Is it possible to be both Catholic and gay?

sitstill

Is it possible to be both Catholic and gay?


I'm a 25 year old man and was raised in a Catholic family by parents who would have fairly traditional Catholic views. I'm also gay. My parents know about my sexuality and its not a problem for them.

I am totally comfortable with my sexuality and also believe that I am a good Catholic (apart from the whole committing homosexual acts thing) - other than that, I take my faith more seriously than most people my age; I go to mass, I pray, I receive communion, I take my faith seriously and generally try to take my Catholicism seriously.

There is an obvious clash in all of this though. Am I right to believe that officially I am not welcome in the church? Is there any way to reconcile this?

studiorat

*subscribes to thread.

I think the answer depends on whether the person you ask sees homosexuality as a behavior or lifestyle. Whether being gay is something you are or something you do.

Most will have no issue with it until you want to get married or raise children, then the fun starts.

Question: Would you consider gay sex to be a sin?

sitstill

studiorat wrote: »

Question: Would you consider gay sex to be a sin?

Personally I don't consider gay sex a sin, but I seem to remember the church sees the act as a sin.

pts

From what I can gather it will depend on who you ask. As the church is made up of individual most people have different opinions. I think the Pope's stance is that homosexuality is is a moral evil but that people should "hate the sin but not the sinner" so to speak.

iseethelight

I think the situation is that there is no problem with being gay, however as sex is for procreation only you shouldn't have sex.

Rebel021

Why don't you ask a priest best way to get an answer

jaffa20

iseethelight wrote: »

I think the situation is that there is no problem with being gay, however as sex is for procreation only you shouldn't have sex.

Huh

sitstill

iseethelight wrote: »

I think the situation is that there is no problem with being gay, however as sex is for procreation only you shouldn't have sex.

Thats easier said then done I'm afraid mate.

iseethelight

I don't pretend its easy nor do I believe in it I was just answering the question.

studiorat

The way I would see it is, the CC reckons:

- It's OK as long as you don't have a physical side to the relationship. (could probably turn a blind eye to a relationship.)

- It's OK as long as you don't seek to be married.

- It's probably better if bringing up children is left to hetero-sexual couples.

- And you can't be a Gay priest. Hetero-celibacy only.

Outside of the official church dogma, you'll get ignorance or understanding the same as you will anywhere.

Fanny Cradock

Hi sitstill, are you looking for a Catholic response or do you welcome Christian opinions in general?

kelly1

sitstill wrote: »

Is it possible to be both Catholic and gay?

I'm a 25 year old man and was raised in a Catholic family by parents who would have fairly traditional Catholic views. I'm also gay. My parents know about my sexuality and its not a problem for them.

I am totally comfortable with my sexuality and also believe that I am a good Catholic (apart from the whole committing homosexual acts thing) - other than that, I take my faith more seriously than most people my age; I go to mass, I pray, I receive communion, I take my faith seriously and generally try to take my Catholicism seriously.

There is an obvious clash in all of this though. Am I right to believe that officially I am not welcome in the church? Is there any way to reconcile this?

Hello Sitstill, I sympathise with your difficult situation.

The Church of course welcomes gay people. Love the sinner, not the sin.
I presume you know the Church teaches that homosexual acts are gravely sinful? Therefore commiting a sexual act with someone of the same sex is a mortal sin and what's more receiving Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin is a serious sacrilege (see 1 Cor 11:27-29).

Father John Corapi once said that he and homosexual people had a lot in common; They're both called to celibacy. If you want to do God's will, that really is the only option you have. Of course that's easier said than done but which is more important, sexual pleasure or your salvation?

Sorry if this sounds harsh or judgemental, I don't mean to be but I would would be commiting a sin if I said that you should continue as you are.

May God bless you and give you the strength and courage to do the right thing.

Noel.

sitstill

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello Sitstill, I sympathise with your difficult situation.

The Church of course welcomes gay people. Love the sinner, not the sin.
I presume you know the Church teaches that homosexual acts are gravely sinful? Therefore commiting a sexual act with someone of the same sex is a mortal sin and what's more receiving Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin is a serious sacrilege (see 1 Cor 11:27-29).

Father John Corapi once said that he and homosexual people had a lot in common; They're both called to celibacy. If you want to do God's will, that really is the only option you have. Of course that's easier said than done but which is more important, sexual pleasure or your salvation?

Sorry if this sounds harsh or judgemental, I don't mean to be but I would would be commiting a sin if I said that you should continue as you are.

May God bless you and give you the strength and courage to do the right thing.

Noel.

Thats for your response. But I think now I can see why every other gay person I know has totally rejected their faith.

sitstill

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Hi sitstill, are you looking for a Catholic response or do you welcome Christian opinions in general?

I'd be interested in other Christian opinions too.

JimiTime

sitstill wrote: »

Thats for your response. But I think now I can see why every other gay person I know has totally rejected their faith.

I am a non-catholic christian. May I ask you this though: What do you think about it? Do you think indulging in homosexual relations is compatible with Christianity?

sitstill

JimiTime wrote: »

I am a non-catholic christian. May I ask you this though: What do you think about it? Do you think indulging in homosexual relations is compatible with Christianity?

I think it can be.

I am in a long-term monogomous relationship. I am not promiscuous.

Does Jesus not tell us that we should love each other? I think I do. I care for others and try to live as good a life as possible.

Selkies

SitStill, if God told you to give up your relationship, would you?

I asked myself that question so many times until I discovered that I didn't feel like God had invested enough into a relationship with me in order to justify the guilt I felt when breaking his commands.
Keep in mind I recently lost all my faith in God, this is not path to take lightly.

Many people have told me that they are catholics and yet they are not seeking God, they seek only some code to live your life by. The rituals are just there to remind them of that code and in most cases the code has positive effects on their life. If this is how you view it then consider the time in which the book was written and research enough about it so that you can make some informed guesses as to how it should be brought into the 21st century.

I have heard arguments that say that homosexuality is not forbidden in the Bible. They argue that the English translation of the bible is terrible. Here is one from ananel on gaia.

Originally Posted by Ananel
1) I am Christian. No matter what you think of my views below, I am a firm believer in the salvation of Christ and have been for almost all of my life.
2) I believe in the original inerrancy of Holy Scripture. In other words, God divinely inspired the apostles and prophets in the writing of the Bible, His chosen words written through their hand. I don't feel, however, that this also means that X translation is divinely inspired. What was promised was the original Word of God. We have since kept it as well as possible, though imperfections do occur.
3) I can, though with some difficulty, read Greek and Hebrew. Much of my commentary will use words from the original language, so be prepared for this.

Now, let me summarize this argument, because the argument itself will take pages of material even at its most basic. I will post the details of the argument in future postings if necessary, assuming that I am permitted to continue to do so.

A) The Ceremonial Law of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy no longer applies. Because of what is written in the book of Galatians and Paul?s writings in the second chapter of Colossians, we have clear declarations that the ceremonial law is now in the field of Christian liberty. Paul uses a variety of examples to declare this and lists several portions of the law, following with the declaration that all of it was nailed to the Cross and has been removed. This belief is backed up further by the book of Romans and the speeches at the council of Jerusalem in Acts (Chapter 15), along with selected sayings by Christ concerning ceremonial practice. If we decide to pick and choose portions of the ceremonial law to continue in observance as God's will without clear relation of those parts to the commandments of God referenced in Romans, James and Revelations, then we place ourselves in danger of the ban of Galatians 1.

If this is the case, and most of you will find that your pastors will agree with this, unless you are members of the Seventh-day Adventist or similar denominations, then we have a big problem in the debate of homosexual sex as a sin. The problem is simple: The two clearest declarations of homosexual sex as a sin in the Bible are found in chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus. If the ceremonial law no longer applies, then neither do these.

FURTHER: As the Old Law is dead, what then remains? In line with Paul's teachings in Galatians 5:14 and Christ's words in Mark 12:28-34, the Law of Love is the true Law which remains. That which is in line with it in the OT (example: The Ten Commandments) and that which is expounded upon in the NT remains. All else is ended, in accordance with Colossians 2 and Acts 15 and the book of Galatians.

Sodom and Gomorrah do not pertain to homosexual sex, and the same can be said of the related story in Judges. The sins of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are clearly huge. Have you ever seen a city in your lives where the whole male population tried to batter down doors so that they could gang rape guests to the city? I apologize for being so blunt and almost crude, but the point is not a pleasant one, and neither is the story. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful beyond our understanding. These were foul places where such extreme forms of rape were accepted and where the closest thing to a righteous man offers up his daughters to their lusts. Further, the issue also comes up that this is a story more about the complete lack of hospitality and the brutality of the citizens. It is reading too far into the text to say that this passage says anything about homosexual sex. It is speaking of extreme cases that do not apply to homosexual sex.

(Note: Ezekiel 16 is the passage which refers to the sins of Sodom/Gomorrah)

C) The argument of creation (God created them Adam and Eve, so they are meant to be complimentary) suffers from a massive weakness. In chapter three of Genesis, we are told why a man leaves his father and mother to become one flesh with the woman that he loves. We are told similar things in chapter five of Paul's letter to the Ephesians. However, neither passage declares that this must be the only thing. Paul also speaks elsewhere of the joys of celibacy. This indicates that marriage is not required. Without proof that homosexual sex is considered a sin, there is no reason to automatically assume that 'Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve' is actually said in Scripture. The passages only say why heterosexual marriages occur, not that they must be the only ones.

In fact, an important point must be made. Scripture speaks clearly about the need to save sex for marriage. If the Bible has not declared homosexual sex or marriage as sinful, then we have done a vast disservice in refusing homosexual couples the right to marriage. We are, in effect, trying to force them into sinful relationships out-of-wedlock.

D) There are three passages that may speak on homosexual sex in the New Testament. Two are lists of sins, found in chapter six of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians and chapter one of his first letter to Timothy. The third, and most important, passage is found in the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans.

1) The two lists are poorly translated in the cases of homosexuality. Three words are found in these passages that are used to relate to homosexual sex: Pornia, Arsenokoites and Malakoi. Pornia means pervert. That's all it really means. It refers to sexual perversion, but makes no statement as to what that perversion is. It is far too general to relate to homosexual sex. Malakoi refers to softness or effeminacy, with implications of perversion. The term is used to refer to a man who is too passionate and emotional, and who acts upon these. It relates to the Grecian concepts of gender identity. The man was not to be emotional in this fashion. If one stretches the meaning of the word, examples are found where Malakoi may refer to the 'bottom' partner of pederasty. This is a relationship wherein a teenage boy traded sexual favors with an older man in return for guidance and training. It was common within Greek society and accepted in Roman society. Arsenokoites is a compound word derived from the Greek words for man and bed. While this sounds like a clear reference to homosexuality to our modern ears (and the argument there is derived from the separate presence of the two words in the septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13, not their fused presence), there is a problem. The word does not appear at any point prior to Paul's letters. To our knowledge, he created the term himself. Its usage in all other cases I am aware of either represents something akin to an aggressive sexual predator or, more commonly, the ?top? partner in pederasty. This is further amplified by the earliest translations of malakois and arsenokoites, the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome. In the vulgate, they are translated essentially as male prostitute (Mascularum Concupitores), which is often considered to narrow in the modern era, but was the working definition (or at least the primary one.) for approaching 1,000 years, prior to the time of men such as Erasmus. At most these verses could possibly have listed pederasty as a crime, but not homosexual sex alone. You cannot read into the text the fact that, because something condemned includes another thing, that other thing is automatically condemned as well. For example, a person who breaks the commandment about not bearing false testimony against one's neighbor must communicate to do so. Communication is not condemned, is it? The condemnation of pederasty cannot be clearly related, even in consideration of Jewish morals that Paul is familiar with, to a condemnation of homosexual sex. Look at http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html for further details on the specifics of Arsenokoites and Malakoi.
2) Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.

One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.

Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one's innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was 'on bottom.' Such a position degrades the citizen's status and was considered to be a horrible thing.

Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that 'shameful lusts' meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman's understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.

Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses 26-27. However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.

My arguments are quite basic. This is only an overview of them. I have far more detailed descriptions of the issues involved and will happily offer them. This argument is also not new. You can find websites offering similar interpretations themselves. I came to these conclusions, however, through prayer and consideration with friends, not a website. These positions, also, are hardly universally accepted. There is strong evidence in both directions with regards Romans 1. Some churches still make the claim that parts of the ceremonial law remain intact. There are strong arguments both for and against this.

My single greatest point is this: Can you honestly declare something a sin when you cannot clearly show without serious contention that the Bible declares it to be a sin' When we look at the Ten Commandments, we know basically what they say and don't argue over them. Christ further explains them during his life, giving us more information about what they mean. We know these things to be sins, and there is little debate. Homosexual sex is found in the ceremonial laws and what few verses speak of it outside of that set of laws are hotly contested. How can we clearly state, based upon these facts, that homosexuality is indeed a sin?

Either way throughout your decision keep in mind the benefits afforded to you by both parts of your life, your sexuality and your religion.

homer911

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello Sitstill, I sympathise with your difficult situation.

The Church of course welcomes gay people. Love the sinner, not the sin.
I presume you know the Church teaches that homosexual acts are gravely sinful? Therefore commiting a sexual act with someone of the same sex is a mortal sin and what's more receiving Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin is a serious sacrilege (see 1 Cor 11:27-29).

Father John Corapi once said that he and homosexual people had a lot in common; They're both called to celibacy. If you want to do God's will, that really is the only option you have. Of course that's easier said than done but which is more important, sexual pleasure or your salvation?

Sorry if this sounds harsh or judgemental, I don't mean to be but I would would be commiting a sin if I said that you should continue as you are.

May God bless you and give you the strength and courage to do the right thing.

Noel.

+1 from a non-Catholic Christian perspective

prinz

studiorat wrote: »

The way I would see it is, the CC reckons:

- It's OK as long as you don't have a physical side to the relationship. (could probably turn a blind eye to a relationship.)

- It's OK as long as you don't seek to be married.

- It's probably better if bringing up children is left to hetero-sexual couples.

- And you can't be a Gay priest. Hetero-celibacy only.

Outside of the official church dogma, you'll get ignorance or understanding the same as you will anywhere.

That's pretty much the story alright.

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello Sitstill, I sympathise with your difficult situation.

The Church of course welcomes gay people. Love the sinner, not the sin.
I presume you know the Church teaches that homosexual acts are gravely sinful? Therefore commiting a sexual act with someone of the same sex is a mortal sin and what's more receiving Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin is a serious sacrilege (see 1 Cor 11:27-29).

Father John Corapi once said that he and homosexual people had a lot in common; They're both called to celibacy. If you want to do God's will, that really is the only option you have. Of course that's easier said than done but which is more important, sexual pleasure or your salvation?

Sorry if this sounds harsh or judgemental, I don't mean to be but I would would be commiting a sin if I said that you should continue as you are.

May God bless you and give you the strength and courage to do the right thing.

Noel.

This is all correct.

However I do remember watching a documentary on the issue which claimed that the practice being outlawed was that of older men retaining younger men if not boys as lovers, a practice that still exists in parts of the world today, I saw an article a few years ago that it is still done, in smaller rural communities, I think it was in Malaysia ( could be wrong there ). From what I can remember they said adult male to adult male relationships were actually uncommon at the time, but the practice of a older man 'adopting' a younger male lover was widespread, even among the married. The younger males were seen as 'pure', and it was not looked upon as such a sin as being with a virgin girl. Perhaps what is mentioned in the Bible could actually be aimed at child sexual abuse, and not consensual adult homosexual relations. I don't know.

kelly1

sitstill wrote: »

Thats for your response. But I think now I can see why every other gay person I know has totally rejected their faith.

I think you need to ask yourself, do you want to do God's will or your own.

Have you read Romans 1?

24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

or 1 Corinthians?

9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

or Mark 10?

6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. 8 And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.

Homosexual acts are also widely condemned in the Old Testament. Why should the New Testament be any different? God doesn't change His mind. Jesus didn't condone homosexual acts and as you can see He stated explicity that man and woman are created for each other. Do you think St. Paul is mistaken in his condemnation?

P.S. Sorry if what I wrote comes across as judgemental or preachy. It's not for me to judge the state of your soul so I'm just giving my understanding of what the Church teaches. BTW, this isn't just a Catholic teaching. You'll find lots of other Christian churches who teach the same thing.

Bduffman

iseethelight wrote: »

I think the situation is that there is no problem with being gay, however as sex is for procreation only you shouldn't have sex.

Except when couples use the rhythmn method. Or for couples who can't have children.
But thats ok because they are hetrosexual.

Fanny Cradock

iseethelight wrote: »

I don't pretend its easy nor do I believe in it I was just answering the question.

Seems important!

JimiTime

sitstill wrote: »

I think it can be.

Do you mind me asking how you reconcile the two?

I am in a long-term monogomous relationship. I am not promiscuous.

I assume by this then, that you feel homosexuality is not an issue, but promiscuity is? If you treat your monogomous homosexual relationship as a marriage, then there is no issue biblically speaking?

Does Jesus not tell us that we should love each other?

He tells us first and foremost to Love God, then to Love our neighbour. Though I'm not sure about the context you are using this advice? Could you expand?

I think I do.

Well that is the crux. Do you Love God? If you 'genuinely' add up the commands and advices we have been given by the prophets and NT writers, and 'honestly' conclude that homosexuality is not perverse to God then fair enough. I would like to know how you reconsile such a view though?

I care for others and try to live as good a life as possible.

Certainly an admirable quality in any person, be they Christian or not. What we are trying to address however, is reconsiling homosexuality with christianity.

anothernight

Bduffman wrote: »

Except when couples use the rhythmn method. Or for couples who can't have children.
But thats ok because they are hetrosexual.

And non-catholic christians. Afaik only catholics and maybe a few branches of protestantism say sex should only be practised for procreation purposes. That's why

prinz

anothernight wrote: »

Afaik only catholics .... say sex should only be practised for procreation purposes.

As a Catholic I have never been instructed that sex was for procreational reasons only. Sex is encouraged as an expression of love, as one of God's gift to us, as a natural expression of desire to be united with your husband or wife.

The only proviso is that no unnatural methods of contraception are used.

There is a very big difference.

anothernight

prinz wrote: »

As a Catholic I have never been instructed that sex was for procreational reasons only. Sex is encouraged as an expression of love, as one of God's gift to us, as a natural expression of desire to be united with your husband or wife.

The only proviso is that no unnatural methods of contraception are used.

There is a very big difference.

Oh, my apologies. I wasn't aware of that

MatthewVII

prinz wrote: »

As a Catholic I have never been instructed that sex was for procreational reasons only. Sex is encouraged as an expression of love, as one of God's gift to us, as a natural expression of desire to be united with your husband or wife.

The only proviso is that no unnatural methods of contraception are used.

There is a very big difference.

As a matter of interest, why is there a difference between natural and artificial contraception? Is it not seen as a deliberate attempt to avoid conception no matter how its done? It just seems like obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit.

prinz

MatthewVII wrote: »

As a matter of interest, why is there a difference between natural and artificial contraception? Is it not seen as a deliberate attempt to avoid conception no matter how its done? It just seems like obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit.

Well AFAIK the 'natural' methods are fairly recent in the grand scheme of things, because of pressure from Catholics regarding contraception.

I think the Chuch just has a dim view of involving unnatural methods in what is essentially God's greatest gift, the ability to produce offspring. And sex is promoted and encouraged between married couples. I think its perfectly normal not to want a physical barrier between the two people, and interfering with hormones etc., isn't exactly free from problems.

So the natural methods, don't involve any constraints on either party, or any possible side effects, there's no barrier between the couple etc.

A lot of people have the misconception that the Catholic Church is anti-sex, or repressed and that, when in actual fact it's the opposite.

Edit: Again just my opinion on why things are like they are. Need someone who knows the ins and outs of the Canon Law or whatnot to explain fully. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree on the reasoning.

crotalus667

Op

Here is some thing you may be interested in, I was watching a documentary on it one of the scholars (not a gay guy) was explaining the origins of the word abomination long story short at the time the bible was written or translated (I cant remember which) it meant more of a “social fo par” than any thing else (the bible also say’s that eating shell fish is an abomination)

jaffa20

Hi OP,

I'm also gay and in a long term commited relationship. If you feel that you can live by the word of God, then good for you. Do you really need to feel accepted by other christians It's not gonna happen on here. I was raised caltholic and gave up my beliefs pretty quickly when i grew up as i realised i wanted to live my life for myself so now i'm just indifferent to God and religions. If you want to let God into your heart, then you shouldn't have to compromise who you are because that's how you were made. There a many abmoninations in the bible, and whether you want to read them literaly or not, is up to you.

Best of luck.

JimiTime

jaffa20 wrote: »

Do you really need to feel accepted by other christians

I don't feel the need to be accepted by other Christians. In fact, alot of my views make some feel that I'm not truly a christian. One thing I have in my views though is honesty. I'll be wrong about many things, but one thing is for sure, I'll have arrived at my views honestly. I can't say that that is what you are encouraging here though. Your advice below seems to be rather contradictory.

I was raised caltholic and gave up my beliefs pretty quickly when i grew up as i realised i wanted to live my life for myself so now i'm just indifferent to God and religions. If you want to let God into your heart, then you shouldn't have to compromise who you are because that's how you were made. There a many abmoninations in the bible, and whether you want to read them literaly or not, is up to you.

Best of luck.

It 'seems' you are saying that you threw God out so that you could be a practicing homosexual, then you are suggesting that maybe God doesn't mind homosexuality and that the word abomination is mistranslated or the like. Whatever decision he, or anyone else makes for that matter, should be based on an honest process.

jaffa20

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't feel the need to be accepted by other Christians. In fact, alot of my views make some feel that I'm not truly a christian. One thing I have in my views though is honesty. I'll be wrong about many things, but one thing is for sure, I'll have arrived at my views honestly. I can't say that that is what you are encouraging here though. Your advice below seems to be rather contradictory.


It 'seems' you are saying that you threw God out so that you could be a practicing homosexual, then you are suggesting that maybe God doesn't mind homosexuality and that the word abomination is mistranslated or the like. Whatever decision he, or anyone else makes for that matter, should be based on an honest process.

How do you mean that your views make you feel that you're not truly christian And how does arriving at those views with honesty make you feel better. The most important thing is to be honest with yourself and who you are so my advice to the op was to not let other christian or a scripture compromise who he truly is.

As for me, i actually didn't ever reject God. I didn't need to. I just became indifferent which is probably worse but it had nothing to do with my sexuality. So, i didn't move away from God to choose homosexuality. it was never a choice. It's just who i am and it's not because the bible says that what i do is an abmonination. I don't see why someone cannot be gay and practice christianity. Is it because the bible tells us not to The bible tells us a lot of things that we're not meant to do but these are still done. They may seems less important but they should be treated the same way because if you intend to say one thing is a sin and another is not, then where is the honesty. That's is perhaps contradictory, don't you think

Húrin

Sitstill, nothing matters more than your faith. Christianity in all forms is about drinking the water of life that is Jesus. We are all distracted by the amusements of the world, and it is a struggle sometimes to keep the faith. But keep reading the Bible, about the lord, and if you love God then you will know what to do.

I hope my answer doesn't sound too hippyish but it's what I think. Worrying about following the letter of some law is what Jesus came to liberate us from.

jaffa20 wrote: »

The most important thing is to be honest with yourself and who you are so my advice to the op was to not let other christian or a scripture compromise who he truly is.

Who he truly is, is the being that God wishes him to be, and is willing to help him to be. This gift is given by the holy spirit. Reflection on the scriptures and prayer will help a lot more than reliance on sheer will to obey a religious rule.

JimiTime

jaffa20 wrote: »

How do you mean that your views make you feel that you're not truly christian

I didn't say that. I said that some of my views make 'others' feel that I'm not truly christian.

And how does arriving at those views with honesty make you feel better.

I would say thats self explainitory. Knowing that you haven't compromised your honesty for your desires etc is fulfilling. Not always easy, but certainly fulfilling. It also gives you an open mind with no fear of hearing the truth or opposing opinion.

The most important thing is to be honest with yourself and who you are so my advice to the op was to not let other christian or a scripture compromise who he truly is.

The thing is, Christianity is not just something one molds around themselves. It is something that you mold around. It doesn't say, 'Hey, accept yourself, warts and all. Whatever you want, thats cool.' It says 'Hey you, sinner. Do you love sin, or do you love me? You cannot serve two masters. Now are you going to let sin be your master or will you come to me and be washed clean in the blood of the lamb.'

We all sin, but what most will recognise is when they have sinned. Every day I ask for forgiveness for the multitude of my shortcomings. Never do I conciously say about my sin, 'you know what, I want to do this. Its what I desire. Its part of me.' I desire to change, and mold myself in the ways of Christ. Now 'if' one feels that something is sinful to Christ, then to say 'well so what, I don't think its sinful' is not complimentary to Christianity. Either you recognise your sin as sin, or you choose the sin over Christ. What I've asked the OP, is how they have reconsiled homosexual relations and christianity. I can't see how this can be done, but if the OP has honestly reached this conclusion, I'd be curious as to how. As I mentioned, I'm contantly finding how wrong I am about things. Maybe I have overlooked something.

As for me, i actually didn't ever reject God. I didn't need to. I just became indifferent which is probably worse but it had nothing to do with my sexuality. So, i didn't move away from God to choose homosexuality.

Apologies for misunderstanding.

I don't see why someone cannot be gay and practice christianity. Is it because the bible tells us not to

At the end of the day, God will be our judge. All i seek is folk to be honest with themselves. If someone says, I'm going to practice homosexuality and I don't think its a sin, but I'm also a christian. I would genuinely ask, how do you reconsile the two? At this moment in time, I can't see how one could reconsile the two. My view presently is a) You are a christian, but you desire something which is sinful. b) You are a practicing homosexual who desires Christianity. c) You declare that you are christian and practice homosexuality, and believe that the two are wholly compatible.

'At present', I cannot see option C as an honest conclusion.

The bible tells us a lot of things that we're not meant to do but these are still done.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here? However, if I carry out a sinful act, I'll recognise it as such (If I realise my sin), and seek forgiveness and actively try not to sin.

They may seems less important but they should be treated the same way because if you intend to say one thing is a sin and another is not, then where is the honesty. That's is perhaps contradictory, don't you think

Again, you'll have to be a bit more specific, but in principle I agree with this.

jaffa20

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are referring to here? However, if I carry out a sinful act, I'll recognise it as such (If I realise my sin), and seek forgiveness and actively try not to sin.


Again, you'll have to be a bit more specific, but in principle I agree with this.

The difference between these alternatives is enormous. If sex between two males is a moral sin, then a good case can be made that it is still immoral today, even by same-sex couple who went to Canada to get married. If it is merely an impure act, then it might have the status as other polluting activities, such as getting a tattoo, planting a grass seed mixture in one's front lawn, wearing a cotton-polyester shirt, eating shellfish, munching on some barbequed pork ribs, or eating supper with a person who follows another religion. That is, Leviticus 18:22 may be an old prohibition that simply does not apply today
(taken from - http://www.religioustolerance.org/sinhebrs.htm )

Do you recognise all these which Leviticus (not Christ) states to be a sin still apply today with the same extremity I think this is where homosexuals will have difficulty understanding why they can't be a christian when people choose today what is a sin and what is not based on their own views.

jaffa20

Húrin wrote: »

But keep reading the Bible, about the lord, and if you love God then you will know what to do.

Do you believe leviticus is the word of Christ when he was dead at this time Really, you are following the word of leviticus. Have you ever tried shellfish. It's yummy.

Nick_oliveri

Yes, all of the other books or even the NT seem to be vague or need interpretation on the subject. As most Christians live (im assuming) or practice by the NT I see no real need to cite Leviticus on this subject while ignoring the other "charming" passages and strict laughable code in the same "book".

ETA: OP, if you find Catholicism a good thing, it gives you meaning or whatever, keep practising it, and show love to your partner as you please. I mean really, are you going to go home and tell him that you have read the opinions of some random anonymous others and have decided not to "sin" anymore? What were you looking for here? See Selkies post above, you are only going to be torn on this eventually IMHO.

JimiTime

jaffa20 wrote: »

The difference between these alternatives is enormous. If sex between two males is a moral sin, then a good case can be made that it is still immoral today, even by same-sex couple who went to Canada to get married. If it is merely an impure act, then it might have the status as other polluting activities, such as getting a tattoo, planting a grass seed mixture in one's front lawn, wearing a cotton-polyester shirt, eating shellfish, munching on some barbequed pork ribs, or eating supper with a person who follows another religion. That is, Leviticus 18:22 may be an old prohibition that simply does not apply today
(taken from - http://www.religioustolerance.org/sinhebrs.htm )

And if the individual honestly seeks to find out what the biblical view on it is, and honestly finds that homosexuality is A-Ok, then ok. At this moment in time, I can't see how this could be an honest conclusion, but thats just me what do I matter. Its not soley about Leviticus btw, but I'm not here to argue about biblical interpretation, just seeking the reasoning of the OP as to how they concluded what they did.

Do you recognise all these which Leviticus (not Christ) states to be a sin still apply today with the same extremity I think this is where homosexuals will have difficulty understanding why they can't be a christian when people choose today what is a sin and what is not based on their own views.

Can I firstly make it clear, that I in no way believe that I have the say on who is and isn't Christian. So if a homosexual is honest with themselves, and arrives at the conclusion that their homosexual practices are compatible with Christianity, then all I am is in disagreement. My opinion should not matter to someone who is genuinely honest with themselves. They can think, fair enough, and continue being Christian and practicing homosexuals. Knowing Jimitime thinks there is a conflict wont really matter.

Seaneh

I I stopped reading this thread at about the 2nd post of the last page (page 2 for me).

My view is this.

Can a homosexual person be a christian.

Yes, they can, ofcourse they can.

Can a homosexual claim they love God while still partaking in pre-marital homosexual sex?

Yes, but you are using Grace as a licence to sin and this is, in my opinion, a greater sin than homosexual activity and pre marital sex combined. Infact, I believe that willfully sinning while writting it off as "I'm saved through faith not works" or "God loves me anyway" is akin to stealing from your mothers purse because you know she's not going to call the cops on you when you are a teenager. it's no differant than someone claiming to love God and then going out and murdering someone or cheating on their wife or stealing.

I know I'm going to get attacked by the A&A mob here and I don't give a feck, in terms of juedo-christian doctrine I'm right.

Also, I'm too busy getting over Mumps at the minute to be bothered about their snide attacks on my faith.

Seaneh

Bduffman wrote: »

Except when couples use the rhythmn method. Or for couples who can't have children.
But thats ok because they are hetrosexual.

No, it's okay becuas they are married and having sex open to the idea of the creation of life.

extra and pre-marital sex don't aim for pre-creation and certainly aren't open to the idea 99% of the time.

jaffa20

Seaneh wrote: »

I I stopped reading this thread at about the 2nd post of the last page (page 2 for me).

My view is this.

Can a homosexual person be a christian.

Yes, they can, ofcourse they can.

Can a homosexual claim they love God while still partaking in pre-marital homosexual sex?

Yes, but you are using Grace as a licence to sin and this is, in my opinion, a greater sin than homosexual activity and pre marital sex combined. Infact, I believe that willfully sinning while writting it off as "I'm saved through faith not works" or "God loves me anyway" is akin to stealing from your mothers purse because you know she's not going to call the cops on you when you are a teenager. it's no differant than someone claiming to love God and then going out and murdering someone or cheating on their wife or stealing.

I know I'm going to get attacked by the A&A mob here and I don't give a feck, in terms of juedo-christian doctrine I'm right.

Also, I'm too busy getting over Mumps at the minute to be bothered about their snide attacks on my faith.

How are they using grace as a license to sin when in their view the homosexual act is not a sin Also, i don't attack anyone's faith but i attack those who are not open to debate other points of view. Anyway, i here's you attacking a lifesytle of many who were raised christians and still think they can be one. But you think they have to make a choice and must reject christianity because of who they are. Of course they could live a life of celibacy but is that really fair on the individual You have the mumbs now, however homosexuality isn't something that can be overcome like mumbs.

philologos

jaffa20 wrote: »

How are they using grace as a license to sin when in their view the homosexual act is not a sin

If you get charged with speeding, when you come before the court do you think they will allow for you to give your view on what your punishment should be or to give your view on the ethics of what you have done? Or is it up to the judge to determine both the punishment, and to give the legal view of what you have done?

My point being this. God is the judge of all in Christianity, we will be coming before the judgement seat of Christ one day (2 Corinthians 5), and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2). Question is, whose standard do you think that God will use, your own standard or His?

jaffa20 wrote: »

Also, i don't attack anyone's faith but i attack those who are not open to debate other points of view. Anyway, i here's you attacking a lifesytle of many who were raised christians and still think they can be one.

The OP has come to ask for a Christian opinion on the matter (well really a Catholic one, but it has broadened out to this point). I am open to discuss any point of view in Christianity if it is substantiated in Scripture and explained rationally to me.

I don't wish to attack either, but to explain. However, I will say this, I personally don't condone this, but I may as well impart the fact that there are such things as gay churches, and there is a more liberal view on the subject emerging in certain elements of Christianity. I and most of the other posters here however are relatively conservative on the issue. If the OP wants to see what other people have to say and decide based on this research.

jaffa20 wrote: »

But you think they have to make a choice and must reject christianity because of who they are. Of course they could live a life of celibacy but is that really fair on the individual You have the mumbs now, however homosexuality isn't something that can be overcome like mumbs.

I personally think that it is possible to be gay and Christian, and many people have overcome this issue. The sin is not being gay, but rather the sin is to do with lust, and carrying out a forbidden sexual act. Straight people and gay people can do these things, and as such we both have to be willing to reform our nature to His nature. When I came to Christ, there were certain sins, (and there are probably still more) that I had to overcome, and I was willing to put myself in God's hands to aim for His standard and not my own. When you come to Christianity, the phrase "Pick up your cross and follow me" is one of submission to God's teachings.

If you have received grace through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, you must aim to make yourself dead to sin, and alive in new life in Him. Continuing in your sins, is a sheer disregard for the sacrifice that has been made for you.

However, this is my opinion and mine alone, and jaffa20 I'm willing to be proven wrong on the subject.

Bougeoir

sitstill wrote: »

Thats for your response. But I think now I can see why every other gay person I know has totally rejected their faith.

It's true. I was also brought up Catholic and I am gay but during my teenagehood I tried out other religions who have a softer stance on homosexuality (I myself see nothing wrong with it whatsoever). I left the Catholic church (officially too) because I refuse to be a part of an establishment which discriminates against me from who I am but also because I don't believe in any of it. Of course I understand that you sincerely do and that's fine. If you want to try and reconcile your faith and your sexuality, I wish you luck but might I suggest perhaps looking to other more gay-friendly Christian denominations?

Good luck and remember you are who you are.

Reflector

I consider myself an atheist but respect peoples right to faith.

I don't understand why you want to be catholic and not just a christisan unless you want in on that community.

Anyone who preaches love and compassion yet discriminates against gays who in my opinion are as natural to this earth as green grass should not be listened to. God, if he does exist, would not mind gay people as long as they are in love and not doing harm to anyone else. The bible was written by men and men can be corrupted and also their beliefs and opinions are incredibly out of date.

I don't see how anyone could follow a church stuck in the dark ages. It took the vatican 359 years to forgive galileo for claiming that the earth moved around the sun so I wouldn't hold your breath for them to accept homosexuality anytime soon.

(I stole the galileo bit from a letter to the editor in the economist if anyone gives out to me)

Reflector

Bougeoir wrote: »

It's true. I was also brought up Catholic and I am gay but during my teenagehood I tried out other religions who have a softer stance on homosexuality (I myself see nothing wrong with it whatsoever). I left the Catholic church (officially too) because I refuse to be a part of an establishment which discriminates against me from who I am but also because I don't believe in any of it. Of course I understand that you sincerely do and that's fine. If you want to try and reconcile your faith and your sexuality, I wish you luck but might I suggest perhaps looking to other more gay-friendly Christian denominations?

Good luck and remember you are who you are.

Hi Bougeoir,
how did you "officially" leave the church. I'm sure I should do that as well.

philologos

Reflector wrote: »

Anyone who preaches love and compassion yet discriminates against gays who in my opinion are as natural to this earth as green grass should not be listened to. God, if he does exist, would not mind gay people as long as they are in love and not doing harm to anyone else. The bible was written by men and men can be corrupted and also their beliefs and opinions are incredibly out of date.

I don't see how it is discriminating against homosexuals. The Bible is a moral guideline for the lives of Christians. We aim to follow God's standards, not the standards of mere men. Surely this is more important?

I don't see how it is discriminating to say that God loves you, and has an amazing plan for your life, if you stick to his commandments, you are one of His people. Infact I see that as incredibly liberating. A lot of people mightn't but I am speaking about my own view of God as revealed in the Bible.

You should be providing errors in texts to show that men were corrupted. Christians believe that the Bible was written by scribes who were inspired by God.

Also as for the natural comment, I would also like to emphasise the "in my opinion" in your quote. Surely you should be somewhat open to difference of opinion?

Reflector wrote: »

I don't see how anyone could follow a church stuck in the dark ages. It took the vatican 359 years to forgive galileo for claiming that the earth moved around the sun so I wouldn't hold your breath for them to accept homosexuality anytime soon.

I disagree that the Roman Catholic Church is stuck in the dark ages. I personally am not a member of this church however.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

We aim to follow God's standards, not the standards of mere men.

Christians believe that the Bible was written by scribes who were inspired by God.

Inspired by, not dictated to.


For the OP, I think you can still have your beliefs and values and be gay. The catholic part i wouldnt worry about, the pope has made his views on homosexuality clear, I wouldnt worry if i was you, the pope is not God. You can still have faith and not be catholic.

Killaqueen!!!

The Catholic Church has gotton a huge reputation for being 'against' homosexuals. Homosexuality is a sin. But it is a sin just like adultery, being a drunk, stealing etc. as told in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - the sin is not 'greater' than any other. i.e if a man goes into a shop and steals a radio, in the eyes of God that is just as bad as being a homosexual. That's how I see it anyway, from reading the Bible.

Nick_oliveri

That passage is open to multiple interpretations of the word used there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality#1_Corinthians_6.3B_1_Timothy_1

I think its great that everyone perpetuates the supposed sin when its not interpreted properly in the NT. M2C.

Fanny Cradock

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I think its great that everyone perpetuates the supposed sin when its not interpreted properly in the NT. M2C.

What is the correct interpretation?

Nick_oliveri

I dont have a clue.