www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Tony Blair questions teaching on homosexuality

Just after joining Catholic Church, Tony Blair questions teaching on homosexuality

London, England, April 8 (CNA).-Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking in an interview with a homosexual magazine, has advocated that Pope Benedict XVI "rethink" the Catholic position on homosexual acts. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered" but does not comment on homosexuality's origins. The Church also calls on Christians to treat homosexuals with "respect, compassion, and sensitivity," the Catechism of the Catholic Church says.

Blair, who converted to Catholicism in 2007, told the gay-oriented magazine Attitude there was a "generation difference" on the issue.

"Actually, we need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith," he said. He argued that there is "fear" among religious leaders that "if you concede ground on an issue like this, because attitudes and thinking evolve over time, where does that end?"

"You'd start having to rethink many, many things. Now, my view is that rethinking is good, so let's carry on rethinking," he said.

"Look, there are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this pope stands for," Blair said.

"But I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic church, particularly a well-attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you'd be surprised at how liberal-minded people were."

In 2008 the former prime minister launched the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. According to the mission statement posted on its website, the foundation aims to "promote respect and understanding about the world's major religions and show how faith is a powerful force for good in the modern world."

How sad. What else can I say?!?

The Apostle warns: "Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
nor...covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers...will inherit the kingdom
of God" (1 Cor. 6:9,10).

Well said, Alice. I guess we need more Bible study in RCIA classes.

Looks like Blair really needs to be SCHOOLED.

The teaching of the Truth is not based on what "liberal minded" people believe or their opinions, it is based on Divine Revelation!
Stephanos I
Mr Blair does indeed need to go back to school.

Why?

Because he suggest the Church rethink something that is not yet complete?

I don't think so.

I don't see anywhere Mr. Blair stating that homosexual acts need to be deemed morally "good".

However, I do believe the Catholic Church has still some homework to do as to how to treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, compassion, sensitivity and dignity, as we ourselves say we should.

The "what", in my opinion, is clear. The "how" does need more thought.

I think we also need to re-think our priorities, because going by the number of Biblical passages dealing with each issue, I'd say God is much more concerned about social justice than the morality of homosexual acts.

And yet, here we are, as soon as someone shows some compassion towards homosexuals, we have very vocal condemnations and yet, people are still dying trying to cross a border, starving to death, working in sub-human conditions (if working at all), being (homo and hetero)sexually exploited, etc.

Our generation is obsessed with sex, one way or another. I honestly do not believe God shares our obsession.

Shalom,
Memo

Hm. When he was received into the Church, I suppose he was asked the usual questions of whether he accepts all of the Church's teachings in their entirety, to which I suppose he answered "yes." So either he is a liar, or he has changed his opinion rather quickly!

Alexis

Memo, I would definitely agree with our society's obsession with sex. I think we often don't react as strongly to sins that are just as bad and damaging as we do to things sexual. Perhaps sex justs gets more attention. We have a long way to go before we have a culture that can claim to actually follow the teachings of Christ.

Yes, dear Memo...our world is full of the pain and sins of our fallen nature.

Horrible inhumanity of man towards his fellow man, women and children of sexual and non-sexual nature does indeed occur every day in every country of this world.

However, that does not mean that we should allow those who wish to impose a new fangled notion of morality upon the masses to do it. Giving in to sin may be fun and giving in to sin may be enjoyable, but it does have its consequences on our personal salvation..and allowable sin ultimately leads to more sin, and more sin is what leads to the horrific, unspeakable crimes we hear of today...

The Church has an obligation to its children to not allow them to *believe* that their behavioural sins are without consequence.

I posted a story here a couple of weeks ago about a saint/Fool for Christ who lived in contemporary Athens. One of his neighbors in another apartment building was a transvestite prostitute. Crazy John (the fool for Christ), went to his door one night and exorcised a demon the transvestite man said he had never knew was in him and had never heard speak until that day.

He (the former transvestite) gave his testimony to the writing of this book to show that any disordered passion, and that can be anything--not only sexual-- can be attributed to demonic influence and if allowed to get out of hand, demonic possession as we heard in this particular testimony.

So, I wouldn't discount the grave danger which a person's sinful behaviour, (and this can be any passion of an extreme) if it gets out of hand without contrition and effort to change it, can have on a soul.

This is why the Church MUST steer us correctly.

In Christ,
Alice

To this question I think the CCC is very clear. You should read it! (if you already have'nt)
Stephanos I

Blaire is simply an arrogant manwho hinks because he held a position of world promenance he has a riht to foist his views, and is of the same liberal mindset that thinks th Church can and should chane its teachings, as if this is a democracy.

He's simply an arrogant fool.

He is also someone who believes preemptive war is just and Christian.

Memo:

Thank you for what I perceive to be a good handle on the issue of sexuality in the church. I believe that God wants to let us know that there are "bigger fish to fry" than the subject of homosexuality.

I know it is a difficult subject to deal with but I would hope that folks who rage over this would go back to reading the whole of those Hebrew scriptures that deal with this and other abominations against the Lord.

I appreciate your postings. I am a retired Episcopal priest, living in Mississippi who deeply loves his ruthenian heritage.

Christos Voskresse!


Fr. Mike Dobrosky

Christ is Risen!

Ultimately we submit to the Church on these issues and Church Teaching is clear.

To briefly summarize, having a homosexual tendency is not sinful. Engaging in homosexual activity is immoral and sinful (given the appropriate awareness). Sexual activity is only blessed when it occurs within Christian marriage (one man and one woman). Those who engage in sexual activity outside of Christian marriage are called to repentance and then to live in abstinence.

As far as DewiMelkite's comment, the issues of Just War (including preemptive war) are different. One may support preemptive war and remain a good Catholic. Pope Benedict XVI spoke to this in his speech to the United Nations last April. Essentially the Church has stated that all war is a failure but some wars are just. One may support or oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and remain in good standing with the Church. One may not reject the Church's Teaching on sexuality and do so.

But these issues have been discussed numerous times. I recommend to those interested in reading more to use the search function.

Let us remember to pray for our political leaders - that the Lord lead them to Him, and that they embrace the teaching of the Church on all issues.

Dear Fr. Mike,

First of all, thank you for your kind words.



I agree.

Other than the adjective of "abominable", the sin of homosexual intercourse is not treated any differently than any other grave crime against the Sixth Commandment.

Especially when it comes to punishment, homosexual intercourse is just as grave as adultery.

My point is that my peception is that a good number of our conservative church members appear to be more vocal and agressive in their condemnation of those who practice homosexual intercourse than those who commit adultery.

This praxis is, in my opinion, contrary to Scripture. Both homosexual intercourse and adultery are gravely sinful, no doubt about that.

But our approach to those who commit these sins should be similar, and following the model our Lord gave us: The prescribed remedy for these evils is Truth *and* Compassion. Not one without the other.

BTW, I have read the CCC, and I find my views about this matter entirely consistent with it.

Maybe I am being naive, but is Mr. Blair actually suggesting to go beyond "Truth and Compassion"?

If he is, then I would agree: He is wrong.

But isn't "Truth and Compassion" something that requires a LOT of thinking and re-thinking? After all, is there such a thing as "cookie-cutter" Compassion?

Shalom,
Memo

Does anyone think, as I do, that the matter of the vocal opposition to the question of homosexuality stems from the idea that sexuality itself isn't something that should be or needs to be proclaimed from the housetops?

I think this whole area is something sacred that needs to be discussed less in the public forum. I think the reaction is the same as the reaction to so many other misuses of the gift of sexuality. No one needs to shout from the housetops that he engages in sexual activity with children or with his daughter or son. And people seem to be as disturbed by this sort of activity as to homosexual acts so proclaimed.

I think the strong reaction stems from the agenda of the homosexual movement to make this activity and lifestyle to be normal and to have children taught as much.

We're all called to chastity particular to our state in life, whether married or not married. We've all got struggles to remain faithful to our Baptismal promises to be faithful to Christ's teaching, being perfect as our Heavenly Father is. The married don't get a pass; there are many activities forbidden to the married as well. And I'd venture to say that anything that makes a partner uncomfortable or left feeling degraded ought to be included in this area.

My two cents tonight.

BOB

Memo said: "My point is that my peception is that a good number of our conservative church members appear to be more vocal and agressive in their condemnation of those who practice homosexual intercourse than those who commit adultery."

Memo, you may have just written the first sentence here on ByzCath with which I can agree! I do think that there is a double standard. In fairness, though, I think that the double standard might arise from the fact that although adultery is morally evil, it is based on a non-disordered sexuality. That is to say, desire for heterosexual sex is not objectively disordered and can be practiced in a way in total conformity with the teachings of Christ. Desire for homosexual sex/homosexuality is an objective disorder and cannot be practiced in conformity with those Our Lord's teachings.

Although this may be splitting hairs, I think that that probably accounts for what I can agree with you is often a "double standard."

I'm not defending it, just merely trying to lend my two cents to why I think it may be the case.

Alexis

Dear Bob,

We are definitely on the same page, and I think this is what people just are not comprehending!

Adulterers are not, to my knowledge, marching in major cities of the world proclaiming their 'adulterating pride'.

Adulterers are not imposing upon schools that children must learn to accept adultery as an acceptable alternative to regular marriage.

Adulterers are not simulating acts of adultery in public venues to shock and offend.

Adulterers are not storming St. Patrick's and other RC cathedrals and churches insisting that their adultery be accepted as non-sinful.

Adulterers have not set up clubs in middle schools, high schools and colleges for students who would like to be considered 'adulterers'.

THIS is the stuff that makes many rational and logical people crazy. Most of us don't bat an eye at someone being gay and could care less if they chose to be, but please do not impose it on the Church, on children, and on society at large.

The thing I would like to share with all of you is that I have seen churches do some fairly horrible things to gay people. In all my years of hospice AIDS ministry I cannot tell you how ashamed I've been of some of our churches in the manner that they treat their sons and daughters. Here in Mississippi it has not been unusual for a father (seldom, if ever, a mother) to declare "you are no longer my son". Where can this parent possibly come up with that kind of behavior? I don't see any Christian compassion in this anywhere. One of the things that
I've found is that in many churches here (mostly
fundamentalist, conservitive churches), the pastors preach that these folks are all going to hell. There is no attemept to reconcile the patient with the church or the teachings of the church. In fact, in some of the Baptist churches they have "shunned" entire families for their childrens behavior.

In my episcopal tradition, I take seriously the question addressed to the congregation in our baptismal rite and in the Renewal of Baptismal Vows:

"Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?" The people respond with "I will, with God's help."

I understand the resistance to see homosexual sex as acceptable but I am ashamed of the many clergy and lay people who remain so "unpastoral".

Christos Voskrese!

Fr Mike

This has little to do with Tony Blair and/or homosexuality, but is intended to support Father Mike's point: during the Vietnam War I was serving in Canada and, being an American citizen, took an active interest in the problems of the young men who fled to Canada to avoid military conscription in the USA. This phenomenon was of considerable size, particularly for the Canadians, and the Canadian Churches were heroic in providing much-needed help and assistance for these young men.

But it reached the point where maintaining even basic services for these young men required more resources than we had, so a delegation from the Canadian Churches went to Detroit for a large meeting of the US National Council of Churches to present the situation and ask for support in our programs.

Anybody would have thought that we were advocating leprosy or cholera - the Canadian delegates were subjected to a great deal of verbal abuse from the Americans, to our surprise. Finally the chief of the delegation had had just about enough and said into the microphone: "face it, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing the needs of YOUR sons!"

This produced yells and more abuse, and endless repetitions of the theme "he's no son of mine!"

I am proud to report that the overwhelming majority of these young men settled happily into Canadian life and may of them entered the caring professions; they have contributed significantly to the quality of life in Canada, and those of us who went to much trouble to make them welcome feel thoroughly rewarded!

Fr. Serge

What does the teaching of the Scriptures say on this issue?
And I dont mean a myopic view.
Stephanos I

"And I dont mean a myopic view."

Not even if you squint your eyes and read upside down?

Can the "teaching of Scripture" be separated from the infallible teaching of the Church?

In my view, absolutely not. So to ask that question is to ask what the teaching of the Church is, which is fairly clear.

Alexis

I agree with Father Mike on the first point. Those who need care due to HIV or any other disease deserve to be cared for without judgment. Families should not abandon those who become ill no matter what. But what has been posted so far in this thread does not indicate that anyone has suggested turning their backs on those in need. Indeed, we should treat others like Christ at all times - especially those in need. Those of us in the Church have a responsibility to instruct and lead others in what is right.

Father Mike's comment about "resistance to see homosexual sex as acceptable" is confusing. If we are followers of Christ then we cannot see homosexual sex as acceptable. If we see it as acceptable then we are not followers of Christ but rejecters of Him and the moral teachings of His Church. Treating others like Christ and caring for those in need does not mean approval of immoral behavioral choices (indeed, Scripture is clear not to have anything to do with people who reject Christ and His Teachings, but we still treat them as if they were Christ). There is an appropriate time to witness Christian morality. And there is an appropriate time to provide care. Once someone is ill judgment on how they acquired their illness is inappropriate. Yet I think that most family members who reject (wrongly) do so not mainly out of moral judgment but out of fear. They need care and education, too.

For another view: go to:

http://forusa.org/articlesandresources/wink-homosexuality.html

Administrator: I'm out of this painful discussion.
Perhaps it's time to shut it down.

Fr. Mike

I guess this is where I revert back to my old Evangelical memorization ... this one being "love the sinner and hate the sin."
abby
<*)))><

Father Mike,

Yes, I've seen that article. It essentially rejects Church Teaching and as such is unacceptable. I don't have it handy but there is an analysis of it done from a biblical perspective that shows it to be fiction. I can only call people to follow what the Church has clearly taught because it is the only thing that is true, the only thing that saves.

There are numerous summaries of Catholic Teaching on this issue. I'll reference just one:

On the Care of Homosexual Individuals [vatican.va]

The Letter [vatican.va] that is linked provides a very good but brief refutation of that promoted in the article you linked.

But we are now off topic. I won't close the thread yet, but will do so if no one returns to the original topic.

John

Hogwash!!! Even if the teachings of the scriptures were unclear on the matter, (which they are not) the infallible voice of the Church is clear.

And of course we care for those in need without judgment.

Stephanos I

But the Churches infallible voice is only a reflection of its members, in union with the faith of the past, and should be ever evolving to represent the changing times and views of the people... (snicker.)

So what is your point?

I assume this is meant as a parody of something Mr. Blair might have said.

It was.

Blair wants to treat the Church as a Democracy and thinks that if enough of the peopel decide its time to Change the Doctrines, then the Doctrines shoudl change. He views the Pope as the spiritual Head of the Church and thus as a representative of the Catholic people, and each local Parish as a Community run as an expression of Catholic peopels faith. He has no concept of submitting to Christ as King, and thinks the Churches teachingss ae contengent on majority rule.

In a recent interview with Dominic Lawson, the new Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, is asked what he thinks "about Blair lecturing the church in this way, so soon after joining." Here is the archbishop's reply (with my emphases):

Source
"News Review interview: Vincent Nichols" [timesonline.co.uk], The Sunday Times, May 24, 2009. Accessed May 26, 2009.

And the proper response is to pray for PM Tony Blair. Becoming Catholic - that is correctly embracing the Teachings of the Church and growing into Christ - is a way of life. It's a journey one never finishes. Keep praying for him!