catholic church's teaching on homosexuality

Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his letter “On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexual Persons“:

“The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.”

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm#__topdoc__

https://youtu.be/MtRkdoF_siY

Here is a quote from Father Angel (that is his real name ;-) from Tumblr

"Hello anon:

Homosexuality is a condition which people cannot control.

Incest is an action which people can decide to engage in.

So, the two are not in the same genus. For a Catholic, like me, a condition is something you find yourself in, without your choosing it, so it cannot be wrong. Homosexuality is not wrong. Homosexual people are not wrong, any more than a person with diabetes or high blood pressure are wrong.

On the other hand, engaging in homosexual genital actions are something you decide to do, as are incestuous actions. So I can give a nonreligious explanation of what makes homosexual sex or incestuous sex wrong.

The Catholic Church, in agreement with most of the great Greek philosophers, believes that an action is right or wrong depending on whether it conforms to right reason. For we are human, and intelligence is a hallmark of our nature. Our reason is able to examine a particular action, the intention behind it, and the goal that the action will lead to. 

“Right reason” in the mind of the Greeks and many Roman philosophers as well was upholding and trying the achieve the proper ends or goals (called the “telos”) of our human nature. Philosophy observes the body, its proper uses medically and biologically, and compares that use to the actions carried out in nature by animal life in general. 

In nature we observe that the purpose of genital functions during the act of sex, have as their proper goal or end the depositing of semen from the male in the vagina of the female for the purpose of reproduction in that particular tribe or family, and the survival of our species on a larger scale. And this reproduction ideally should keep a diverse and vibrant gene pool to avoid various birth defects, causing mammals to choose the better partners they can find (survival of the fittest). In humans, this has meant a natural tendency to avoid incest.

There are exceptions and departures from this course of action, such as when certain animals get pregnant and then kill their young, but those are unusual and unnatural, for if they were natural, the species would die out.

In human society, it is not sufficient for a man to merely deposit his semen in the vagina of a female and then leave her to fend for herself with the offspring. Human offspring require a very long term and exhaustive use of resources in order to be raised and formed properly. Thus, the institution of marriage or coupling between men and women has existed from even before history—it is a very result of nature and evolution of over 1 million years.

And nature and the instincts of “Natural Law” has established parameters and rules in humans for a stable commitment. This contributes to the formation of the human family, the stability of the family and its customs for child rearing and formation, and guarantees that as far as possible, the man and woman who made the baby will be the ones to raise the child because, being their genetic material, they have more of a stake and more of a natural instinct to love, nurture, and protect.

The formation of families, customs, and tribes, in turn leads to entire societies where common goals and values can lead to the formation of a unified and strong nation.

From an ethical point of view, the Catholic Church believes that both homosexual and incestuous acts contradict the biological structure set out in evolution and nature for the proper survival and forming of the human species. Homosexual acts “frustrate” or cancel out the intended use of male and female genitalia to be open to the transmission of progeny. Incestuous acts, on the other hand, endanger a proper diversification of genetic material, intensifying the possibility of producing children more prone to health problems, and the disruption of the well-ordered family life which is needed to form communities, societies and nations.

By frustrating, canceling out, and nullifying the proper ends or “telos” which nature and biology have predetermined are the way to build up human progeny, the Greeks would say that these actions contradict right reason. In the study of ethics, that which contradicts right reason is unethical and should not be done.

For the religious arguments, please follow this link:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

and this link:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm#__topdoc__     "

another quote by this priest:

Hello anon:

The Catholic Church does not teach her faithful gay and lesbian sons and daughters what to do with their close friendships and relationships. It is, to say the least, a touchy subject. If the Church is too permissive, it may appear to “encourage sodomy” and then we are seen as sending souls to hell. If we tell faithful Catholics with same sex attraction, never to look at someone or hang out with them, we treat them like they have no human needs and then people say as a Church we are cold and heartless.

So, what I am saying here is my personal opinion. 

I do not see a problem with LGBT Catholics finding close friends and being in “celibate relationships.” The faithful Catholics I know with a same sex attraction are at times very lonely people.

They, first of all, don’t always know how to feel in the Catholic parish because they are afraid of what certain Catholics will think about them. They come to Mass faithfully, give money to support the parish, participate in parish fiestas, help out with the liturgy and upkeep of the Church, teach CCD, and lead even parish societies and ministries.

When they are with their friends, they have to constantly, non-stop, hear the Catholic Church getting trashed. Or their friends are telling them about their “love life.” They handle that with a lot of patience and courage. Faithful Catholics with same sex attraction have intense love for the Catholic Church, for the Blessed Sacrament, for the rosary of Mary, for angels and saints, and they want to support the Holy Father in Rome 100%.

But their lives can get very lonely and their faith reminds them that they are not to seek out sexual partners or attempt marriage with a person of the same sex. 

So, in my opinion, if Catholics with same-sex attraction enter into celibate relationships with people, I do not believe they are sinning. I believe they are trying to seek out love, and deal with loneliness in their lives, as best as they can. For many of the LGBT Catholics who are living celibate lives, and have done so for years, their sacrifice is at times very heroic and I have no doubt some of them are great saints. But it is a constant struggle. There will be falls. But then they need to seek out confession and constantly say, “Jesus, I trust in Thee.” God bless and take care! Fr. Angel

Ask fatherangel a question

from here: comment 101  http://www.call

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/two-questions-about-marriage-and-the-civil-law/

I think there is an equivocation in your comment above about the meaning of the term “natural.” When natural law theorists speak of “natural,” they do not mean “occurring some where in the biosphere (nature).” Because, obviously, on that reading everything that happens is “natural.”

Homosexuality is “natural” only in that extended sense (i.e. – it occurs in “nature.”)

Instead of nature, a less ambiguous term would be essence, or form, or quiddity.

And, in that sense, homosexuality is not “natural.” It is contrary to the essence, form, or quiddity of the human person – just as blindness or paralysis are not “natural.”

Keep in mind, also, that nature (in this sense) is not simply a matter of statistical probability. If, by chance, an entire population were reduced to blindness or paralysis – a 100% chance of disability for some reason – this would not make those conditions any more “natural.” What counts as “natural” is rather something discerned by reason through a consideration of the essence of the species. I recognize that man is, by nature, a rational animal – even if some particular subset of men lack reason.

Nor is homosexual attraction immoral, per se – for the same reason that blindness and paralysis are not immoral. However, it would be immoral if I willfully blinded myself, or induced my own paralysis, or willfully destroyed my own rationality.

The reason that your left-handedness illustration is not germane is that there is no free, rational choice associated with left-handedness (nor is left-handedness contrary to the essence of humanity – essence entails more than just statistical probability.).

What makes homosexual acts immoral, therefore, is the willful decision to act in a way that is contrary to the essence of the human person, in a way that frustrates the essential ends of human sexuality. In just the same way that willful intoxication is immoral – I consciously chose to act in a way that I know will destroy (at least temporarily) my rationality.

from comment 103:

Natural law does not derive its guidance from something because one finds examples of behaviors in the created order. In the area of sexuality, as I understand it, it means specifically what is the purpose for there being males with their particular physical sex traits, and females with theirs.

The sex organs of male and female are by nature created for complimentarity directed to propagation of the species. By natural design, the male sex organ, for example, emits seed when stimulated. The purpose of emitting seed is to permit creation of life by being joined with an egg within a woman. This is what is meant (in my understanding) of natural law: the use of something according to its purpose in nature, its purpose as designed. However, such a purpose, such a design, does not prevent using these traits primarily for other purposes (e.g. pleasure). Using something for other than its primary purpose (pleasure) as its primary purpose is when the term disordered is aptly applied.

Finally, I’d like to note that the natural purpose of sexual expression (procreation) joins human activity with that of God (creation of the soul). It is why this gift is so highly cherished and so vigorously defended. That is why misuse of this amazing gift and design is considered profane. A culture that denies God places no value (or explicitly denies) a soul, runs the risk of reducing the expression to that of its most base form (pleasure) and the attendant ills that stem from such a use

frm comment 108

Animals are not moral agents because they are not rational. Thus, we do not speak of lions and dogs committing murder, rape, or theft - even though many of their actions would in fact be murder, rape, and theft if performed willfully by fully rational human beings. For exactly this reason, we do not ascribe moral responsibility to humans who act in this way under psychotic delusion.

(More on natural law here: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/whose-nature-which-law.html

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/02/metaphysics-of-romantic-love.html