5 questions pertaining to homosexuality and the history of the Catholic Church

[HisEagle]

1.) Throughout the ages, what has been the official position of the Catholic Church pertaining to homosexuality?

2.) Has that position held steady (been the same) throughout the centuries, or has it wavered at any time?

3.) I read this evening that there has been a history of gay popes in the church - the latest being Pope Paul VI - and that there were several gay popes in the Renaissance period of history. Is that true?

4.) And if so, how is it possible that they could have been elected? I thought the Holy Spirit guided the process of electing the pope.

5.) Also, if true, how did the church handle the situation back then, and how does it address it today?

Thanks.

 

[Look Homeward Anglican]

Homosexual inclinations are temptations, just like any others. As mere thoughts or ideas, they are not completely destructive to God's relationship with man; given form through action, however, they destroy man's relationship with God. We believe that people with homosexual inclinations are called to celibacy, just as are all other people not called to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

This has always been true in the Church.

There have been popes throughout history who have been vexed with various evils, and some who were horrid politicians rather than men of faith.

The Holy Spirit does indeed guide the electoral process of all popes. No pope, however evil, or gay, or politically motivated has ever managed to err in matters of faith or morals. This is a testament to the action of the Holy Spirit.

What is question number 5? If what is true?

 

[QuantaCura]

1.) Throughout the ages, what has been the official position of the Catholic Church pertaining to homosexuality?

Sodomy is intrinsically sinful.

2.) Has that position held steady (been the same) throughout the centuries, or has it wavered at any time?

Always been the same.

3.) I read this evening that there has been a history of gay popes in the church - the latest being Pope Paul VI - and that there were several gay popes in the Renaissance period of history. Is that true?

Where did you get this info, especially about Paul VI? Please provide a citation. Regardless, the just because a pope commits a sin doesn't mean it's no longer sinful. Popes are human beings with a fallen anture like the rest of us.

4.) And if so, how is it possible that they could have been elected? I thought the Holy Spirit guided the process of electing the pope.

We hope that the electors pray and discern, but when it comes down to it, they make the choice of their own freewill. It's a pious belief that the Holy Spirit chooses, but this simply is not true.

5.) Also, if true, how did the church handle the situation back then, and how does it address it today?

Similarly actually. St. Leo IX was pope around the turn of the milenium and they had a problem with gay priests at that time similar to the scandals we are experiencing now. He took the same action that the current pontiff has taken: those who have demonstrated proper repentence and atonement for those sins and have proven themselves able to remain chaste for years, are allowed to still become priests.


One thing to remember is that homosexuality being a class of people is a new idea--historically sodomy was a sin like any other that someone may commit in a moment of weakness or indiscretion--or they may live in sin--but it didn't make them a differnet class of person called "homosexuals" just like a married man with a long-term mistress was not a special class with a special label other than "sinner."

 

[GraceInHim]

and there was also a pedofile Pastor in my neighborhood who got caught.. we should pray for those who fall and hope they get back up and walk the straight path

 

[QuantaCura]

The Holy Spirit does indeed guide the electoral process of all popes. No pope, however evil, or gay, or politically motivated has ever managed to err in matters of faith or morals. This is a testament to the action of the Holy Spirit.

Infallibility has nothing to do with the electoral process. If anything, it is a safeguard to protect the Church when bad folks get elected. Many elections over time have been a result of political cronyism, rather than who would be the best shepherd--luckily this has not been the case in recent centuries. Likewise, there have been popes who have erred in faith and morals--just not when defining dogmas binding on the universal Church (Liberius and John XXII are good examples).

 

[Look Homeward Anglican]

Infallibility has nothing to do with the electoral process. If anything, it is a safeguard to protect the Church when bad folks get elected.

Yes, this is what I have said.

 

[HisEagle]

"Where did you get this info, especially about Paul VI? Please provide a citation. Regardless, the just because a pope commits a sin doesn't mean it's no longer sinful. Popes are human beings with a fallen anture like the rest of us."

This was just something I came across while reading about the early church fathers' position on homosexuality. I can't recall how I actually found this site - I had to look through my history folder - and I won't attest to it's accuracy. I'm simply asking if what I read in this article is true in any way.


"We hope that the electors pray and discern, but when it comes down to it, they make the choice of their own freewill. It's a pious belief that the Holy Spirit chooses, but this simply is not true."

This confuses me, because it would seem the poster above you stated that the Holy Spirit does in fact guide the process.

I suppose I just don't understand Catholicism at all. More and more, I get confused by it. Sometimes I want to embrace it, while other times I want to run far away from it.

 

[Auntie]

This confuses me, because it would seem the poster above you stated that the Holy Spirit does in fact guide the process.

I suppose I just don't understand Catholicism at all. More and more, I get confused by it. Sometimes I want to embrace it, while other times I want to run far away from it.

I know the feeling well, but keep studying!

About your questions, remember even Peter denied Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself chose Peter.

 

[Megatherium]

This was just something I came across while reading about the early church fathers' position on homosexuality. I can't recall how I actually found this site - I had to look through my history folder - and I won't attest to it's accuracy. I'm simply asking if what I read in this article is true in any way.

I wouldn't exactly consider that site, "Gay Today", objective. Nor their sole source for the allegation that Paul VI was gay, "the gay French author Roger Peyrefitte" who "outed" the him "in response to the pope’s antigay edicts".

It's a common tactic of those pushing the homosexual agenda to "out" people, and it doesn't take much to do it, just one person's testimony, often given in retaliation for a stance opposing their agenda. Historical figures are even easier to "out". The most circumstantial evidence is sufficient. The only reason there's not better evidence is because homosexuality was not accepted, so they tried to hide it.

Is it possible these people were homosexual but just "in the closet"? Certainly it's possible, but there's rarely a good reason to believe it's probable.

 

[Megatherium]

A warning to those who are curious to find out who's behind "Gay Today" by clicking on the disgusting cartoon with the dogs: don't do it if you're easily offended!

 

[Ave Maria]

Groundhog, I wish I could help to answer your questions but I am still a Neophyte (recent convert to Catholicism) and really don't know a whole lot about this subject. However, I would like to welcome you to OBOB!

 

[Markh]

The Catholic Church does not take "positions" on morality in the same way that political parties do on policies.

Catholic morality is objective an unchangable, in the same way that the scientific laws govern the interaction of the physical world, there are moral laws governing the actions of humans, these are hard-wired into the universe and cannot be changed- the Church declares them rather than invents them.

You are constructing homosexuality falsely, as does your "gay" webiste. There is no such thing as "a gay", as if there was a division among the species- God did not create them "straight" and "Gay"- there are just human beings male and female. Some human beings have temptations towards different things, homosexuality is one such temptation, and it is false to define a sector of our species by their temptation-

we should not break our race down to define people in terms of being adulerors or theifs either.

We are humans, flawed humans with a variety of temptations. Temptations themselves can even be decreased by frequenting the sacraments and increasing a devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Now with regard to your evidence from the website. The website only tells us about alledged actions of certain popes, and to be honest, Good Catholics shouldn't care less about the private actions of 10th century popes- it has no relevance to us today. Pope are only human, not gods. They are Catholic priests who have commioted awful sins and no doubt there are some popes. Catholic Morality remains unshaken by the action of these popes (if it is true), in the same way that it is alledged some popes had their enemies murdered- it does not justify us to do it when murder is objectively wrong like sodomy.

I will post a like to moral statements on homosexuality from the early church

http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp

Some homosexuals wish to justify their actions by making it seem the Catholic Church today has gone evil when in the past it was sexually licentious- but this is not true, the Church has always taught the same on this issue- indeed, Christ has always taught the same on this issue- He does not change His mind. The church's understanding, that is, Christ's teaching is not grounded in a hatred of those with homosexual temptations but a true appreciation of what Love is.

 

[HisEagle]

A warning to those who are curious to find out who's behind "Gay Today" by clicking on the disgusting cartoon with the dogs: don't do it if you're easily offended!

I don't see a disgusting cartoon with dogs at that page. Maybe the mods should look and delete the link if they deem it necessary.

You are constructing homosexuality falsely, as does your "gay" webiste.

I'm not "constructing" anything falsely, and that is not my website. As I said above, I was reading about the early church fathers' position on homosexuality. In doing a search for additional information about the subject, that link appeared in my search results, and I was surprised to read what it said. Given my very limited knowledge of RCC history, I didn't know if what I was reading was accurate or not. That's why I asked.

 

[HisEagle]

What is question number 5? If what is true?

Tack it onto the end of question #3. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[AMDG]

I'm not "constructing" anything falsely

Actually all "revisionist" thinking about the "gay" issue needs to be looked at with suspicion. Before the active "homosexuals" decided to appropriate the word "gay", the word simply meant "happy". Now it has come to mean something entirely different. So how can we (with 21st century eyes) go back in time and be certain that the word "gay" was even used in connection with being "homosexual"). Being actively homosexual was and is still "a grave disorder". Active homosexuality was denounced in the Bible (and the Bible is basically from the Church) so it wouldn't be something someone even claimed to be.

And even how society treats the condition of homosexuality is interesting. Not too long ago there was a series in the U.S. in which one of the lead characters "came out". The whole nation was "talking"--homosexuality wasn't "accepted" back then. The series bombed. And back then, the psychiatrists all thought that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Well, they've decided to change that, and now there are a whole group of TV shows that even have homosexual themes and innuendos for our viewing pleasure.
Even HOW one nowadays determines that he is homosexual causes me to REALLY wonder how many people have inaccurately diagnosed themselves. In the movie In and Out the main character is convinced that he's homosexual just because he likes to dance and enjoys Barbara Streisand's singing! (Only then does he embark on the "gay" lifestyle. If I remember correctly, he even dumps his girlfriend because of this!) Meanwhile, the public schools teach that being homosexual is an "alternate lifestyle" which should be accepted and it is protected by law and the present usuage of word "gay" seems to be taken out of time to refer to times past. REALLY got to wonder about the accuracy.

BTW Les, thanks for the "headsup" about inappropriate things on a website. I tend to be sensitive about how a loving gift of Our Father is portrayed.

 

[stray bullet]

1.) Throughout the ages, what has been the official position of the Catholic Church pertaining to homosexuality?

2.) Has that position held steady (been the same) throughout the centuries, or has it wavered at any time?

3.) I read this evening that there has been a history of gay popes in the church - the latest being Pope Paul VI - and that there were several gay popes in the Renaissance period of history. Is that true?

4.) And if so, how is it possible that they could have been elected? I thought the Holy Spirit guided the process of electing the pope.

5.) Also, if true, how did the church handle the situation back then, and how does it address it today?

Thanks.

The answer is that it is okay to be gay. You needn't feel ashamed of it, nor feel like less of a Christian.

Homosexuality, as far as relationships go, should be discouraged and homosexual sex is contrary to the philosophy and ideas about life in Christ. It is damaging to one's spiritual life and has the potential to jeopardize one's relationship with God.

Those with homosexual inclinations are to be treated with the upmost respect and no discrimination should be shown.

Clergy and even popes can be gay )oriented), although that is no one's business and it certainly doesn't benefit anyone to profess what is really a private and personal struggle. Homosexuals can enter the priesthood, unless there is something attached to it that makes an issue of it (such as having gay sex on a regular basis before entering the seminary or involvement in pro-homosexual sex organizations).

The Church doesn't really take positions or change opinions. We hold on to what the apostles taught and what the Holy Spirit has preserved. Attitudes can change, but the teachings and philosophy remain the same.

 

[holyorders]

The answer is that it is okay to be gay. You needn't feel ashamed of it, nor feel like less of a Christian.

Homosexuality, as far as relationships go, should be discouraged and homosexual sex is contrary to the philosophy and ideas about life in Christ. It is damaging to one's spiritual life and has the potential to jeopardize one's relationship with God.

Those with homosexual inclinations are to be treated with the upmost respect and no discrimination should be shown.

Clergy and even popes can be gay )oriented), although that is no one's business and it certainly doesn't benefit anyone to profess what is really a private and personal struggle. Homosexuals can enter the priesthood, unless there is something attached to it that makes an issue of it (such as having gay sex on a regular basis before entering the seminary or involvement in pro-homosexual sex organizations).

The Church doesn't really take positions or change opinions. We hold on to what the apostles taught and what the Holy Spirit has preserved. Attitudes can change, but the teachings and philosophy remain the same.

You tell 'em, Pinky Bullet.

 

[HisEagle]

I really didn't mean to offend anyone by posting that link. But I was asked where I read that, and....well, that's where I found it. Unless there is something wrong with the settings of my browser, I didn't see any sort of dogs or other pictures that would be considered offensive. Trust me, if I had seen them, I never would have posted the link. I hope everyone believes me when I say that.

Let me make something clear....

I'm not trying to advocate homosexuality. I am simply a lonely traveller looking for answers on the road of life, and I saw something along the way about which I needed clarification. I am trying to understand some things about life that I don't understand, including the Catholic Church. Especially if I'm going to convert to Catholicism.

Thanks for your responses.

 

[WarriorAngel]

There is active and inactive.

Inactive is an inclination that is not giving into temptation....

Active is the sin when we give into the action from temptation.

I have not heard of any Popes being inclined to the homosexual temptations....

Your sources should be checked for the impramatur.

And furthermore, the election of the Pope is as with everything in the Church, guided by the Spirit.
Yet at times, this is only when they pray for this intercession when election.

There have been times when some men were either forced in the position, and or took the position without election...anti popes whom were removed.

And anti popes are not considered in the line of popes.

 

[Megatherium]

I really didn't mean to offend anyone by posting that link. But I was asked where I read that, and....well, that's where I found it. Unless there is something wrong with the settings of my browser, I didn't see any sort of dogs or other pictures that would be considered offensive. Trust me, if I had seen them, I never would have posted the link. I hope everyone believes me when I say that.

Since I'm the one who brought it up, I feel I should come to your defense. I don't think you linked to an offensive site intentionally. The page you linked to was very legitimate looking, albeit with an obviously pro-homosexual bias. The only thing blatantly offensive was the small cartoon I referred to, which is the logo for the parent site. It's on the left sidebar. If you click on this, it goes to the parent site, which is a homosexual inappropriate contentography site.

It's very possible that you didn't realize what sort of site this was, since they put on a respectable front. I just didn't want other people who'd rather not see such things to click on that link. But I everyone to know, especially now that the link has been removed and they can't see for themselves, that the actual page linked to is not the offensive page I was referring to.