Filum Romanum - A Thread for the Catholic Church

An act of love is not always also an act of kindness. And vice versa. Good Is Not Nice is a trope for a reason: "goodness" and "kindness" or "niceness" are not inextricably linked.

And distinguishing between the person and the act is not a distinction without a difference. There is a very big difference. "What you did is bad" is a very different statement that "You are bad." "I don't like you" is a far different statement than "I don't like what you did." "You just made a very stupid choice" is not anywhere near the same as "You are stupid." Do you really not see that difference?

edited 23rd Apr '15 9:12:11 AM by Madrugada

I believe the doctrine of the Catholic Church is at a bit of a crucible when encountered with modern humanistic theories. It was not so long ago that women had their sexuality repressed as well. As a manner of fact they still do. Society has advanced in manners the doctrine of Catholicism could not have expected. I do not think the two points are reconciliable in that regard and change has to be faced, but I also understand that I many digress with this point of view and I understand why, so I just shrug my shoulders.

I basically believe that the "hate the sin love the sinner" thing boils down to an opinion. So long as the belief is not leading to hateful acts against them (such as publicly condemning, blaming and such which some priests definitely do) I basically don't care though I would prefer if the thought was eradicated as it fosters homophobia by ignoring sexuality as an intrisic part of the human being.

Even when this love causes tangible harm in the real world? Is it tough love when the Church in Belize lobbies against homosexual sex being legal? Or when the Church in Scotland rails against gay adoption and gay marriage? To be sure, this is a peculiar love.

Even if love isn't always kindness, it at least needs to produce some good result for its subjects. So explain to me, how did the Church's love benefit LGBT people in Belize or Scotland?

What's the practical difference? Is it or is it not the case that Catholics have persecuted gays for centuries? Is it or is it not the case that the Catholic Church still lobbies to deny gay couples the right to adopt children, the right to marry, and even in some cases the right to have sex?

Do you really not see why stigmatizing someone's very human act of having sex hurts them? The Church can split semantic hairs if it helps it sleep at night, but the practical effect of this high-minded theorizing is zilch.

edited 23rd Apr '15 9:37:02 AM by Achaemenid

This is a perfectly valid debate, but little about it strikes me as peculiar to Catholic doctrine. If people have more to say on the subject, maybe it'd be best if we jumped to the "LBGT and Religion" thread.

Almost every society, nation or religion has done it. You are single-handedly pointing out the Catholics in regards to the quoteblocked matter, when the discussion was about sexuality being or not inherently a sin, and the difference between a non-celibate gay person and a celibate gay person.

We are agreeing with you that the situation is unfair. We really are. However, you want to paint the whole Church in such a negative light that I can only compare it to how the western media has treated Putin and Russia as a whole.

We were stating that the situation is unfair. And that the Church is currently in an internal discussion over controversial matters (hence why there are a few ultra-conservative groups getting almost ready to split from the Church, just in case - ditto for ultra-liberal groups).

But here's the thing. We are talking about the Church's position (and I will check my Catechism later, just in case), but not necessarily approving it. And now you bring a matter which has happened in almost every society on Earth, since many years ago.

You do not seemingly give a shit about the Pope's word I stated before, and, no matter how we tell you that things are still bad, but not hellishly bad (and I will check on the Belize matter - like I implied, a few groups are for the Pope, a few are for the Curia, and they vary from country to country). There are lots of things to improve, but you act as if nothing has changed, as if we stil live in the times of the Spanish Inquisition (which was not under the control of the Pope, might I add). And I'm going to call bullshit on that.

edited 23rd Apr '15 9:56:30 AM by Quag15

This.

LGBT's aren't a special case in this — they're just one that the rule shouldn't be pointed at in the first place.

I thought bad thoughts were a sin in Catholicism? I also thought that the whole concept of salvation through Christ revolved on imposing impossible standards on people that they cannot possibly meet, having then to rely on the grace and forgiveness of the LORD to achieve salvation? Something to do with original sin and the reason why the whole operation of incarnating oneself in a fleshy avatar and going through the Passion and Crucifixion was worth the trouble?

I'm sorry. If I sound confused, it's because I am.

edited 23rd Apr '15 10:17:12 AM by TheHandle

Nope. Even Jesus was tempted.

Obsessing over thoughts of sin can become sinful in itself. But not just having them. The whole "already committed adultery in your heart" thing wasn't about random "hey she's kinda hot" so much as humoring the idea of infidelity.

Original sin is something completely different (and a huge can of worms, because IMO it's not really supported the way we've built it up).

edited 23rd Apr '15 10:32:01 AM by Pykrete

@Quag

Your argument is spectacularly irrelevant. I'm talking about the Catholic church because this is, er, the Catholic thread. Bringing in a whole bunch of off-topic occasions of LGBT persecution is simply whataboutery. What I took issue with was the idea that there is a real-world difference between "loving the sinner" and "hating the sin". My argument would be that the idea that that can be done is flawed in theory and practice. That's only relevant to Catholicism.

Did I every say that LGBT persecution was unique to Catholicism? No. Didn't even imply it.

edited 23rd Apr '15 10:47:12 AM by Achaemenid

Agreeing with those who say the real problem with the RCC doctrine toward gays isnt that they try to separate the sin from the sinner, it's that they categorize gay sex as sinful in the first place. As I said, I believe that that will eventually change, using some manner of doublespeak so they can pretend nothing is changing at all.

As for sinful thoughts- I think the idea that God is policing your thoughts is more a right-wing Protestant thing- it overlaps to some extent the whole "faith vs. works" argument that Protestants and Catholics have had in the past.

That said, all Christians recognize the importance of maintaining a positive emotional relationship with God. What you think and feel does matter as the foundation of one's spiritual health, esp. in terms of the intent behind your actions (it isnt enough to do good things, you have to do them for sincere, authentic reasons). However, generally speaking "thinking evil thoughts" isnt going to land you in hell.

Then, we're having two discussions. Madrugada has debated the 'love the sinner, hate the sin' thing with you. I'm debating against your perception that the Church is uniformly engaged in active persecution (something which could be argued that it was true until very recently).

You were conflating two related, but still slightly different matters. I wanted to address the second part.

Nonetheless, I'll drop it. For the sake of a coherent line of discussion for everyone.

edited 23rd Apr '15 10:51:37 AM by Quag15

And your counterexample was something that a) we pretty much all agree here shouldn't even be considered a sin in the first place, and b) if it were, would presumably cause more harm in the long term than a life of sexual frustration — sins are sins for a reason, and the fact that it not only doesn't appear to cause that harm but does a whole lot of good to boot goes right back to a).

Love means more than letting people have whatever they want. Thankfully, it also means more than blindly following rules just because they're old.

edited 23rd Apr '15 10:58:12 AM by Pykrete

Ach, let me use an admittedly extreme example. There are some people who are born exclusively attracted to pre-pubescent children. In such cases, I would expect them to go their lives not acting on their sexual urges, as difficult as that may be for them. At the same time, as a Catholic I would not want to say that they were 'born evil' — this would be an even bigger departure from church doctrine, which states that acts of good and evil are conscious choices and that all humans can be redeemed. Instead, I would expect the church to affirm their basic dignity as people while helping them to avoid acting on the sin (by helping them to master their desires, if necessary facilitating chemical castration, and so on).

Now, not I am not comparing pedophilia to homosexuality. Like most people on this forum, I am fine with the latter but find the former abhorrent. But this is because I think it is possible to conduct homosexual acts, unlike pedophilic ones, in an loving, mutually supportive relationship, not because it is impossible to separate thoughts and actions.

Edit: Oh, and while the Catholic catechism says that homosexual tendencies are "objectively disordered", they don't mean by this "gay people are damned unless they become heterosexual", but rather "some people have sins they are prone to" — the same category as someone with a bad temper, or a predisposition to substance abuse. Sections 2358 and 2359 explicitly state that gay people refraining from homosexual acts are NOT evil. Whatever you think of the church's position on homosexuality, this distinction needs to be taken into account.

edited 23rd Apr '15 11:14:48 AM by BokhuraBurnes

This post doesn't make it any clearer, I'm afraid.

Your edit, again, is irrelevant to what I was saying.

What counterexample? All I said was that saying that hating gay sex whilst claiming to love gay people is flawed. The point is that comparing sex as a part of a loving relationship to something like telling lies is flawed. I then pointed out that even if it is the case that the Church "loves the sin and hates the sinner", they have a funny way of showing it.

I don't really care what people here think, I'm concerned with what Catholic doctrine says, and it does, as far as I am aware, still consider gay sex sinful?

edited 23rd Apr '15 11:25:14 AM by Achaemenid

The edit was in response to this post.

And the point of my example was, according to your reasoning, Catholics would need to 1) accept pedophilic acts as permissible, or 2) consider people inclined to pedophilic acts to be irredeemably evil, even if they were born that way through no fault of their own. To my mind, drawing a distinction between thoughts and actions is a much more humane and sensible route than either of these options.

Bokura's point is that inclinations and predispositions do not legitimize the thing they point toward, even if it causes tumult to forbid it — which goes back to how love is more than giving people everything they want.

You also claimed that loving the sinner and hating the sin doesn't work, and used gay people as an example. I countered twice. Once from the official doctrinal standpoint that allowing gay sex presumably causes more harm to the individual and/or society than a frustrated sex life. And a second time from the shared standpoint of just about every Catholic on this forum that "love the sinner, hate the sin" doesn't even apply because it shouldn't be considered a sin at all. From either point of view, the philosophy holds.

That said, most people who use it against gay people don't love the "sinner", and are actually spiteful pricks to them. But that's a failure to follow the philosophy they claim to uphold.

edited 23rd Apr '15 11:57:42 AM by Pykrete

It considers gay sex sinful. Yes.

It also considers any non-marital heterosexual sex equally sinful.

And it also considers any sexual act or practice which "degrades the human dignity of any of the participants", even consensual, even within marriage (yes, that means virtually all BDSM and a fair few other kinks), equally sinful.

And as I've explained to you before, the equivalence between heterosexual sex outside of marriage and gay sex is false, because heterosexuals can at some point have sex, whilst eternal celibacy is demanded of gay people. So the requirement of abstinence outside marriage for heterosexuals is considerably less stringent that the requirement of a lifetime of celibacy for gay people. So there's still an unfair double standard.

But it does not, in reality. Sexual frustration is profoundly unhealthy, as we've seen from individuals like Eliot Rodger, whilst LGBT acceptance has not turned the countries that practice it into failed states.

—

You can claim to love the sinner but hate the sin on paper as much as you like, but if you use your real world power - away from all this theologizing - to deny rights to those sinners, to stigmatize them, and to force them to lead monastic lives or be considered sinners, then you are not showing them love. You are a hypocrite, and a particularly duplicitous one at that.

edited 23rd Apr '15 12:17:16 PM by Achaemenid

That's it I'm converting to another faith!

O wait... I'm not a Catholic...

Guys, can we please take whatever we're talking about above to the LGBT and Religion thread please?

Anyways, to a more mod-friendly subject, any responses from Uncle Sam towards Francis going to Cuba before going to the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave?

No, you totally are. You aren't equating them. I don't know why people keep getting those two confused. Two very different things can be compared. Comparing doesn't imply saying they're the same. You can compare a bicycle to a tank without equating them; they're both transportation means with comparative advantages, disadvantages, similarities, and differencies.

In this case, you're comparing paedophilia with homosexuality in that they're both presumed to be inborn sexual preferences that one can't choose, but which one can choose or not to act upon, which are both repressed by different societies to different degreese worldwide. When we operate on a modern ethical framework of mutual informed consent, one becomes entirely justifiable, the other doesn't.

Hence why the Catholics on this thread call BS on our own administration. We're seeing in reality that gays make remarkably stable couples and no more harm comes from it than from any other group of couples.

And really? You're trying to support your argument with Eliot Rodger? He was seeing psychiatrists since long before puberty and getting bullied chronically for almost half his life. Somehow I'm extremely doubtful a pity fuck would've helped much, and I get the feeling you should be hesitant to take what someone says at face value somewhere around the time they write a goddamn manifesto longer than a Harry Potter book.

Again — preference does not legitimize or entail the right to act on it. Though no argument that people tend to really suck at actually loving the sinner.

edited 23rd Apr '15 1:41:21 PM by Pykrete

So far, nothing in the news (unless someone who is American knows the local/regional media - I'm going by the international media).

edited 23rd Apr '15 1:38:55 PM by Quag15

@Pykrete

I'm not disputing that Catholics on here are in dispute with their own administration. I just don't really care - my interest has always been in the church's actual teachings and, even more important, its actions, via its clerical employees throughout the world.

Rodger was perhaps a poor example, but the point in general stands, since you agreed with it.

So you feel that gay people wanting to have gay sex is illegitimate? The Catholics on here seem to be bending over backwards to say: "I don't agree with the Church, but it is right nevertheless."

Perhaps the reason people suck at hating the sin and loving the sinner is because separating people from their behaviour is extremely difficult, especially once you start categorizing them as sinners.

edited 23rd Apr '15 1:44:16 PM by Achaemenid

Is it sort of like saying "love the virtue but don't, er, worship the virtuous...? you might give them a swollen head, and that might detract from their virtue?".

edited 23rd Apr '15 1:52:57 PM by TheHandle