Re: Roman Catholic Church New Catechism, What Exact IS 'Unjust' Gay Discrimination?

First, please read:
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

As you can see, the RC Church tries to take a cautious middle road with homosexuality. And I'll give them credit for that (BTW, I was raised a Catholic).

But WHAT exactly would they consider to be 'UNJUST' discrimination against gays? I mean give me an example.

At first I assumed they meant in employment and housing. But I recently read somewhere (sorry, I forget exactly where ) that may not be the case. So what is unjust then?

Catholic posters, please chime in. But realize this is a purely doctrinal question. So anyone can answer .

 

I think the pope has made his positions tolerable for the LGBTQ+ community.

I am straight though. The better answer will come from those whose lives are more influenced by thinking around gender & sexuality.

-----

I didn't always have a healthy perspective about my sexuality... There were angry associations when it came to my understanding of status-quo heterosexual relationships.

I didn't have a job, and didn't really have a lot of money... I didn't have much self-esteem. And I thought, "What if I'm not straight".

Never in a million years did I think it would matter to me what my Religion thought about that.

-----

Now that I'm old, grumpy, and politicized, I see the church's position on sexuality as totally relevant.

My interpretation is this: no promiscuity.

If you're gay, identify as lesbian, or are bisexual or bi-curious, I feel like there's a crossroads.

You have to choose even when you're straight what your boundaries will be. That is what I believe the church is primarily concerned with. That is where morality comes into play, moreso if we discover new opportunies or alternative modes of partnership.

I don't know, for example, whether or not Catholic priests will marry a gay or lesbian partnership. In an official capacity it's not widely accepted, but I think privately most of America will at least tolerate alternative lifestyles.

 

As an ex-Catholic myself, let me see if I can translate this. The Chruch's basic stance on all matters of sex and sexuality is rooted in natural law philosophy, which holds that God's Plan can be figured out by observing the facts of nature; 'birds do it, bees do it..." The natural end is reproduction which is essential to survival of the species. Anything that interferes with this function--e.g., masturbation, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, etc.-is wrong and "unnatural".. Interestingly, Saint Thomas Aquinas, I believe, said that while prostitution is morally wrong, it isn't unnatural. Homosexuality is unnatural and perverted, But people are morally responsible only for things they can control. A person can't control his/her inclinations, but it's possible to say no to them. All of us are inclined toward one sin or another, but resistance is never futile. So it's not sinful for a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, etc., to be what they are--in the sense of being attracted to same sex partners or thinking of themselves as having a different gender than their anatomy would dictate. But it would be wrong for them to act on their inclinations. This,remember, is an institution that expects its priests to be celibate. There obviously have been slip ups in the priestly self-control department , but the expectation is that everyone can control their impulses if they put their mind to it. At lest that's what the nuns taught me.

So it would be unjust to discriminate against LGBTQs in housing, employment, services, etc., or to bash them or call them names. Judge not, lest yer be judged. It would be okay to deny them the right to marry partners of their choice, since that would lead to violations of natural law if the marriage is consumated.

My own church, the United Methodists, considers homosexuals and lesbians to be persons of sacred worth, but will not allow them to be clergy nor to marry in the church. And we're on the verge of splitting over this issue.

 

The circus of morality! The human mind in order to fix one thing just ends up creating many things. What is virtue and what is sin, if you debate this for long enough I’m sure each individual will have their own take on this according to their own convenience, the contact of who you are is not established. If a person is 100% moral, who wants to be around them ? Would you really feel comfortable in the company of a person like that ?

 

It depends on what they mean by "moral". If it means being self righteous, exclusionary and judgmental, like the Pharisees Jesus encountered and their modern counterparts on the religious right--definitely not. Jesus shocked them by hanging out with the dregs of society, and in their opinion, drinking and eating too much. Really, they were the ones who were immoral in neglecting the essential principle of compassion that Jesus exemplified. We have their counterparts in the hypocrites of today's religious right, who have sold their souls to Trump gain judges who support their moral views.

We need basic morality in order for society, on which we depend, to survive. Empathy and reciprocal altruism are essential to effective social functioning. Even non-human species have them to some degree. Evolutionary biologist E.O.Wilson thinks that early hominids, ancestors to homo sapiens, developed separate, competing brain modules for the claims of self and society. Evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker tells us our brains still reflect this tension, that Freud characterized as id, ego, and superego and biblical metaphor addresses in terms of original sin. Unfortunately, the morality that cemented primitive bands didn't extend to outsiders, and as societies grew larger and more complex, so did moral systems conveyed by the world's major religions. Some of them developed codes like the Ten Commandments which were later simplified in general principles like the golden rule (formalized reciprocal altruism). Jesus taught that the Law and the Prophets could be summed up in love of God and neighbor. John's gospel tells us "God is Love". I consider those to be the essential foundations of basic morality.

And I think they're under attack in our society today, by sociopaths, postmodernist nihilists, racists, greedy corporate gazillionaires and gun lobbyists, power mad politicians, and Latter Day Pharisees--all empowered by the internet and fake news outlets like Fox, Newsmax, and Breitbart.. Retrumplicans are by no means the only problem, but they are a major part of it. I was never much into the "Hippie" values of Sex, drugs, rockn' roll, but the peace, love and understanding part I relate to. The fissures in our society are growing day by day--illustrated by the depravity of recent mass shootings, but also by efforts to cheat by rigging elections and packing courts with ideologues. To me, it has an apocalyptic feel to it. Idolatry remains at the root of the problem: worship of false gods like wealth, status, power, sensual indulgence, guns and glory. That never turns out well.

 

Raised Catholic also.

Perhaps the insertion of the word unjust is not necessary? Isn't all personal discrimination unjust? What would just discrimination look like?

Just discrimination to me is a shopper comparing prices and inspecting the merchandise. a discriminating consumer to use retail parlance.
perhaps its the wrong word to use.

A full throated endorsement of a brotherhood of mankind is called for, Christians and other beliefs.

 

When I see any religious folks doing or talking about their rituals , be it Catholic, Mormon,Jewish, known cults, etc----I'm very relieved that I don't have to burden myself with any of it. I know many -(well--billions, I suppose) need rituals of one kind or another. I just never felt any of it. I"m not able to understand how humanity in it's / our current form are able to ascertain any actual truth about the whys, wherefores, and how comes of existence. That's on me, I guess. Perhaps I'm just weak minded.

 

I'd like to add: What would be a burden to me is most likely a joy to most adherents. Like anything in life, there are always percentages. Some good--some bad. Nothing is for sure in life except for two things. : change and death.

 

.Oh, those Renassance popes! Dante, who lived at the time, consigned some to the Inferno--mostly to the fourth circle of hell reserved for the greedy: Pope Nichols III & Pope Celestine V, along with a bunch of cardinals, bishops and priests.

.[/QUOTE] The Borgia pope had his limitations, but some of those kids turned out to be historically important figures: Cesare Borgia, who was a cardinal, military leader, politician and the inspiration of Machiavelli's book The Prince, about the art of gaining and exercising power skillfully and efficiently. His daughter Lucretia Borgia was, in her own right, one of the most notorious serial killers in history, famous for her toxic recipes.

As my late father used to say, "Do as I say, not as I do." I took that to heart and used his sayings as well as his negative role modelling to shape my own morals and behavior. Same with the Church. I'm grateful to those nuns with rulers for keeping me in line, and my Inner Nun is still there waiting to whomp me upside the head when I go astray. But I question whether such moral perfectionism is productive. I don't see how an adolescent can develop a healthy sexuality if (s)he takes too seriously the church's injunctions against impure thoughts and masturbation. I don't think I could have been fruitful and multipled if I had. It would have driven me insane, and I'm not sure all the guilt is useful. It was all the preoccupation with moral perfection that drove Luther over the edge.

 

I still attend Catholic religious study classes, but I now find Catholic practices a bit strange and over-the-top.I always think to myself, as people are going through their prayer lists, do these folks really think that the Creator of the Universe is going to spare some person who He would otherwise have let die, because they are asking him to change the course of destiny? And I answer: Yes, they do. But I think such beliefs can be useful. I have a friend with bone cancer who will probably die soon. Chemo, radiation and further surgery will probably do him no good, since he's in such a weakened condition as a result of recent bladder cancer surgery from which he is still recovering. He said to me: "I don't think anything can help me now except prayer." That small hope keeps him going. My brother handled it in a different way, using reason to reconcile him to the inevitable. To each his own. More people, I think,are likely to take comfort from my friend's approach than my brother's.

 

.[/QUOTE]I'm not a Catholic, though I was one once upon a time. Injustice would be discriminating against gays because they're gays--shunning them, ridiculing them, or denying them basic goods, services and housing. By an "Objectively disordered', the Church is referring to its favorite doctrine, "natural law"--that moral rules can be inferred from observing nature--i.e, the birds and the bees. Heterosexual intercourse makes babied, homosexual intercourse doesn't. The Bible sez "be fruitful and multiply". Ergo, gay sex is "objectively disordered" (as are birth control, abortion, etc.) But we must still love them. The Church, as I understand it, thinks it's not sinful to have homosexual inclinations, but we mustn't act on them or entertain lustful thoughts. (good luck with that!)

I've often wondered why this reasoning doesn't apply to celibate priests. (Talk about "unnatural".) But I'm no moral theologian. I personally suspect that evolution will take care of the problem, if it is one, since straight people and other animals far outnumber gays, and heterosexual sex doesn't seem to be going out of style. Gay sex seems to be a natural variant among mammals, but always a minority. I can't imagine deciding to abandon my wife and kids to shack up with some guy. At the present time, under-population doesn't seem to be a major problem for the planet.

 

You know what, Catholic Church? FUCK YOU!
You want to talk "disordered"? Considering the Catholic Church's well-documented collective predilection for pedophilia, the "Magdalene laundries", the Indian residential schools, the genocide of First Nations people in the 16th and 17th century, and the Inquisition in the 13th through 16th century, the Catholic Church has zero credibility as arbiters of either holiness or morality. Any organization that consistently over time perpetrates and perpetuates that much suffering and death can only be described, on it's most basic and fundamental level, as evil.

 

As a Christian and ex-Catholic, I am dumbfounded by the moral depravity of pedophile priests and their clerical protectors. By their own teachings, this is one of the very worst sins a person, particularly a priest, could commit. Jesus himself is supposed to have warned that “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones” (Luke 17:2). For a priest, the offense is made worse by the fact that a trusted religious authority is abusing his position of trust. Compounded by the fact that it brings scandal to the Church, as illustrated by your reaction. And topping it off, the Church hierarchy became complicit in the practices by denial and shuffling these vipers around from parish to parish. How could this happen? Start with the fact that everyone involved is human and subject to the frailties that entails. Then add an hierarchical bureaucracy concerned about its image to the point of yielding to the temptation of sweeping things under the rug. And I still think celibacy is unnatural and generates inevitable problems. As for the doctrines, my Catholic mother used to tell me: they're celibate old men, what do they know?


I still value my fellowship with Catholics at the local church. the pastor is an authoritarian “my way or the highway type, but the young visiting priest is a intellectually impressive and an idealist for whom I have a lot of respect. And the parishioners in the group seem like really good people who are trying to walk the walk, much like the ones in my freethinkers group.