I don’t think that’s a valid analogy. Being pregnant is not an act of disobedience per se, and she may already have repented of the act which got her pregnant. In contrast, dating someone of the same sex would be an active act of disobedience to Catholic doctrine.
From what I gather, it isn’t being gay that is the problem, as much as having gay sex.
And, as we have established earlier, the two arn’t neccesarily boinking, and are very unlikely to boink at the actual event, I don’t see why they would have a problem with it.
(okay, I admit to knowing that that isn’t actually the way things work)
While homosexual orientation is not in and of itself a sinful matter within Catholicism, I believe that dating someone of your own gender, even if there is no sex involved, would be considered a gravely disorder action, because it offers up great opportunity for such mortal sin to occur.
I don’t agree with the schoolboard’s actions, but I understand that a religious school will be run within the confines of the faith that sponsors it. I am not well-informed enough about Canadian law to make a determination if there are extenuating circumstances which would abrogate such rights of the associated religious authority.
In Dallas, we have a citywide “gay prom” in May. Maybe they have something like that up there…
Kirk
That is correct. Catholicism also opposes homoseual dating and romantic involvement – not just homosexual sex alone.
Not to hijack things too far, but doesn’t hetrosexual dating put you at the same risk of some pretty big sins as homosexual dating?
Not quite. Heterosexual relationships are not intrinsically disordered, and can lead to marriage, and thus what the Church considers healthy sex, whereas homosexual relationships can never lead to such fulfillment. In Catholic parlance, they lack “finality.”
Kirk
Not according to one of Cardinal Law’s boys (don’t remember his name, sorry). He was on CNN the other night, and when asked about the churches views on homosexuality, he said they had no problem with gay people. The problem is with extramarital sex, and since gay marriages aren’t considered valid, gay sex is a sin. Under those circumstances, two plutonic homosexuals at a prom should be perfectly acceptable.
So should they be allowed to go to the prom, or was the priest lying to make the church look good (well, at least a little bit better)?
Hmm. I jumped a few posts in this thread, but I’m just commenting on one aspect of this debate. Sorry if I am repeating someone else.
Comparisons have been made between letting a gay student bring their boyfriend to the prom, and letting a pregnant girl attend hers. Most people seem to say “allow both or ban both”. I don’t think that works, and here’s why.
The error is categorical, I think. There is a difference between one’s state of being and one’s actions. Being pregnant is one thing. Having sex is another. Same thing with being gay vs. being in a gay relationship, or going on a “gay date.” Since they allowed the pregnant girl to go to her prom, it would be wrong to not allow the gay guy to go to his prom. As far as I know, he’s still allowed to go, even though he’s trying to sue them and making such a huge fuss. They are not allowing him to practice homosexuality at the prom. Neither, I think, would they allow the girl to practice pre-marital sex at her prom.
So, I don’t think there are any contradictions there. Let them attend, just don’t let them practice while they’re there. Besides, the virtue of forgiveness is being promoted by allowing him to go.
Minor nitpick: Allan Rock is now the Minister of Industry.
You’re quite right - there is no right to attend a prom. By there is a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, by someone who is providing a service.
So, the school can say “No proms” and there’s no problem, no human rights case, nada.
But if the schools says, “We’ll have a prom, but we won’t let blacks attend,” then they’re discriminating on the basis of race.
Substitute “sexual orientation” in there and you’ve got the situation here.
There’s a big difference. He’s allowed to go, but not bring a date. She’s allowed to bring a date. I don’t recall reading anywhere that he was planning on giving head to his date while slow dancing.
I don’t think the priest was lying. I wasn’t either. The problem is that the Church’s teachings on homosexuality – where that line between “not sin” and “sin” are drawn, is muddled. The Church’s teachings are, from a broad perspective, in a positive (IMO) transition, as evidenced by the Vatican accepting the concept, in teh 1970s, that homosexuality was not a chosen condition, and therefore not intrinsically sinful in and of itself. When you take this confused leadership, and add to the fact that in Catholicism people are required to follow their conscience (thought they must try to conform it to the teachings of the church), it makes it hard to pin this whole issue down.
I was trying to give the most strict definition of the teachings that I could, because it seems that’s the POV the schoolboard is working from. Fr. Whoever from Boston (resign, please, Cardinal Law), was giving a more media-friendly and flexible one. But you can look at the Vatican’s position statements and Catholic moral theological traditions, and arrive at either one (as well as at position both more conservative than the one I offered, and way more liberal than what the TV priest said).
Kirk
With the way people dance today, how could you tell?
Doesn’t that seem like someone changing their views to suit the moment? The Priest was using it as an argument to show that the church was becoming more progressive, as a counter to the other debater’s views on the church. It’s pretty hard to debate with an members of an institution that changes its mind depending on how they wish to appear on that day.
I don’t think that’s a fair way to characterise the situation. I understand Kirkland to be saying that there is some diversity of views within the Roman Catholic church, that it’s not a monolithic institution, and that you may get different interpretations depending on who you’re talking to, much like any other large institution.
Now, if you got the same person within the church expressing different views on the same topic, depending on whom he’s talking to, you might have a point.
Maybe so, but he’s not being discriminated against based on his sexual orientation. Rather, he’s being prohibited from bringing a same-sex date, which is an entirely different matter. In other words, he can attend if he wants, but he can’t bring a same-sex date.
Consider how this would look for the school. If he brings a same-sex date, then this would give the appearance that the school is tacitly endorsing such relationships, in contradiction to their doctrinal views.
**
To a degree, it is. Catholicism, with its moral focus on the conscience of the individual, does have a lot of moral neutrality built into it… what cynics would call situational ethics.
The teachings are, as I said, muddled, and in the light of Catholic moral theology, can be taken many ways. Ergo, with a billion Catholics in the world, they will be taken many different ways. If someone’s conscience is properly formed, and they still do not consider x a sin, then they are under no obligation to treat x as a sin, within reason (there can be no moral justification for cold blooded killing, for instance).
However, the Church believes that someone whose conscience is properly formed will adopt the Church’s position. But they also accept this sometimes may not be true.
Kirk
OK, so let’s say that a school decided to ban interracial dating, not ban black people. If you’re black, you can only go with blacks – if you’re white, you can only go with whites (and so on for asians, latinos etc.)
Would that be a fair comparison? (My knowledge on legal matters is pretty close to nada)
I can see this. I hate it when I’m hanging around a bunch of gay guys and find myself choking on second-hand dick.
Now, thats funny:D