I don't know that this is news, and well, I have often spoken about polarization, which is an unfortunate product of our current society that keeps different groups of people from dialogue. I am curious however where this leaves non-Catholic and non-Christian homosexuals? What of those who do want to spend the rest of their lives together, be married, and even having sex? The rest of us should not be subjected to be forced to recognize one type of religious law; especially considering that there are religions and even traditions where this is not seen as a betrayal of God's law.

There really is a lot more I can say to criticize the video, but I think to avoid loads of responses and turning this into an angry debate between several users, I think I would prefer to tell you privately if you'd like to chat about it at some point, since I know you and me can have a civilized discussion about it.

We can agree that, coming from the perspective of the Church as merely one of many religions, the disciplines and dogma of the Church is no more binding on non-Christians than Sharia Law is on Christians. However, taken from the perspective of Catholic Church having had the Truth revealed to her, and the Natural Law being reasonable via philosophy, the Natural Moral law is binding to all men. As far as the secular person with same-sex attraction goes, they have a duty to seek the Truth, and the Truth is binding to them.

Feel free to PM me, and we can continue this discussion there. You know you're always welcome to do so.

(repost because I royally effed up the grammar in my previous comment)

Yes we will chat, and I think skype might be easier for that, but I will just make one last point. I did not call for the idea that another belief system take over the law of all; what I refer to is, religious practice of other belief systems, especially of those who's practices include the celebration of having a certain gender identity or attraction, should be allowed to practice their religious beliefs and ceremonies as well, without the law of another group of people imposing restrictions on beliefs they hold dear. At no point would I demand another religion start performing such things, but those who do should have the freedom to do so. With that said, the video you linked was good in showing what Catholicism really thinks of homosexuality, but again, it really is nothing more than a clarification and doesn't mean much more to those who do not already believe in Catholicism to be the absolute truth.

-Juniper 'Stands Firm'

Ok being an ex-Catholic I admit I have bias against the church, so I often refrain from commenting but...I feel I need to say something here, from this, its more or less saying the same thing that traditional Muslims and Christians have said, and I would think this doesn't qualify as a "third way", as to me being condemned to celibacy seems like a terrible fate, since well I honestly see no value in celibacy to be honest(I'd rather be neutered and get rid of the sexual urge than to deal with having to not have any sexual outlet at all), I find it unnatural since well we're sexual beings and caging up and surpressing one's sexuality cannot be healthy, like when Muslims first started fasting Ramadan, some of them mistaken they can't have sex for 30 days and some couldn't handle it and went to Muhammad about it and there was a revelation in response saying they can approach their wives after fasting during the day from food,drink and sex, so in a sense it sees sex and affection as a need almost like hunger and thirst, so with marriage, sex is not soley for procreation and its not obligatory, once a fundie Catholic told me in my face that I'm just as sinful as gay couples cause I want to get married but not have children(traditional Islam has been fine with contraception as well) which is consistent if the church considers any sex outside of procreation as sinful, but with Islam and Protestant Christianity in some aspects, that sex is more than that, it expresses affection and love and increases the bond between two spouses/mates, sex is natural and good part of life and like it or not most sex in the now and the future is going to be non-procreative, simply because we have 7 billion people on this planet and counting, we need to slow down cause its causing more strain on the Earth's limited resources, that's the reality, I think we'll level off around 2045-2050(according to the Economist) at around 9 billion people and the birthrate would hover around 2.1 per female which is the magic number for the replacement rate.

Sorry to go on a tangent but in regards to homosexuality, traditionally the Abrahamic religions in general have been against homosexual acts, in Islam is no exception, with Ibn Hazm, a 12th century Spanish Muslim scholar he said “Love is neither disapproved by Religion, nor prohibited by the Law; for every heart is in God’s hands." To him in his interpretation of the Qur'an, the Qur'an was ambigious on the subject(the story of Lot doesn't count, it had nothing to do with committed relationships it was gang rape), and Hadiths that do say things against it were inauthentic(he was mostly right from my own research), so to him the only real reason it would be sinful is because they don't have a legal contract(ie, a marriage contract, Islam sees marriage as a social contract rather than holy matrimony, Islam permits divorce as a last resort its something one shouldn't do without a damn good reason and without having to try everything else to save the marriage, but its not sinful), but either way its the same fate for many Muslim gays in the traditional sense as for Catholics. Its really for straight people they have to wait till marriage for lawful sex, but for gays? Wait to die. Because they argue they're not asked to do anything else that's different than what is asked from straight people that is abstaining from sex outside of marriage but...straight people have the priviledge to have an outlet, which is through marriage, but its barred from gay people but then again, the church is against sex outside of procreation so sex for straight couples is heavily restrictive as it is. But anyway I argued against the tradition part of my own faith on this as well in them asking for gay people to be celibate. One guy did a good argument against this idea since for Muslims it would be inconsistent since they're asking Muslim gays for something they wouldn't do themselves(Imams can marry and have kids if they want like Pastors in Protestant Christianity.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/junaid.....b_1967714.html

So one solution is a third way between celibacy and promiscuity which are not healthy, there is marriage and several liberal Muslim scholars have argued, which gay people can get married and be loving and committed to each other which can and does happen, it can be just as good as between straight couples, the only thing is no procreation involved but then again if I were to be married to a woman I wouldn't be procreating neither so I'm just as bad :P cause I don't like kids, I don't get along with them there's enough people in the world where I can make that choice, people want to love and be loved and I support this though I go against the majority in my community I don't think its a sin from research and my reading, to me God prohibits what is harmful to us physically,mentally and/or spiritually and what's harmful to others, so if it doesn't fit any of those categories I find it hard to justify it being wrong, Scott Kugle, another Muslim scholar makes his argument here: http://mpvusa.org/sexuality-diversity/

Mind you pro-LGBT interpretations happen in all three Abrahamic religions and liberal Catholics too, I know couple who are in that category. So yeah hopefully I wasn't too long winded but I'm sorry if offended in anyway, I'm just getting this off my chest and being honest about it but we're two different faiths with two different moral laws so...I really shouldn't worry about this cause Catholic moral law doesn't apply to me and Islamic moral law doesn't apply to you, so if people feel that this is the right thing to do so be it it's fundamentally an individual choice.

Good to hear from you again, it's been too long. I can see your concern, especially as an APOSTATE. However, I want to point out that the video is not offering an alternative to Catholic teaching. It's, as Juniper said above, re-presenting Catholic teaching and what it calls on folks to do. It's a third way between the ham-fisted attacks on homosexuals such as how WBC handles things, and the permissive 'do what you will' approach that looks like it's all daisies and puppies, but is actually consigning people to hell. This offers a way for Catholics who have sincere homosexual tendencies, and for those who love them, to be faithful to the Church (which means, faithful to God) in a way that doesn't deny their attractions, but supports them through their difficulties in dealing with such in a moral way.

There are a few tangents in your post, which I hope to deal with. If I miss something, let me know.

There's a pernicious myth about the Church that sex is only for procreation. You display that myth readily. To be succinct, sex is a natural and wonderful expression of married love, a holy thing in that it was created by God for His good purposes. Sex must be life-giving (meaning being OPEN to the creation of life) and also a means of uniting the spouses. Just as sex without unity is wrong, so is sex that intentionally or categorically excludes the chance of having children. To illustrate the error, your perception of the Church's teachings say that Catholics cannot rightly have sex unless they intend to have children. In fact, the teaching allows for people to postpone (with due reason and prayerful discernment) pregnancy using the natural fertility rhythms of the woman while still having sex. A good resource for learning this is the Couple to Couple league, which is where my wife and I learned the techniques.

Another myth is overpopulation. If you do the math, the entire human race could fit in the state of Texas with at least 1000 square feet per person. The issue is not overpopulation, but highly concentrated population without proper distribution of resources. In addition, 1st world countries are having a population crisis. They're not reproducing fast enough to replace themselves, which leads to tensions with growing immigrant populations who are reproducing at a much faster rate. Contraception has this effect.

Yet another myth is the necessity of physical acts of sex. Islam seems to treat men, often enough, as if their sexual tendencies are uncontrollable. They NEED an outlet. They are not to blame if women TEMPT THEM to rape. This kind of thinking is rather unthinkable in the Christian world, where we have many many examples (the saints) of men who have either lived chaste lives (St. Thomas) or have even converted from promiscuous lifestyles (St. Augustine), choosing and living very holy and healthy celibate lives. A few more examples are St. Joan of Arc, St. Francis of Assisi, St. John-Paul II, Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassatti... There are thousands and thousands of priests, nuns, monks, and lay celibates who live happy and healthy lives. There are many, many historical examples that show that those who wait until marriage for sex are not burdened by the celibacy, but are better off for it. This is a myth that enslaves too many people, and I wish it would be dropped.

The idea that same-sex love requires carnal expression or even eros (sexual love) is also rather silly. David and Johnathan are a prime example. The Scriptures do not mention sexual love, but they say that the love between the two was greater than David's "love for women". Whatever love they had, it was not sexual, and was indeed greater than his sexual love for women. The love can be seen in retrospect as that of philia (friendship) and agape (charity). We can also see this as silly if we look at infidelity. Infidelity stereotypically happens when one or both spouses lose eros with each other (it is a fickle thing that comes and goes) and one spouse or another feels eros for someone outside the marriage. They then either divorce or cheat on their spouse, entering into infidelity either way. Yet often enough this too fades, and the unfaithful spouse realizes they're not happy, breaks the faith of this second union, and then becomes a serial divorcee. By that we can see that eros itself should not be the determinant of what is good or evil, what is permissible or not. Eros is a thing cultivated, a thing done, not an irresistible, infallible force. It often causes us to do things we don't understand the consequences of, things that seem immediately to be the right thing but actually hurt yourself and others, even in subtle ways.

The last thing is that liberal theology doesn't hold much sway to me. I don't care which religion it comes from, the important thing to me is that the teaching must be in accord with right reason, the revelation of God, and the authority which God has set in place. History has shown me that the revelation of God and the authority of God has been vested in the Catholic Church. The fact that other people do things which are contrary to the Church doesn't mean a thing except that they do something other than what the Church teaches. This applies to Muhammad, who created his religion from Nestorianism and local pagan practices, and it applies to the quoted imams and protestant reformers in equal measure. It doesn't convince me, even if the entire world contradicted the Church's teaching. The thing that matters to me is what is true. Try to convince me of the truth, don't try to convince me that everyone else is doing it. You can find a church that will support ANYTHING, and in Islam and Protestantism you can always found your own if you don't find one you like.

Nothing you've said has offended me, you really haven't ever offended me. I'm grateful for the long post, requires me to think through it. Come around more often!

Oh thanks for replying with my post, with the first point, you talk about postponing having children is okay, but...that's still saying you must have children sooner or later in order for sex to be permissable whereas a heterosexual couple that is married, who do not intend on having children would be considered sinful especially if using contraception, I'm familar with Thomas Acquinas' Natural Law which I disagree with in a number of ways, but to me yes sex that excludes the chance of procreation in the Catholic church is considered sinful, I mean just saying that oh having married sex is fine as long as you don't use a condom is still kinda the same thing, its like that notion that in that video that oh everyone is to be chaste till they're married and we're not asking gay people for more, its still the case though cause, straight people have the option to be married eventually and fulfill their sexual needs, gay people don't have that option according to this theology therefore yes you are asking them for more.

According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs(learned it in marriage and family class in sociology), sex is a necessity for a balanced life, we're part of the animal kingdom pretty much share with other mammals in having similar needs and wants: air,water,food,safety,social interaction and sex, having a significant other is necessary for a balanced life, to me celibacy is simply unnecessary to get closer to God, I always been puzzled by the idea if you deprive yourself more you're closer to God, to me having a mate, and being fulfilled actually helps you get closer to God and completes you, sexuality and having a mate does not get in the way of your spiritual attainment its part of it and its natural.

In the end if someone willingly wants to be celibate, sure they can do it if they want to, they have the freedom to do so, but its not necessary for spiritual attainment in my opinion, its like spiritual veganism, sure you can do that if you want to but not necessary.


With human overpopulation, yes the food we produce from agriculture we can feed like...11 billion people, but its distributed quite poorly with 1 billion not eating enough, yes we do have the space, but human beings do more than eat and take up space, especially in the West we take up A LOT of the Earth's resources(The US has 5% of the world's population taking up 25% of the Earth's resources), and in developing countries, they're starting to climb in how many resources they're taking up and that is the biggest concern, this kinda explains it quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD-yN2G5BY0

With Islam and sex well traditional interpretations of religions did and often still do favor men*which I think can and should change), but the way I look at it its for both male and female since well and Islam does not view sex drive as uncontrollable in fact he Qur'an does say to be modest and lower your gaze, and that one should not have sexual intercourse outside of marriage(in regards to self help till they get married both male and female so to speak, Muslim scholars are divided on it, I don't see the big deal honestly), and also rape is rape, it is extremely harmful to the victim and its a grave sin through and through, not just Muslim but many patriarchal societies have this habit of blaming women for being raped instead of punishing the perpetrators, rape is bad full stop and causes enormous trauma as well.

With any romantic relationship, gay or straight, sex is an important part of bonding I keep having this feeling that some people view sex as this dirty thing that's only necessary to have kids sooner or later, where really it does a lot more than that and done moderately is very healthy to do(though promiscuity is extremely unhealthy), though the Church of Finland for example summed it up quite well in terms of sexual intercourse: "Sexuality disconnected from love and from responsibility enslaves people, bringing harm to themselves and others."Sex is great but it requires responsibility since you're dealing with another person, so promiscuity is not good for people cause simply too much of anything is bad for you. Usually the reason why people cheat can be a number of factors for different reasons, but adultery is wrong simply cause its breaking a trust and not communicating and not tending to the other's needs, for divorce I think its a last resort sorta thing if recounciliation or anything else didn't work out, sometimes divorce happens, I would say it should be discouraged and that people should communicate more with each other but if it must be done there should be a door for that.

Well the last part was expected, though historically when Islam first appeared yes the church did see them as a heretical sect but aww well, I don't agree with the church because of several things but won't talk about it in this post because its not related to the subject matter, with Islam I feel I take the responsibility to engage with the scripture myself, but also I do read on what scholars have to say, but read the sources myself, since one big flaw of a centralized religious institution is that well they tend to be controlling, I tend not trust religious institutions in general its why I'm more of a Sufi more than anything and like to keep my own autonomy, I'll face God and take responsibility for what I did myself.

I appreciate your thinking through this critically, but the key it not that eventually children have to come. The couple must be open to life, and that means that IF God were to prompt them to have children (as He prompted my wife and I to have a child) or IF they discover they're pregnant, they have to be willing to say yes. Also, they can't be postponing the having of children for selfish or frivolous reasons. If there are serious considerations (such as the health of the spouse, a real inability to care for more children, dangerous or unstable circumstances for a child, etc.) then they may prayerfully discern not to have children at this time, and so long as said circumstances continue that discernment may be indefinite without risk of sin. It would be silly if it's a matter of "one must have children sooner or later", because then we'd have infertile married couples committing sin because of circumstances beyond their control.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs does not say sex is necessary, even assuming (which I would disagree with) that it was valid. The actual 'need' he cites is 'sexual intimacy', which can be achieved in any sexual state of life. When I say 'sexual state of life', I mean one of four different and related things: chastity, virginity, continence, and celibacy. Chastity is a comprehensive term that designates all well-ordered sexual relations. A man can be chaste whether he's married or no, virgin or no. It's a habit, a virtue, of approaching sexuality appropriately compared to your state in life. Virginity, itself, is not the absence of sexuality or even sexual intimacy, but is merely the chaste approach to being unmarried. One can be fully male, act and react appropriately to men and women, encourage men to be men and women to be women, and be sexually (even if it's not physically) intimate with both while still remaining a virgin. This is because sexual intimacy requires neither eros nor erotic acts, but is brought about by the interplay of our sexual (gendered, if you prefer) natures. Male and female He created them, and this effects how we treat each other. Continence is the practice, temporary or permanent, by which one forgoes sexual intercourse. Celibacy is a state of life, with equal validity and health, where one chooses to forgo eros and live a continent and chaste life. The celibate choice is usually, in the Catholic tradition, marked by anointing to Holy Orders or a profession of vows in the religious life, and usually a permanent thing. It may not be if no such vow to celibacy has taken place, and later the Christian discerns that God desires them to marry.

As far as homosexuals and continence goes, it's a matter of doing all you can within the will of God. God wills, and only speaks of, marriage as between man and woman. God also intends marriage to be the only place in which sexual intercourse takes place. God does call some people to be celibate, and calls others to marriage. It doesn't matter if they're homosexual or straight. It's a matter of God's will, not 'what's comfortable', or even entirely a matter of our will. Our will only really decides whether or not to make God our God and obey him out of love, or to make something else (like homosexuality, ourselves, or sex) our god and interpret everything in light of that lesser good. The decision to love God above all things is never easy, but it is necessary for a good life and to attain heaven.

Your argument isn't convincing me that overpopulation is an issue, you pretty much just conceded that it's a matter of resource redistribution, which is entirely possible. You also never established a necessary link between this issue and either contraception OR homosexuality. So I'm not sure if there's a lot of fruit discussing the overpopulation myth.

I agree that Islam favors men over women. If you try to apply that to Catholicism I would have to disagree strongly. The only perfect human being (that wasn't God Himself) was the Blessed Virgin Mary, sinless and entire, who lived the fullest life (the one most in tune with God and His holy will) of any creature in creation. We may honor (dulia) the saints, holy men and women alike, and we may honor the Catholic Hierarchy, but we give the greatest honor due to a non-God (hyperdulia) to Mary, Mother of All Christians, Mother of Mercy, Mother of God, Virgin Most Pure, and her titles are endless. The greatest burden in marriage according to the Catholic Church is on men. No matter what the woman does, if she cheats, if she becomes a shrew, if she's overly burdensome with housework, if she lounges around, if she does not love her husband, if she does not obey him, the man MUST still love her. Not only love her, but love her as Christ loves His Church, that includes acting as her servant (like Christ washed the feet of the Apostles) and dying for her (both internally and physically) as is called for. The woman has no such burden, not specifically to her husband at least. Also, I am glad that you see that rape is rape, but Islam as a whole does not. Sharia law is constructed so that more often it is the victim of rape punished, not the perpetrator, all based on Islamic principles and values.

In regards to the next point, accusing Catholicism of being puritanical about sex is rather silly. Perhaps American Culture, having been influenced heavily by the Puritans, is to blame for a modernistic and puritanical tendency among American Catholics, but you can read St. JP II's writings on the Theology of the Body to see that Catholics consider sex to be a beautiful and wonderful thing... given temperance and the proper approach to it. And as far as divorce goes, I will simply say "what God has joined together, let no man separate." While this comes from the Gospels, not the Quran, the Quran does validate the Gospel, saying that every Muslim should believe in what the scriptures of the Christians teaches.

My argument against Islam, ultimately, is not one of my dogma vs. yours. It's a historical one. I'd be happy to start a new journal and discuss the historical reality of Islam, and of the Catholic Church, if you're interested. But you're right, this thread of the conversation is starting to get twisted away from the matter at hand.

Your answer about always being open to having kids I find....flawed, to me just praying that one doesn't get pregnant is not enough, there's a saying "trust in God but tie your camel too" that is prayer alone won't do much, it has to be with action, but yes I'm also puzzled that if you have an infertile couple marry knowing that their marriage would not be open to procreation that its not sinful for them cause its beyond their control so why is gay couples so bad then? It's out of their control they don't have the equipment to procreate, both are not open to creating life, one may have a rifle, but no ammunition in it. An infertile couple has no intention of having children, so why are they not sinful? I mean this sounds its beyond procreation but really just emphasizing on coitus, that for some reason if a male has a climax outside of anything but the vagina of his wife it's considered wrong, which is just strange to me, I'm just thinking if one has sex that procreation is not intended or even possible, than it should be wrong for consistency otherwise you would have to admit that even though procreation IS a purpose of sex, it is not the SOLE purpose of it(which scientifically you can see it in nature, if you want I got plenty of info on that), and preferring not to have children is not wrong, I dunno why the idea of having sex for the purpose of satisfying and bonding with your spouse is such a bad thing, expressing the love you have the person, some may argue but you don't need to do that, well...you don't need to be celibate either, I don't see it as selfish to choose not to have children cause I think having children is not everyone and people are sexual beings and to say that they cannot have sexual intimacy because they do not want to deal with children I find extremely restrictive view of sex.

Also the definition of sexual intimacy is: "Human sexual activity, or human sexual practice or human sexual behavior, is the manner in which humans experience and express their sexuality." Just saying, I honestly don't see the use of being chaste when you're married, For my celibacy is going against our biological programming, we're designed to have sex , for example if a male doesn't ejaculate within 2-3 weeks or so they get a wet dream, basically expelling old sperm and replacing it with new ones and also making sure the plumbing is working, or consider the clitoris, it's soley there for pleasure really, it has no real function towards procreation other than making sex pleasurable.

With your third argument it's nothing new, traditional Christians,Muslims and Jews all say the same thing, your orientation is fine but don't act on it, Ibn Hazm for example a 12th century Spanish Muslim scholar cited that the Qur'an is ambigious on it(I don't and he didn't count the story of Lot), and the hadiths that spoke on it are inauthentic(which turned out to be true), so the only reason why he was against is cause there was no marriage contract involved, that's it, and that if one who is gay remains chaste, when he dies he's a martyr(martyrdom in Islam is much wider than what a lot of people think), so for liberal Muslims today, it's a just a matter of justifying marriage for same sex couples.

As far as the overpopulation thing is, I forgot to address the issue of sub-replacement fertility which to me blaming soley contraception is leaving out a lot of factors,which are not limited to more access to literacy and education especially higher education, which leads to many either postponing having kids or having fewer kids or none at all,and economic development which in our economy, it is expensive to have a lot of children since you need living space(not to mention having one breadwinner is also very expensive and both parents often have to work), paying for their college education and things like that which coincides with urbanization which since property prices are higher in cities it also leads to less children, contraception really is only a SMALL factor about the lowered fertility rate(according to this study contraception has not been a major factor in lowering fertility rates in Europe http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/6/590_ ),another reason why fertility is lower is in the West is female social role has changed, women are no longer brood mares where their value is solely on motherhood but for their merits in what they can contribute to society through their hard work like men, another factor is partnership instability, including the increase of cohabitation without marriage which because they are not exactly fully committed many seem hesistant to have children, you can also argue less religiosity as also a factor but I would think of it as a minor factor(France is very irrelegious yet have more kids than the rest of Western Europe which is near replacement rate around the same as ours).

As far as your comments on Islam and women, I was mentioning ALL traditional interpretations of religions especially the Abrahamic ones, favored men, but...a lot of that has changed now, but then for Islam and women what you said I also disagree strongly, the Qur'an is pretty clear that for example it does point out that women should not be forced into prostitution and the like, which means their will matters, and rape is clearly wrong, the way sharia is today, is often influenced by Wahabism which is a slap in the face of tradition, and it's a neo-Kharijite, extremist movement so I don't consider their opinions valid, anyway, as far as rape goes, it is wrong full stop the idea of punishing the rape victim is mainly a symptom of patriarchy, which this problem occurs in ALL patriarchal cultures, in India, same thing often happens and they're predominately Hindu, it happens in Latin America who are predominately Catholic, I think it's from patriarchy under the guise of religion more than anything else. To me it's completely ridiculous to say that Islam allows rape, as far as I can tell absolutely not, saying that a rape victim needs witnesses to prove of her innocence is not in the Qur'an in fact if people accuse a woman of adultery they either produce their four honest witnesses or get lashed 80 times, slander is nearly as bad as adultery itself(which stoning is not in the Qur'an either but a borrowed Jewish custom historically). One thing about Catholicism I often ask is, why can't women be preists or popes? Why does their gender stop them from attaining the highest rank in Catholicism? They are two approaches to gender roles that is between complementarism and egalitarianism and me I believe in egalitarianism, which I think a woman can be a preist, a pope, a rabbi, a pastor, an imam whatever(in fact Al-Tabari, Ibn Rushd and several others would agree with me).

With the last point, I think restricting sex to just coitus is rather conservative compared to the variety of sex out there just saying, but I digress, we drifted from the original intent of the conversation, though to me debating the history of Islam and Catholicism with our biases towards each other's faiths I think would be fruitless, so I would avoid conflict I think, cause I disagree with Catholicism, you disagree with Islam so I don't think our minds would be changed any time soon.

So this video is basically calling for celibacy. Well, I'm glad the Church seems to acknowledge that sexual orientation isn't a choice but it still doesn't seem to really grasp the logical implications of that.

I would really like someone to provide a rational case for forced celibacy and why a truly rational, good, and loving God would burden such people with such self-denial that often leads to misery and a spiritually fruitless life? Why would God create people who have such an "objectively disordered" sexual orientation to begin with? And yes, I say that God created them that way because any factor in life that is not the result of free will is ultimately determined by God given his sovereignty over the universe. Why would God create a universe where homosexuality naturally occurs? If God is to call someone to such severe self-denial and suffering, then there has to be a morally sufficient reason for doing so, otherwise God is making a decree that is arbitrary and cruel. I have yet to hear anyone produce a good reason for why homosexuality should be absolutely forbidden in all forms and all situations.

Moreover, equating single straight people with homosexuals is deceptive and misleading. Single people are not barred permanently from having sex, even on Catholic terms, since they can get married at some point. But gay people are permanently barred from sex so there is a categorical difference.

Lastly, the Catholic Church's teaching on celibacy is not biblical. Scripture refers to celibacy as a spiritual gift given to a select view individuals for a special purpose. Most people need sexual fulfillment and thus need to get married. Even Paul, who was himself celibate, said this. There is certainly no teaching that says church leadership must be celibate either.

Yes, though celibacy that's part of and made meaningful by a much grander worldview. You're saying no to a disordered affection for the sake of submission to the will of God, which is what is truly needed for happiness and fulfillment in this world and the next.

There's a few things to point out about your post. First, the Church never forces celibacy. In the case of priests and other religious, they are drawn from those who discern that celibacy is what God wills for them. That decision is discerned between them and God, and it opens up options. It's not even the case that in order to be a Catholic priest you have to be celibate. Eastern Rite and Marionite Rite Catholics have married priests, much like the Orthodox Church. The Latin rite merely has a discipline that it only draws priests from celibate men. With same sex attraction, the teaching that homosexuality is a disordered affection is clear, so we offer celibacy as a means by which they need not deny their affection, but do not do or promote that which is gravely sinful. We love them enough to understand what they're going through and to keep them from sin.

Now, as to why men suffer, which is really the question you're asking if you're wondering how we can justify this. We have to recognize, first off, that we do not have the Divine Perspective, so we can't really know what God's thinking when he allows us to suffer. We can, however, trust in God Himself, knowing that God is love, and that He orders all things for the good of those who love Him. As you've shown, we can reason that he does give us things that cause us to suffer. It is also worth noting that God never gives up on anyone until that soul chooses final impenitence, dies, and sinks to Hell. From the perspective of knowing that God is loving, and knowing from Christ that He is Our Father, and also that Christ the God who came down and suffered with us as both savior from evil and as example of the Good Man, we can see clearly that the suffering that God allows can have many good purposes. He may chastise us with suffering, as any good father would discipline a wayward child. He may humble us with suffering, so we don't become complacent or prideful. He may allow (or give) suffering as a call to something greater. He may ask us to suffer so that we may accomplish a definite work in His name. There are many reasons why God may allow and give suffering (even self-denial) out of love. Thus I see no problem by saying that God gave people a trial in the form of a disordered attraction, expecting them to trust and rely on Him, for their good and the good of the world. We can in fact see that this sort of thing happens all the time. Not all people have perfect, healthy bodies, or minds, yet people with Down's syndrome and physical disabilities are often some of the most humble, loving, satisfied people I know. I can think of many holy men and women who were so despite (or maybe even because) of suffering God gave them. Mother Theresa suffered internally because she felt distant from God, and she struggled with it most of her life. We can guess that God didn't give the consolations she desired in order to keep her searching for Him in the midst of a storm of celebrity and worldwide acclaim that could have turned her prideful. St. John-Paul II suffered greatly and publicly as a witness to the dignity of man even when age and dementia take their toll. These are two examples (of the many among the saints) who were both celibate and extremely fruitful, both spiritually and in the physical acts of mercy which Catholics cherish and give abundantly. Other examples are St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine after his conversion, Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassatti, the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joseph her spouse, and I could go on with examples from every age of the Church.

As far as if celibacy is Biblical or not, the Bible is our book. It came from us, and we know it well enough. St. Paul, as you mentioned, said that anyone who can accept celibacy should. If they cannot, they should be married. This means celibacy has fruits in the Christian life, at the very least. The Church, however, has never claimed to be limited by the Bible, since the Bible came after the Church. The Church discerns with God, as each individual person discerns with God, and will discipline itself as it is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church recognizes both that, even strictly Biblically speaking, homosexuality is a disordered passion, the acts arising from it a grave sin. Philosophically, it also sees much reason in nature to support this. Finally, it has been given the Fullness of the Truth through the Holy Spirit as was promised by Christ. That was fulfilled in the Apostolic Age, and we are not meant to change from that but merely to develop those teachings. The Catholic Church is bound by Christ and the Holy Spirit to maintain this teaching about homosexuality, and bound by Love and Truth to recognize the value and dignity of homosexual persons. This approach in the video preserves the Apostolic Teaching, which is best even if you don't understand it, and expresses our deep love for the person and willingness to work with and support the individual through this trial, which may or may not be lifelong.

Nobody chooses their own crosses. But accepting them and carrying them can be very difficult for some. It is good that messages like this are getting out, but it will take a lot more and a lot more time before that message is truly heard by hearts.

Dominus tecum

Amen, amen, and the Lord only knows how true that is. The biggest concern we ought to have is to be grateful for our crosses, to carry them for the love of Christ, and to lovingly help others carry their own crosses.

I am glad for the New Evangelization, since it's been bringing things like this video to light.

The video doesn't touch on quite enough what I would consider a much larger problem, that being what I would call "the infallibility of the self-searcher."

The whole idea does strike me as a little silly, though, in the grand scheme of things. I definitely like to romanticize about the mere existence of this video being as a result of a "contraceptive society," a world where sexual attraction and the transcendental good of procreation are completely separated.

It doesn't matter, though; one cannot oppose the perfect reasoning of the self-searcher who has aligned themself with something such as homosexuality. That premise lingers over the whole discussion like a catalyst of misunderstanding, that this immovable wall of self-discerning is being met by an infinite force of what inevitably must be hate and denial. No matter what I say, I must be hating and denying because I am opposing what is seen as infallible. My charity, love and understanding cannot be heard through the veil; nobody's is heard.

Maybe it's frustrating? I definitely find myself discouraged to discuss, much less "oppose," anyone's self-assumed identity of whatever sort, be it gender or sexual, religious...but, like I said, it doesn't matter; one cannot oppose the self-searcher. To bring it up requires an understanding of their temperament that is gained from years to know whether they will react well to any sort of attempt at discussion; it's a very important part of fraternal correction.

It's cool, though, I'll just keep chillin' here, bein' wrong, and other humorous, self-deprecating things.

A good point there! I certainly have experience the phenomenon of talking to somebody whose mind drops blast doors the moment I express a rational argument, or, Heaven forbid, discuss Church teaching. Far too many people elevate something that is not God above God and something that is not an authority above the Church (and by that, I mean far too many Catholics do this!). How easy it is to forget this "self-searcher" aspect too.

It's not easy to accept some of these things sometimes, but it is truly liberating once you do.

Dominus tecum

You. I like you. We should be friends.

Well stated, it's pretty tough to argue with someone who considers themselves to be the final authority on their lives. There truly is a spiritual sense, but it's important to form that in cooperation with the Truth, and to realize that this sense can be deceived or mistaken.

While it's not the only way to do it, I very much prefer the Dominican method: study, contemplative prayer, community, and preaching/teaching.

I didn't rip on you for being gay, I posted a counterpoint to your viewpoint. I have no idea about your personality, and I hope to find out as we talk.

Along with that, thank you for watching the video. I hope you understand that my point isn't to try and change what or who people are. I think that how people work that out, especially when it comes to same sex attraction, is a very important matter. It's not simply 'I'm lesbian, ergo I get to promote homosexuality and do homosexual things.'