thank you, I'm a young gay Catholic and I needed this today!

I would think Jesus would have something to say about pride being a core tenet of faith of this new religion the alphabet people have made of their sexual perversions.

The ‘pride’ is not about arrogance… it’s about not feeling shame about how God made me, and knowing He accepts me

We are all pilgrims on this earth. Always on the way, and never quite there yet. Keep the faith, Mark. :)

Pheelyp Thanks buddy

Thanks for reply and Understanding. Best buddy met at 5 years old was Gay and passed in 86 from AIDS. Many knew him and at Remembrance ceremony in Minneapolis the church had over 900 people in attendance. Some GET IT, and Many Do Not. Thanks Again.

I'm sorry you've been treated poorly by your brother and sister Catholics, Mark. We need to try harder at heeding the Gospel. You are welcome in God's company and to his table. God bless.

Mark Fitzgerald You can be a gay Catholic, you just can't engage in Homosexual sex, etc.

Sad, is it not?

Michael H Stay strong

That's because Catholics know you can stop sinning. LGBT know you can never stop being Catholic as you know the truth in your heart. They are a competitive faith who hate all other religions (except Islam, they kinda love Islam lately - because Islam is smart enough to not say the quiet part out loud as fitna (dishonesty) is an acceptable tool of their faith in order to further it). The core tenet of their New Faith is pride. One of the gravest of sins. And whilst they pretend to be atheistic, all LGBT movements I have encountered are intrinsically religious. They come complete with a priest class (transgender 'WOC's) and original sin (straight, white, or male), they can absolve you of that original sin for the right price (bought absolution of a corrupt faith). They are a cult. Through and through.

I think the difference is that in those cases celibacy is a decision. Being gay isn't a decision and so the church telling all gay people that they have to be celibate, never get married etc. feels discriminatory.

Could not have said it better. Thank you!

M45XTH Right you are. It says so in paragraph 2358. The inclination is objectively disordered, for it is not in accord with nature. I was, however, referring to paragraph 2357, that (basing itself on Sacred Scripture) calls homosexual acts acts of great depravity, and following Tradition, "intrinsically disordered". Thank you!

Wonderful clarity in your response. Republic of MAC, the Church needs more people like you to speak up. Satan is having a field day with this issue.

You're too kind. I agree: you, my brother, are too called to witness.

Republic of MAC , Here is Pope Francis on the matter: “A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing."

tell me something the heavenly father is that our heavenly father the church is both his literal and symbolic body on earth so tell me do you always see eye to eye or agree with everything that your earthly parents do or say do you agree with all of there viewpoints ? no I do not think so but you still have a love and devotion to them and they for you hopefully, completely and unconditionally. Well love of the heavenly father and the church is the same .No these men/women probably could not call themselves 100% devout catholics but they are devout non the less and they still love the church even if they have their own personal disagreements with some aspects of its teachings and viewpoints but that is what love is and that is what true loving family is and the church is supposed to be one big family of god.

I agree, you morality should be based on the Faith, not on humans, even those you live

William Cowan I hope u are aware that Jesus cannot change the churches trqchigs

Hello, Michael. First of all, I would agree with you that being Catholic means accepting truths about God and morality that, being true, make demands on us and how we live our lives. Those who would bend the truth for their own purposes are foolish and misguided. However, though truths themselves do not and cannot be changed, it is possible that our understanding of them may be imperfect, and over time can be refined (the Church's teachings on slavery, European dress, surgery, etc. for example). I think the insight this video is offering is that the Church's official teaching on homosexuality may be refined in this way. After all, the Catechism itself states in Paragraph 2357: "(Homosexuality)'s psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered'." Given science's advances in the understanding of homosexuality, would it not be reasonable to reexamine the soundness of official teaching in light of these discoveries, especially given the respectful witness that is being given such as in this video? Second of all, regarding your comment about people using "gay Catholics", I think that our identities are what they are, and we do not get to actively choose a large chunk of it. In my mind, how we identify ourselves is a process of synthesizing all our life experiences, the cultures we live in and the choices we've made, and finding out what resonates with us most. For example, I am a writer-teacher-Filipino-Jesuit-trained-middle-aged-thin-balding-sedentary-civilian-nurse Catholic. Whatever aspect of my personality I choose to emphasize, it should be valid because it would be what I am. Therefore, since whatever is authentically human is good, I do not think there is anything wrong (and in fact much good) in people contributing their witness of their being gay people who are Catholic. Their gayness is a real, authentic part of their lives, and (I would like to think) they are respectfully offering it to the Church for consideration.

Pheelyp I believe there is only one truth not several truths. Further I believe in objective morality. Everyone of us can be right or wrong about something. Truth doesn't contract itself. I also believe that the understanding of the truth of individual people is imperfect and incomplete. However there is the doctrine that the church is infallable in her teaching so we have to presume that the church is correct in what it teaches even we may don't like all of it. I also like reading on science...however our Catholic faith bases on holy scripture and sacred tradition so we can't simply go ahead and take a look at scientific findings and conclude that science has disproven a certain church doctrine or dogma and then change the teachings of the church accordingly because then we would put man made doctrine over the word of God...Our faith must rest on a sound theological background / on the word of God not on science. I mean there are tons of others teachings on sexual morality which are considered outdated by society and which a lot of people would love to change or cancel...I personaly put obedience to God first...otherwise I would also have some idea for corrections...but it's not my place to make them. Sure a person can highlight any part of their background they want..I just think that when someone takes his faith seriously he certainly puts being Catholic above lower stuff such as sexual orientation. Besides of this when I meet a fellow Catholic then I meet a fellow brother or sister in Christ and the sexual orientation, nationality or race of said person is secondary...I think of the Catholic church of a big family united in Jesus Christ. The church doesn't talk about sexual orientation or homosexuality or heterosexuality..she talks about same sex or opposite sex attraction.....the attraction a person experience are never sinful......what matters are our actions and thoughts.

Michael Schudel We agree on many points, Michael. I too believe in objective truth, that truth does not change based on what we think or believe or feel. The Church's doctrine on infalliability does not pertain to all of its teachings, if I remember my catechism classes correctly. There is a distinction between local and universal magisterium, and in only specific doctrines (the assumption of mary, the immaculate conception, etc.) has this infalliability been invoked. The Church has taught falsely before (slavery, surgery, needing to adopt European manner and dress, etc.), so clearly it is not infalliable in all its teachings. Yes, the Church enjoys teaching authority so all its pronouncements must be given due consideration, but unless something is defined infalliably, then there is still a possibility that it is in error, and we need to be open to the workings of the Spirit in leading us closer to a more accurate understanding of objective morality in such instances. Regarding science, the Church herself does not claim a monopoly of truth and acknowledges that science offers significant contributions in fully understanding the human situation. Pope Benedict XVI was very articulate about this, if you would remember. There is no contradiction between faith and reason. Science itself is amoral. It only presents facts. It is faith that interprets and provides meaning to the lifeless truths that science reveals. To the extent that teaching (such as about the earth being the center of the universe) were based on an incomplete understanding of the facts (such as on homosexuality as the Catechism itself admits, as I pointed out), then refining teaching to take them into account is the good thing to do, right? So the change in teaching would not be because people think it should change or because it would be popular to do so (tyranny of the mob / relativistic morality) but rather because the refinement of human reason through science requires it. Being Catholic is a whole-person thing. God does not want just part of us but rather all of us. So "being Catholic" is not higher than stuff as sexual orientation but rather our sexual orientation, just like our ethnicity, culture, history, upbringing, etc. is part of our being Catholic.

Pheelyp Can you please tell when the Church supported slavery??? Name your sources. You said "being Catholic is not higher than stuff as sexual orientation"?? The very first Commandment is "I AM the Lord your God"- that means He is God above your family, country, money, fame, and your sexual desires!!! Nothing comes before God!! How would it sound if a roup of fornicators who dont believe in marriage demand that the Church accept their behavior?

joe uka Hello, Joe. I have responded to the slavery bit in another comment in this video. May I refer you to that instead? :) If you will reread what I said (and I invite you to do so), I did not say that we are above God; what I said was this: "Being Catholic is a whole-person thing. God does not want just part of us but rather all of us." Do you see the difference? I also did not say that people - fornicators or otherwise - can demand that the Church accept their behavior just because they say so. Again, please reread my response. You will see that what I actually said was this: "So the change in teaching would not be because people think it should change or because it would be popular to do so (tyranny of the mob / relativistic morality) but rather because the refinement of human reason through science requires it." See, we are not disagreeing. ;-)

Michael Parsons Interestingly, "these people, who by the way are just as Catholic as you, are Catholic for our Church to recognize the reality of LGBT Catholics, who have been affected by a really destructive message of shame for centuries. www.allinclusiveministries.org/lgbt-christians-the-problem-with-loving-the-sinner/

“Above the pope as an expression of the binding claim of Church authority, stands one’s own conscience, which has to be obeyed first of all, if need be against the demands of Church authority.” Fr. Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)

@@JoseAntonioSanchezr thank you for saying this and being supportive, it seems that the message of this film went over the heads of so many and they are so quick to point out sin under every stone which is a point that my priest even said in a mass about 2 weeks ago.

I don't see how sexual and gender diversity equate to a broken nature in humans. I see a lot of joy, hope, and love here!

I agree with most of what you said, Michael. Indeed, all are called to live out the truths of the gospel, whether homosexual, heterosexual or whatever. Your analysis is also spot on about how our being created in the image and likeness of God is something that makes certain demands of us. The only thing I would like to point out is that while, yes, what is intrinsically disordered in us has to be brought in line with the gospel, the insight that the video is sharing is that perhaps being gay is NOT an intrinsic disorder, not an aspect of the brokenness of human nature but rather a natural, organic part of it. Our understanding of the will of God is not perfect, never was and never will be - we are all pilgrims in this journey. However, though we will never get there while on this earth, we certainly can get further on along the way. The Church used to support slavery; now it does not. It used to teach that evangelization must not only be a spiritual conversion but also an adoption of European manners and dress; now it acknowledges that local cultures have their worth and acculturation is the way to go. Thus, though the truth of God never changes, our understanding of it does, and our teachings must adapt to these workings of the Holy Spirit among us. There is room for this growth, yes?

You'll notice even the most conservative bishops are no longer using the "disordered" terminology. We shouldn't use it, either. It is a painful, demeaning label and it is not Christian to demean another person.

Allen2saint When something is disordered it simply means that it points into the wrong direction.....most people don't know the correct meaning of the theological language that why they feel hurt by it, ..every trade has its special words and so has theology..

Michael Schudel,I'm a theologian. The terms is being rightfully phased out, because the term is considered demeaning and antiquated in educated theologial circles. At any rate, no Catholic who believes in the dignity of the person should be comfortable calling another person "disordered."

Where did you get these lists, GottmitunsAlex?

Pheelyp Most Catholics are familiar with the term mortal sin. Mortal sins deprive the soul of grace. They are serious transgressions of God's law, done freely and deliberately with a clear understanding of what they are. Their result is to deny a soul entrance to heaven. There are particular mortal sins that are so evil that they are said to be sins that cry to heaven for vengeance: murder (Gn 4:10), sodomy (Gn 17:20-21), oppression of the poor (Ex 2:23), and defrauding workers of their just wages (Jas 5:4). Sins against the Holy Spirit are mortal sins that harden a soul by its rejection of the Holy Spirit. Six sins are in this category. They are despair, presumption, envy, obstinacy in sin, final impenitence, and deliberate resistance to the known truth.

GottmitunsAlex Thank you very much for enlightening me. Like most Catholics, I am familiar with the term mortal sin. Regarding the classification of certain sins under the term "cry out to heaven for vengeance", the poetic language used by some biblical authors do not by themselves constitute the justification for the classification on theological terms, right? These sins against the Holy Spirit, are they in the Catechism? I confess to not yet reading all of it.

Pheelyp Evidently you haven't read it. Please take the time to do so. Catechism of the Catholic Church #1867 www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P6D.HTM

GottmitunsAlex Thank you for the link. I notice that you omitted certain of the identified acts that were classified as crying out to heaven for vengeance. Why was this so? Also, the Catechism says that it is catechetical tradition that has classified these acts as such. Regarding the theology that has been developed (if any) to support the distinctiveness of such sins compared to other sins, would it not be reasonable to reexamine the teaching on homosexuality given advances in science as well as the respectful witness given in this video?

You are accepted by God, so the church's acceptance really doesn't matter.

Indeed. The way to life is narrow and hard. But not all ways that are narrow and hard lead to life, yes?

@@Pheelyp Actually yes- at least to what Jesus was refering to.

the few allso refers to you not just gays if you are taking that angle .

@@e.jenima7263Of course. Every Catholic should know this.

Because tne church has always taught hatred to any that dont believe as they do, 2 chronicles 15 13 Says a lot about any religion that ever needed to murder those who dont believe, it's called weak and shallow.

Skooter McGoo The Bible is so much more than that one verse you quoted. We can agree to that much, yes? :)

Pheelyp rape, incest, murder, lust, greed, slavery, destruction & death.

Skooter McGoo All those things, yes. But more than those too, wouldn't you say? :)

Hatered is in clear oposition to the Christian faith.....the church only targets sin and never people..and so should we always be loving and welcoming to our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ no matter what sin they may commit....not everything people do is however pleasing to God. God expects of all of us to grow in holiness and not cling to our sin.

I wonder if you would say the same thing if you had to go through what gays go through on a daily baseis.You speak from a place of ignorance,yes the catechism says this but we must remember the word of god was communicated to mankind who before it was officially written down and organised was spoken by word of mouth in that time so therefor it would be not all too outrageous to assume that the word lost a little in the translation so to speak the bible was written down by a human hand and not god so therefore it is open to possible errors in some places. Lastly the catholic church has for a long time not even spoken on the issue of what we now call Homosexuality in fact for most of it's history it paid very little attenshion weather there parishioners were having sex with there own sex or shaking up or not it has until recently in history been a hot button issue.

Viktor Souček Are you free of sin? Who are you to judge what's a sin? "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly defined as such". Code of Canon Law, 1983, Canon 749 §3.

“Above the pope as an expression of the binding claim of Church authority, stands one’s own conscience, which has to be obeyed first of all, if need be against the demands of Church authority.” Fr. Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)

Jose Antonio Sanchez First that paragraph of Canon Law has several interpretations. Just to be clear Canon Law (or pope, or council) can not change infallible teachings which are part of the deposit of the faith. And teaching about marriage is directly from the scripture. In that regard the idea of same-sex marriage is completely out of question. Whether I am in state of sanctifying grace or not has nothing to do with ideas presented in this video being wrong and harmful.

And your response to the argument from contingency?

PFP Billtown i hear you brother! i'm straight by the way

So in other words you went “church shopping” based on your lifestyle and what church was fine with it.

@@seanwu3293 For a start, the Apostle in his letters spells it out specifically this by way of his reading through the Septuagint in Timothy, Corinthians and Romans by characterizing such behavior as exactly that. Per the most accurate English version of the text we have, the NABRE, the word Sodomite is used in both Timothy and Corinthians to ascribe homosexual acts with boy prostitutes per pagan ritual and in Romans 25-27 he clearly states that such is exactly what is going on by saying exactly that in 25. Not born gay? Could I ask as to what crackpot you borrowed that from? It is not modernism to abide by science. It is modernism to deny church teaching for what is merely trendy. Not what is true. (www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+1%3A10&version=NABRE) (www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-10&version=NABRE) (www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A25-27&version=NABRE) (www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jul/24/gay-genes-science-is-on-the-right-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it)

@@seanwu3293 I just told you what the sacred text says. By reading it any other way you're doing exactly that. It only proscribes homosexual acts that are idolatrous as being wrong. It does not express it as anything else. This rampant anti-gay tenor you're expressing is apostasy.

@@seanwu3293 As I've already explained, the bible never speaks against homosexuality beyond the basis of its use as a part of pagan idolatry per sex rites. The catechism addresses it from that angle as per its promulgation in 1991 the discussion of being gay as a legitimate identity was in its infancy. All who have spoken of it as being either disordered or sinful speak of it on that level. Not per it being part of one's love life. That is why the Holiness Code in Leviticus speaks of it as being part of the acts one is not to partake in: it was written during the Babylonian exile and was speaking against the Hebrews worshiping false gods while there. To read the bible as though it is monolithic on the matter is to read something that isn't there for your own purposes: an apostasy.

@@seanwu3293 How does shall not kill apply here? It does not do that at all and I said that the catechism speaks of it on that level. Not that it says so directly: the culture within the church still considered it a form of idolatry. Not as a form love that wasn't permitted. Which is why the language within the church is changing so rapidly now. BTW: you do realize that by interpreting the story of Onan as being a kind of infant death you're failing to realize the crime of Onan was of property right? That's why the sixth commandment doesn't work here for an argument.

@@seanwu3293 My dear Mr. Wu: are you not aware of the Augustinian and the Talmudic divisions provided for the Ten Commandments (which, in the pre-deuteronomistic period were actually twelve)? Apparently, not. Allow me to enlighten you: there are eight different methods for listing them. The Talmudic being the oldest it separates I am the Lord thy God and Thou shall have no Gods before me. This is to both establish God as the supreme deity of Israel and to prevent any form of secondary idolatry by way of honoring any form of commitment before him. The Catechism uses the Augustinian division as it is traditional. However, the Vulgate as the bible of the Holy See and the whole Septuagint feature all twelve with the 12th being italicized as it features the erecting of pillars to God as he was known to Moses by the inherited Canaanite traditions of he as the god El Shaddai. Which, under King Josiah were declared pagan in nature and ruled out. I am a student of the Septuagint and as such have memorized them accordingly. You are correct in only one part: that I got the catehechial order incorrect. You are however, wrong in every other aspect here. For a start, it is not adultery to have sex with someone of the same sex. It is to have sex as a matter of marital infidelity. That is if you are married sacramentally you cannot have sex with another apart from your spouse. Which, is why I didn't bother to reference the matter as it has no bearing here whatsoever and it flew over my head for that reason. Secondly: my statement still stands. The catechism during its formation in 1991 did not take into account the modern, clinical assessment of homosexuality. Which was dropped from the DSM in 1987 and largely ignored by the synod at the time and deferred to its use in the Old Testament as a form of idolatry. This is where it derives the statement that being gay is disordered. In the catechism we find a rather odd tack on Aquinas' view of this per natural law in that it, despite the psychological community of time declaring that being gay was not of either mental or societal illness, that it was against natural law as it somehow didn't satisfy fully the love that was naturally within man's heart. Why did the church do this? By standing on Aquinas and not the bible (I am not going to pore over that with you again as you can't seem to understand the bible never goes against homosexual love no matter the facts delivered) the synod was able to softball the issue in the hope that the problem would effectively go out of vogue in time. It couldn't have been more wrong. Aquinas' take on nature was ontological: it never deals with what is of nature. But, what is interpretive of nature, what is the experience of it. In failing to regard Aquinas as a highly intelligent man of the 12th century and using his writings as a cudgel rather than a guide, you're falling for what theologians refer to as the "naturalistic fallacy." A problem akin to legalism and clericalism you cannot argue what is experience and what is physical as being one and the same and Aquinas never intended his arguments to be used in such a manner anymore than his main source, Aristotle did. This is also another problem per a clerical argument here: what is "life" per natural law? This wording in the catechism has been rather the bane of the Anglicized Church as it fails to describe what the meaning is in the Latin used by the church. Life here means the full experience of love. Does that mean procreation? Yes. It also, however, means bonding within the couple and the life that comes from that experience between the pair. The synod at the time failed to recognize the then developing psychological argument in favor of homosexuality per this matter as it simply didn't allow it to be discussed. We know differently to a vast degree today and is why even the Pope himself has declared the gays are to receive communion. This also effectively negates the two passages you took from it as well. This isn't anything new as the catechism is frequently revised and has changed about a dozen times since the early 90's for reasons similar to this: it is never complete given that life never is either. Think of how the Pope ordered the change in it per the death penalty just this last year (press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html) The story of Onan cannot be used in another manner per what its authors intended it to be: an illustration of a property crime. Onan was commanded by God (by way of his own father's authority) to father a child with the wife of his dead brother. This was to insure that his wife had access to an inheritance his brother Er would've provided her with per a male heir. He was to take her as his leverite wife so she wouldn't be destitute and the family wouldn't lose face given the agreement they'd have made with she and her tribe. By providing his dead, first born brother with an heir in this manner he was insuring that child would receive an inheritance double his. Greatly reducing what he'd receive upon his father's death. He was stealing and this has nothing to do with masturbation or lust. He didn't want the woman, therefore, he did not covet or lust for her. He wanted his brother's inheritance. Not his wife's sex. You're applying the story improperly here. Furthermore, the church has a problem here as it dictates that all sexual intercourse must be open to procreation as a matter of life and natural law. If we are to understand Aquinas' thinking here, and we are to cope with the fact that bonding is part of the catechial law per sexual intercourse, how does this apply to barren or post menopausal women? They cannot bear children. Yet, the church sees no issue here with they having sex despite their inability to foster children withing them when married. We run into the Latin translation issue again: life is experiential per Aquinas and natural law. While the church in Latin dictates that sex should be marital, it's more that when sex is of no gain for either person it demeans them both. The barren can have sex for this reason: it is a matter of experiencing love as life. Which, denying gays the ability to have sex by way of ignoring all the clinical data on the matter in favor of a traditional view that has lost its relevance the church is going against its own self. Which, it is starting to recognize. The bible never speaks against it. The catechism only half way does as it is incomplete at best on the matter and is antithetically worse to the purpose of Holy Mother Church in this way for the time being. Life per natural law is how we experience love in our lives. Procreation is canonical law. The catechism is now out of date and the church is recognizing that. www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2016/gay-transgender-people-deserve-pastoral-care-pope-says.cfm

Why is one not but the other is? Just because there are more of A than B doesn't mean that A still isn't. I don't get why people don't support polygamy or incest yet they support gay marriage. It's hypocritical to say one is okay but the other isn't. If there were more people who participated in incest/polygamy and less of gay marriage, people would condemn gay marriage and embrace the other two.

iStouts I see where you are coming from. The difference between homosexuality, bestiality and incest should not be based solely on the number of people who find it okay, but rather on a characteristic of these conditions themselves. Have you taken a look at the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)? www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm

Michael Incata It did. The state of knowledge about mental disorders is continuously improving. Would it not be useful to make use of the most current and refined insights that we have?

Michael Incata Hmm. I agree with you to the extent that, yes, politics probably helped motivate a reexamination of the classification, but from what I remembering reading, the actual reclassification itself was based on the realization that the population of homosexuals who presented themselves for treatment and were examined (and whose maladapative behaviors and/or neuroses were the basis for classifying homosexuality to be a disorder) were misrepresentative of the real homosexual population. The sampling was biased since the population essentially self-selected itself into the study - only people who considered their homosexuality to be a wrong thing (and whose feelings of being wrong, instead of the homosexuality itself, probably caused the neuroses) went to the doctors. Have you heard of this?

I have not, but I would be interested in reading more about it Pheelyp Do you have any resources for this info?

Andrea Marit Erickson, here is Pope Francis on the issue: “A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being."

Allen2saint While I agree with endorsing "the existence of this person", does not mean

that Pope Francis, or anyone else for that matter, should and does endorse the sin of a homosexual act.

Andrea, I think the example of the Pope's concern is kind of obvious. He doesn't jump into some knee jerk reaction or rote repitition of the catechism. He says these people are loved by God. He did not even speak of their actions for one and in fact, he repeated word for word Gaudium et Spes, which is our dogma, which forbids us from judging the moral standing of another. So, while some may wish to finger wag at these people for reasons I can only construe as denouncing and judging them, the Pope's answer was clear as far as how we should act toward them. No lay person has the right, even from a theological standpoint to lecture anyone about their sexual acts.

Allen2saint Ah Ha! So that's what it means! It means that no Pope has the right to call a "sin" a sin, or for that matter say to a practicing homosexual "go and sin no more" because who am I to judge? As for the lay person simply calling a the homosexual act a sin, is an act of fraternal correction. CCC Paragraph 1829 The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion: (2540) Notice the phrase "charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction".

I understand where you are coming, and agree wholeheartedly with your core message that people, whatever they do, are still the people Christ died for and should be loved accordingly. Two things though: I believe there are at least two schools of thought about receiving Holy Communion - one is that it should be received only by those worthy, and another that it is "bread for the journey" for those of us (meaning all of us) who are journeying toward greater alignment of our lives toward the standard set by God. Also, given what we know now that we did not know then (that homosexuality *may* be natural), would it not be reasonable to at least reconsider whether the teachings on the matter can be updated? Faith and reason are our two wings to fly toward the truth, are they not? :)

Pheelyp There has been no study that confirms a homosexual gene. All the studies that are out there are not scientifically based. The "studies" that are sometimes referenced are studies done by LGTB money, so they never have a big sample size and the years to follow it. If you say there is, please post, I'd like to read it. There is a huge push that started in the 50s to take micro steps into changing the way society thinks about homosexuality through movies, shows, and playing to the "emotions" of people to accept this as natural. I have family that have come out, and they know how I feel and how I pray for them to get rid of this inclination to sin and be chaste. I love them and they are part of my family's life. However, I can never accept the sin that hurts their soul and their body, just like I would disapprove of any other family members that watch pornography or are fornicators. We ALL struggle with sins...we all have our "addictions," but that is part of each one of us to take up our cross. It is a hard journey that we ALL have to work at so that we can get to our eternal home in heaven. It's not a popular thing to do in this world, but Jesus never said it would be easy. I do believe that parish priest need to talk about this and not be afraid to instruct us on this topic.

maria1125 Thank you for your thoughts, Maria. About the studies, I have not read these studies myself, but the impression I have gotten is that there is growing consensus among the experts that homosexuality is either genetic, a product of upbringing or both. Whatever the case, what I do know is that it has been struck out of the list of psychiatric disorders, so scientifically it is not an abnormal mental condition. Regarding your claims about these studies being done by LGBT money and not being scientifically based, do you have evidence of this? If so, I would like to read it, as I have some background in research and may be able to spot these red flags in a study if they are present, and so can validate your concerns. About this push you speak of, isn't it possible that it is less an orchestrated conspiracy to trick people into accepting homosexuality as normal, and more a natural, organic cultural shift that has been happening spontaneously? Indeed, we all have our imperfections and vices to deal with, and these crosses we must strive to bear with grace. I suppose the message of this video is that perhaps homosexuality, like being left-handed, may not in fact be a sin but rather a natural part of people that should be celebrated.

@@maria1125 propaganda! You are the perfect example of what's wrong with the church. You hide your discrimination behind "l love the sinner" There are plenty of scientific studies that explain homosexuality. Shall I bombard you with links so you can read and become educated? You worship church teachings instead of Christ.

@@JNeil1975 No discrimination at all. I've got family who are gay and I love them enough to tell them the truth, pray for them and treat them with respect. Truth = Love. It's a hard concept for many, but go see a Catholic priest and he'll explain it. Peace and love. Sending you a virtual 🤗 hug. 😘

Obey God or obey you? They are Gods creation and he did not make a mistake.

@@eviolite1930 Marriage comes from the loving hand of God, who fashioned both male and female in the divine image (see Gn 1:27). A man "leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body" (Gn 2:24). The man recognizes the woman as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Gn 2:23). God blesses the man and woman and commands them to "be fertile and multiply" (Gn 1:28). Jesus reiterates these teachings from Genesis, saying, "But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh'" (Mk 10:6-8). www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/questions-and-answers-about-marriage-and-same-sex-unions.cfm Not my word,God"s.

That's not what Jesus would do. He would welcome them and help them on their journey towards God. You are opposing Jesus' teachings and preventing them from getting to know Him. You are basically blocking people from God. Hope you have a good alibi come judgement day.

@@eviolite1930 perhaps you do not understand that the Son is the Word and I have copied and pasted His word for you to read. I t sounds like you don't believe the Word . It seems he speaks of you in this; Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, passageParadox of the Cross. 18 The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.k 19 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside.”l 20 Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?m 21 * For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,n 23 but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,o 24 but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. The Corinthians and Paul.* 26 Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong,p 28 and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, 29 so that no human being might boast* before God.q 30 It is due to him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption,r 31 so that, as it is written, “Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord.”s Again not my words but the Lord's. May the lord grant you understanding and humility.

Sounds like you really don't want them to know God. Not sure He will be all too happy about that, but got it 👍🏽

I hope you are jokeing

M45XTH No one is denying the fact that this condemnation exists. What is being asserted is that it is possible that the *reason* this condemnation happened and is happening is due to a faulty, incomplete understanding of homosexuality, and thus teaching should be refined as previous teachings have been refined if found necessary based on this new knowledge. You understand the difference?

M45XTH I have a feeling you are going to tell me all about it. Please, feel free. Go ahead. :)

Tell me could you make such a commitment for your entire life? While the church holds the sacraments for ransome I doubt that many or any of you criticizing and judging a quoting the Catechism would be able to bear such a horrible and unjust arrangement! Lifelong celibacy is not for everybody enforcing it on all in this category can cause mental damage and even worse it is completely unreasonable to ask this of parishioners because they have not devoted themselves in the same way a Priest has that is different they must be celibate regardless but pairisheners have not made such a vocation.