Why doesn't the catholic church formaly abolish the homo(phobic) bans from its doctrines?

Question

Kansas City Star reported that the percentage of Catholic priests died for AIDS is 4 times the common people's rate.

I know a friend who's making love to his church's clergy.

I know that even some cardinals in Europe are gays.

So why doesn't the cath follow episcopalian's Rev Gene Robinson? Even Rev Rowan Williams says that homosexuality is just another form of love that is not banned by christianity.

Answer 1

The Catholic Church is not afraid of homosexual persons.

Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.

The Catholic Church believes there is nothing sinful about being homosexual. But homosexuals like all unmarried people are called to celibacy.

The Church specifically says that homosexuals "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

Here is the text of the document, On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (1986): http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm

With love in Christ.

Answer 2

The short answer is that the teaching on homosexuality is based on scriptural prohibitions (Leviticus) and a reference to it in a Pauline letter. The Leviticus codes also require adulteresses to be stoned (remember the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery and condemned to death by stoning?) The Pauline reference is of questionable authenticity.

But the Church is also weighted down by its tradition, which held until quite recently that the purpose of marriage, under the laws of nature, is to reproduce. The laws of nature are construed to be God's laws, because God created nature, and in nature, copulation is necessary for reproduction. Vatican II teachings for the first time acknowledged that having children is not the only reason for sex; that it is a necessary and healing part of any marriage; indeed, it is a form of intimate communication and is a good in and of itself.

Prior to that time, it was not uncommon for women who had entered menopause to refuse sex to their husbands on the grounds that they could no longer have children. I personally knew a gentleman (now deceased) who suffered great anguish because his wife obeyed her priest, and refused to have intercourse with him after menopause.

These are old traditions and they die hard; in part because a lot of people are taught from a very young age, that sex is something dirty, rather than that sex is a beautiful expression of intimacy, trust, and bonded love. This, of course, is a problem for clerics who, at least theoretically, never have sex, or, if they do, carry with them a deep sense of shame and guilt.

There is an additional problem for the Vatican's keepers of the Tradition. That is that they believe in a very personal and deep way, that God has given them a special charism as bishops; that while they are certainly sinful men, as are all human beings, when they speak with the authority of their office, they are speaking for God. That is why they believe that the Church can never be wrong. They forget that the source of such freedom from error is the agreement of the whole church, not just the bishops. (And even they rarely agree.)

For too many cardinals and bishops, an admission that the Church's teaching might be in error begins to pull the whole house of cards down around their heads. Yet, the reality is that the church's teachings have changed down through the centuries.

The cardinals and bishops in the Curia do have an out; we who espouse re-looking at the church's teachings concerning human sexuality believe we can help the bishops out of their dilemma. And that is the church has an ancient "doctrine of reception." That doctrine, stated briefly, is that if the faithful do not believe that a church law is based upon God's will, and follow it, then it is not a valid Church law. In other words, the People of God are the final arbiters, not the other way around.

At some point, if those of us who disagree with the Church's teachings stop walking out and start insisting on our prerogatives politely, but firmly, and are able to state our rationale with clarity and act accordingly, things will change. But we must be explicit and we must be clear with our legislators and with all the civil and institutional levers at our disposal.

I hope this explanation is helpful.

All best wishes,

Answer 3

Because all religions have a right to their own beliefs. That is what makes this a free society.

As a Baptist I agree with Catholics on the teaching about Homosexuality. However as an American I fully understand the right for Gay Couples to be married under the law. But the law does not mean that my Church needs to support it or that a Catholic Priest would need to marry them.

As far as the rate of homosexuals who are Priest that is a fault in the screening process that goes back many years and is way to complicated to explain in this forum (I hate those people who go on for pages and pages and expect us to read their answer) If you wan to email me I can give you some of the sociology behind it.

Answer 4

That was a 1999 survey.

Based on the results of 801 responses to a mail survey the Star sent to 3,013 priests, the story begins, “Hundreds of Roman Catholic priests across the United States have died of AIDS-related illnesses, and hundreds more are living with HIV, the virus that causes the disease.”

Despite the heavy and uncritical news coverage, questions about the survey suggest caution in inferring a hidden AIDS epidemic among priests. Instead, they illustrate the pitfalls awaiting news organizations that conduct surveys in order to create news.

Consider the following assertions about the survey from the Star article and the Knight-Ridder dispatch:

“The response rate was ‘very good’... said the Rev. Rodney DeMartini, executive director of the National Catholic AIDS Network.”

In fact, few survey researchers would consider a 27 percent response rate to be “very good.” It means that nearly three of four priests who were targeted failed to respond. Normally, when a response rate is this low, follow-up surveys are conducted to increase the returns or at least to learn whether the minority who responded were representative.

“Given the sample size, the poll’s margin of error is 3.5 percentage points, meaning that if the same poll were conducted 100 times, 95 percent of those times the results would be no more than 3.5 percentage points higher or lower than the results of this poll,” the article said.

Specifically, the Star estimated the AIDS-related death rate among priests to be “about 4 per 10,000 B four times that of the general population rate of roughly 1 per 10,000.” But the appropriate comparison group for priests is surely not the general population, which includes women and children, but rather adult males.

Data from the most recent (1998) Statistical Abstract of the United States put the AIDS-related death rate among adult males at about 4 per 10,000, the same rate that the Star estimates among priests. On this basis, contrary to the headlines, the AIDS death rate is not “higher for priests.”

When all is said and done, what can we conclude with scientific confidence? There may or may not be a distinctive problem with AIDS among US Catholic priests, but this study cannot provide the evidence needed to determine whether this is so.

However, a sidebar to the Star’s story did include one statement that is unquestionably true: “The Star cannot ensure that the priests responding are demographically and geographically representative of all Roman Catholic priests. The priests who chose to respond to the survey may be different from those who opted not to reply.”

Indeed. So why publish the results as if this crucial qualifier didn’t matter? To be sure, every AIDS death represents a human tragedy, and AIDS incidence among an avowedly celibate community raises special and sensitive concerns. In this case, however, to paraphrase Alistair Campbell, the Catholic Church appears “more spinned against than spinning.”

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/media/me0011.html

Answer 5

Different denominations, different doctrines. What may be right and interpreted as bibically sound for some may not be logical and allowable by others. The reason why there are so many different types of Christian churches are due to ecumenical splits in opinion on specific issues. For instance, why do some Protestants dip versus sprinkle water during baptism? These seemly insignificant issues can divide churches, thus broad moral issues such as homosexuality will be a divisive topic. What may be right for some will definitely not appeal to others.

Answer 6

The Kansas City Star article was based on results from an anonymous survey mailed to 3,000 of the priests in the United States and returned by only 801. Professional researchers have since dismissed the survey, and the statistical comparisons drawn from it, as biased and generally useless.

Answer 7

The bible specifically states that homosexuality is a sin. The doctorines are based on biblical truths, so to abolish that part of the doctorines would be denying the very religion and God that the doctorines are created to worship.

Everyone sins, and my belief is that all sin is equal, but no sect of Christianity should (or could) condone sin just because it is practiced.

Should a judge condone stealing, just because the baliff is caught with his hand in the money jar? Stealing is wrong, because it violates the laws of the land in which we live. Homosexuality is wrong because God, through written word in the Bible, said it is. Whether it is practiced or not does not establish validity.

Answer 8

..and which part of the Catholic Church's doctrine is homophobic, please?

Please refer to the *latest* pronouncements/statements from the Church on this.

The Church is beginning to recognise that the state of being gay can also be due to biological reasons (just as the general public is beginning to do so as well), as discovered by science recently. The Church does not differentiate groups of people in its caring and loving ministry, as stated in its pronouncements on gays.

The Church does not reject gays from joining it - but they do have to comply with the vow of abstinence, just like straight people who join the Church do.

However, the Church does not approve of gay liaisons - that's just following the teachings of Christ - would one consider that homophobic?

Being homophobic would mean all that the Church has begun to do would not be done at all.

Yes, the Church's organisation has gays among them who form liaisons, among themselves and with others outside the Church - just like the Church has straight people in it who also form liaisons, within and without. This is a fact.........of life. More should be done to prevent this, of course. You would do well to report any cases that you know of.

Of course too, just like you, most people would tend towards holding the people in a religious organisation, and not just the Catholic Church, to a higher standard than those outside it - it's okay to hold them to a higher standard. There are those who fall, and there are those who join to take advantage of the organisation.

Thank you for asking the question, and therefore the opportunity to clarify this.

Answer 9

I am not Catholic, but it seems to me that if a church is of God, they will not change their doctrines simply because public opinion has changed. Birth control is widely accepted in most places, but they still ban that.

If you don't agree with their doctrine, don't be a part of their faith.

Homosexuality is not a medical condition- it is a choice.

Answer 10

Mostly because we're not homophobic. We just believe that homosexual acts are gravely disordered. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are creatures, created by God, just like everyone else.

Homosexual acts are not expressions of love they are expressions of lust. There is no commitment involved and they are not open to giving new life, which is what was intended by God. Homosexual acts fake love in order to use someone else for their own pleasure.