h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I had been meaning to comment on this for some time (while reading the other entries by Fragilis). And there was the question of going to hell up there.

This is what the Catecism of the Catholic Church says about homosexuality:

(Oh! And I am translating from Spanish, so...)

"Homosexuality is designated to men or women who are attracted, exclusively or predominantly, to a member of their own sex. There have been many and varied forms through times and cultures. The psychological origin remains unexplicable for the most part. Supporting itself by the Holy Scripture, the Tradition decreeds that always sexual acts are disorderly. They are against the law of nature. They do deny the gift of life to sexual acts. It should not receive approval in any case.

A number of men and women present instinctive homsexual tendencies. They do not choose their condition; this constitutes for most of them the greatest test. They should be treated with respect, compassion, and delicateness [I am not sure how to translate that. Tact?] Any injust discrimination towards them will be evaded [I am sure this is not the correct word, but you get the idea.] This people are called to do the will of God in their lives and, if they are christians, to unite the sacrifice of the cross of Christ the difficulties they might encounter due to their condition.

Homosexuals are called to chastity. Through the virtues of self control they must educate the inner liberty, and sometimes through the aid of a friendship, sacramental grace and prayer, they can and should gradually to the christian perfection."

Personally, I find it quite acceptable in the current circumstances. If contraceptives are not allowed and any sex that is not reproductive sinful, it would be rather unfair that just because the other person happens to be of the same sex they should be allowed. Of course, if contraceptives are allowed, homsexuality should be accepted too. So, being gay is okay. Having gay sex isn't.

But if you want to have sex while not worrying about hell and other nasties, you can always confess after intercourse

(Ah, in case it reads differently than I think, I do not want a ban on gay/lesbian sex.)

It sounds like you are taking the doctrine for your faith and reading it with an open mind. I appreciate that.

That brings up an interesting issue I did not cover, though. Some versions of Christianity believe that while not all gay and bisexual people are all going to hell, those who have sex without remorse (confession about the act, penitence, etc) *are*.

This raises a lot of questions. If a particular church turns a blind eye to straight people who have sex before marriage, does it amount to a double standard if they insist on penitence from gays? Does that Catholic church assume all branches will be keep things fair, and if so do you think all individual churches are really doing that?

There are other versions of Christianity where gay congregants can have sex, but a gay person can't be ordained as a priest or minister unless they take a vow of celibacy. In some cases, this matches the doctrine for straight clergy, but in other cases it does not. Is it fair to ask gay clergy to make a sacrifice you don't expect straight clergy to make?

Then there are questions about lifelong celibacy. In the past, the Catholic church has presented lifelong celibacy as a holy sacrifice to be undertaken by the most dedicated persons as part of a special covenant with God. Should laypersons be routinely asked to make that kind of sacrifice? Would you (assuming you are a layperson) be willing to live a life of complete celibacy for your church?

Dropping that issue, there are also questions about how it would work for a gay person who must confess every time they have sex throughout their lives. How would you feel about going to confessional every time you had sex with your husband or wife? Sound fun? How much penitence would that add up to over the course of a lifetime? If it is a lot and the church has refused to marry gays to reduce that burden, does that amount to an unfair burden for them?

As I'm sure you can tell, I'm not Catholic. I do have respect for Catholics. But I worry that they have created a doctrine over the past half century that sounds reasonable to straight people, but may contain a hidden double standard. Since the phenomenon of monogamous openly committed gays is relatively new, I hold out hope that perhaps someday the doctrine will be revisted. But I understand that it may not be.

There are gay Catholics in most Western countries, and they are beginning to organize. They hope to petition the church for rules that allow them to live lives of monogamous commitment without refusing sex with their loved one or committing themselves to confessions about monogamous behavior that may occur daily through most of their adult lives.

Here in the US, the biggest group is 25-year-old Dignity USA. They are an ORGanization, and if you look on their web site you will see a link to an in-depth article on sexual ethics. They recently undertook a task force to study the issue, and concluded that more gay people would be monogamous, happier, and more sure of their faith if the Catholic church encouraged them to form monogamous unions instead of treating monogamous gay sex and promiscuous gay sex as the same thing.

Thanks If you can't read something with an open mind, why read it at all?

Most of those are rhetorical questions, right?

Well, I had not seen it from that light. It is quite harsher than I first thought. Since I am semi-agnostic (can't take the full step because once you are a Catholic, you are always a Catholic), I do not care if something I do (which I personally consider morally acceptable) is against what the Church says (though I do have many Catholic morals, like no abortion).

However, for the people that do care more about that, I do agree it is not as good as I read it. Something must be considered, though. If the Church does not allow contraceptives because birth is made impossible, how will it accept gay sex? It would seem a bit contradictory, no? I -do- want both of them to be accepted, it would help a lot. (What are the chances of that happening? Maybe after many petitions over the course of many years...)

On the positive side, the Church does have the Tradition (and not only the Bible). It is based on the Bible, but the Tradition is much easier to change, just a reinterpretation of the Bible is needed.

Erm, what is a layperson? And... well, I don't think I would be able to live a life of celibacy. Of course, since I have never done it, I at least would not know what I am missing .

"They are an ORGanization."
Are those three letters capitalized on purpose? And if so, why?

I think I will go check that page out. It would have to be rather furtive as my family is -very- much against homosexuality.

Oh, and are there versions of Christianity in which you go to hell if you are gay, even if you are celibate?

Yes. they're just rhetorical questions.

I'm sorry if I'm harsher than you expected. I want to show respect to other people's religious beliefs. But I do find it difficult sometimes, especially when I feel a religion is being abused to provide ammunition for people who have already decided to discriminate.

It's the abuse that makes me angry, not the religion! As a whole, I like Christians and don't think they're prejudiced.

I think of a 'layperson' as someone who holds no official office. Priests, bishops, nuns, monks, and even the church pianist are not laypeople. The laypersons are those who attend church as members of the parish. They are the ones not considered role models for the rest, those who are not generally subject to extra special restrictions on behavior.

I capitalized ORG to let you know you that the web address for the group ends in .org, as opposed to the usual .com

And yes, there are versions of Christianity where all gay people go to hell regardless of their behavior. You see this in the US with some conservative churches that are not Catholic. Specifically you see it in fundamentalist churches that are not closely affiliated with any particular sect.

Usually the anti-gay argument starts with the old tenet that sinful thoughts are as bad as sinful deeds. If this is true, even celibate gay people must be sinning, or else they would be able to renounce their orientation. Straight people may or may not be sinning. There's no way to tell just from knowing their orientation. You see the problem?

Oh no! Sorry! -You- are not harsh, but the reality is.

Thanks for the definition of layperson. I always wondered what it was and it does make sense with the other context I had heard it in And thanks, too, for the ORG thing

That's so unfair, about the going to Hell just because you are gay. Of course, if sinful thoughts are a sin, I am sure everyone would go to Hell...

Well, this has given me a better perspective of how things are...

I'm glad we talked, then.

Thank you for asking the questions, and for really wanting to hear my answers. You seem a tremendously nice person to me.

I am glad we talked too

Thanks for answering my questions.
And I -am- a tremendously nice person, too

BTW, I love your column on the Post.

Aw, thanks!

I've read more about this and found something interesting. The Church does allow sex between people who are sterile or past their reproductive age. This is surely sex where the gift of life is being denied, so that argument against homosexual acts falls, no?