Does God condemn Homosexuals? The Church allows sterile couples to marry even though they may not procreate. Then why not allow homosexual marriages?
God does not condemn homosexuals. And the Church does not address them as homosexuals but as ‘persons with same sex attraction’. The Church understands that no persons should be defined by their sexual orientation or impulses. The Church respects and regards their dignity as children of God. Church offers compassion in their trials and calls them to live a pure life – a life of chastity. Chastity is accepting and living out the will of God for one’s sexuality in the given vocation.
God does condemn sin. Sin is condemned because sin deprives man of the glorious eternal plan that God has for him. God’s plan for man is that he should share in God’s own eternal life, in other words – heaven. God desires that everyone of his children be saved and enter into heaven. Thats why the Church appeals to all God’s children to shun sin and strive for holiness.
Church does not bless marriages between persons with same sex attraction because there cannot be valid marriages between two men or two woman. Such marriages are contrary to God’s original plan. Such unions do not lead to what marriage stands for – union and procreation. Union means being able to love the other by making a sincere gift of self to the other. if a person is incapable of receiving the gift the other is initiating, there is no union. So for a valid sexual union, the persons must be complementary in nature. That is to say, man and woman. Same sex unions are neither unitive nor procreative. Even in the case of same sex couples adopting a child, the child is denied the right to have both the biological parents, also the right to have a father and a mother.
Marriage was God’s idea. It was God who instituted marriage. Man or the Church cannot alter God’s original plan for the sacrament of marriage. Catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 2357 that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. While demanding that Church should recognise same sex marriages, what we demand is Church’s approval of the sinful sexual act/union and their desire to live in mortal sin. How can the mother Church do or allow anything that eternally destroys her children?
This unnatural sexual act is not a sexual union but an asexual disunion. The anal opening does not function as a sexual organ rather as an excretory organ. Same sex act is two people ‘using each other’ for the sole purpose of pleasure. Pleasure is seldom the object of the authentic sexual Union but only the God-given reward and encouragement for the couples to come together in the marital embrace.
If Church allows infertile couples to get married, it is on the basis that they are able to enter into a valid conjugal act in a way that is open to life. If God wills to give them a child the couple are not incapable of receiving it.
Also refer CCC on homosexuality – CCC 2357, 58, 59
Jacob Jose
Disclaimer!
The views, thoughts, opinions presented here belong solely to the author and are not necessarily the official view of the Jesus youth movement.
Yo Jacob,
Just on the last point mate. Let’s say I conduct tests and everything and somehow find that the infertile couple literally cannot give birth to children. I.e. that in a probabilistic sense they have the same probability of giving birth as a gay couple, only through a freak of nature. If both couples know this one cannot be more open to children than the other, but would the Catholic church ever prevent such an infertile couple getting married?
If you say well God could perform a miracle by giving a child for the infertile couple, He could just as easily do it for the gay couple but chooses not too.
Hope this is clear. Look forward to your reply 😁😁. Just wanna say this Catholic cafe thing is a mad one. Web design could be cleaner but kudos anyway.
Dear Joe, Thanks for the question. Infertility is not an impediment for a valid marriage but impotence is. According to the Code of Canon Law, antecedent and perpetual impotence at the time of the marriage invalidates the marriage (#1084.1). A man or woman who suffers impotence, either physically or psychologically, cannot enter into marriage because of their inability to physically consummate the marriage. Canon law also affirms the following about infertility “Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage” (#1084.3).
Firstly thanks for the reply!
Ok right there were a lot of big words there and that is my weakness. Lol, ain’t as smart as you mate. Am I right in understanding that the last sentence regarding Canon law states that if a couple cannot give birth to a child then that doesn’t nullify their marriage. What does that mean? That they have a valid marriage? But doesn’t that mean that gay couples can marry? I’m definitely missing something here.
Right so I looked up this impotence, infertility thing.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it says that if you can have sexual intercourse but can’t have children then you’re infertile. But if you can’t have sexual intercourse in the first place then your impotent.
But how does this make any sense? The impotent couple can’t marry because they can’t have the act which leads to children but the infertile couple can because they can do the means to have children but can’t have it anyway. What?
So the reason gay couples can’t marry is because they can’t be open to children and can’t have heterosexual intercourse. But the infertile couple also can’t be open to children but can marry because they can have heterosexual intercourse. So you can be married if you have a functioning vagina and penis? I’m baffled. If I’ve got this wrong, could you please explain it in simple words, I’m a simple man have mercy on me.
Hi Neil, I really appreciate your questions. I will be glad to share my thoughts and offer clarification. We need to deal with the case of infertile/impotent couple and same sex couple separately because one does not validate or justify the other.
In the case of an infertile couple, they are fully capable of entering into sexual union in accordance with the natural order of marriage i.e. they are capable of becoming a self-gift to the other and be open to new life. Thus they have no impediments to entering into a valid marriage. They can further seek medical help and also pray for a divine intervention. Such miracles are not rare.
But in the case of an impotent person, as you have rightly understood he/she incapable of entering into sexual union and thus not capable entering into the sacrament of marriage. God does work miracles but not contradicting his own creation and order (the natural law).
And in case of persons with same sex attraction, since they are either both men or both woman, they are incapable of both union and procreation. The possible intentions of their demand for marriage are ‘companionship’ and ‘sexual pleasure’. If we analyse carefully, these intentions are self-seeking in nature and is contrary to the natural order of marriage. In a valid marriage, pleasure and companionship are only the by-products and not the aim.
Let me know if you have further question. God bless you
Hey thanks for the reply and hope you’re doing well!
My query is how can an infertile couple be open to life? Or what do you mean by open to life? I understand it to mean that a couple can create life and don’t try to avoid it (ie condoms). So this applies to impotent couples as they cannot create life so do not fulfill one of the clauses. The same reason applies to infertile couples. As said before, on a probability basis, it is both zero as an infertile couple cannot give life by definition of them infertile and same to the impotent couple. If either couple were to give birth, the impotent or the infertile, it would be a freak of nature.
I want to make it clear that if you say its more likely that the infertile couple can give birth that is wrong as through tests or whatever it has been deemed that they cannot give birth to children. If you cannot give evidence at the time why it is more likely you are making it up. Also past experience doesn’t prove it can happen but that the diagnosis was wrong or a freak of nature. If infertile couples are more likely to give birth to children then they are no longer infertile but semi-infertile or whatever term is used. Infertile means they cannot get pregnant. So ignoring supernatural intervention, both are at the same probability, the impotent and infertile.
On your point about miracles, I’m gonna clear it out. A miracle is one done by God which cannot be done through natural causes. It goes against nature in the sense that atoms were meant to behave this but BOOM and now God makes them behave a different way. God is all powerful.
In both impotent and infertile couples the natural order should be that neither give birth. In terms of being open to children, if both couples are smart enough to understand they can’t give birth then they both are not open to children. An infertile could ‘try’ for a child but they’re deluded as the evidence and tests shows that its impossible. Same with the gay couple. Ignoring those cases, in God’s eyes both are not open to children so should not have sex as they know they’re not going to give birth to children. But you say that God gifts the infertile couple a child but not the gay or impotent couple. Why is that?
Going to the deluded cases. The infertile couple although they were told by the doctors they can’t have children they prayed and had sex but were open to children because they believed God would provide. And you might say God in compassion gave them one. But replace infertile with gay and what’s the difference? The gay couple also had gay sex because they thought God would provide. What is the difference? Neither is more deluded than the other as both have rejected the evidence given to them in favour of their faith.
Yh, thanks again for reading this and replying really means a lot. Don’t take any of this personally, I can’t really phrase it without being direct but know I have gratitude to you for taking the time to respond. Have a good one.
And sorry its long lol.
Dear Niel, Being open to life or being procreative means a couple enters into conjugal union in a way that is open to life. Or in other words a couple enters into the conjugal union that does not in any way prevent the possibility of new life. If the couple does not get pregnant it does not make the marital act invalid or not procreative. Because it is up to God to give or not to give children. That is why we see couple without children validly married.
The following conditions validate the marital act:
– They should be Man and woman
– They should be Married
– They should be able to enter into a valid sexual union ( Penis in vagina)
– Their union must be procreative (use no artificial means or any means that prevents the possibility of new life.
Infertility is defined as the inability of a couple to conceive despite non contracepted frequent sexual unions for a period of one year. But that does not mean they are permanently infertile. But the fact is even in the case of permanent infertility the couple can enter into a valid marriage because they are capable of consummating their marriage, though incapable to giving birth. And pls note, they do fulfil the above 4 conditions.
In Catholic Church, a marriage becomes valid only if the couple enters into the conjugal act. Thats why in the case of impotent couple who are incapable of entering into the conjugal act cannot have a valid marriage as they are incapable of consummating their marriage. In their case, though they fulfil the first 2 conditions they are incapable of fulfilling the last two conditions.
As far as a gay couple is concerned they do not fulfil any of the above conditions. Let me know if you have further questions
Right I’m a bit unsure still of what you exactly mean by procreative. For now forget the part about a conjugal union. Just on the part of children. You said they must not in any way enter into a union that prevents new life. Now let’s just compare a gay couple and an infertile couple. And let’s assume both are smart and no information had been hidden from them.
The gay couple cannot conceive children as they do not have the organs capable of doing such an act. And the church does not allow them to marry because their union prevents new life. Now this gay couple, if there was a world in which they could conceive, would want children. Now in this sense they are open to children. But they are smart enough and have been taught that in this world they cannot conceive, it’s impossible. So you and I now define this union as not procreative as regardless of what they wished for in another world, they are unable in their own union, here and now, to give birth to children.
I want to take this slowly so before I continue I want to ask if I am right about this. That this is how you are defining a union not bring procreative in the last clause.
Dear Neil, I’m afraid, you are not right in assuming that a gay couple is ‘open to children’ because they desire to have children. Being open to children in this context refers to the sexual act or the union the couple enters into which is inherently procreative in nature. The act a gay couple enter into does not qualify as unitive or procreative. It is a concept where two persons becomes become one body in a fruitful way – just as a seed falls that into the soil and dies and becomes one body with the soil and in the process gives rise to a sapling. For this the partners must be complimentary i.e. a man and woman. The semen (seed) a gay man leaves in another man does not fall into a ‘fertile ground’ where it can blossom according it it’s potential – in this case ‘into another human being’.
At this stage I feel, what we are now doing is finding a loophole to justify the wrong that we are doing. These were not my personal opinions but what the of mother Church teaches us. As we know the Church is the mystical body of Christ. So it is Jesus who speaks to us through the faculty of the Church.
In the comment it was mentioned ‘The gay couple cannot conceive children as they do not have the organs capable of doing such an act’. This would be like complaining after spilling/planting the seed on the cemented floor, that I wanted a new plant but the floor does not have the capabilities of the soil.
Here the issue we are battling with is a ‘disordered attraction’ within us to a person of the same sex. It is a condition the mother Church understands and have compassion for. The Church does not condemn her children on the basis of their feeling and attractions. Church calls them to the light of truth and a life of holiness so that the precious individual be eternally lost but is able to spend eternity with the loving Father in glory after the short period of struggle on earth with their disordered desire. God offers his children the supernatural help he/she requires though the sacraments any time through the ministry of the Church.
Dear Neil. Let us communicate what is in the heart of the Church to our brothers and sisters who are burdened and are under pressure to live a life not worthy of their dignity. Hope to hear from you dear. God bless you.
Hey thanks for the reply. Unfortunately the website isn’t letting me reply to your comment and instead just comes as a new comment.
I appreciate your lengthy and detailed answer but you’ve kinda misunderstood what I said. Its my fault for not making it clear. We can go into the other details later, but just want to start at the basics. But to clear what I said, I stated “Now in this sense they are open to children” but was trying to clear the ambiguity some people mention about being open to children. Its clear you don’t mean it that sense so I was trying to find WHAT sense you mean when say the act must be open to children or procreative. Tbh if this is more confusing, just ignore it, but i’ll say it clearer now.
You say the union they enter into must be procreative in nature. Now I’m trying to really get what this means, avoiding all the other stuff. So I’m going to use a gay couple example to see how you could say the act is not procreative. The couple cannot, regardless of their wishes, in their union to give birth to children. Is this what you mean when you say the union is not procreative in clause 4?
The same assumptions as before. The couple is intelligent enough to understand that they cannot conceive children and they have been given adequate information to know this.
Please, could you just answer if this it what is meant by their union not being procreative. I’d love to about all the other things but I need clarity on the basics otherwise I think we’d be going round and round. Once again thanks for taking the time to read and reply to these.
Why is marriage a matter of the body? Why can’t it be associated with the heart? Why can’t two people who love each other and want to have a committed relationship, enter that relationship in the presence and with blessings of God and their dear ones?
As far as I have understood, all other Sacraments are related to the heart/mind/soul more than body. Why is vocation of marriage alone restricted to the body? I understand that missionary vocation requires chastity and am not questioning that sacrament.
Based on the church’s teachings, it looks like we were only created to increase in numbers and spread the word. Aren’t we allowed to seek happiness in ways that our hearts seek it? Didn’t God create everything for humans to experience and be happy? So if being with a person (impotent or same sex or not) makes us happy, should we deny ourselves of that?
I’m just confused and don’t in anyway mean any of my questions as an attack. So thanks for reading this and giving it a thought 🙂
Dear Bertilla, regret the delay in writing a reply. Your comment has many questions. I will address one after the other. First is why should marriage be a matter of the body?. It has to be so because God created man not as a pure spirit like angels but as a union of body and soul. God commanded that “man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”. Note it says ‘become one flesh’. So marriage can’t be reduced simply to an emotional connection but it is a one flesh union of man and woman which is unitive and procreative in nature.( look up earlier replies to know more about union and procreation). That being said, it is quite possible for two persons to be close friends, emotionally well connected for life. But such a relationship is not marriage because it does not involve sexual union of the two persons. So marriage cannot be just about the soul excluding the body.
The various sacraments have its own function. objective of the sacrament of marriage is to unite two persons body and soul in a mutually self-giving way, much like the sacrament of Holy communion where the objective is to unite Jesus and us in a one body union. Now with regards to chastity, Chastity is required not only in the ministry of priesthood or religious life but also in all vocations. Chastity is an essential part of marriage too. Chastity is living out our sexuality according to Gods will in our given vocation.
Another question you raise is “Aren’t we allowed seek happiness in the way our hearts seek?” Understand this hard fact that True happiness can only be achieved by living in the way God wants us to live. If we live according to the desires of our hearts, we will end up living a life contrary to God’s original plan and thus be unhappy, empty and lonely wandering endlessly for love and happiness. As you know God is the source of happiness and Joy. So we can derive it only from him in a relationship with him and that relationship involves obeying his commandments. So living according to our feelings is a recipe for disaster.
Bertilla, so I would conclude that “marriage is God’s idea”. It is not merely a human arrangement to seek companionship and pleasure. Marriage is a sign and foretaste of heaven (marriage of the church and Jesus). It is a vocation to love our spouse like Jesus ie. to offer our body to the spouse as a living sacrifice holy and acceptable to God (Rom 12:1) so that we can become one body with God at the second coming of Jesus. So marriage is essentially about both body and soul. Let me know if you have further questions.