BACKGROUND: DOMA was passed in 1996 with bi-partisan support and by wide margins (342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate) and was signed into law by President Clinton. It says that for purposes of acts of Congress or regulations “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

The existence of DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex “marriages” or from extending spousal benefits to same-sex couples. It also means that states cannot be compelled to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states.

CHURCH TEACHING: In a September 9, 2003 statement (reaffirmed March 14, 2006) titled: PROMOTE, PRESERVE, PROTECT MARRIAGE, the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said, “To promote, preserve, and protect marriage today requires, among other things, that we advocate for legislative and public policy initiatives that define and support marriage as a unique, essential relationship and institution. At a time when family life is under significant stress, the principled defense of marriage is an urgent necessity to ensure the flourishing of persons, the wellbeing of children, and the common good of society.”

ACTION: Speaker Boehner has been meeting with other members of the House leadership to explore ways to defend DOMA. Please contact your member of Congress and let her/him know that you support the House leadership in their efforts to intervene in the lawsuits challenging DOMA, to defend the law and protect marriage. See statements of Anthony Picarello, USCCB General Counsel and Archbishop Timothy Dolan, President of the USCCB on the USCCB Website (http://www.usccb.org/)

Contact your Representative by e-mail, phone, FAX letter or U.S. Mail:

* Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at: 202-224-3121, or call your Members’ local offices.
* Additional contact info can be found on Members’ web sites at: http://www.house.gov/.
* Share this action alert with your social media networks.

WHEN: Please contact your Representative today. Thanks!

Visit to http://capwiz.com/catholicbishops/issues/alert/?alertid=33502501 to send an email directly to your elected officials and to sign up to receive additional alerts from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

See related story: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2011/11-043.shtml

Secretariat of Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth| US Conference of Catholic Bishops

3211 4th St. NE, Washington, DC 20017-1194

(202) 541-3040 | laity@usccb.org | www.usccb.org/laity

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

1. Find out what the Holy Father actually said. Don’t get your knowledge of Catholic goings-on from the news. The news is an entertainment industry. They pull out one or two lines that will make people buy their stories, even if those lines distort the true meaning.
2. Don’t listen to Catholic “experts” who comment on quotes taken from the news. You’ll here everything from people decrying the pope as theologically ignorant (those who oppose condom use) to those praising his “modernization of Catholic doctrine” (those in favor of condom use). Both sides have missed the point.
3. Go to the source. Pope Benedict’s new book, Light of the World, is written in interview format (like The Ratzinger Report. Read the entire question-answer exchange to get the full context of the Holy Father’s comments.
4. Ditch the all-or-nothing, black and white thinking without going to the other extreme and hanging with the modernists. While Catholic morality teaches very clear divisions between good and evil (including inherently evil acts), the application of the moral law is not as rigid as you might think. Pope Benedict XVI has a firm understanding of how to apply the moral law. Listen to him and learn.

OK, that said, let’s tag a stab at understanding what the Holy Father actually means in his statement that condoms may sometimes be a sign of the moralization of sexuality.

First, he is not saying that condoms are a morally acceptable solution to AIDS. He make the explicit statement a number of times in his response that condoms cannot offer the solution the world is looking for.

Second, he is not saying that condom usage is morally good. Condoms destroy the unitive and procreative goods of sexuality, and remove sex from its proper context of family love.

What he did say was that in situations where the goods of sex are already destroyed (the example he used was a male prostitute), the use of a condom can indicate at least a drift toward the true moral meaning of the sexual act. The beauty and goodness of the sexual act is already destroyed. Starting from the point of disordered sexuality, the use of a condom may indicate a recognition that there should be something more – a concern for the other, a limit on what is permissible, etc.

A similar understanding is applicable to the Old Testament principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Today people tend to see this principle of the “Old Law” as allowing or even requiring revenge – a law set by a mean, vengeful God (or a mean, vengeful people in God’s name). What they don’t understand is that “an eye for an eye” was actually a movement toward mercy. The common practice was “you kill my brother, I destroy your entire settlement.” Revenge was not justice – it was often attempted annihilation of the offending culture. God moved His people toward justice and mercy by placing a limit on their desire for revenge – the “punishment” or revenge must match the offense and go no further. The principle God laid down was not an approval of revenge. It was a baby step in the direction of mercy.

Do you see how this applies to the pope’s statement on condom usage? What have you heard about his statement? How do you understand it now? Please comment below!

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Richard Stith seems to agree. His article, Her Choice, Her Problem in First Things Magazine presents an excellent argument that seriously needs to be considered in the public square.

He argues (among other things) that choice removes compassionate support and replaces it with the attitude, “You chose to have the baby when you could have gotten an abortion, now you can live with your choice.”

But once continuing a pregnancy to birth is the result neither of passion nor of luck but only of her deliberate choice, sympathy weakens. After all, the pregnant woman can avoid all her problems by choosing abortion. So if she decides to take those difficulties on, she must think she can handle them.

Birth itself may be followed by blame rather than support. Since only the mother has the right to decide whether to let the child be born, the father may easily conclude that she bears sole responsibility for caring for the child. The baby is her fault.

It could certainly be argued that society was not so compassionate to pregnant women before Roe vs. Wade. If this is true, is the answer to turn to a solution that is at least as uncaring? Furthermore, it must be understood that there is a difference between compassion for the woman and accepting the sin. Today we are expected to say to a woman who is pregnant out of wedlock, “Oh, that’s OK. Your sexual choices are your own. We’ll help you and not judge you.” Before Roe vs. Wade, the attitude was, “This is the consequence of your sin, and you need to come to terms with it. However, we will help you even though we do not condone your sin.” How is this kind of compassion shown?

• The father of the child may man-up and marry the woman and become a true father to the child
• A family may take the young mother away from the community, school, etc. so as not to cause scandal, but would support her through her pregnancy and even through the adoption process or even in motherhood
• Pregnancy crisis centers help women without other sources of support
• Churches and communities step in to help single parents who are struggling
• All the while the family, Church and society make it clear that the consequences of the sinful, selfish use of sexuality affect her, the baby, and everyone around them

The personal experience of a friend of mine has shown me exactly what “choice” does to us as a society. When she got pregnant and went to the father of her new baby, his response was, “I’ll give you some money for an abortion, but if you choose to have this baby then you’re on your own.” No longer is the point of choice and consequence the decision to have sex. Now the point of choice and consequence is the decision to have an abortion or not. The man was let off the hood because keeping the child was the woman’s choice.

It’s time for a more compassionate response to unwed pregnancy than “choice.”

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

• Government has overstepped its bounds, once again meddling in affairs that should be left to market forces?

No

• the law puts undue burden on small business who now have to pay a higher premium to insure their employees?

No

• the law does not do enough to help children born deaf or severely hard of hearing?

Nope, not that either

So what is the complaint? It comes from Audism Free America:

The notion that being deaf is an affliction and an abomination which alienates one from society and leaves (one) dependent and isolated is a myth,” the petition states. “We do not wish for your state to be mislabeled as promoting eugenics and linguistic and cultural genocide.

Taken from “Ear-implant law draws dissent“, Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune.

What this petition seems to be saying is that deafness is not a disability but just another part of cultural diversity. Therefore, to mandate a procedure that could enable children who are deaf or severely hard of hearing to hear more is like trying to bleach African-American skin white so that African Americans can fit into a white culture better.

Such a ridiculous statement has its roots in modernism, the philosophy that truth is created by personal experience and perception. Modernism celebrates diversity, not because every human person has innate dignity, but because every individual has his own truth. In the case of the petition from Audism Free America, modernism is saying, “Who are you to call deafness a disability. From our perspective, deafness is normal and hearing is an abomination.” Yes, I have heard some proponents of “deaf culture” take the argument that far.

The problem with Audism free America’s position is that deafness is a disorder. Human nature includes the five senses as a normative and universal constituent. In other words, the senses make up part of what it means to be human, and a diminishment of the senses is a diminishment of something that a human person should have (however not a diminishment of their humanity or dignity). Therefore, deafness is a disability based on the standard of human health. Modernism does not believe in disability because it does not believe in a universal standard of human life or of human health.

The problem comes in how we look at disabilities. We tend to look at people with obvious and severe disabilities and say they are disabled and we are not. I have been around severely disabled people all of my life, and I have learned that there is no “they” and “us.” Fallen human nature is fallen for all of us. Disability is not a matter of having one or not having one, but a matter of degree and of kind. People who are disabled in one area of life are also extremely able in other areas of life. The term “disabled” becomes a problem only when we let it define a specific segment of the human family.

One can see the same line of thought in the homosexuality movement. The Church calls same-sex attraction “disordered” because it is opposed to the universal human purpose of sexuality. Modernists see this as an insult that alienates a specific segment of the population. However, the Church realizes that every person’s sexuality is disordered to one degree or another, so calling same-sex attraction disordered is actually a statement of solidarity, not one of divisiveness. Again, modernists rankle because they do not believe that a standard for “normal” sexuality even exists.

I had friends in high school and college who were deaf and hard of hearing, and I learned sign language in the course of our friendship. One of these friends had been brought up in the “deaf world” and had a difficult time relating to the “hearing.” The others tried very hard to interact with everybody, and counted a number of the “hearing” among their friends, even those who did not learn sign language. It was not the deafness that isolated them. In the case of my one friend, it was his desire to see his deafness as something that set him apart and his consequent unwillingness to form relationships with those who would not share his unique “culture.” He had implicitly bought the lie of modernism.

In the end, the petition from Audism Free America isolates deaf people from the rest of us by accentuating the differences rather than acknowledging the fact and universal nature of disability. And their modernist bent would keep children from getting help to overcome their disability. That is just not acceptable.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Some commentators have criticized Vermont and Ohio for not taking sexting (which is done especially by teenagers) seriously enough. Others have lauded them for saving young adults from a lifetime of stigma and legal problems due to youthful indiscretion. At the heart of this debate is the question, “How much should government legislate morality?”

I have to say that I agree with those who support removing sexting from the felony class of crimes. Sexting is not a sign of a sexual predator (though it can certainly be used for sexual harassment). It is a sign that young adults are not being taught to respect their body or their sexuality. This is the kind of respect that has to be taught in the home. While the government and law enforcement may need to back off from punishing texting, parents, teachers and our society need to step up.

The good thing about the various responses to sexting is that I have not yet heard anyone claim that it is a good thing, or that it is no big deal. Even Ellen Goodman, known for her lack of sexual wisdom, went no further than coming close to calling it good:

The vast majority of pictures are sent to romantic partners. A lot of what we are seeing is young people exploring trust and intimacy. But it’s often boyfriends — or ex-boyfriends — who hold the trump photos. And when that trust is broken and photos hit cyberspace, it’s girls who pay a social price in humiliation and ruined reputation.

Eighteen-year-old Jessica Logan of Ohio committed suicide after her boyfriend put her naked photos out in public, but it was also girls who bullied and harassed her. The girl who trusted was socially ostracized more than the boy who violated that trust. Go figure.

Of course, she cannot resist finding within the issue a feminist cause. That aside, she almost assumes that what’s happening with sexting is part of a healthy process of “exploring trust and intimacy.” Of course, to “explore” trust and intimacy by sending naked pictures of yourself to your “lover” is like “exploring” a financial investment by selling your home and all of your belongings to make an initial investment to see how things go. Sex is the physical sign of a willingness to totally give yourself in trust and intimacy to another person. It should be the last step in the growth of a relationship after trust and intimacy have been explored through friendship and a lifelong commitment to raising a family together has been made.

However, to Ms. Goodman’s credit, she does actually admit that sexting is misguided – a bad idea.

We do not need to criminalize sexting. Instead, parents need to step up and ask themselves some serious questions:

1. Is my adolescent child mature enough to use new technology wisely?

I’ll give you a hint -for most high school students the answer is no, despite the fact that most high school students have cell phones with cameras, etc.

2. Does my adolescent child need a cell phone?

Again, just because all of her friends do doesn’t mean your daughter needs one too. The answer is probably no.

3. Does my child know how to honor his or her body and fertility?

Having “The Talk” is not enough — and students in high school do not learn how to respect the bodies and their fertility even in “sex ed.” Parents – this is your job and it takes commitment, time and knowledge!

4. Does my child focus on developing friendships first before starting to date?

Dating in high school is focused on two things – status and sex. Students who do not have a boyfriend or a girlfriend feel unwanted, like they are losers. Many times dating relationships become a selfish quest for how much two people can snatch from each other – emotionally, financially and/or sexually. Selfless love is best learned when a romantic relationship starts out as a friendship and slowly progresses toward romance, giving two people a chance to know each other and slowly grow in trust and intimacy.

Parents, if you need help teaching your children to respect their bodies and their fertility, and to grow in trust and intimacy the right way, check out the Parent’s Place website. This is a parenting resource put out by the Diocese of La Crosse Office of Family Life. I had the honor of working on this website as designer and secondary writer. It is a great resource for parents.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things (Phil 4:8).

Scripture is filled with warnings about guarding your senses in order to guard your mind and heart against evil. While Christians are often criticized for being “isolationist” and “protectionist,” I know in my own life that the areas that I failed to protect myself have become my largest areas of struggle for holiness as an adult.

It is true that a true attitude of isolationism and protectionism does exist within some Christian circles, and that this is not a healthy and true understanding of Scripture. Creation and culture are good things that are sometimes influenced by evil. To create a separate “Christian culture” that parallels but does not intersect human culture is not what Christ wants for us. Yes, he tells us not to be transformed by the culture, but to let our minds be transformed by the Holy Spirit, but he calls us to then go into the world and transform it.

Furthermore, natural law tells us that human culture is a necessary part of human life. To isolate ourselves from culture not only robs us of the chance to bring the Gospel into the world, it robs us of true human life.

We need to find the balance that allows us to find what is True, Good and Beautiful within human life while we interact with culture, but also to avoid what is false, evil and depraved. We need to make the good things in culture even better by revealing the supernatural as well as the natural source of their goodness. We also need to try to heal areas of our culture that have been given over to evil and depravity.

On the other hand, we cannot give ourselves to the culture to be transformed by it (as has sadly happened to many in the Catholic Church and in many Protestant communities as well). Listening to music or watching movies that glorify in using people as objects of gratification, or enacting violence against others, or in other evil acts only draws us into the lure of sin. Christians begin to wonder if they are really missing out on something (“You certainly will not die. No, God knows that when you eat of this fruit you will be like gods who know good and evil.”).

It is always interesting to me when secularists claim that certain ideas that are found in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition are just “religious opinions,” only to have science “discover” the same ideas eventually. Science plays catch-up with revealed Truth all the time. To me, that’s one of the greatest proofs of the truth of our faith.

We really should not be surprised that immersing ourselves in the message that evil is good would eventually turn our minds and hearts toward evil.

[adrotate group="1,2"]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The wife had been nearly bullied into getting a sterilization as a young woman. She was told that there was severe medical need for the sterilization due to the dangers posed by pregnancy complications. She was told, “If you get pregnant again, you will die.” At the time she had only a vague sense that sterilization was wrong. She was hit especially by the permanence of the procedure. She had serious doubts, but in the end she trusted her doctors, family and friends who were all telling her to have the tubal ligation.

Years later, her heart was moved closer to Christ and she was convicted that she had committed a serious sin^T. Eventually her husband joined her conviction and together they sought out a way to right the wrong by getting the sterilization reversed. Of course, they met with serious opposition from doctors who said, “Why would you want to do this? You have two kids. You don’t have to worry about getting pregnant. Why go back?” But they persisted and eventually found help through One More Soul. The operation was successful.

It was a beautiful story of conversion and restitution. The couple went through quite a trial (not to mention major surgery) to undo their sin. Their suffering and struggle was part of their restitution. Restitution is part of the conversion process, which usually runs the path of:

1. Compunction: conviction of sin
2. Confession & reconciliation: usually both personal and sacramental
3. Penance: making some act that turns the heart more completely toward sorrow for sin and connects us to the forgiveness of Christ on the Cross.
4. Restitution: putting right the wrong done by the sin

The only problem that I had with this beautiful testimony is that it left the impression that sterilization was a necessary step in being forgiven for the sin. I think the wife even told the priest that she could not accept Christ’s forgiveness until she got the tubal ligation reversed. The fact is that sterilization reversal is major surgery, and like all major surgery carries a very large risk. The risk of life outweighs the evil of the sin enough to make sterilization reversal extraordinary restitution. Extraordinary restitution is not required for forgiveness. Let me say that again. Those who have been sterilized do not need to go through major surgery to have their sterilizations reversed before they can be forgiven by Christ.

That is to take nothing away from the experience and personal convictions of this couple. In the privacy of a couple’s own conscience, the Holy Spirit may lead a couple to undergo heroic measures of restitution. This is especially the case when further conversion is necessary. Some are indeed called to extraordinary restitution.

As the husband continued the story, he shared that while his wife struggled with the choice to have her fallopian tubes tied, he internally rejoiced in his wife’s sterilization. Furthermore, while his wife became convicted that sterilization was wrong, he was enjoying the sex without consequences and the higher standard of living he was able to have with only two children. Obviously, God had more work to do on his heart. I believe that the Holy Spirit did indeed call this couple to extraordinary restitution to complete the husband’s conversion from selfishness to generous love.

In the end, God did bless their conversion toward life with new life. They had another child and have learned to accept the risks of pregnancy and the rigors and joys of parenthood in truly selfless love.

On the other hand, I know a couple in the same situation who underwent a similar conversion who decided that they were not called to sterilization reversal. Their conversion and dedication to life is no less complete. The Holy Spirit did not call this couple to extraordinary restitution because their conversion to life was complete without it.

Sterilization reversal is extraordinary restitution. When extraordinary restitution is necessary to complete one’s conversion, the Holy Spirit will call us to it. If he does not call us to it, we are not required to make extraordinary restitution. We need to discern the call of the Holy Spirit in our own hearts. However, we must be careful not to be misled by scrupulosity on one hand or by selfishness and a desire for the easy way out on the other hand. The Christian life is one of balance and careful discernment. But it is always a life led by love.

End Note

^TThere is no doubt that sterilization is morally wrong. However, the woman who gave the testimony may have fallen victim to a misunderstanding of what constitutes a sin. It seems to me through her story that the pressures to get herself sterilized were great. The greatest influence was perhaps the voice of the professional as her doctor told her that sterilization was necessary to save her life. A person is only culpable for sin to the degree that she knows that it is evil and freely chooses it anyway. Her story indicated that she did not have true knowledge of the evil, and that she was practically coerced into the decision. Therefore, while the procedure is still gravely evil, she was probably not guilty of actual sin. Once she gained the knowledge, she chose against the sterilization in the form of remorse for her action. That choice was true contrition. I got the sense that this woman carried with her some unnecessary guilt. On the other hand, God used her guilt to bring her healing, not only of her body but also of her heart.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Any hint of ugliness mars the fantasy. And so does any reminder that women who put themselves completely in the service of men could be taken advantage of, sometimes badly.

I agree with Basu’s criticism of Hooters wholeheartedly. The feminist twist of her statement needs some adjustment, though. A woman who puts herself completely in the service of a man within the context of a relationship of love (wherein the man also puts himself in the service of the woman) will not be taken advantage of. Here we get to the real problem. Hooters – along with many other elements of our culture – treat women as things to be used rather than as people to be loved.

Hooters is really selling to porn-mystique of a woman who offers herself as an object of sexual gratification. This same mystique is sold by “exotic dance” clubs and “adult” bookstores, with which we as a society are getting increasingly comfortable. The porn-mystique does lead to abuse because it puts the relationship between man and woman into the context of power rather than love. This past year, an “exotic dancer” from a club in our own was brutally attacked and raped by a patron of the club where she danced. As far as I know, the club took no responsibility for her, either. The same fantasy leads to the same results.

Hooters should be called to task. Gina Sheedy was indeed given unemployment after court action. But was the lesson learned? After all, we idolize people like Hugh Hefner and Robert Brooks (the founder of the Hooters chain) as men who live the dream every man dreams (i.e. the porn-mystique) and lets us share in it a little. Again, Basu hits the issue dead on:

Of course [Hooters] should have protected [Gina Sheedy], but isn’t that a contradiction, when the whole set-up encourages waitresses to at least appear to welcome male attention, even when it is actually unwanted?

The thing is, this criticism should be leveled not only at Hooters, but at our entire culture. The same set-up of the porn-mystique is promoted by every company that practices the advertising cliche, “sex sells.” It is promoted by everyone who cries “censorship!” when a community tries to cleanse itself of exotic dance clubs, adult bookstores and other forms of the sex industry. It is promoted by television programs that take it for granted that every man’s dream is the porn-mystique (Man Answers, for example). It should also be leveled at feminists who insist on relating to men in the paradigm of power rather than love, and who even at times promote pornography and prostitution as ways for women to gain power over men by exchanging their bodies for favors in return. Recently three young women were praised by such feminists for selling their virginity to the highest bidder. These are all ways that our culture promotes women (and men) as things to be used rather than people to be loved. Not only does this cultural set-up lead to abuse, the message itself is abuse.
[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

What really got me thinking about it was watching a couple of Christmas specials with my children. The first show we watched was the modern movie Elf and the second was the Christmas classic, The Year Without a Santa Clause. Now, I don’t think there is anything wrong with these shows in themselves. But what struck me as I watched them was the Santa mythos that they promote.

In this mythos, Santa represents the belief in the unreal. To use Santa’s own words (in Year Without a Santa Clause), “I believe in Santa Clause as much as I believe in any dream, and where will people find happiness if they lose their dreams?” Furthermore, Santa receives his power (much like Tinkerbell) by the belief of the people. This belief, along with a vague concept of “peace and goodwill,” are what constitute the “Christmas Spirit,” which is fundamentally the meaning of Christmas. Not only is Jesus not “the reason for the season,” God doesn’t even play a role. When Mrs. Clause in Year Without a Santa Clause “goes straight to the top” to straighten out an argument between “Freeze Miser” and “Heat Miser,” she goes to see Mother Nature.

If the Santa tradition was just a child’s story about a mysterious, jolly figure who leaves presents for good children in the middle of the night, I would have no problem joining in the fun. But the Santa mythos has become much more than that, or perhaps much less.

Like many Catholic families, my wife and I are considering the alternatives. I am leaning toward telling the story of Saint Nicholas of Myra (the original Santa Clause), and leaving a few mysterious gifts under the tree, leaving my children to wonder if Saint Nicholas had really visited them. We would then give Christmas presents in celebration of Jesus’ “birthday” – from us and from the family rather than from Santa. Then, when my children begin to figure out that the gifts from St. Nicholas are actually from us, we could much more easily explain about imitation of the saints and receiving the true gifts from Heaven. Hmmm . . .

It’s just a thought, but the more I think about it the more I’m warming to the idea. The Santa mythos is just too sterilized. Why not offer my children a real “myth” that naturally leads to the greatest Myth¹ of all?

End Notes

¹The original meaning of the word myth is a story that tells a culture’s foundational story — not necessarily a fictional story.

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

One of the youth from last night offered a wonderful example. She told me that she had never understood the Christian reaction to homosexuals before, but now she understood it. She was pleasantly surprised at how loving the Church is toward homosexuals. She told me that it made sense to her now why homosexuality is called “disordered” and why that is not an insult.

Church teaching on homosexuality stresses the difference between same-sex attraction and the homosexual lifestyle. Same-sex attraction is disordered because it creates desires not ordered toward procreation and family. However, it is not a sin because – no matter what causes it – this attraction is not chosen, but part of fallen human nature. The homosexual lifestyle is choosing to act on these disordered desires and is therefore a sin. The key principle here is that human beings do not have to act on every desire or impulse, but can choose self-mastery instead.

Church teaching stresses that the Catholic response to people with same-sex attraction is to be one of compassion. This means taking an attitude of solidarity, recognizing that everyone’s sexuality is disordered to some degree because of original sin, that we all struggle to control disordered desires, and that we are all called to the same goals (chastity and holiness). We must always treat everyone with the respect that is due to human beings created in the image of God. Same-sex attraction, or even a chosen, sinful homosexual lifestyle, does not remove human dignity. Finally, we must love. Love means to want what is authentically good for the other. For our brothers and sisters with same-sex attraction, this means that we want them to seek healing (if healing is possible) and self-mastery.

While some people in our culture will still see such teaching as judgmental (“who are you to decide what is authentically good for somebody else?”), the Church’s judgment that same-sex attraction is disordered and that chosen homosexual activity is sinful is based on natural law and its call to solidarity, respect and love is based on the teachings of Christ. The positive response I received from members of our youth group was in response to the entire package of Church teachings.

This topic turned out to be quite timely. The United States Bishops Conference just released a statement on pastoral care for homosexuals that reinforces the Church’s sense of love and solidarity for people with same-sex attraction, and British bishops adopted a statement warning pastors to be sensitive toward “gay parishioners.”

The interesting thing about the statement made by the British bishops is that it drew support from some homosexual activists, including Peter Tatchell:

The advice was welcomed by gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell as a ‘positive initiative which will bring great comfort to gay Catholics and their families’.

He said: ‘Its sympathetic, understanding message is a big improvement on the past homophobia of some Catholic pronouncements on homosexuality.’

However, he said the ‘laudable change of tone’ was undermined by the ‘homophobic content of the Catholic Catechism’ and by Pope Benedict XVI’s opposition to gay marriage.

The fact is that, while the statement by the British bishops is perhaps a little overstated, the bishops of both countries are simply restating constant Church teachings. The Church is not homophobic – it never has been and it never will be. It does not fear homosexuality. It simply sticks with the truth that same-sex attraction is a disordered form of sexuality, that chosen homosexual acts are sinful, and that people with same-sex attractions are to be treated with the same love and mercy as the rest of us sinners are.

It is a position of authentic love.
[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.