Sulayman X's Blog: Musings - Posts Tagged "homosexuality"
Are homosexuals 'intrinsically disordered'?
Growing up Catholic, I was taught to believe that the pope was "infallible in matters of faith and morals," the so-called doctrine of .
In practical terms, this meant that the Church could not err in matters of faith or morals, and that when the church teaches-as it does-that homosexuals are "intrinsically disordered," it is, well, infallible.
Theologians may argue that church teaching on homosexuality is not covered by the doctrine of the papal infallibility, that the pope has never invoked the full weight of papal infallibility when making an official pronouncement on the issue of homosexuality, and consequently such teaching can be ignored. This does not make the position of the GLBT person in the Catholic Church any better.
The recently revised Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official statement on the Catholic faith directly from the Vatican, states, in #2357:
"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."
Whether covered by papal infallibility or not, the Catholic position is quite clear.
Or is it?
The church cannot shift gears, we are told, on matters of faith and morals. To do so would call into doubt its infallibility. If the church is indeed guided by the Holy Spirit-and it claims to be-it would be most odd for the Holy Spirit to lead the church astray with false teachings.
Consider, though, two other moral matters on which the church has quietly shifted gears: Divorce and slavery.
Until very recently, divorce was utterly prohibited for any reason. We can ask Henry VIII about this. His desire for divorce and remarriage led to England's break with Rome and the establishment of the Anglican Church. If the king could not divorce, who else possibly could? The answer: No one.
Until recently, that is.
These days, divorce in the church is relatively common. This is all the more striking because Jesus had virtually nothing to say about human sexuality aside from his prohibition of divorce: "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."
With regard to slavery, the church, throughout centuries, had little to say on the matter, aside from St. Paul's admonition of "slaves, be subject to your masters," although it now maintains that slavery is morally indefensible.
Slavery has always been a moral matter. Why was it permissible centuries ago, but is now no longer so? What has changed? And if the church is indeed "infallible" in matters of faith and morals, why didn't the church condemn slavery long ago?
In both these matters, the church has quietly shifted gears. By doing so, it calls into question its own self-proclaimed infallibility in matters of faith and morals. If it has been wrong on these two moral matters, might it not be wrong on the question of homosexuality as well?
Papal infallibility has been rarely invoked. See this for a good discussion of the matter.
While the church likes to present itself as infallible and its moral positions set in stone and never to be changed, the truth is clearly otherwise. Catholics can, in good conscience, form their own conclusions about homosexuality, even if those conclusions fly in the face of what the church teaches.
For more, check into the LGBT Catholic organization , or read (the author's is also worth a visit).
In practical terms, this meant that the Church could not err in matters of faith or morals, and that when the church teaches-as it does-that homosexuals are "intrinsically disordered," it is, well, infallible.
Theologians may argue that church teaching on homosexuality is not covered by the doctrine of the papal infallibility, that the pope has never invoked the full weight of papal infallibility when making an official pronouncement on the issue of homosexuality, and consequently such teaching can be ignored. This does not make the position of the GLBT person in the Catholic Church any better.
The recently revised Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official statement on the Catholic faith directly from the Vatican, states, in #2357:
"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."
Whether covered by papal infallibility or not, the Catholic position is quite clear.
Or is it?
The church cannot shift gears, we are told, on matters of faith and morals. To do so would call into doubt its infallibility. If the church is indeed guided by the Holy Spirit-and it claims to be-it would be most odd for the Holy Spirit to lead the church astray with false teachings.
Consider, though, two other moral matters on which the church has quietly shifted gears: Divorce and slavery.
Until very recently, divorce was utterly prohibited for any reason. We can ask Henry VIII about this. His desire for divorce and remarriage led to England's break with Rome and the establishment of the Anglican Church. If the king could not divorce, who else possibly could? The answer: No one.
Until recently, that is.
These days, divorce in the church is relatively common. This is all the more striking because Jesus had virtually nothing to say about human sexuality aside from his prohibition of divorce: "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."
With regard to slavery, the church, throughout centuries, had little to say on the matter, aside from St. Paul's admonition of "slaves, be subject to your masters," although it now maintains that slavery is morally indefensible.
Slavery has always been a moral matter. Why was it permissible centuries ago, but is now no longer so? What has changed? And if the church is indeed "infallible" in matters of faith and morals, why didn't the church condemn slavery long ago?
In both these matters, the church has quietly shifted gears. By doing so, it calls into question its own self-proclaimed infallibility in matters of faith and morals. If it has been wrong on these two moral matters, might it not be wrong on the question of homosexuality as well?
Papal infallibility has been rarely invoked. See this for a good discussion of the matter.
While the church likes to present itself as infallible and its moral positions set in stone and never to be changed, the truth is clearly otherwise. Catholics can, in good conscience, form their own conclusions about homosexuality, even if those conclusions fly in the face of what the church teaches.
For more, check into the LGBT Catholic organization , or read (the author's is also worth a visit).
