Catholic bishops release 'gay'-ministry guidelines

[Logan13]

Catholic bishops release 'gay'-ministry guidelines
Worldnetdaily
Nov.17, 2006

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, after substantial amendments to the proposed draft that critics had called "gravely flawed," have approved a new document to guide them on ministry to homosexuals.
The 25-page document, "Ministry to Persons with Homosexual Inclinations: Guidelines for Pastoral Care," restates the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality that makes the distinction between "the inclination" and "the act." While the inclination is "objectively disordered," the Catholic Church teaches, it is not sinful in and of itself. However, all homosexual acts are considered "objectively sinful."

In the week preceding this week's meetings, Catholic physicians and psychologists who had seen the draft copy of the guidelines circulated a list of their specific worries about the wording and the substance of key sections of the document.

Rick Fitzgibbons, a Philadelphia psychiatrist, had been among the experts who contacted bishops to point out significant concerns.

"There is nothing in the document that warns people about the medical risks of homosexuality," he said.

Other concerns included the use of "hate" terms and the lack of scientific information on the causes of homosexual attraction. The context of the physician's concern was two-fold: first for the effective pastoral care of homosexual persons, and second, to prevent misunderstanding of the bishops' intent in light of the recent sex-abuse scandal.

Some bishops also found that the document needed more work. Robert F. Vasa, bishop of Baker, Ore., urged his associate bishops: "There is no harm in delaying this document, but there is harm in rushing it."

Despite objections, the amended guidelines passed 194 to 37. The document had been under study since 2002. Respected theologians, including Avery Cardinal Dulles and Francis Cardinal George, had advised the USCCB's Committee on Doctrine.

Responding to criticism of the amended document, Cardinal George observed there were also moral instructions for heterosexuals in "Married Love and the Gift of Life."

The Chicago prelate said, "The goal is not to find the faith where you're perfectly at home. …Who of us is perfectly at home in the Catholic Church? The goal is to find what God wants us to do."

Arthur Serratelli, bishop of Paterson, N.J., and chairman of the Committee on Doctrine concurred: "To be a Catholic is a challenge and to be a Catholic requires a certain choice, and these are choices consistent with the Gospel of Jesus as handed down through the church."

Another challenging comment came from Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, who said homosexuals who are not living chastely and married Catholics who use artificial birth control methods should not receive Holy Communion.

Homosexual advocates immediately rejected the amended guidelines. Activists objected to the prohibition of participation in the "lifestyle and values of a 'gay subculture.'"

New Ways Ministry, which describes itself as a "gay-positive ministry of advocacy and justice for lesbian and gay Catholics and reconciliation within the larger Christian and civil communities," dismissed the document as not addressing "human reality."

"Gay and lesbian people have a homosexual orientation, not homosexual inclination," said the group's executive director, Francis De Bernardo.

Membership in the organization is prohibited for faithful Catholics.

De Bernardo's view is contested by "Homosexuality and Hope," a booklet published by the Catholic Medical Association, which says an orientation implies an inherent condition or predisposition that is beyond the will and choice of the person. The booklet argues that science has found no genetic basis for homosexuality, and "none of the much-publicized studies has been scientifically replicated."

Neil E.Whitehead, Ph.D., of New Zealand agrees.

"There is simply no basis whatsoever for the claim that homosexuality is genetic."

Whitehead, a consultant to the New Zealand government Ministry of Research Science and Technology, concluded, "Therefore, if it is not genetic, one is not obliged by their biology to live a homosexual lifestyle."

Whitehead cites the recent identical twin studies from Australia, "Bailey, Martin, et al." The correlation of homosexual behavior in identical twins is 38 percent for males, 30 percent for females. Thus, if one of an identical twin pair is homosexual, the statistical truth is that his or her twin will not be a homosexual. Since identical twins share the same genetic code, Whitehead argues, his study refutes the science that assumes a "gay gene" is the cause of homosexuality.

Before the bishops' meeting, a circulated draft of the document said homosexual persons had "no obligation" to seek therapy for same-sex attraction. The amended document does encourage those who experience homosexual attraction as an "unwanted burden" to seek professional counseling from someone who understands and supports the church's teaching on human sexuality. For some, that means the freedom to live chastely, with the aid of spiritual and psychological help.

For others it can mean change. The Catholic Medical Association notes that for clients who pursue therapy with the hope of change, there is the same 30 percent rate of success that therapists report for other chronic disorders or addictive behaviors, such as substance abuse.

Cardinal George acknowledged that the U.S. bishops were aware of the intense debate in the nation surrounding the issues of same-sex attraction. As America struggles to find a way to address homosexuality that serves the whole of society, he said, the bishops need to present church teaching and ministry in the context of current pressures.

[Teabagger]

There was really nothing much different in here. I did find the identical twins study and its conclusion very interesting. No genetic proof or indication what so ever that homosexuality is not a choice of lifstyle...I'm surpriesed Tock did not jump all over this...oh wait...on second thought I'm not surprised.

[Kärnfysikern]

There was really nothing much different in here. I did find the identical twins study and its conclusion very interesting. No genetic proof or indication what so ever that homosexuality is not a choice of lifstyle...I'm surpriesed Tock did not jump all over this...oh wait...on second thought I'm not surprised.

Let assume for a moment it was proven without a doubt that homosexuality is a chooise(not that I personaly belive that, so many homosexuals that doesnt want to be homo and still are).

Does that make it any different? Should not everyone be free to choose to do whatever they want with there own life aslong as it doesnt hurt anyone else? I dont se a reson not to respect someones choice regarding sequality?

[Teabagger]

I'll use your logic then. Homosexuality offends me. It offends my beliefs. I feel it is important for society to have "morals". "hate speech" is outlawed, only because it "offends" certain segments of society. Whats the difference? If words can be banned because they may offend, why not banning certain behaviors that offend? Should only certain citizens be protected from being offended?

The gay movement wants to say their sexual pref. is personal, and should not be legislated against. Well I say fine...keep it out of schools and the workplace and the law books...completely. Just as religion is personal, and it is kept out of the schools and workplace and is not legislated.

[Kärnfysikern]

I'll use your logic then. Homosexuality offends me. It offends my beliefs. I feel it is important for society to have "morals". "hate speech" is outlawed, only because it "offends" certain segments of society. Whats the difference? If words can be banned because they may offend, why not banning certain behaviors that offend? Should only certain citizens be protected from being offended?

I dont mind hate speech, let them ****ers talk all they want aslong as they dont make speech into action.

There are plenty of people and belifes in this world that offends me. I still dont want to outlaw beeing a greenpeace fanatic, gayhating preacher, rasist hillbilly, communist, anarchist or anything like that. Even though I think its stupid, it should not be illegal to be stupid.

If your offended thats your right, but its defenetly not your right to impose your belife system on someone else.

The gay movement wants to say their sexual pref. is personal, and should not be legislated against. Well I say fine...keep it out of schools and the workplace and the law books...completely. Just as religion is personal, and it is kept out of the schools and workplace and is not legislated.

I say keep sexuality out of schools, except in sex education offcourse. Same with religion as you say, keep it in religion class.
Make sex a non issue in law books by giving exactly equal rights to all, regardless of sexual preference. Let the church deal with maridge the way they se fit but make it possible for homo partners to have some legal union, heck make it possible for groups of people to bind in legal unions for all I care.

[Teabagger]

OK sure.

[Kärnfysikern]

OK sure.

We agree on something, jesus christ what the hell is the world coming to?

[Teabagger]

We agree on something, jesus christ what the hell is the world coming to?

[Tock]

There was really nothing much different in here. I did find the identical twins study and its conclusion very interesting. No genetic proof or indication what so ever that homosexuality is not a choice of lifstyle...I'm surpriesed Tock did not jump all over this...oh wait...on second thought I'm not surprised.

Well, it took the Vatican about 400 years to acknowledge that the planet earth orbits the Sun, and not vice-versa. I expect it will take them 400 years to admit that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.
In the meantime, the rest of the world will simply shrug their shoulders at their foolishness . . .

[Logan13]

I'll use your logic then. Homosexuality offends me. It offends my beliefs. I feel it is important for society to have "morals". "hate speech" is outlawed, only because it "offends" certain segments of society. Whats the difference? If words can be banned because they may offend, why not banning certain behaviors that offend? Should only certain citizens be protected from being offended?

The gay movement wants to say their sexual pref. is personal, and should not be legislated against. Well I say fine...keep it out of schools and the workplace and the law books...completely. Just as religion is personal, and it is kept out of the schools and workplace and is not legislated.

Very good points!!

[Logan13]

Well, it took the Vatican about 400 years to acknowledge that the planet earth orbits the Sun, and not vice-versa. I expect it will take them 400 years to admit that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.
In the meantime, the rest of the world will simply shrug their shoulders at their foolishness . . .

The gay rights movement is not important to everyone, mostly just the gays. Why do you insist on comparing it to issues of such real importance? They are no where near as valid in the grand scheme of things...........

[Tock]

The gay rights movement is not important to everyone, mostly just the gays. Why do you insist on comparing it to issues of such real importance? They are no where near as valid in the grand scheme of things...........

Religious freedom and equality for Jewish people is not important to everyone, either, mostly just the Jews. Why bother compare this to other issues of real importance?

I'll let you figure this one out on your own . . .

[Tock]

Originally Posted by Teabagger
The gay movement wants to say their sexual pref. is personal, and should not be legislated against. Well I say fine...keep it out of schools and the workplace and the law books...completely. Just as religion is personal, and it is kept out of the schools and workplace and is not legislated.

Very good points!!

Huh . . . let's allow only heterosexuals to show their sexual orientation in schools and the workplace, but not gays? Is that what you're saying?

Maybe this sounds fair and reasonable to you, but it doesn't seem fair or reasonable to a growing number of folks. Something tells me you'll be the last fellow on this planet to wise up . . .

Oh well . . .

[Teabagger]

Originally Posted by Teabagger
The gay movement wants to say their sexual pref. is personal, and should not be legislated against. Well I say fine...keep it out of schools and the workplace and the law books...completely. Just as religion is personal, and it is kept out of the schools and workplace and is not legislated.


Huh . . . let's allow only heterosexuals to show their sexual orientation in schools and the workplace, but not gays? Is that what you're saying?

Maybe this sounds fair and reasonable to you, but it doesn't seem fair or reasonable to a growing number of folks. Something tells me you'll be the last fellow on this planet to wise up . . .

Oh well . . .

You damn right I don't want the "gay-blades" club at a high school my tax dollars support. I don't see any "breeder" clubs at schools...and this you can be sure of. Just as I said the protests by illegals would backfire and there would be a backlash...the same is about to happen with the gay movement. Its not important to most people...just annoying...

[Logan13]

Religious freedom and equality for Jewish people is not important to everyone, either, mostly just the Jews. Why bother compare this to other issues of real importance?

I'll let you figure this one out on your own . . .

Thanks for "letting" me figure it out.

Unfortunately, you keep doing the same thing over and over again in your efforts to equate gay equal rights to matters of actual importance. News flash, there are far more religious people in this world than there are gay people. Nobody gives a shit about how you conduct yourself in the bedroom, we just do not care to hear about it. There must be more to you than just homosexuality and your hatred of religion because you are a homosexual......

[Tock]

Nobody gives a shit about how you conduct yourself in the bedroom,

Oddly enough, quite a few folks find the topic rather fascinating, as well as useful.
Politicians keep bringing the topic up as a way to motivate conservative voters to vote for Republicans.
Preachers focus on the small % of the population that is gay, so they can preach against sin without stepping on toes of anyone in their congregation. Ya, and gays make excellent scapegoats, too.
And there's a considerable effort underway to change the US Constitution so that gay relationships don't get legal status.
I don't know how you can say nobody cares about gays . . . maybe you're smoking something . . .

we just do not care to hear about it.

"We?" You and who else? Or do you presume to speak for every other American other than you and I? Or are you speaking for yourself and perhaps one or two other chronically irritable omniscients?

There must be more to you than just homosexuality and your hatred of religion because you are a homosexual......

Nope, that's all there is. Just homosexuality and my hatred of religion. There's nothing else whatsoever.
So what do you think of that?

[Tock]

You damn right I don't want the "gay-blades" club at a high school my tax dollars support. I don't see any "breeder" clubs at schools...and this you can be sure of.

Just as a FYI . . .
Christian Bible clubs were banned at public schools until Congress passed a law saying that if a public school wanted any federal funding, it would have to comply with this rule regarding after-school clubs: If a school allowed any after school clubs at all, it would have to allow every after school club.
Some school districts have eliminated all their clubs because they didn't want any "gay-straight alliance clubs."
Fine. If that's what the folks at the local level are happy with, fine. Else, they can elect new officials.

From what I understand, about 10% of the school districts in the US have gay-straight alliances. Those districts probably also have after-school Bible clubs, too. The way the laws are written now, if you want to ban one group, you're gonna end up eliminating all of them.

Just fyi . . .

[Logan13]

Oddly enough, quite a few folks find the topic rather fascinating, as well as useful. Useful? Come on man! It is like watching Jerry Springer, people can't help but watch
Politicians keep bringing the topic up as a way to motivate conservative voters to vote for Republicans. The harder that you push, the more fuel you add to this fire. The votes are in on this topic, the people have spoken in at least 27 states. Would you deny the will of the people?Preachers focus on the small % of the population that is gay, so they can preach against sin without stepping on toes of anyone in their congregation. Ya, and gays make excellent scapegoats, too. This small % wants the majority to bend their cultural valuesAs good of a scapegoat as Christians?And there's a considerable effort underway to change the US Constitution so that gay relationships don't get legal status.
You mean that we are trying to repeal the right for homosexuals to marry? Sorry but this, as you know, is not in the Constitution. It is you who is trying to change the concept of marriage.
I don't know how you can say nobody cares about gays . . . maybe you're smoking something . . .Nobody cares about gays, except gays.

"We?" You and who else? Or do you presume to speak for every other American other than you and I? Or are you speaking for yourself and perhaps one or two other chronically irritable omniscients?
I speak for the previously silent Majority.

Nope, that's all there is. Just homosexuality and my hatred of religion. There's nothing else whatsoever.
So what do you think of that?

This was a rhetorical question. I have obviously figured that out.