Homosexuality Is Not Immoral?


Ok, got your attention? An article about Hillary Clinton claiming that Homosexuality Is Not Immoral. hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/03/hrc_homosexuali.html

And this lady may win the democratic nomination for president. :frowning: And even scarier, there are some Sean Hannity cafeteria Catholics that will vote for her. :eek:


What does Hillary Clinton know? She lets her husband have affairs for years and does nothing. She is no pillar of stability obviously…


And even scarier, there are some Sean Hannity cafeteria Catholics that will vote for her.

As a general rule, don’t most catholics vote for the dems?


I don’t. I voted Republican. Most Caferia Catholics vote democrat, and many Catholics I know do not believe in the teachings of the Church which is sad.


Not really news to me. Of course Hillary would say homosexuality isn’t immoral…I’m quite sure that she, along with the vast majority of Americans, don’t really believe in morality at all. Such things as an objective moral order are restrictive and outdate forms of irrational patriarchy imposing itself on our lives, after all. :rolleyes:

I’d be quite pleased if she won the DNC nomination–because I’m positive she’d never win. However she might try to spin herself as moderate, she’s Hillary, and people know what that means. And I think that Americans generally don’t want to send Bill Clinton back to the White House…in whatever capacity.

Although I’m not sure what Sean Hannity has to do with this. He’s a Catholic neocon… the farthest from a Hillary supporter I’d think there’d ever be.

(I haven’t kept up with him lately, and while it’s debatable that his War on Terror stances make him a cafeteria Catholic, I wouldn’t say he’s worse than, say, John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi in that regard. At least he recognizes evil in the world…)


Oh no he isn’t. I use to think he was and was a big fan. But Sean has proved to be a closet liberal. An article on Sean Hannity heretic ways, “The Church Will Not Be Hannitized” can be found at hli.org/sl_2007-03-16.html

Sean outted himself last week as a pure, liberal cafteria catholic, bad mouthing the church, glorifying in it’s scandals, and has preached and continued to do so last week when he attacked a catholic priest on the air about how Sean felt the Church was wrong in it’s teaching on artificial birth control.

This subject is being discussed in depth on a few threads, especially at forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=2003934#post2003934 so no need to further discuss that topic here. But Sean is a cafeteria catholic if he is even still catholic at all.


“Liberal” (I think progressive might be a better word) catholics and political liberals are not necessarily the same. Let’s clarify that. BTW, Sean is very conservative politically, there is no doubt about that. He may be pompous and a jerk sometimes, but he is a conservative.


Homosexuality is not immoral, it is disordered.
Homosexual acts and the Homosexual lifestyle are immoral and sinful.


I completely agree with you. It is important for us to specify that, because that distinction is what the Catethism make. But I think that Clinton was not thining about that but in gay “rights”.

Beyrak:, you said:
"And this lady may win the democratic nomination for president. And even scarier, there are some Sean Hannity cafeteria Catholics that will vote for her."

Correct me if I´m not right, but what is really scary is that not just Clinton but also others candidates like Obama and even a republican (RINO?) such as Giuliani think the same about homosexual acts.

Even scarier: the frontrunner Giuliani, in his own words, said that he´s pro-gay “rights” and pro-choice. I´m not american, but let me ask to you: Isn´t this alarming?


I know where Sean stands on the issues. I was a fan for years, listening to him “three hours a day, that’s all he asked”. Plus I watched him nightly on Hanniy and Colmes.

The fact is Sean turned out to be a closet liberal and anti-catholic in his rhetoric. His liberal stand on artificial birth control is one prime example.

For more on “Hannity the Liberal”, go to hli.org/sl_2007-03-12.html


The temptation of homosexual attraction is unnatural but not in itself sinful. The act is sinful.

The temptation to overeat or to have sex outside of marriage is unnatural but not sinful Overeating and having sexual intercourse outside of marriage are sins.

I’ve read some studies indicating that the continued surrender to temptation actually changes the chemistry of our brains. Each time we surrender to temptations to unnatural acts the easier it is to surrender.

It is for this reason and others that I don’t like the terms homosexual or heterosexual. Our true identities are better expressed this way…if we surrender to temptation regularly we are carnal or “in the flesh”. If we surrender to Christ and find freedom from sin we are becoming holy, or are “in the Spirit” or “in Christ.”



I don’t want to derail this thread any more, but I think this is a good point. There is a HUGE difference between being a ‘liberal’ (ie, ‘cafeteria’) Catholic and being politically liberal. My original statement that Hannity is a Catholic **neoconservative **stands, because neoconservatism is in itself incompatible with Catholicism.

I think it would be easier never to think of Catholicism in terms of liberal/conservative…those kind of labels aren’t really helpful. Really, you’re either an orthodox Catholic or a heterodox Catholic. Hannity is apparently a heterodox Catholic neoconservative.


Thank you to all who participated, this thread is now closed.

If a thread on the morality of homosexual acts is desired, please start a thread in Moral Theology.

If a thread on some Catholic and non-Catholic politicians’ takes on homosexuality is desired, please start a new thread with a reflective title.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.