Is gay OK?

How should we handle public scandal?

I don’t let my kids watch tv that has people who are openly homosexual. (too bad because they love the cooking channel) They are taught to be polite to every one. But I don’t want them to be desensitized to the bizarre. I didn’t have these kinds of behaviors pushed in my face as a kid and I want that for my kids. I don’t want them to think that the perverse is normal.

I know we have an obligation to show God’s love to the world, but I don’t think it’s an act of love to give some poor sinner the impression that his particular sin is no longer a big deal. I’m thinking about poor Mo Rocka, if it’s true that he is openly defying the Church on her teachings about homosexuality than to have him included in a public forum sends him and everyone that is aware of his stance the message that the church is fine with his dissent. (think how we would feel if they has a pro-abortion advocate up there.)

We need to talk about this, I know they probably shut down the last thread because we were getting down on people, I don’t want to do that, but I do think we need to sort things out. In our own parishes it is a problem too.

So how do we keep the scandal out of our churches (and homes) without coming off as a jerk? (Hey Mrs_____, it’s great you help out at mass by distributing Holy Communion but maybe you shouldn’t because you also work at Planned Parenthood.) …

I want to know when the people on this forum are going to start talking about the sin of scandal that a whole lot more heterosexual people are committing and start trying to get them out of the Church and the public square. :eek::rolleyes:

Things like artificial birth control, sex outside of marriage, living together before marriage (and still having the “big Church wedding” :rolleyes: ), support of euthanasia & abortion- the list goes on & on.

IMHO, homosexuality is way down on the list of things I am worried about, as it should be.

Well, birth control isn’t a public sin so it doesn’t really belong on this list.

The question about Mo Rocka was due to his being chosen as a Reader at one of the Pope’s events. That’s a public role and any public scandal is to be avoided.

In my parish, we have removed heterosexuals from positions as readers, servers and catechists for living together, remarriage after divorce (no annulment) and for marrying outside of the Church.

Shouldn’t we hold homosexuals to the same standard?

Yes, the*** SAME*** standard, not a different one, just becaus they may have a same sex attraction.

I find, all to often, here @ CAF and in other places, that it matters not if a “gay person” is living chastely or not, they are still often discriminated against. That needs to stop.

I’m not just picking on gays here, I don’t think Mark Walbiurg should have been on display either. I think we need to put more effort into optics. Especially at Holy Mass were people should come to be edified not scandalized.:slight_smile:

Yes! We should uphold the Church’s teaching - what has always considered a sin is still a sin. If we could evolve from a mortal sin to no sin, then the world will become further chaotic. If homosexual behavior all of a sudden is no longer a sin, then everything else could be evolving also - polygamy, incest, robbery, murder could all be acceptable and humanity will be completely destroyed.

People who sympathize the gay want to indulge them and totally forget there is a God and a eternal life. They forget all the Bible teachings and the importance of where we spend our eternity. Gay or straight, all are called to holiness, all should live a chaste life.

There is no sin to have homosexual tendency. But the person does not have to act on his tendency. Tendency and behavior are two different things.

Just so people don’t talk past one another…
I thought it was commonly held that “gay” means one is actively engaged in a homosexual lifestyle. A person could be same sex attracted, but not necessarily be “gay”. If the same sex attracted person is living a chaste life, aren’t they simply a person living a chaste life?

Likewise if I as a married man am tempted by my ex-girlfriend, I am not necessarily an adulterer. If I indulge the temptations, I am an adulterer. If I live chastely with these temptations, I am not an adulterer, I am just a person living a chaste life.

So there would be a difference in how a pastor would treat these situations. If a person is actively engaged in a lifestyle that causes scandal, a pastor needs to take that into account. If I am cheating on my wife, should I be doing catechesis, or readings at Mass? One could debate the merits and the pastoral approaches required.

The person who is dealing with intense struggles of any kind, can be a good example and inspiration to the rest of the parish, if dealing in good faith.

But it would be foolish and neglectful to turn a blind eye to the spiritual needs of the person in question, and the parish at large, by not considering these issues. These kinds of things must be a cross for a pastor, for sure.

I have heard that too, that “gay” means acting on it- but only in this forum and others like it.

I have never heard a person identify as “same-sex attracted” except on this and other Catholic forums.

I think it’s a matter of “semantics” for people who are uncomfortable with the word “gay”.

Most of my friends who are gay, but living a chaste life-style still refer to themselves as “gay”.

They are all in the same basket. Start with knowledge that sex is meant (biologically and spiritually) for the procreation of the human species. All of the above change the meaning of that concept. Respect for life, love, mothers, fathers, children, grand children, grandparents, the elderly, the sick - all these belong together. If you strip sex from the meaning of life you have nothing.

Chastity is only one piece of living a public life consistent with Church teaching. By all accounts I can find, Mr. Rocca is single and presumably chaste. But he is also a vocal advocate of same-sex “marriage” and that puts him outside of Church teaching.

It has nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with faithfulness. Pretending that a person can publically rail against Church teaching and then pretend to be a good Catholic as long as they aren’t sexually active - that’s what needs to stop.

Ok, the language is flexible then. But it’s good for discussion to have some commonly accepted definitions. While the Church does not accept sinful “acts” of any kind, it accepts all people as children of God. We are called to be holy.

For instance, I would not expect the Church to accept my adultery, but I do expect the Church to accept me as a child of God regardless of my sins, and provide a home to encounter Christ. Church disciplines must accept these realities, or we are living a lie (un-reality).

So I think it is important for my own well being and for the parish’s well being to make a distinction between “adulterer” or “womanizer”… and “attracted to women not my wife”.
This distinction is real and has ramifications, plus and minus, for everyone.

So it’s not a matter of semantics, it’s a matter of being truthful for the good of everyone involved.

In the past, the LGBT people I worked with were not the in your face types we’re seeing today. Schools were not giving gay romance or gay family books to kids, like King and King. Teachers were not bringing their gay partner to school.

Our desire to show compassion has been abused. It has been manipulated. And regarding tolerance and sin, Bishop Fulton Sheen:

"Love is not tolerance by…


"Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.

The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth.

It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.

The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom.

Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.

Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment.

Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly."

Our desire to love our neighbor has been confused. I hope this helps.


:thumbsup:. I agree with your comments. Just because a gay person is chaste doesnt mean that their sexual orientation has miraculously changed any more than my being straight has changed because I’m living chastly. When certain radio hosts refuse to use the word gay, it just pushes those they are trying to reach further away. For goodness sakes, Papa Francis uses the world gay.:shrug:

Which radio hosts do you listen to that refuse to use the word “gay”? It’s impossible to discuss the subject at hand without using the word “gay”, or “homosexual”.

Who are you listening to?

Since you used heterosexual here I guess it’s still ok to refer to same sex attracted as homosexuals?

I love this! Thank-you for sharing :thumbsup:

I don’t yet have a family, but out of pure speculation: Living in this world, we have to deal with people, whose values and behavior are repulsive to us. I think, excluding an openly gay person from Your children’s knowledge is a bit too much, as long as that person does not talk about that on TV and does not stress this fact.

I am not aware of a lot of other places that assume it’s possible (or even desirable) to be chaste. There is no difference between SSA and an active gay lifestyle if you don’t think it’s possible for people to live without sex.

As a heterosexual who is not married, I run into the assumption that I will be having sex anyway, and it does make life harder. Do I prolong an inappropriate conversation, or allow people to think that I do not live chastely? It’s a pain in the neck.

There is a lot of societal pressure on both homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals to have sex on a regular basis. It’s considered weird, unhealthy, and to some people almost immoral to reserve sex for marriage.

So it’s not that surprising that the distinction isn’t made elsewhere.


*I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? *1 Cor. 5:9-12

The fallacy that homosexuality is in no way different than heterosexuality, even in the most obvious biological essentials, appears to be here to stay. The truth must be defended among those with the ears to hear, but we have been warned about tossing pearls before swine, too. The Church did not start out with any political clout, but as sect treated with great suspicion and subject to malicious rumors. We need to remind ourselves how to live in these kinds of situations in peace and without retreating to the self-defensive trenches. We have instructions to admonish each other with regards to morals, but to leave those alone who will not accept preaching. Those are for God to judge.

I’m a fan of cooking shows, but I’d say the greater danger in the Food Network and HGTV is that these can insinuate greedy or gluttonous attitudes, particularly the gluttony of delicacy. These may be even more cemented into the national psyche than unchaste attitudes, particularly when it comes to infection of the faithful.

In other words, we do well to choose our TV based not so much on who is depicted, but on how what is depicted affects our own souls.

C.S. Lewis described the connection between gluttony and unchastity in Screwtape Letters:


The contemptuous way in which you spoke of gluttony as a means of catching souls, in your last letter, only shows your ignorance. One of the great, achievements of the last hundred years has been to deaden the human conscience on that subject, so that by now you will hardly find a sermon preached or a conscience troubled about it in the whole length and breadth of Europe. This has largely been effected by concentrating all our efforts on gluttony of Delicacy, not gluttony of Excess. Your patient’s mother, as I learn from the dossier and you might have learned from Glubose, is a good example. She would be astonished - one day, I hope, will be - to learn that her whole life is enslaved to this kind of sensuality, which is quite concealed from her by the fact that the quantities involved are small. But what do quantities matter, provided we can use a human belly and palate to produce querulousness, impatience, uncharitableness, and self-concern? Glubose has this old woman well in hand. She is a positive terror to hostesses and servants. She is always turning from what has been offered her to say with a demure little sign and a smile “Oh please, please . . .all I want is a cup of tea, weak but not too weak, and the teeniest weeniest bit of really crisp toast”. You see? Because what she wants is smaller and less costly than what has been set before her, she never recognises as gluttony her determination to get what she wants, however troublesome it may be to others. At the very moment of indulging her appetite she believes that she is practising temperance. In a crowded restaurant she gives a little scream at the plate which some overworked waitress has set before her and says, “Oh, that’s far, far too much! Take it away and bring me about a quarter of it”. If challenged, she would say she was doing this to avoid waste; in reality she does it because the particular shade of delicacy to which we have enslaved her is offended by the sight of more food than she happens to want.

The real value of the quiet, unobtrusive work which Glubose has been doing for years on this old woman can be gauged by the way in which her belly now dominates her whole life. The woman is in what may be called the “All-I-want” state of mind. All she wants is a cup of tea properly made, or an egg properly boiled, or a slice of bread properly toasted. But she never finds any servant or any friend who can do these simple things “properly” - because her “properly” conceals an insatiable demand for the exact, and almost impossible, palatal pleasures which she imagines she remembers from the past; a past described by her as “the days when you could get good servants” but known to us as the days when her senses were more easily pleased and she had pleasures of other kinds which made her less dependent on those of the table. Meanwhile, the daily disappointment produces daily ill temper: cooks give notice and friendships are cooled. If ever the Enemy introduces into her mind a faint suspicion that she is too interested in food, Glubose counters it by suggesting to her that she doesn’t mind what she eats herself but “does like to have things nice for her boy”. In fact, of course, her greed has been one of the chief sources of his domestic discomfort for many years.

Now your patient is his mother’s son. While working your hardest, quite rightly, on other fronts, you must not neglect a little quiet infiltration in respect of gluttony. Being a male, he is not so likely to be caught by the “All I want” camouflage. Males are best turned into gluttons with the help of their vanity. They ought to be made to think themselves very knowing about food, to pique themselves on

having found the only restaurant in the town where steaks are really “properly” cooked. What begins as vanity can then be gradually turned into habit. But, however you approach it, the great thing is to bring him into the state in which the denial of any one indulgence - it matters not which, champagne or tea, sole colbert or cigarettes - “puts him out”, for then his charity, justice, and obedience are all at your mercy.

Mere excess in food is much less valuable than delicacy. Its chief use is as a kind of artillery preparation for attacks on chastity. On that, as on every other subject, keep your man in a condition of false spirituality. Never let him notice the medical aspect. Keep him wondering what pride or lack of faith has delivered him into your hands when a simple enquiry into what he has been eating or drinking for the last twenty-four hours would show him whence your ammunition comes and thus enable him by a very little abstinence to imperil your lines of communication. If he must think of the medical side of chastity, feed him the grand lie which we have made the English humans believe, that physical exercise in excess and consequent fatigue are specially favourable to this virtue. How they can believe this, in face of the notorious lustfulness of sailors and soldiers, may well be asked. But we used the schoolmasters to put the story about - men who were really interested in chastity as an excuse for games and therefore recommended games as an aid to chastity. But this whole business is too large to deal with at the tail-end of a letter,

Your affectionate uncle


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