Dear Catholics, what do you see as the problem with us letting society figure out its own beliefs with regard to chastity. Take homosexuality as an example: it may be wrong, but what is wrong with letting people stay in their (using the word of the Catechism) “invincible ignorance”. Ignorance perhaps isn’t always bliss, but maybe it is better than open rebellion. The best singers have frequently been gay (sinatra, crosby), hurting women in a domineering hate. If they had been told by their Catholics parents and mentors that it was okay for them to find their soulmates, much hurt would have been avoided. Do the ends justify the means? Why is a respectful silence not a truer obtion for Catholics in these times?
There is no evidence that Sinatra or Bing Crosby were gay; they were both married several times. Just pointing that out.
Being unkind to women doesn’t mean anyone is gay.
So you ask what is wrong with letting people stay in ignorance of their sins? The Bible says “remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.” James 5:20.
If we know someone is sinning and don’t tell him, his blood is on our hands. If we tell him and he doesn’t listen, at least we are not responsible.
If we love others and want to see them in heaven, we will point out what is the right way to live. It’s common decency, just as if we saw someone about to be hit by a truck, we should warn them, We are commanded by Christ to spread the gospel to everyone.
Hope that answers your question,
Instructing the ignorant is one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy.
If you have a discerning ear and especially a keen eye, you can easily tell they were gay; you can just barely see Sinatra and Crosby cringe when they kiss women. But they chose to have abusive sex with women their whole lives, probably because they were Catholic. Bing use to tell people how strict his Jesuit mentors were. Having heterosexual sex with a homosexual was a thing back then
What does it mean for something to be objectively wrong?
Here is an interesting article, an introduction into the debate about grace and nature:
de Lubac and Rahner didn’t believe in a “pure state of nature”. Everything is in constant motion, I think they would say. There are objective directives from God, but can anything substantial really be said about an objectively bad action by someone? If they don’t see anything wrong with what they are doing, what philosophical reason can one have to say there is something still amiss in them?
The Holy Office under Paul VI issued a decree on sexuality. Paul VI personally signed it. It said that the majority of the time full consent is not given in sexual “sins”
All we have to offer by way of authority to people about purity is the common teaching of our Church. The Bible is not clear about this question. Jesus says don’t look with lust, but he says that to do so is adultery, therefore is he speaking of desiring someone such that you will try to cheat on a spouse? Fornication… well, that is not defined in the Bible. Is it lack of moderation of ones sexual desires (being a whore) or is it simply sex outside of marriage. We don’t have dictionaries from those days. St. Paul speaks of straight men who become so lustful that they even started turning on each other. Is this ancient sin what he was referring to when speaking of homosexuality? Does a loving gay relationship in the modern world receive any condemnation from the Bible? There is no way to know. So our strategy of winning people over to chastity has to be of example? Well, at least not disdain
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. The Church has a **high regard for their conduct and way of life, for those precepts and doctrines which, although differing on many points from that which the Church believes and propounds, often reflect a ray **of that truth which enlightens all men” Nostra Aetate 2
So when only a ray of the truth which “enlightens all men” is expressed, high respect is still in order? Therefore why would Catholics ever have disdain for those who follow a looser morality?
Nostra Aetate, as quoted on pg 80 of Crossing the Threshold of Hope speaks of how Buddhism prepares one for supreme freeing illumination (Beatific Vision?) and yet the John Paul II says latter in the chapter of Buddhism that its rejection of the world goes to far, and that the New Age gnostics (who are not substantially different in point of view from Buddhists) are opposed to all that is Christian. The conclusion must be that people are to be respected to follow their own points of view unless their is complete depravity. This is clearly expressed by the Church’s decree on religious liberty from Vatican II.
The “conduct and way of life” that the Church has “high regard” for would naturally include polygamy among Islam. How could it not? That document speaks highly of Islam without saying they are evil for their sexual lives. Having many “wives” is the same as simply having many sexual partners, it would seem, so this has direct relevance to the theme on this thread.
Paul VI wanted to reconcile with the world, calling the world “magical”