Can you be actively gay and a good Catholic?
Heresy is
parasitic on orthodoxy.
Archbishop Chaput explains Catholic doctrine in 2018, "
The Church is homophobic but allows falling in love though love makes a person biased and leads to fulfilment that is the real reason for being good to the other person rather than being good for the other person’s sake. Few things are as egoistic or egotistic and exploitive as falling in love. Would the man or woman be as keen if the person was a paralytic and became really grumpy not through their own fault but because of a genetic inability to cope? The Church is homophobic but not alcohol phobic.
A man called Matt one time wrote in a gay magazine in response to a call to LGBT unbelievers not to tick the Roman Catholic membership box in a census form.
He wrote, "I checked the Catholic box on the census
because I identify as a Catholic. I also identify as a gay man. The two are not
mutually exclusive." Here is a parallel that shows its stupidity. "I checked the
Martian box on the census because I identify as a Martian. I also identify as a
earth man. The two are not mutually exclusive." Matt does not have the honesty
to admit that he just cares about not what he should believe but about what he
wants to believe.
Where are the Bible verses and the papal statements - from the Pope who all real
Catholics recognise as teacher of the Church in the place of Jesus Christ and
who speaks with the authority of Jesus - to show that being a practicing
homosexual and a Catholic fit together? All gay "Christians" do is give us
distorted and far-fetched interpretations of Bible verses that condemn
homosexuality to make it look like they don't condemn it. And the lie that Jesus
said nothing about homosexuality is refuted by his clear teaching that sex
should only happen between a man and woman for marriage is about the union of
one man and one woman for life. It is insane to suppose that a man who banned
divorce and said it was making the spouse commit adultery would bless gay sex.
The main question about the Catholic Church is, "Is the religion really true and
revealed by God?" The gay person who is alarmed at Catholic teaching, instead of
trying to change the Church in its official teaching, should investigate it and
look at the evidence for Catholicism. If it is wanting then he or she should do
the right thing and quit. Revelation necessarily implies that you cannot fuggier
out the truth on your own. It will collide with your intellect and experience.
But that collision does not mean that it is necessarily wrong. Revelation
necessarily excludes private judgement ie, I judge that part of God's word true
and that other part false. If you want to exercise private judgment and pretend
that being a good Catholic means you can be gay as well then you are in the
wrong religion. Protestantism is the religion of private judgment. And
Protestant is what you are.
If belief or at least refusing to accept beliefs contrary to the religion is not
needed to be a true member then there is no real criteria to make one a real
member of any religion and religion becomes must a pretence and a label. To deny
one doctrine that The religion says God has revealed is to say the others may be
denied or doubted as well. Why should we believe your statement? Would we
believe somebody who said "I checked the Catholic box on the census because I
identify as a Catholic. I also identify as an atheist"? Or "I checked the
Catholic box on the census because I identify as a Catholic. I also identify as
a Muslim"? Just admit it you are a hypocrite. If as you seem to think, one can
believe it is right to be gay despite the official teaching of the Church and be
a true Catholic, then there is no criteria for telling who is a hypocrite or
not. If you can be a Catholic, then surely the embezzler who believes he has to
steal for his children can justly appropriate and take the good Catholic label
if he wants it? I am not saying that embezzlers and gay people are to be
compared by the way.
Anybody can call themselves a Christian or Muslim if picking and choosing out of
a faith is acceptable. There is no place to draw the line at where a picker and
chooser can stop before he or she loses the right to claim to be a member of her
or his religion. For example, would you consider a priest to be a real Catholic
who stood for the notion that the Mass was barbaric idolatry and the Pope was
not the head teacher appointed by Christ to be his voice in the world? If Matt
wishes to disagree with the official Catholic teaching that sex must only happen
in a valid heterosexual marriage, then he must not object if somebody starts to
believe it's a duty as a Catholic to kill gay people or if somebody decides they
had a vision in which the people was declared invalid and he or she can be the
new pope. Matt claims the Church belongs to him. How can it?
I see no evidence Matt that you even understand Catholic doctrine. Identifying
as Catholic means obligation yourself to obey the leadership. They claim to be
infallible under conditions and to stand in the place of Jesus and the apostles
to rule the Church. It is up to the Church leaders to decide the rules of
membership and if you break them you are only lying to yourself by identifying
as a Roman Catholic. That is what leaders are for. A religion is a set of rules
and standards. If it is not then Catholics may go to Mecca instead of Lourdes on
pilgrimage and Shirley Temple Bar can say mass for us and there is no problem
with electing Richard Dawkins as pope. Laws do not make something real. If a mad
dictator makes a law that people who are LGBT are not human or not real people
but machines made of flesh that law cannot make it true. Those who repudiate any
part of the Catholic faith are not Catholics even if Church law says they are.
In fairness to the Church those who do so are under automatic excommunication
and cut off from membership and need to confess this to be restored to
membership. The Church also holds that the baptised Catholics in Hell are not
part of the Church any more. Catholic teaching says the Church exists only on
earth, Heaven and Purgatory. The souls in Hell supposedly stay there because
they stubbornly believe they are right and God wrong - their rejection of the
authority of the faith makes them no longer Catholics.
I have no problem agreeing that an LGBT person can be a Catholic but only as
long as they see themselves as sinners for having sex. A religion can't be a
religion without rules. Religion comes from a word meaning to bind, it binds
people together in a philosophy or system of doctrine. Your statement that I
said that there is conflict between a homosexual orientation and Catholicism is
a blatant lie. Homosexual usually refers to an orientation while gay refers to
acting on the orientation. I never mentioned people with LGBT orientations but
people who live out their orientations. There is no such conflict. It is the
acting out and allowing sexual thoughts that the church has a serious problem
with.
The Church's official teaching says they are. It is not your business to speak
for the Church like that. You are misrepresenting. Why stop there? Why can't
somebody say, ""I checked the Spiritualist box on the census because I identify
as a Spiritualist. I also identify as an unbeliever in the possibility of
communication between the living and the dead. The two are not mutually
exclusive". You are just a hypocrite. What would you say to somebody who said,
"The Blessed Virgin is God like Jesus is. This is Catholic doctrine." It is not.
The person is deluding themselves or lying which amounts to the same thing.
Religion thrives on irrational thinking and is based on feelings and has no real
regard for plausibility - the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is
appalling. Matt you have that trait too. So you can't complain then if
irrational Catholics keep trying to wreck LGBT rights. If you want to be
irrational then why condemn others who do the same just because you don't like
their irrationality?
Declaring yourself a member of the Catholic Church is giving the minimum of
support for the Church as the Church can't exist without members. Financial
support of the Church is giving more support to it's anti-LGBT ethos than mere
membership is. Paying the Peter's Pence to the pope every year is directly
financing a ministry that does all it can to halt and reverse LGBT rights.
Moreover it is financing a platform from which the pope speaks to the poor and
the poorly educated woman and urges her to do nothing to protect herself from
AIDS should she be forced to have sex. Matt if you won't divorce the Church at
least do not give it money.
You are not your beliefs. A religion is a system of doctrine and morals and
worship. You are not your religion. To say "I identify as a Catholic" is denying
that. The Church itself correctly observes that it is wrong for people to
identify themselves as gay people as if being gay is all they are about. The
implication is that you are a human being and that is what you must identify as.
And is ticking No Religion in the census not embracing
your true self at all?
The article only asked for LGBT's who haven't realised they shouldn't be
identifying as Catholics on the form to click no religion. There is nothing
stopping them from attending Mass. Some people like attending any kind of
religious service, Mass, Protestant Service and Hindu Puja for the sense of
transcendence. The polarisation need not happen. Do you really think the
Catholic next door will hate you if you tick the No Religion box and attend Mass
occasionally?
If a Church lets you believe what you want and be a full member the result is
not a Church but a social club. The Church claims to be a voluntary organisation
built on faith and held together by faith. That is why anybody that disagrees
with the Church on an official teaching is automatically excommunicated. The
most important right of membership is a right to speak for the church and
represent it. You lose that with excommunication so in essentials, it does
remove membership.