The article "Homosexuality and Catholicism" attempted to inform the reader but contained a significant error. The claim was made that there was only one document for American Catholics to use regarding homosexuality: This is false. There is, as the article mentions, "Always our Children," but there are also "Persona Humana" and three other letters from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (aka CDF) from 1986, 1992 and 2003, not to mention other Vatican documents from organizations such as the Pontifical Council for Family. The U.S. bishops also have another letter, "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care," and significant mention is made in their document "United States Catholic Catechism for Adults." So, counting thus far, there are at least seven documents concerning homosexuality and Catholicism. The article, therefore, was erroneous.
So what do all of these documents actually teach? It is possible to pull citations from one document or another, but it is far easier to consult yet another document, the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," which is a compilation of the official teachings of the Church. Homosexuals, it says, "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives ..." (#2358). This was referred to in the article. What the article failed to mention was what documents say concerning homosexual acts. While we must love homosexuals as our neighbors (cf. Lk 10:25ff), we must understand that homosexual acts are a different matter. The Catechism says, "[b]asing itself on Sacred Scripture ... tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a general affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (#2357). The document concludes, based upon these two statements, that "[h]omosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom... by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (#2359).
There is, therefore, a distinction to be made between homosexuals and homosexual acts. There is no question that the documents call us to love homosexuals, just as we love all people. The issue is, however, that some sexual acts are not in keeping with the moral life of faith (cf. Catechism #2331 to #2400).
What all of these documents and teachings have in common is that all Christians, homosexual or not, are called to perfection and holiness as their universal and sacred vocation (cf. Lumen Gentium, Ch. V). Homosexual or not, we as Catholics are called to participate in the Eucharist, which is both the Body and Blood and also a sign of our affirmation of all that the Church teaches (cf. Sacramentum Caritatis). Homosexual or not, we as Catholics are called to live our lives guided by the light of faith and moral soundness (cf. Veritatis Splendor). Homosexual or not, we as Catholics must love one another as Christ loved us, guided by the truth of our faith, and founded upon our full participation in the spiritual and sacramental life of the Church (cf. Caritas in Veritate and Deus Caritas Est). Homosexual or not, we as Catholics accept the authority of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, which, in each of its parts and as a whole, must be taken as the source of our Christian lives (cf. Verbum Domini and Dei Verbum).
Homosexual and Catholic? Of course! That is not an issue. How we act, and how we understand love and sexuality, whether we are homosexual or heterosexual, however, must still be in keeping with what we profess to be true as Catholics.
is a member of the 
25 comments
The place to look is Soddom and Gomorah, if you can find it.
You have absolutely no data or evidence or even causal mechanism to back up that ridiculous assertion
------------------------------------
Its only ridiculous because you deny the truth. Reproductive attitudes of people among child rearing age have changed. People are more likely to have a dog now than kids because its easier. Then, they start doing silly things like calling the dog their baby, sending photos to grandma of the "grandson," and other similarly disturbing acts.
"But there is still the possibility of conception, etc etc etc" you are thinking, furiously, and this seems to seal the deal for you, I'm sure. What if I am married to a woman who could never conceive, and I've had a vasectomy? Is the sex we have an abomination?
It is time to come to terms with the fact that a) humans can control their own reproductive fates, and that this is b) truly a blessing and c) humans have sex for social reasons, for intimacy, and because most of us really, really like to. What a liberation it is that we don't have to worry about making a baby every time.
------------------
your points confirm the fact that our society is over-sexed. The idea that orgasm is the end all, be all of the male-female union is shortsighted and sinfully carnal, yet it is sensationalized to be this way. Men and women are encouraged to marry, love each other and have children. This does not mean that every sexual encounter must be for the purpose of procreation, but intentionally delaying or preventing procreation while engaging in sex when one is of the child bearing age can lead to a selfishness, which is not a christ-like attribute. As it says in the old testament, children are a heritage of the lord. Sexual acts alone are not.
(e.g., say, if by my own open-mindedness and good faith, I marry a female doctor who contracted HIV from a mistake made while performing a blood transfusion. Is it immoral to use contraception so I do not also contract HIV? What if I am married at 21 and want to have intercourse with my wife, but we both know that we are not responsible enough to parent at the time? Is it morally impermissible for us to be responsible and use birth control?)
(e.g., say, if by my own open-mindedness and good faith, I marry a female doctor who contracted HIV from a mistake made while performing a blood transfusion. Is it immoral to use contraception so I do not also contract HIV? What if I am married at 21 and want to have intercourse with my wife, but we both know that we are not responsible enough to parent at the time? Is it morally impermissible for us to be responsible and use birth control?)GU2011, if you're a philosopher, and you have to think there is a final cause to you having sex, then by all means, do so. But final causes have pretty much fallen by the wayside in the explanatory frameworks of the 21st century, so let's not use this old Aristotelian notion (although I'm an Aristotelian myself) to discriminate against a group of people. Or in the case of those who think that contraception is immoral, this is discrimination against basically everybody, except for the most zealous, and most irresponsible and careless.If you do not like gay sex, don't have gay sex. If you do not like lesbians (unbelievable, but for the sake of argument, let's supposed lesbians make you uncomfortable), don't have lesbian sex. If you don't like contraception, by all means dig your own grave and don't use it. But if you care so much about what people do with their genitals (and you think the creator of the universe does[?!]), please keep it to yourself.Here is an interesting article on why people cannot change their minds to incorporate new information, perhaps it will help you understand your own positions better: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooneyI guess I'll have to be "Anonymous."
If your point is that these moral standards are widely ignored, that is also a true statement. Many other immoral acts are also committed in the world. That fact does not change the teaching of the Church. It seems to me that at least a Catholic University should teach Catholic morality.
Aiden, obviously I am not denying that one could comb through church documents and find all sorts of guidelines and regulations and divine writ about what people should do with their genitals. And I am not attacking anybody's religion (also @ 206free).
I'm merely pointing out what should be inherently obvious: a group of virgins is not likely to be the best source of advice for sexuality. In other words, the entire premise of Pickett's response is based on a huge misconception about human sexuality: procreation does not play into why most humans have sex, and it's both creepy and insulting to me as a sex positive individual that somebody would think that the creator of the universe is troubled that I don't want to make a baby every time I get it on. I seriously question the intentions behind all religions in trying to control my private sex lives so much, and I cannot think of a good reason to take sex advice from an old and ostensibly celibate virgin male(s).
@tblazer... what the ef? Philosophy nerd here.