Cardinal to Ricky Martin: Stop promoting homosexuality

"Just stop with that nonsense"  Classy, real classy.

For Michael it seems useless to ask, "What does the evidence say?" Of course consensus can break down, evidence gets challenged, & positions change. Sound arguments and proof matter. 

When dealing with such an important topic I like to base my position on scholarly consensus if that exists.  If you have any academic studies that challenge this consensus I'd be very interested in learning about them. 

God Bless Cardinal Martinez

Another raving homophobe.  How would the church ever raise money without its constant drumbeat against gays?

Bill Freeman, I ask you to support your attacks against Cardinal Martinez.  Where in Cardinal Martinez' statement was he "raving,"or  "phobic" of homosexuals?  Is it possible you just lashing out because you a raving Christian-phobe?

Martin Gallagher - if you don't see the clear and obvious homophobia in Martinez' comments, then nothing I can say can convince you.  

A strange admonishment, as it seems very unlikely that a practicing homosexual would agree that others should be discouraged from practicing homosexuality. Logically, wouldn't Ricky Martin first have to decide to stop practicing homosexuality?

Bill,

OK, I'll accept that argument.  A cardinal calmly and lovingly explaining 2000 years of Christian teaching is simply being a bigot. 

What was the Cardinal's objective?  There must be something missing from his message in this report because it reads like nonsense.

Martin,

You say: ''A cardinal calmly and lovingly explaining 2000 years of Christian teaching is simply being a bigot.''

I am not sure I would call the cardinal a bigot, but suppose a Jew calmly and lovingly, based on well over 2000 years of tradition, asked the cardinal to stop harming the youth of the world by spreading Christianity. Imagine the Jew publicly called on the cardinal to stop spreading the false belief that Jesus was the expected Messiah.

Or suppose a Muslim calmly and lovingly said much the same thing to the cardinal. Or anyone from any number of belief systems that do not accept Christianity told the cardinal calmly and lovingly he was trying to instill false beliefs in the youths of the world.

Expressing your message calmly and lovingly is no guarantee that it is not an offensive message. 

So this is what 88 yearold cardinals have on their mp3 players.
The words by the Cardinal seem to be false or at least disingenuous when he states or speaks about the "wonderful gifts" the lord has given Ricky Martin.
Could he even name one song by the singer?
Most likely not ,but he felt that he had to sweeten the pill with empty words.
It is of course a question of taste but to laud the talent of Ricky Martin would call for a credulous interlocutor.  
The Cardinal is probably trying his best but it would be great to see a Cardinal  speaking his mind without feeling the need to curry favour with the public. 
Apart from the fact that I think he is not such  a great talent Ricky Martin has always been respectful in interviews etc and has not so far cast himself in the martyr role so coveted by many homosexuals. He would no doubt get a few magazine headlines and the papers itself would love a "I am catholic but "quote from him.
The cardinal seems to see himself as primarily a guardian of moral values.By such and such is Christianity lost.   

OMG, Ricky Martin is gay??????

It's good to hear someone call attention to the fact that sexual conduct, including homosexual acts (and I believe choice of exclusive sexual preference, as well) can be taught to children.  Every parent should be made aware of this fact. 

Our pathetic culture puts celebrities such as Martin on pedestals and the youth envy and emulate them.  Most of these clowns can afford la vida loca and its trappings such as 2-day marriages, out-of-wedlock births, drug addictions, and medical treatments for STDs acquired in reckless sexual encounters.  The average fan cannot. 

If all of the celebrities who died of AIDS and drug overdoses, or regularly cycle in and out of rehabs, or surgically distort their faces to look like aliens, or lose their minds like Charlie Sheen are not enough to change our youth's fascination and envy of these people, what good is Ricky Martin (is he even a celebrity anymore?) speaking out with a "do as I say, not as I do" message going to do?

What's needed is some media attention to the research about homosexuality that counters all of the biased info being paraded out by well-funded homosexual activist organizations.  Start with this book:  http://www.amazon.com/My-Genes-Made-Me-Do/dp/1563841657

@Michael Brooks,

I think that you dont go far enough .I would say what is needed is a stoning of each and every gay. That would solve all problems very quickly and render much glory to God in the process .HE must be fairly embarrassed at having created these people in the first place. 

They must really be feeling the love at this stage......

When Jesus walked among us he had a particular knack of friendship and was practically pessimistic towards absolutist doctrines.Obviously that will not work any longer so we should form a new programme.

BTW, I agree with the propaganda part but are we catholics any better??      

"Sexual conduct, including homosexual acts (and I believe choice of exclusive sexual preference, as well) can be taught to children."

In this great land of ours Michael and everyone else are free to "believe" what they wish.  But let's be clear: the scholarly community, including the APA, have concluded that one's sexual orientation cannot be taught. 

David – I know that there will always be people commiting homosexual acts and adopting same-sex preferences, but that doesn’t mean that we should therefore embrace it and promote it, especially when we know that it can be taught to children. 

Jesus knew that people were susceptible to temptation, but he didn’t tell the prostitute to form a coalition to change attitudes toward fornication; he told her to cut it out.  Pretty clear talk there.  He didn’t ask about her motivations for selling herself, whether she suffered from nymphomania, whether she was poor and unskilled in any trade, “born that way,” or disagreed with public opinion about it. 
I think it’s ok to promote good causes that create a better society; the Church has done and continues to do great works around the world; frankly, I fail to see what good comes from homosexuality, except satisfaction of the selfish desires of individuals.  I got a laundry list of problems with it. 

Please, Vince, the scholarly community (and I used to work in academia) are so enamored with themselves that they either cannot see their own biases or think that they can fool the unenlightened to believe anything that they tell them.  Just stop with that nonsense.

We all know about the APA and its political decision (driven by its homosexual membership) to remove homosexuality from its fluid list of disorders.  Sort of the same reason that only pro-homosexual posts appear on this Jesuit site and previously unheard of theological arguments created to support the positions espoused.

Anyone who claims a homosexual orientation is chosen or can be ''taught'' by gay people trying to make ''converts'' is so out of touch with reality that his or her opinion can be disregarded. Such a person is ignorant, not necessarily in the pejorative sense, but in the sense that he or she does not know or understand the nature of sexual orientation.

There are such things as facts. Ask any gay person whether he or she chose a homosexual orientation. If you believe gay people will answer falsely, ask gay people who belong to the Catholic group Courage and are earnestly trying to live chaste lives. Why would anyone choose homosexuality and then join a support group to try not to engage in homosexual behavior?

The Catechism says: ''Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. . . . By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.''

Where in there is the notion that a homosexual orientation is a choice?

  It is not only the right but the duty of a Catholic Bishop to give counsel/guidance to any member of his flock who is openly bringing scandal to the Churcfh.  As a Catholic, Mr. Martin is part of the Mystical Body of Christ.  The Cardinal would be derilict in his duties if he didn't admonish his lifestyle.  As far as the Church's right to castigate the homosexual lifestyle, It has been doing that since St. Paul visited Greece 2000 years ago.  In fact, they have a moral right and responsibility to warn and encourage people not to participate in this dangerous behavior.  Look at morbidity rates for practicing homosexuals and you will find very disturbing statistics on the life expectancy of gay men.  The Church knows the perils first hand.  Catholic missionaries were taking care of AIDS victims in Africa before anyone in this country knew what AIDS were.  Before you marginalize me and my post by calling me "homophobe", know that nothing I say is untrue and I love all the Children of God including homosexuals.  Peace and love to all.

David Nickols -

I said that homosexuality CAN be taught and adopted; and there is plenty of research to suggest not only that but that most homosexual orientation is a product of environment, not genetics, as homosexuals - and as most of us feel about our sexuality - believe. 
 
Opinion polls oftentimes are not very conclusive of anything.  When dealing with a subject matter that has a social stigma attached to it, I would imagine it would be very hard to find homosexuals who would admit to choosing such a lifestyle and even more difficult to find heterosexuals who would admit having chosen heterosexuality after having experimented with homosexuality.  I'm not ignorant; I know what I'm talking about. I'll leave it at that.

Michael Brooks,

You are simply wrong. If there is plenty of research, then cite some.

Sexual orientation may be, to some degree, the result of environmental factors. I suppose it even might be, to some degree, learned. But taught is another matter entirely. Nobody really knows. But to say that something is the result of environmental factors, or even to say it is learned, is not to say it is chosen or adopted.

I often wonder how people perceive their own sexual orientation if they believe sexual orientation is a choice. Do people remember when they chose? Can they explain the factors that went into their decision? Can they change their minds? If a candidate for ordination has deep-seated homosexual tendencies, can't the Catholic Church just persuade him to choose heterosexuality? 

Now, if we are talking merely about ''lifestyle'' rather than orientation, of course ''lifestyle'' is a choice. Someone with a homosexual orientation can choose to be celibate. But he cannot choose not to have a homosexual orientation.

Perhaps your notion of choice is more complex than I give you credit for, and you don't mean that people say, ''Hmmm . . which should I be, gay or straight?'' Maybe by ''choice'' you mean a much more complex process than I am imagining. If so we might find some areas of agreement. But if you are claiming that people just make up their minds to be heterosexual, and if they don't like it, they change their minds and become heterosexual, then that is, quite frankly, absurd.

I would ask Mr. Brooks to provide the scientific studies that conclude that homosexuality is not genetics but a product of the environment.

Anyone who works in this specific field of study knows better, as do most informed Catholics.

You can promote a lifestyle as much as you like, but that does not mean people will embrace it. What Mr. Martin is doing is not so much "promoting" the homosexual lifestyle but explaining how he feels about it, his sense of love and not his sense of guilt. Homosexuality is not like temptation in the sense of watching phono films. A heterosexual is tempted by such explicit promotion of sex. A few may even become a phorno star. To make a point by exaggeration: You can watch all the homosexual films all day for a year and not become a homosexual. It is not a temptation, a panacea or a mystery. It is a human orientation that affects about 10% of the population, some say more than 10%.

The question for our opinion of morality is "If God made us in his image and likeness, why would He infict 10%+ of people with a sinful genetic disorder that would "naturally" lead to condemnation?"  Did God really expect this cohort of people to live a celibate life?  Did God give these people any other "choice"?  Can a homosexual "choose" to be celibate or not a homosexual? 

Most people have "choices" based on a free will. For example, people who grow up in a crime infested enviornment are more prone to crime than ohters. However, they have a choice. It is a difficult choice, but a choice. A homosexual does not have a "choice" in terms of his natual disposition.

These are complex questions that should not be easily dismissed because of our past principles of morality. Remember, intercourse was once only for procreation, intercourse during mentruation was a mortal sin, intercourse during pregnance was forbidden and intercourse had only one licit natural postion. Today, these principles are obsolete. Could a "re-thinking" of homosexuality change our current view of morality?

@Michael Brooks,

Michael I appreciate your points and agree with most of the points you make but feel they are not important. The truth is that God will love gays no matter what they get up to in their downtime.
To me God has more planned for them than that lifestyle just as he has more for all catholics (myself included) who get tied up in knots over such things.No Cardinal has Good news on his lips and this is the real scandal.
We all know what the number one sin was for Jesus.Everybody,liberals and conservatives ,biblical scholars and peasants all know the thing Jesus went on about day and night. And strangely it is the one sin that a bishop or cardinal or the Vatican never speaks about.If Jesus mentioned sexual sins once in the Gospels he mentioned this one 10. What is the sin that Jesus placed as the baddest and dirtiest of all?
Why so important for Jesus Christ yet so unimportant for the Church today?

Could the cardinal not have asked to speak with Ricky Martin in person and showed him some courtesy?They could have chatted and both seen the humanity of the other.As it appears in the article above it comes across as the singling out of one of the flock .

But my god how absent that sin is from ecclesiastical pronouncements!!!!!! 

David -

In using the words choice and adopt, I meant it in the context that concerns me the most:  that "normalizing" homosexuality will lead children who might otherwise have led a traditional mother-father-children life to lead a life involving homosexual acts, perhaps exclusively homosexual.  Whether that outcome is a result of conscious choice, subconscious choice, removal of repressed thought or other process is not really relevant to my concern.  

I dont have the studies at my fingertips (but I'm familiar mostly with the twins studies, which, at best, are inconclusive of a genetic component), but even in the absence of those, it's pretty commonly known that there are cultures, most notably anicent Greece, where homosexuality was promoted and became more prevalent in society than it otherwise would have been has it not been mainstreamed.  If you expose people to an act that they would not otherwise be exposed to, tell them that it is ok to do it or even more, hold it out as something to be proud of, present them with friends and acquaintances who have tried it and liked it, etc... you will have an increase in participation in that act.  As a loose analogy, consider people who bungee jump; an act totally against our notions of safety.

Admittedly, I believe that traditional families are the basis for a stable culture that encourages responsible parenthood, gives kids a mom and a dad, and reduces single motherhood, poverty, and reliance on government support.  I think kids should be given their best shot at having the blessing of a traditional marriage and participate in the gift of procreation.  I respect the fact that other people don't find themselves wanting that, but it's what I want for my kids and can't think of any redeeming factors in homosexual relationships that would compel me to encourage my kids - or anyone's kids - to even be exposed to such a life.

Tolerance for all people who are different is immensely important in our society.  But there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance and/or promotion.  As an extreme example that I think we could all agrre on, I tolerate that some people have pedophilic urges and that those people should not be harassed or abused; but I would not support a "stop bullying the pedophiles day." 

Michael Barbieri -

You're playing with semantics; what I call ''propaganda'' someone else calls f''ree speech.''  What I call ''promotion'' you call ''explaining how one feels.''  The point is, that homosexual advocates are pushing for acceptance of their acts and lifestyles, not just stopping physical and verbal adversity against them.  Acceptance breeds adoption by others; it's human nature to observe, question, experiment with, and learn new behaviors.  And participating in a pleasurable behavior can indeed lead to a change in preference, even in matters of sexuality.  

E.g., p?eople can, have, and will learn about sodomy (homosexual or heterosexual); ?a?n?d? not everybody, but some and even many?? ?w?i?l?l? ?p?a?r?t?i?c?i?p?a?t?e? ?i?n? ?i?t? ?b?e?c?a?u??s???e??????? ??i?t?'?s? ??''?o?u?t? ?t?h?e?r?e?.??''?????? ? ?It's never bee?n promoted, but we've become more aware of it since those groovy days o?f the 1960s. ?? ???????????????????????
?
??What’s good or moral is beyond my concern of the post.  My concern is that my children will more likely participate in homosexual acts and even consider a homosexual lifestyle when homosexuality is mainstreamed and promoted as normal.  I don’t see any good that comes of that; but I see lots of bad.