Ask a Priest

Jun 13, 2008

Hi Nicole,

I know I’m not a priest but was looking and saw that there was no reply.
The answer to your question is that because sexual relations between gay couples cannot bring forth life which is the whole purpose of sex. The way God designed it is that it is meant to be an act between a husband and wife (that’s why they call it the ‘marital act’). In that act between husband and wife it is meant to be the representation of the love between them, the total self giving of one to the other, the joining of the two (and the two shall become one); and that love produces life. The children of a married couple are considered to be the physical sign of the love between them.

Sexual relations between gay couples only serves to serve the self, not the other – it wants to take, not give. It is selfish and cannot produce life (physically as well as spiritually). This is why the Church is against it. Even in the bible I think the word ‘abomination’ is used in reference to it (and other things). But it should also be said that the Church is not against the people, but the act (if they are committing it). I have heard of places where they have houses that people who have same sex attractions can go, and they are helped to live good, chaste live. This is a really wonderful ministry.

I hope this helps you. God bless you.

Asked at 10:17 am on June 13th 2008

see i dont see that there is anything wrong with sexual relations between homosexuals. I disagree with alyssa becuase i dont see that sex is just about creating new life, i see sex as more of an expression of the love shared between two people regardless of sexuality. Like you said its an expression of love between two people and that it is the total seld of giving yourself to the other person and two will become one no matter wat gender those two are.

i definately dont agree with Alyssa’s point that “The children of a married couple are considered to be the physical sign of the love between them.” what about married couples who cannot for one reason or another have children does that mean to everyone else their love is less valid? And wat about homosexuals that are single and then get into a rlationship do you think that they should put up their child for adoption into a family that has a mother and a father. There is no proof that the love offered to a child is generally for better or worse depending solely on the sexuality of the parents.

See sex is apart of everybodies sexuality nothing marital about sexuality. I believe that everybody is born with sexuality predetermined and that by not accepting who you are you are denying the person god made you to be.

I totally disagree that gay relationships are all about taking.Where in the bible does it say that gay relationships are all about the self? i think someone’s been generalising just a tiny bit. and not going by fact but rather generalisations.

love = love = love

Replied at 12:17 pm on June 13th 2008

Note: I’m not a priest either, but thought that I’d clear up some things I think are quite wrong here.
On Alyssa Crawford’s reply: it’s quite a nice description, although I think you froget to mention the biggest issue here; marriage. Sexuality is a gift from God to marriage, and God has made us man and woman, and that’s how we’re meant to live together, to be one flesh (as is written explicitly in the Bible)

What I want to say is that sex outside or before marriage is just as wrong, although a homosexual act also is against the natural law. But in it’s essence it’s the same commandment, the sixth, that is broken:
“Neither shall you commit adultery.”

Here’s what the (catholic) church’s catechism has to say about “homosexuality” in general:

“Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. “

Replied at 06:10 pm on June 13th 2008

Joe Rogers: I guess you’re not a catholic, since you don’t accept her authority.
The thing I am wondering the is, what authority do you accept?

I believe in the authority of the Bible.
A big part of the old testament is about God’s authority.
The Bible also explicitly explain that the catholic church has God’s authority.

EDIT: …not to mention all the places in the Bible that talks about how big a sin sexual sins are. Jesus Christ Himself has taught us that the best way to deal with sexuality is to live in celibacy. But, if we’re not called to that, we’re called to marriage, and such is only for man and woman.

Replied at 10:30 pm on June 13th 2008

I am in agreement with both the Church and those hear that say “Homosexual acts are sinful.”

To clarify, simply having the tendencies is not sinful unless we act upon them and indulge them and at all times, as Christians we are called to carry our cross – whatever this might be.

In a very general way, let’s look at the nature of sex.

1. By simply examining the sexual organs, we can observe that a purpose of sex is to bring forth new life. This is undeniably part of the reason why sex is here. * (See below)

2. By the great pleasure and complete self-giving that sex brings to a relationship, it obviously unites the couple in a very physical way and also in a very profound mental way.

So, these are the two great “ends” of sex that have been talked about. Unity and Procreation .

Now, simply taking these two principles gained from reason and observation alone and applying them to a homosexual act we see that by the very nature of homosexual sex it is intrinsically opposed to the first principle of “Procreation” as outlined above.

Therefore, homosexual sex does not fufill the purpose of sex and opposes the full meaning of sex.

Therefore it is immoral.

*This does not mean that every act of sex MUST result in a baby otherwise it is immoral, but
rather that the sexual act must not oppose this purpose of sex.

In the ardent love of Christ,

JD (Senior Moderator)

Replied at 12:34 am on June 14th 2008

i agree with Joe Rogers, that this question should not be answered by saying “the church says no so that’s it”. It should be answered with why the Church condemns homosexual acts (the sexual relations between Gay couples).
I am in no way an expert on this topic, but there was a talk at theology on tap given by John Heard, which can be viewed on his blog hompage. John is a self-confessed ‘gay catholic’, and has written extensively about this topic on his blog

Replied at 01:58 am on June 14th 2008

Their marriage license from the government is not a marriage in the eyes of the Church (just like a divorce given by the government doesn’t mean anything to the Church.)

Replied at 03:17 am on June 14th 2008

Looking at the original question and some of the answers I would like to make a number of points on this topic, as I think we need to step back a bit and place it within the correct context.

The Catechism, in no. 2337, says: “Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.”

There are also some useful considerations in the document “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care,” issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 14, 2006.

“The phenomenon of homosexuality poses challenges that can only be met with the help
of a clear understanding of the place of sexuality within God’s plan for humanity. In the
beginning, God created human beings in his own image, meaning that the complementary
sexuality of man and woman is a gift from God and ought to be respected as such.”

It also says: “The complementarity of man and woman as male and female is inherent within God’s creative design. Precisely because man and woman are different, yet complementary, they can come together in a union that is open to the possibility of new life.”

Therefore: “By its very nature, the sexual act finds its proper fulfillment in the marital bond. Any sexual act that takes place outside the bond of marriage does not fulfill the proper ends of human sexuality. Such an act is not directed toward the expression of marital love with an openness to new life. It is disordered in that it is not in accord with this twofold end and is thus morally wrong.”

“Homosexual acts also violate the true purpose of sexuality. They are sexual acts that cannot be open to life. Nor do they reflect the complementarity of man and woman that is an integral part of God’s design for human sexuality.”

Regarding the question of homosexual acts being disordered there is a useful explanation on the Website of the group Courage.

“Q. Why are homosexual attractions considered “objectively disordered”? Isn’t that a harsh term?

A. The term “objective disorder” is a philosophical term. It is used to describe homosexual attractions because such attractions can never lead to a morally good sexual act. It is objected that if a man lusts for a woman or vice versa, this too is an objective disorder. This latter example is not an objective disorder, because, if the man or woman learns to control their heterosexual attraction, and wills to express it in the natural state of marriage, it is a good thing.

The term “objective disorder” may strike some of us with same-sex attractions as being harsh, because we feel that we never asked to have homosexual attractions and we fear that this term is in some way condemnatory or derogatory. It is important to remember that “objective disorder” is a philosophical term which describes a particular inclination – it does not diminish our value and worth in the eyes of God.

It is psychologically understandable that certain people struggle with homosexual attractions. The Church recognizes this and does not condemn people for simply having these attractions; however, the Church also teaches that homosexual acts are always immoral, and therefore, one must also accept that the inclination to engage in such acts is, philosophically speaking, objectively disordered.

Above all, we must keep in mind that homosexual inclinations do not make up our true identity as rational or Christian persons. We are first and foremost men and women created in the image of God – we are exceedingly precious in God’s sight and we have been given the gifts of intelligence and free-will. We can live a life of union with Christ, through prayer, and we can know the peace of interior chastity. This is God’s desire for us, and He continually gives us the grace to live it.”

The US bishop’s documents also points out:

“While the Church teaches that homosexual acts are immoral, she does distinguish
between engaging in homosexual acts and having a homosexual inclination. While the former is always objectively sinful, the latter is not. To the extent that a homosexual tendency or inclination is not subject to one’s free will, one is not morally culpable for that tendency. Although one would be morally culpable if one were voluntarily to entertain homosexual temptations or to choose to act on them, simply having the tendency is not a sin. Consequently, the Church does not teach that the experience of homosexual attraction is in itself sinful.”

There is a lot more said in the pastoral guidelines and I encourage you to have a read of the whole text.

There is also a good interview with Fr. John Harvey, director of Courage, published by Zenit.

Replied at 07:53 am on June 14th 2008

Ah…I get uncomfortable when issues such as this come about…mostly because I do not totally agree with the Church and to many this can be seen as a grave sin- personally I’m not convinced.

I believe in a Church of acceptance and unconditional love.

I will more than likely get hammered for saying it but I sometimes think that the Church’s view contributes to the pain that these people feel about their sexuality, which is real and undeniable.

Replied at 12:34 pm on June 14th 2008

The Church accepts all people. We are all sinners. Just as Jesus accepted all people.

However, Jesus did not say that the sins of these people were “ok”, he actually had some pretty harsh words for people that refused to repent of their sin.

The Church accepts people with homosexual tendencies as Christ would, but just like Christ, she does not endorse the sins these people commit.

It’s the age old antiphon of “hate the sin, love the sinner

We all have bad tendencies, whether its to bad hetrosexual lust, greed, selfishness, homosexuality. The Church unconditionally loves us even with all these things. But she cannot endorse the sins we commit.

In Christ,


Replied at 01:53 pm on June 14th 2008

Hi Joe,

I know that you have made the comment in a few of these discussions that people are just writing a message, quoting the Catechism or something and ‘that is that’ (discussion over). The thing is that the people that have asked the initial questions want to know what the Church teaches not just someones opinion/s. The Catechism and other such documents define what the Church actually does teach, and so they need to be quoted. The Truth (which is not a something but a somebody – Jesus) is really not up for discussion or debate because He can and will never change.

Another thing you and others have commented on is that people have said that if you don’t accept the Church’s teaching then you are not really Catholic. The thing there is that being (Roman) Catholic means that we accept ALL the Church’s teachings (not just pick and choose what we like and don’t like), even the things we don’t understand we are meant to accept in Faith (that’s what faith really is isn’t it). If someone doesn’t accept all the Church’s teachings therefore, one is not in full communion with the Church. All the Protestant churches came about because of someone not liking something about the Church, and some are even very close to the Catholic Church yet are still not in communion because of matters of faith/belief. We must be faithful and obedient to the Church, the Pope and the Magisterium if we are to be truly Catholic.

I pray that we all be given such grace. God bless you.

Replied at 05:59 am on June 15th 2008

Are all sexual acts between a man and a woman that are not intended to result in (and only do so by EXTREME chance) new life also sinful?

Also, were are all sexual acts that took place before the establishment of Christianity and the sacrament of marriage sinful? What about sexual acts that take place after being married in faiths other than Christianity?

Replied at 10:03 am on June 15th 2008

By the first question, I basically mean any sexual act -I could give specific examples but I don’t know if it would be regarded as explicit- other than sexual intercourse without contraception, of couples who can have children (ie not having any injuries/defects that cause infertility, and not having reached menopause).

By the second question, I meant any sexual acts that took place before the bible, in any form, had been written or taught. Early humans, “cave men”, that sort of time scale.

Replied at 04:06 pm on June 15th 2008

Monica, I suspect, though I confess I am not certain, that any sexual act which does not fulfil both the procreative and uniative purposes for which sex itself was created, is “disordered” and probably as a consequence objectively sinful. Of course, the culpability of the participants is lessened or even entirely mitigated depending on the circumstances in which it takes place.

On the specific questions, you would only have to apply the above principles to come to a reasonable answer. In the first case it is sinful to engage in acts which destroy the possibility of participating in creation – since sex is create in equal part for that and it is essential to it, but the participants may not be individually guilty. Likewise with your prehistoric men.

The thing is that the “rules” of sex are part of the “natural” antelapsarian state of man, and as a consequence are written in him but “disordered” by the Fall.

Replied at 09:01 pm on June 15th 2008

I think a bigger deal has been made over sexual sins than there should be, I dont know if its some sort of envy or suspicion on behalf of the celibate making the rules but personally I would consider murder or torture a worse sin. – Joe Rogers

In response to this I simply wanted to add the words of Our Lady of Fatima:
The Blessed Virgin Mary tells us at Fatima that “more souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than any other reason”.

I think the only reason people feel the church makes a big deal about sexual sins is because of the many objections over her teachings. The church hasn’t organised any crusade against sexual sin..all she’s done is state in the catechism what is morally wrong and hasn’t backed away from it.
I mean you don’t see people objecting to murder being a sin. I believe that any sin that is committed is wrong and that is what the church stands by. Now the over-emphasis given on any sin is given by those opposed to it not the church.

I do believe also that Our Lady would not have said what she said about the sins of the flesh unless it was a serious matter, I mean just look at our world today…Adult stores becoming more and more coming on during daytime television advertising people having sex in a later program…it’s no wonder why most people have come to accept too much of what they consider to be their sexuality.

I mean we are taught now to not feel bad if get turned on by what we see around us. We are always bombarded with messages about accepting our sexuality and exploring the pleasures of this life…no morals!!!
The people that make these images or teach this way of living have no clue what sexuality is.
They only know what feels good and nothing else matters.
Human sexuality is a beautiful thing and God did not mean for it to be exploited the way it is today!!!

I could keep going on and on about this but that wasn’t the point of my comment.
Just please don’t think that sexual sins are such a small thing not even worth the weight of conversation or attention. It is a serious sin and only because more people are likely to commit this sin than murder or other more commonly marked “grave” sins.

God Bless everyone!!

Replied at 01:24 am on June 16th 2008

Hi Joe 🙂

I have been reading your posts and was particularly struck by your comment regarding the over emphasis of sexual sins.

I agree with Rosalia in her stance that the church hasn’t particularly targeted sexual sin but rather responded to the criticism of those around her to clarify her position and guide the faithful in the correct beliefs.

As for the churches historical understanding of sex and specifically relating to sex in the medieval times, I believe that understanding the reasons why sex was considered a sin on wednesdays and fridays is important. Although I haven’t been able to find any direct references to sex being a sin on wednesdays and thursdays I will try to refute this from the little that I know.

Firstly fasting was a more prominent practice in the medieval times than it is now, with stricter and more rigorous fasts exacted by the church. Sex itself was considered secondary to holy virginity and so fasting from sex on wednesdays and fridays was a natural consequence of these ideas. This abstaining from sex can be practiced now as a fast as well by mutually consenting couples.

As the church has grown so to has our understanding of the nature of sexuality, or rather the ability to describe it. Indeed it was more that the understanding of the human person has been consolidated and as a result our ideas of sexuality have expanded as well, since who we are is intricately linked with our sexuality.

Pope John Paul II is one of the leading theologians who pioneered a contemporary understanding of sexuality (meaning that he made the old ideas understandable) in his lectures on Theology of the Body. He first explains who we are as humans and who God wants us to be using Gensis’ account of creation. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Theology of the Body, if not it is definately something to look into.

One last point that I would like to make is in regards to why I think sexuality is such a prominent topic not only in Catholic circles but in the wider community. Personally sexuality is such a prominent topic because it is so closely related to who we are. Without this understanding of God’s plan for sexuality our understanding of ourselves is limited. I am a woman and that defines who I am, but what exactly is a woman and what does that mean? The church helps us to answer those questions through theology and teaching.

Hopefully I have contributed something to the discussion and look forward to hearing from you


Replied at 04:55 am on June 16th 2008

Replied at 06:51 am on June 16th 2008

Oh please I’m think I’m going to be sick Tim…that post is disgaceful…by saying things such as this you are only encouraging hate and that my friend is what is DISGUSTING MORE THAN ANYTHING AND IS MORE AGAINST CHRISTIAN TEACHING THAN ANYTHING

I think some of the people in this thread need to take a good hard look at themselves and think about whether their attitude (note here, not the point they are making- their ATTITUDE) is truly that of someone who calls themselves a christian.

Maybe its time this thread ended, moderator?


Replied at 06:26 am on June 16th 2008

sexual acts between gay people are wrong because the church says that they are. Brendan i read some of your other messages in other threads and you say your a gay christian? wat an oxymoron. How can you beleive in god and then go about committing disgusting sex acts with other men? If you were living back in the old testement days you’d be stoned to death. – tim mowat

Tim: please don’t be so quick judging people.
I don’t think Brendan explictly has told us that he does these acts of mortal sin.
Even if he did, that would be another reason to treat him with even more respect and love.
Always try to remember that love for thou brothers and even thou enemies are the key.
Without love, everything else is useless.

Of course we should discourage people to sin, but that has to be preached with love in our hearst.

Maybe its time this thread ended, moderator? – Christian Street

I think it’s an important issue, since many people seem to be disillusioned about this matter, and also a lot of people are not sure what the church teaches on this matter.

I actually thought that quoting the catechism of the church was enough, since that was the question here, where the church stands on the issue, but it has developed into a debate, and I think that’s good, but I think some people – on both sides – should try to think another time before writing things that might hurt other people.

Replied at 07:36 am on June 16th 2008

The main reason is that Gods word forids homosexuality.

There are many people out there who have been cured of homosexuality through faith.

Anyone who has heard of the cities of “Sodom and Gommorah” knows that they were notorious hotbeds of homosexuality. Gen 19:5-8 “and they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.’ But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, ‘Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'” The word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally “a sodomite”.
“) Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of homosexuality in the narrative of Gen 19, even the New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7 “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” Any sinner should always remember that the God who commands us to love our neighbour is the same God who will cast any and all unrepentant sinners into the “eternal fire”.

Here are more Bible quotes, Lev 18:22-23 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” Lev 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.” 1 Cor 6:9 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals”



Replied at 09:49 am on June 16th 2008

Being Catholic we are not required to take the Bible as literal, at least if my sources (whom I trust greatly) are correct. The Bible must be read in context as well, Leviticus was written in a time when any sexual conduct that did not produce child would have been deemed wrong as it did not produce another member of the Israelite community, possibly.

This idea has probably been done to death and being people of faith ou’ve probably heard it used against you before, as I have, but I believe it may be appropriate here:

In the television show “The West Wing” a Republican asks the Democratic president how he can support pro-choice legislation when he is a mass going Catholic and quotes a Bible passage to back up his complaint. The Presidet replied:

“Exodus 21:7 states that I may sell my daughter into slavery. What do you think is a fair price?”

Replied at 09:41 am on June 16th 2008

Being Catholic we are not required to take the Bible as literal, at least if my sources (whom I trust greatly) are correct. The Bible must be read in context as well, Leviticus was written in a time when any sexual conduct that did not produce child would have been deemed wrong as it did not produce another member of the Israelite community, possibly.

This idea has probably been done to death and being people of faith ou’ve probably heard it used against you before, as I have, but I believe it may be appropriate hear:

In the television show “The West Wing” a Republican asks the Democratic president how he can support pro-choice legislation when he is a mass going Catholic and quotes a Bible passage to back up his complaint. The Presidet replied:

“Exodus 21:7 states that I may sell my daughter into slavery. What do you think is a fair price?” – Christian Street

Hmm, how was this in response to what I posted? 😛

Replied at 10:53 am on June 16th 2008

yeah sorry, it was just a quick way to write in the thread- I’ll be more carfeul next time…

Replied at 10:40 am on June 16th 2008

yeah sorry, it was just a quick way to write in the thread- I’ll be more carfeul next time… – Christian Street

No problem, was just wondering if you had interpreted something wrong.
Because that’s what this all is about.
Who has the authority to make claims about things.
God has the authority, and He has given it to His church.

Not to the Bible.
The Bible is a product of the church.
A Holy one though.

Replied at 10:58 am on June 16th 2008

i know that the comment has been deleted now but it did have a coupleof things in it that did concern me, especially how my name was mentioned directly. Okay for one yes i am gay and yes i believe in god and everything that he has done for us. And thankyou Beornn (sorry i know i have spelt it wrong) for sticking up for me and for anyone else who is wondering no im not permiscuous and have multiple sexual hook ups with random guys. I think tim and a lot of people out there, not just catholic people, but in the wider society there is a lot about the homosexual that is just assumed. I go to clubs and parties and everything but i dont hook up randomly and my friends (who dont really have anything to do with the church or have much faith). ITs just assumed and i think its mainly from ignorance and just not being exposed to it.
Aslo there were some comments about HIV/AIDS. um its not a joke and i dont appreciate comments about it from people who arent aware of facts. Homosexual acts dont create HIV and Hiv has an equal chance to pass between any two people, regardless of sexual preference.
Also i dont speak for everyone but i think the figure of the church scares a lot of homosexual/bisexual people away. Younger people dont invest a lot of time into gaining knowledge about religion or faith because they assume that there arent a lot of people that will listen to thier concerns but rather jump to telling them that they are wrong to have these thoughts. I think if we all listened to each other’s opinions a bit more we would be able first learn about other people and also allow other to see that we are approachable and rather than telling them how to live thier lifes maybe just offer it as an option and allow them to make a decision and dont be shocked when they say that they dont care about the church and the pope becuase too many people have been hurt in the past either directly from their parents or from the stories they have heard from others. over to you

Replied at 12:21 pm on June 16th 2008

sorry futher more is there anything that you would say to a person who, like myself, doesnt believe in the instutuition of the church or the teaching of the bible, whose faith sits in god and his love for the individual

Replied at 12:46 pm on June 16th 2008

i dont believe in the way that the church is based on a group of people’s perspective on how to interpret the bible. i believe that when god created us in him image that we were given the characteristic of reason and choice. And in this we are all capable of investigating the bible for ouselves and coming to our own ends.
The main reason i dont associate myself with being catholic or penticostal or baptist or any of the others because i feel that by saying that i am people make all these assumptions in what my beliefs are. Mine are varied. I believe that abortion in most cercumstances is ok, i believe that the use of contraception is ok and i believe that homosexuality is ok, that we should be able to be married, adopt, ivf, serogacy. There are several faiths out there that believes these things too but then differ their opinion to mine in other issues. so its easier for me to just say that im christian other… does that answer your question?

Replied at 02:24 pm on June 16th 2008

Hi Brendan – I wouldn’t want to be a part of a church where the Bible was interpreted from the perspective of a group of people either, and that’s why I’m Catholic!

Jesus said to the disciples: “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18) The Church is not merely a group of men who decide to interpret the Bible in such a way – and there’s certainly no making up of rules because they’re jealous of people who aren’t celibate, contrary to what Joe said – rather she is Christ’s Bride and has been given authority to discern the Truth, which she does through Scripture and Tradition. Thus there are certain things which are defined by the Church infallibly – without error. No one is suggesting that Catholics shouldn’t be able to look into why the Church teaches what she does, but Catholics should recognise the authority of the Church and therefore accept with faith and trust her teachings and then take the time to find out why she says what she does.

There is an interesting article here about Papal infallibility.

For instance it says:

When making such solemn pronouncements, the pope is not speaking as a private theologian, but as supreme teacher of the universal Church. Before doing so, he may consult with bishops and theologians, but it is he, and not they, who exercises infallibility under carefully defined conditions. This infallibility is not a personal attribute of the pope, but a charism of his office. Its most recent exercise was the promulgation of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary by Pius XII in 1950.

If you’re looking for something a little meatier, try the Catholic Encyclopedia.

So for people who are struggling with quotes from the Catechism because they don’t believe in the authority of the Church, this is why people quote from the Catechism.

But if people don’t like the authority of the Church, I guess we should start looking into why the Church says what it does about homosexuality, looking into the theology behind it all. I do have a very useful book called Did Adam and Eve Have Belly Buttons? which probably answers the question about homosexuality but I lent it to someone! Hopefully someone else can come up with a good answer, but I really liked Alyssa’s answer at the start!

Replied at 07:27 pm on June 16th 2008

And thankyou Beornn (sorry i know i have spelt it wrong) – brendan flynn

It’s “Bjorn” if you want to skip that Scandinavian character 😉

…for sticking up for me – brendan flynn

Anytime mate!

Also i dont speak for everyone but i think the figure of the church scares a lot of homosexual/bisexual people away. Younger people dont invest a lot of time into gaining knowledge about religion or faith because they assume that there arent a lot of people that will listen to thier concerns but rather jump to telling them that they are wrong to have these thoughts. – brendan flynn

What thoughts are you referring to?

I think if we all listened to each other’s opinions a bit more we would be able first learn about other people and also allow other to see that we are approachable and rather than telling them how to live thier lifes maybe just offer it as an option and allow them to make a decision and dont be shocked when they say that they dont care about the church and the pope becuase too many people have been hurt in the past either directly from their parents or from the stories they have heard from others. – brendan flynn

Hmm, I agree, or as a great saint have said, sometimes we even need to use words when we witness about Jesus Christ (or something like that). We should try to make some things clear though.

over to you – brendan flynn

Ditto 😉

Replied at 08:44 pm on June 16th 2008

Speaking from a non Christian point of view.

It’s not natural,
So In the law of nature its wrong, along with other perverted acts that have nothing to do with love. e.g. Bestiality, pedophilia, scat, rape, homosexuality and s&m

If you are going against nature you’re going against God!

Replied at 11:30 pm on June 16th 2008

By natural I’m talking about sex

Sex is for reproduction.

It feels good because obviously we were meant to have children, if it felt bad, guess what no offspring.

But gay sex, not natural because guess what no offspring.

It may feel good for the gays, but that’s self satisfaction, and for the other things, humans cant have offspring with animals and young children, so therefore unnatural and against God my friend.

Replied at 02:36 am on June 17th 2008

Hey Joe,

In the case of Papal infallibility, it is actually used quite often. All encyclicals, etc, are actually considered to be infallible because they are written to teach and build up the faithful. This is something I only recently learned. I was like you thinking that it was very rare. I’ll have to find where I read it to give a better response.

God bless.

Replied at 03:21 am on June 17th 2008

This doesn’t even make sense…first you say that infallibility has been used twice, then you say there’s no such as infallibility. How can something be used twice if it doesn’t exist? If infallibility doesn’t apply to the Pope, why is it called papal infallibility? How can something be both infallible and be challenged? And by what definition has it only been used twice? I can think of about a dozen instances off the top of my head.

Your “argument” could be used to defend any practice or any sin. “God made some people to do (insert any sin imaginable). I’m right because God loves everyone and everything is OK no matter what, and anybody that disagrees with me is a hateful bigot because I said so.”

Replied at 05:03 am on June 17th 2008

Regarding the previous posts here I would like to clarify a few points.

1. On what was said about the authority of Church teaching on homosexuality the Catechism has a point about natural law and the teaching authority of the Church.

“2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.78”

This authority extends to matters of morality, such as sexual ethics and topics related to homosexuality and marriage.

“2033 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the “deposit” of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.”

2. Concerning homosexual practices as being against natural law I recommend an article by Fr John Harvey, which has a long and detailed analysis of many of the points raised in the preceding posts.

Replied at 06:04 am on June 17th 2008

A loving gay couple have the blessings of any god anyone to suggest otherwise believe in a god of hate who declares people abominations. I know what kinda god i believe in and its a god of love. – Michael Gravener

Of course God is a God of love.
He is love, and He loves all of His children.
But as all good fathers, he doesn’t want them to do what’s not good.
Therefore, He warns us to do things that will hurt us, and are against our nature.
A good father warns His children about crossing the road, to look an extra time before doing that, and teaching His children all that is good and warns about what’s not good.

It is we who choose, everytime we sin, no matter what sin it is, to choose a path away from God, our loving Father.
It is Hell, to be away from our Father.

Replied at 06:18 am on June 17th 2008

I totally agree with Brendan in that this notion of God loves me no matter what, can be used to justify just about anything.

The truth is..God does love us no matter what we do…just as Jesus loved the sinners he spent time with..but the difference here is that just because Jesus loved these people and spent time with them doesn’t mean he condoned what they did…in actual fact he challenges them to something greater than this world..something greater than the self..greater than any worldly treasures..he challenged them to take up their crosses..leave their sinful lives behind (they were forgiven of their sins I must add) and follow Him.

There is no doubt in my mind that those who experience same-sex attraction are great lovers of God, of course they would be they are no different from anyone else, but trying to justify acting out on these attractions is something that is in the very nature of men (mankind) very wrong.
There is nothing that the Church teaches saying that same-sex attraction is wrong and therefore a sin, just the act.

In response to is natural for any man to be with woman because it is in man’s very nature..God designed it that way in the beginning. He made Eve(a woman) a suitable helper for Adam..not a man. Jesus does call many though to the celibate life which is also very beautiful.

Incase you were thinking I have no experience in this field of homosexuality…to answer your question in advance I would have to say yes.
Not me personally but someone very close to me who in fact has gone further to hold a civil ceremony to show there love for each other.
I see the love that they have for each other is very strong but this does not change my belief of the act of homosexuality being wrong. I could love my sister or my brother very strongly but this love is expressed in other ways not sexually…which is how I view this topic.
It is a best-friends even soul-mates kind of a love that should not go into the bedroom.

If any of you are interested more about the history and facts about homosexuality in an easy to read fashion I would truly recommend reading: [color=blue]’One Man One Woman’ by Dale O’Leary[/color]
Once you start you won’t put it down until you’ve finished reading it.

I hope I’ve brought something decent to this conversation,

God Bless!!!

Replied at 07:05 am on June 17th 2008

Hey all there’s been a lot of great discussion on this thread- for future questions on this topic post them on this group that deals with these issues exclusively:


Replied at 09:28 am on June 17th 2008

Cmon mate we need to grow up in church about this issue, the church is fundamentally wrong, homosexuality is as natural as the birds and the bees, it i s no choice.

the courage group are vey disfunctional and shopuld be ashamed of themselves – Michael Gravener

Many harsh words there, buddy.
How can you say that the church is wrong when it is obvious – just take a look into how we are biologically constructed – that we’re not meant to have s-e-x with people of the same gender.
Sex is something sacred, and the fact that we’re ashamed about talking about it and so forth is only one among many proofs of that.

I don’t know nothing of these groups called “courage”.
Could you please explain what’s wrong with them and what it has to do with the subject?

Replied at 02:45 pm on June 17th 2008

hi Michael,
I was just reading through all the posts and i just had to say, “that’s just what i was thinking”
The post from the priest with the quotes from the church teachings even says that gay love and gay tendancies is recognised but frowns on gay sex. I admit true love and expression of true love is sureley a thing to be celebrated. I also think gay people suffer enough inequality without us good christians helping.

Replied at 02:45 pm on June 17th 2008

The fact of the matter is you can’t just call it “love” and use that to justify it.

What about a brother and sister that are in “love”? Is that ok just because they love each other?

What about a Mother and her son? If they are in love is that ok just because they love each other?

I’m not saying that you agree with any of the above positions, but rather that simple spouting out “love” is not enough to justify your position.

The issue is a bit deeper than that.

In Christ,


Replied at 04:01 pm on June 17th 2008

Hey guys, can I suggest we discuss this more here as this is really a forum for the priest to answer questions.

Replied at 05:08 pm on June 17th 2008

brendan you are wromng mate, it has been used twice, and what i am saying is that infallibility is a nonsense – Michael Gravener

How did you count that it was only used twice? And how was it used even twice if it doesn’t exist? Do you see the contradiction here?

Your argument is essentially claiming infallibility for yourself. “God loves me, so whatever I say is right, even if it’s against the Church and the Bible. I know I’m right and everyone else is a dysfunctional, hateful, bigot that should be ashamed of themselves.” Doesn’t sound very open-minded or tolerant to insult people that have different views than you, does it?

Replied at 07:12 pm on June 17th 2008

my friend, you dont Operate on your gay partner during sex, you do it for fun, otherwise you wouldnt do it if it was a chore.
God allows us to help, God helps those who help themselves

God also gave us free will, not destiny, so its your choice to be gay not your destiny.

God doesnt hate you my friend, but he may hate the actions you do, Im not perfect myself, nobody is, all you can do in life is try to be a better person and die with a clear conscience.

Replied at 11:47 pm on June 17th 2008

Homosexual inclinations are not a sin because those are temptations and everyone has temptations.
What surprises me is that most people are not aware of exorcisms as a way to treat and expel the diabolical influences that trigger homosexual inclinations.
In case anyone is interested, Fr. Gabriel Amorth (Rome) has brought this issue of homosexuality in his writings on exorcism. Sexual misconduct due to demonic influence is a reality for many- one who embraces the Sacraments knows that self-help is not the answer.

In his peace,

Replied at 03:43 am on June 18th 2008

It’s really not. It’s just not for everyone. If you’re ok with your faith and sexual preference then it’s pretty much all you need to know.

Any mutually consenting, genetically different adults who love, respect and care for each other – generally constitutes a good relationship, sexual or otherwise.

Replied at 04:24 am on June 18th 2008

Couldn’t agree more with you James,

I am starting to think more and more that some of those who fall back into these hard line, fundamentalist rules are the ones who are uncomfortable with their faith and what they believe. Myself, I couldn’t be more comfortable with what I believe about homosexuality being that I truly don’t have an issue with it- and I have no doubt I could round up many in the religious life who would agree with me…maybe I hang around in pretty liberal christian circles…who knows…

As for exorcisms for homosexuals, I find that extremely hard to take…in fact its a bit scary really…

Replied at 06:38 am on June 18th 2008

Mate, you are a little confused.
I agree, I believe in a loving God, a loving God who designed us to be Happy, and I believe in a God who alone knows what can make us truly happy. I believe in a God of wisdom, and a Creator, a Creator who made certain things in certain ways. One of the most beatiful things he made was human life, because human life is precious. He made human life, and he made it to be the fruit of the love of a man and a woman, in a sacred and noble act. The sexual act between a man and a woman produces the amazing phenonema of human life, he reserved something so sacred to an act of total self giving. The “sexual” act between a gay couple is performed for pleasure, there is none of that self-giving (which is shown in the openess to new life to be produced).
I believe in a God, moreover, who also makes rules, rules he puts in place to secure our happiness. Some time what He asks is hard because it goes against our bodily temptations, inclinations. For example, a man ho is married might feel attracted to another woman, however he cannot act on this impulse, it is against God’s law, do you agree? Similarly a person may feel attracted to a child sexually, it would be wrong to engage in that temptation, do you agree? In the same way, as sexual relations between gay couples is NOT how God designed it or planned it, those too are against God’s law.

The Catholic Church does NOT condemn gay people, rather they respect them and love them as any other member of her flock. What the Church asks of people with gay inclinations is possible, and is no more than what she asks of those who commit to a life of celibacy.
Besides this as mentioned many people who are attracted to the same sex feel that inclination because of cirmcumstances.

Replied at 07:08 am on June 18th 2008

Quite a few of the posts in this conversation have gone along the lines of: as long as you love it is OK, or God loves me so what I do is fine.

God certainly does love all of us, regardless of our sins, our orientations or our conduct. On the other hand a simple invocation of God’s love in the way it is being done by many as a sort of blanket excuse for any type of conduct is very much a case of wishful thinking and, in fact, reveals an attitude of using God as an instrument to give blessing to our conduct just because we feel drawn to do something.

It might be a better idea to ask what is it that God wants us to do, and what is his will for us, rather than telling God this is what we want to do, so it had better be OK.

“The Church must bear witness to the mercy of God revealed in Christ, in the whole of His mission as Messiah, professing it in the first place as a salvific truth of faith and as necessary for a life in harmony with faith, and then seeking to introduce it and to make it incarnate in the lives both of her faithful and as far as possible in the lives of all people of good will,” said John Paul II in his encyclical on mercy, Dives in misericordia. (no. 12)

An awareness of this mercy should lead us, the Pope goes on to say, to conversion.

“Authentic knowledge of the God of mercy, the God of tender love, is a constant and inexhaustible source of conversion, not only as a momentary interior act but also as a permanent attitude, as a state of mind. Those who come to know God in this way, who “see” Him in this way, can live only in a state of being continually converted to Him. They live, therefore, in statu conversionis; and it is this state of conversion which marks out the most profound element of the pilgrimage of every man and woman on earth in statu viatoris.” (no. 13)

and therefore, not to invoke Gods’ mercy and love as a justification for continuing to do what is morally wrong.

“Society can become “ever more human” only when we introduce into all the mutual relationships which form its moral aspect the moment of forgiveness, which is so much of the essence of the Gospel. Forgiveness demonstrates the presence in the world of the love which is more powerful than sin.” (no. 14)

But while we can always seek God’s forgiveness, the Pope makes it clear that we cannot invoke mercy and love and then just use it as an excuse to sin.

“It is obvious that such a generous requirement of forgiveness does not cancel out the objective requirements of justice. Properly understood, justice constitutes, so to speak, the goal of forgiveness. In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness.”

Replied at 07:54 am on June 18th 2008

Hi Father,

I am aware that that you last comment was probably aimed at me in part, and believe me that it is not my belief in any way shape or form that I am able to do whatever I want just because God loves me- Please believe me when I say I don’t think of myself as that special!!! I just think that we may have got this one wrong, real wrong.

I’m conscience of keeping this group to what it was created for so I’ll keep this short and unless specifically asked I don’t think I will write here again.

Thankyou one and all,


Replied at 10:54 am on June 18th 2008

Hi Micheal,

I found two points in your post that i disagreed with

“A loving gay couple have the blessings of any god anyone to suggest otherwise believe in a god of hate who declares people abominations”

I would certainly hope that you aren’t trying to say that you speak for God when you made that comment, because in either case you have missed the point of the entire Catholic position.
now correct me if I’m wrong but i believe Christ said somewhere in the Bible to ‘love thy Neighbour as thy self’. What no one has to do, even if we love someone, is to accept their actions.

God LOVES Homosexuals!!! They are all His Children, and as a loving Father He cares for His Children. With all their faults. However like any parent, and even more so, God has a right to expect that His Children will not only accept, but abide by His rules. And as evidenced in the multitude of quotes from the Bible and Catechism, Its fairly obvious that sexual Intercourse between two members of the same gender is not on. Not just now because the Church wants to discriminate and alienate people, but because it is Gods Word, and has been since before the time of Christ.

My second point of contention is with your attidude towards the Church in general. You accuse the Church of Intolerance and condemnation, but fail to see that in doing so you are being rather intolerant of other people. Now I’ve been going to mass now for almost 21 years now, and not once have i heard a single person condemned for being who they are. Its not an issue. What the Church does condemn is immoral behaviour. Behaviour that is unbecoming of a person as a Christian and behaviour unbecoming of a member of the Human race. But never have I heard a person condemned for being them. No instead we are asked to pray for them. That they may listen to God, and find the courage to live as Christ asked us to.

We all need that courage. Everyone on this planet has a cross to bear so to speak. Be it Homosexual Inclinations, Illness, Alchoholism, drug dependancy, race, gender, the list goes on.
The point is regardless of all of these, we are all required by God to do what he asks of us regardless of our own personal inclinations and objections.

Yours in Christ

Replied at 11:05 am on June 18th 2008

Because there’s so much interest, I’ve set up a new group dedicated to Catholic teaching on human sexuality, as it applies to same sex attracted men, and women:

Some of the questions people regularly ask:

Can you be “gay” and Catholic? What does the Church actually teach about “gay” sex? Does she ban “gay” priests? What about “gay marriage”?

There are also links to authentic Catholic teaching, and insights from same sex attracted men, and women from all over the world here:

xt3ers can send me an email direct with any questions, or start a new thread here:

– JH

Replied at 04:35 pm on June 18th 2008

Replied at 11:06 am on June 19th 2008

when i was 21 tom i too had a great expereince of Church. Then as i lived it i found that not all was as clear as i thought i was seeing.

as for homosexualituy, i have klnown young men who have killed themselves because the church rehjected there homosexuality, and they were 17, 18, and 19. No one in church was able to counsell them or assit them but to tell them that they had o live chaste lives and could never expeerience sexual intimacy, or chnge to heterosexuality.

The Church failed them

and there are also some great peole in church doing great things, i know many, but the higher you get the less church someone beciomes, thats my experience anyway – Michael Gravener

Unfortunately, Michael’s sentiments align with those held by a number of people born before, during, or immediately after the Second Vatican Council. Thank God, there is less strife among younger Catholics.

No one can deny that a significant number of people Michael’s age came to grief over secular challenges to Catholic teaching on human sexuality (contraception, marriage, abortion, euthanasia), and those who had great personal faith sometimes found themselves cast adrift in a time of change.

That said, good Catholics must discern what this generational experience meant, in light of Catholic truth.

To say that the Church has failed someone because she calls them to goodness, beauty, and truth is certainly not how I would – as a same sex attracted man – view the Church’s witness.

Where some priests, and others have been hesitant to engage the so-called “gay community” it hasn’t always been the result of a failure on the part of the priests. Often, events like Mardi Gras are not just incidentally anti-Christian, they are deliberately so, and many of the tenets of the Stonewall-era, so-called “liberation” project are deeply anti-human, and more like the rather old-fashioned (now) “sexual liberation”, than anything authentically Christian:

Youth suicide is an incredibly sorrowful thing, and I would not speculate as to how any young man might have died, or why. That said, no one should feel himself “failed” because of the Church’s teaching on sodomy. Indeed, one would need to show how sodomy makes sense in any account of human nature, and leads to flourishing, in order to show how teaching against it could be considered an evil:

Rather, it seems a secular (perhaps generational) insistence on pleasure, instant gratification, and the use of bodies for the same – rather than a properly Christian concern to love, cherish, and affirm young men, was behind what John Paul the Great called a “culture of death”. Remnants of lifestyles, and attitudes, that feed into this culture are with us still – although the young people of the world look beyond them to the culture of life:

Unhappily, sometimes this culture comes down hardest on those in the “gay community” who suffer – I know – daily assaults on their humanity from a lifestyle, and a political posture that pushes hypersexualisation, and a hatred of the things, and people, who belong to Christ:

NB: while passion is laudable, multiple critical posts are not a way to demonstrate, or encourage a loving engagement with others. Some of the people posting here are familiar to online Catholics, having been banned from other fora for questionable behaviour. Please understand that Xt3 is a way to anticipate the Holy Father, and examine authentic Catholic teaching. All members are asked to keep any comments respectful, balanced, on topic, and prudent.

Replied at 03:33 pm on June 19th 2008

how you can see any that this can defend any practice or sin is absurd, – Michael Gravener

I mean that any sin can be substituted into your argument and it would be equally valid. “God made me like to eat babies, so it must be ok”, if you’d like to go that far. Father Flynn explained this perfectly in his post beginning “Quite a few of the posts in this conversation have gone along the lines of: as long as you love it is OK, or God loves me so what I do is fine.” It’s a relativistic attitude that substitutes personal judgment for truth.

The social sin of pretending to be all truth to the masses is a grave error of the church.

So you have the authority to decide what is and isn’t a sin? Isn’t this just claiming infallibility for yourself?

Replied at 04:56 pm on June 19th 2008

i admire you Nicole, i think you no God better than most here, you have a loving heart that does not discriminate oir condemn, the relaith y is that the church does doiscriminate against many people, and all god is is inconditional love

just love the way you are – Michael Gravener

If somebody hates people and discriminates against them, doesn’t your argument say that it’s ok and they should keep doing it, because God loves them anyway? Or does that argument only apply to things that you, personally, like to do?

Replied at 05:18 pm on June 19th 2008

Being Catholic we are not required to take the Bible as literal, at least if my sources (whom I trust greatly) are correct.

Roman Catholics take the scriptures as literal only when it suits them.

The eucharist is a perfect example. – User 9683

If Roman Catholics take the bible literally with regards to the Eucharist then why do protestants view the eucharist as a ‘symbol’?

Replied at 12:55 am on June 20th 2008

when i was 21 tom i too had a great expereince of Church. Then as i lived it i found that not all was as clear as i thought i was seeing.

google church mouse and try and objectively have a look at what has been happening in redfern parish, in sydney. dont close you eyes to this , have a good look

i hope you continue to have a great expereince of church as i hope toioi but we need to seek justice first beacuse all is not what it seeems unfortunately.

Michael Gravener

This started as a reasonable discussion on Sexual relations between gay couples where I wanted to learn something – how did it become about some bitter old fued? Michael let it go dude! Start practicing the love and forgiveness you have preached throughout this thread!

Michael, saying the church caused young people to commit suicide is such a stretch. I have known people that have killed themselves and I can assure you it is more to do with mental problems often made worse through drugs and alchahol. The only church I have known is one of great love and acceptance.

Replied at 12:53 am on June 20th 2008

Hello Doug,
I don’t know about protestantism, but I feel like among Christians in general, those who view the Holy Eucharist as a ‘symbol’ have fallen for the old tendencies of Pelagianism and/or Jansenism.
These two tendencies are heresies that undermine the graces granted to us for our salvation through the Sacraments. One states that by our own will we are going to ‘reach’ or ‘achieve’ salvation and the other one proposes that there simply aren’t enough graces to be administered in order to redeem mankind. So either way, in the long run the objective of these two heresies are to deny the Sacraments that Christ has given us for our salvation (my opinion). Some of the followers of this tendencies did not accept Communion, of if they receive Communion they just did it to hide their own personal believe.
Luther never asserted that the Holy Magisterium was invalid or lacking the light of the Holy Spirit. He simply moved away from the Sacraments.
I feel like our Church is plague with both Jansenism, Pelagianism, and what’s worst: Quietism, but with new disguises more suitable for the times.
Quietism is practiced by those who don’t think that Reconciliation is important or required. They want to confess their sins at home ‘with out an intermediary’ and go for Holy Communion because they claim that ‘God knows them’ and ‘God is unconditional love’. They forget that Christ is transformational love and he is present in all the Sacraments. No, the Finger of God is not something that only the Early Church benefited from. The Finger of God is in the Confessional.
These heresies strengthen the corrupted believe systems of those who think that God loves us but He could not transform us into holy people.
Have a Nice Day!

Replied at 01:20 am on June 20th 2008

Has anyone laid any ground rules for this thread? Such as keep a single thread on a single topic? It’s hard to have a conversation when nearly each participant introduces a new topic.

Also, in what sense/how is this thread moderated? I expected the “Ask a Priest” feature to be in Q&A format. As it is, it seems to be a thread in which 90% of the responses are comments from site visitors, some of whom do not seem to have a solid grasp of what the Church teaches about human love & sexuality. it’s hard to have a reasonable discussion when no common framework/understanding has been laid. It’s fine to disagree, but let the disagreements be rooted in what the Church actually teaches and why. Otherwise lots of energy is wasted fighting straw men.

Replied at 02:34 am on June 20th 2008

Yes thank you Clayton- thanks for your feedback, we are working on improving the format as we speak. While the thread cannot be physically closed right now, in the meantime all subsquent comments and questions should be raised in another thread…

If you have a response to any of the posts in this thread- post them in the new thread set up for this purpose:

If you have further questions, please post them here:
The church and homosexuality:
Theology of the body:
Other issues of Theology:

… or raise a new question on Ask A Priest…

Please do not post any further in this thread – it has exceeded a reasonable limit and will be deleted.

Replied at 02:49 am on June 20th 2008

Just a reminder this thread is now closed

If you have a response to any of the posts in this thread- post them in the new thread set up for this purpose:

Please do not post any further in this thread – it has exceeded a reasonable limit and will be deleted.

Replied at 01:55 pm on June 30th 2008

Thanks for all the discussion, and apologies for the number of deletions… the thread really was too long. I hope you have continued the discussion in the above link as its great to hear all the varied responses.

The DREADNOUGHTERS group is a great reference for this topic, as well as the website set up by Jason Evert in the US.

Replied at 06:27 am on July 03rd 2008