Look, the position of the Church is quite clear:

The understanding of the human person, man and woman, and the union of the same which receives a juridical form is no longer univocal. This is deducible once again from the interventions of Pope Benedict XVI in Spain. Gnoseological and moral relativism has undermined even philosophical and theological anthropology and new emerging opinions are leading to a dissolution of the image of the human person, and extremely serious consequences, which indeed we already see as debate on unmarried couples slides down the slippery slope to artificial fertilisation, to same sex ‘marriages’ with the possibility of adoption of children.

Assessing these erroneous opinions Catholic doctrine first of all reaffirms human dignity and rights which cannot be conditioned and are values which precede any sort of state jurisdiction. In this sense it is important to analyse the relationship between human freedom and human nature as John Paul II did: “At this point the true meaning of the natural law can be understood: it refers to man's proper and primordial nature, the "nature of the human person", which is the person himself in the unity of soul and body, in the unity of his spiritual and biological inclinations and of all the other specific characteristics necessary for the pursuit of his end”.

Secondly, since, in a sense, faith in Revelation has changed because relativism leads to non perception of the natural order as the source of rationality, paradoxically today the Church is called to defend reason before faith; then the connection between reason and faith in order to heal the lethal separation of thought and ethics; and also to highlight the rational aspect of human nature as John Paul II did in his comment on the Humanae vitae Encyclical.

... are we keeping up and following this people! cont.

In this regard it would suffice to bring those who support the ‘naturalness’ of homosexuality to ask themselves: why are there men and women in the world, and not only men or only women? Faced with this evidence, homosexuality appears as an impossible attempt at the homologation of human nature to one or the other sex cancelling that evident difference, but ready to reinstate it when they want to claim the ‘right to be different’ in order to obtain juridical recognition ( ).
At this point it is would be good to affirm the significance of the term “right”: whether it is personal, or if it is a civic right, or the right of an active minority, and to show one is a group of pressure does not necessarily implicate recognition of the right. Reflection here is in the field of the right, the philosophy of the right. With regard to the ‘gay’ claim to homosexual marriage, it is useful to know that this is a minority which in no way represents the majority of homosexual persons, but which claims to represent them finding for its views political support. Therefore gay leaders and whatever, absurdly, end up without realising by reaffirming the difference the moment they postulate for a ‘marriage’, union or pact between them. Therefore, in contradiction with what they presuppose, that is that the State and society are incompetent with regard to their union considered part of the private sphere of affective interpersonal relations, - as it was stated by a party candidate for presidency in a region of Italy - they end up by petitioning the same for that public juridical recognition, also for the known reasons of economic convenience. If it is a question which concerns the “private sphere” it should never regard the State. The same is true for unmarried couples. But we will stop at our first reflection.

source: (AgenziaFides 20/7/2006 - righe 44parole 612)

Now I am glad we sorted this out. If you fail to understand this, then just take a "condom" - the universal solver of all these problems - apparently...

For those who were baffled by this piece, or intimidated by RC’s condescension, a rough translation is:

“People are starting to think for themselves about what it means to be human rather than listening to us, the people who really know, because we alone understand “natural law”, which was revealed to us by God. This is scary, and can only end in tears. Look what’s happened already.

Because people don’t believe in Revelation any more, how can they know right from wrong unless we tell them? God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve: therefore homosexuality is yucky, and gays don’t even recognize men and women as different.

Just because someone says they have rights doesn’t mean they do. And not all gays want to get married anyway, and some of them reckon what they do in bed is no business of the state, so why should we listen to them?”

Writing clear, coherent English is obviously not the Church’s strong suit.

Philo,

No one’s trying to force anything on the Church. However, the Church is trying to force its views on us. The letter in question is very explicit about this, to the extent of trying to dictate how our (Catholic) democratically elected legislators must vote on these issues (see section IV) http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html . It’s not just your business, its mine too. You have a perfect right to believe what you like, but if you try to mess with my life you have to expect to be attacked when you talk garbage.

Celivia,

Good on you.

RObert,

Clear, sensible and compassionate as usual.

Martin,

Catch up with you next post

Thanks, Snout. I hope you had as much fun translating RC’s piece as I had reading your translation ;)

Thanks to all participants for sharing your views, especially to the ones who were thinking for themselves, LOL

Celivia , since you do not accept the established moral principles as taught by Christ; What body of doctrine do you hold as the basis of your values, character and morals?

Quote: “I wouldn’t rely on Christianity’s interpretation of morality.

Martin,

Thanks for the link to the Focus on the Family site. I’m a bit disappointed, though. I’d hoped from the context of your link that it might be about the experiences of celibacy of real people. You know, how they came to their choices, what’s difficult, what’s rewarding, what they love, what they regret. If you know any such sites, please let me know.

I’m interested in your characterization of homosexual orientation as a “gift” (presumably one that you’re not supposed to open). Didn’t Paul describe it as a punishment from God for not worshipping properly? Personally, I don’t see it as either: it just is, in the same way heterosexuality just is. I’d love you to expand, if you wish.

I don’t think we have an immutable obligation to adapt to tradition, no matter what. Tradition is a human construct. (I’d include all religious traditions in that, but I’m aware some people will disagree). Some traditions are obviously harmful (see the string on female genital mutilation for example), while others simply outlive their usefulness. They no longer work. I agree with you and RObert that moving on and creating new ways of living is often painful, and mistakes are made. I also agree that humans have a propensity to dismantle traditional structures without fully understanding how they’re put together, or exactly what they’re for. But I agree with RObert, blaming gays for the problems in families and in heterosexual relationships just doesn’t make sense. It’s a panic response.

Homosexuality was removed from DSM for a number of reasons, in part to do with questions of what constitutes a clinical disorder. Most clinicians agree that a disorder necessarily causes distress and dysfunction to the individual, and by 1973 it was clear that did not apply to homosexuals per se. I can expand on this if you like, but I’d just note that the Church’s use of the term “disorder” could easily be confused with the accepted clinical meaning.

Your point about percentages – agreed, but I don’t think anyone’s raised it on this string.