddesses of Akkad and Urartu? ... Not religious? Really?

A way of observing Maat... Which you won't study (Maat) very far without running smack dab into the Egyptian pantheon...

Hinduism? Not religious? C'mon.

Zoroaster.... Prophet of Ahura Mazda.... Not religious. 

Pardon me, but it seems your bias is showing... Or you may be listening to the 60's hippies that govern archaeology and have succumbed to their anti-Judeo/Christian bias.

With the possible surface reading of Amenemope (out of the direct context of Maat), that is just plain false... And denies the wisdom and logic texts of the Bible to boot.

Truly that should indeed be enough. There is a reason why it is unacceptable through the vast majority of history... But regardless, that is nothing but reinforced and confirmed by the Judeo-Christian Ethic, for the same reason you espouse... which ethic is the basis of right and wrong in Christendom, and the primary interference within the topic of the OP.

To wit: Why would an interference within the very walls of Christendom *not* reflexively initiate quotes from the Bible - The very text upon which Christianity itself is founded?

------------------------
Mea culpa and apologies.
The critique is fair as my reasoning was rushed and therefore flawed.
At least we appear to have arrived at the same terminal, viz.;that homosexuality
falls/stands because of its behavioral consequences for the family in culture/society.

[Fishrrman]

TomSea wrote:
"Again, no religious discussion."

How is it possible to have a discussion regarding homosexuality WITHOUT the mention or discussion of religious attitudes and teachings?

What is a rational, conservative-leaning discussion forum FOR, if such topics can't be raised?

thackney wrote a little later:
"Pretty silly to post a article about Catholic Bishops deciding what is normal and what is a serious sin, then pretend to not have a religious aspect in the discussion."

Shore 'nuff.

If "religion isn't allowed", might as well ban topics regarding homosexuality, or just plain morality, too.

Just lock them and delete them.

Might as well ban ALL topics or article regarding islam, as well.
Isn't that supposed to be "a religion", too...?

[bigheadfred]

The German Catholic bishops’ conference issued a statement that homosexuality is “normal” and unchangeable. They also added that adultery is no longer a “serious sin.”

Sounds like they been listening too much to that pope guy.

And then wonder why people don't go to church as much anymore.

[sneakypete]

TomSea wrote:
"Again, no religious discussion."

How is it possible to have a discussion regarding homosexuality WITHOUT the mention or discussion of religious attitudes and teachings?

Last time I  checked,homosexuality isn't a religion. It's a human condition that people are born with,like being born being predisposed to become left-handed. Or short-sighted. No matter how much you discuss,or even condemn it,there is nothing you can do to eliminate it. The best you can do is ignore it.

There were homosexuals before Jesus was born,and there were homosexuals after he died. Their will ALWAYS be homosexuals as long as there are people.

The good news is neither of us is ever going to be required to be one ourselves.

It ain't like there is a shortage of things to get mad about,so why not follow a policy of live and let live? Costs you nothing,and if you are the Christian you claim to be,that is what you should be doing,anyway.

[roamer_1]

------------------------
Mea culpa and apologies.
The critique is fair as my reasoning was rushed and therefore flawed.
At least we appear to have arrived at the same terminal, viz.;that homosexuality
falls/stands because of its behavioral consequences for the family in culture/society.

@Absalom
Not a problem 

Sorry if I was hittin em hard... This stuff is right up my alley, and I seldom get the chance to put on my runnin shoes and stretch the legs 

I mean, the last time I saw Amenemope quoted on a forum was probably *never*   

I really do enjoy your work.