Catholics admit: we still can't stop thinking about sex all the time...

[acroyear]

Catholic bishops tell gays to remain celibate - Yahoo! News:

BALTIMORE (Reuters) - U.S. Catholic bishops said on Tuesday that gay men and women should be welcomed in the church but that those who engage in homosexual activity should not receive Communion.
ADVERTISEMENT

Guidelines adopted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops encouraged gays and lesbians to participate in the church, while reaffirming long-standing church doctrine that same-sex activity, as with any extramarital sex, is inherently sinful.

"Because homosexual acts cannot fulfill the natural end of human sexuality they are never morally acceptable," said Bishop Arthur Serratelli, who headed the committee that crafted the guidelines. "Such act furthermore do not lead to true human happiness."

What's next? "Bishops tell Catholic politicians to actually tell the truth!"

Courtesy of the Onion in a future issue, I'm sure.

Seriously, once again, American right-wing nutcases have decided that sex is sin and bad and evil if used for any reason other than procreation, which actually is AGAINST what Jesus said. More importantly, they have decided that it's the only sin that matters. You can lie, you can kill, you can steal, and not be necessarily refused at the table, but sex?

Gee, guys, obsess much?

Comments

[katrinb.livejournal.com]

What did Jesus say about sex and procreation? I don't really remember anything offhand. But then, I'm no expert.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

the issue is there isn't really anything specific. it's all a matter of interpretation from 1) his example in dealing with Mary, 2) the brief mention of divorce in the Sermon on the Mount, and 3) the rare one-liner.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sex_jesu.htm seems to be a good start.

[katrinb.livejournal.com]

1) assumes that Mary was a sexual sinner, though, as tradition suggests, rather than a madwoman, which is more likely from the actual text.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

the majority of the "anti-sex" attitude came from Paul's epistles (mostly to Romans and Hebrews - to more reasonable folks like in Corinthians and Galacians (celts in modern turkey, mind you) he was less critical of woman's roles and rights. one of these days i'll make a project of looking specifically at when Paul contradicts himself in his letters.

[katrinb.livejournal.com]

And what of that is generally considered to be pseudo-Paul? I seem to recall that Timothy, at least, is often attributed to a later writer writing in Paul's name to give himself authority.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

i'm only remembering my impressions. i don't have time to look up the details again.

at the very least if you're looking for an argument that catholic dogma in this case is supported by new testimate, well, i haven't got one and it's highly likely it isn't supported by the bible at all aside from jesus's anti-divorce clause.

i firmly am of the opinion catholic dogma has simply been "afraid of sex" for centuries strictly for social reasons having nothing to do with actual articles of faith. you would probably have to go to early church writers like augustine to try to see how they derived that attitude from Word into Dogma.

[katrinb.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not looking for support for Catholic dogma at all. Why would _I_, of all people?
Personally, I doubt Jesus spent much time at all on sexual sins - a focus on purity laws doesn't seem like him to me. And I think a lot of "Paul's" anti-woman, anti-sex text came later, and was part of the church becoming more hierarchical, established, orderly and "respectable."

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

Jesus doesn't like teh sexxy. Jesus just hangs out with the harlots and talks about harp music and investment portfolios.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

Me, I'm wondering what bar they're hanging out at in town...

[motherwell.livejournal.com]

All I can say about this is that what little the Bible says about homosexuality doesn't exactly make for a clear Scriptural case against it. There's no Commandment against it, Jesus himself never mentions it, Leviticus is full of laws we ignore at will today, and the bit in Romans doesn't actually say it's bad -- it just mentions it as an example of general derangement while talking about something else entirely. If homosexuality is a "sin," it's not one worth mentioning at the highest levels. Whatever Jesus thinks of gays is nowhere near as clear as what he thinks of, say, treating others as we would like to be treated, helping the less fortunate, forgiving our enemies, and not bearing false witness against our neighbors.

This whole anti-gay thing is nothing but an orgy of scapegoating, digging up scraps of Scripture to excuse it. It's no more justified in Scripture than slavery or flat-Earthism.

[scaleslea.livejournal.com]

So let me get this stright (rimshot). Homosexuals are encouraged to participate in the Catholic Church. If they're chaste, then they can take communion, but if they have same gender sex then they've sinned and will be denied communion.

But isn't the job of the Catholic Church to allow people to find forgiveness for their sins? Are gays who continue to have sex any less deserving of forgiveness than an alcoholic who won't stop drinking, but regularly confesses and takes mass?

What's that I smell? Oh, it's flaming hypocracy.

Doc