What Is 'Unjust' Discrimination against homosexuals, According to the RC Church?

First, please read:


2358 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. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

So as you can see, the Roman Catholic Church seems to take a rather middle-of-the-road approach to gays and homosexuality. As I’ve said once before, you can be homosexual, but you can’t be gay.

Anyways, I have just one question: what would qualify as ‘unjust’ discrimination? I mean give me examples. Or even one example. I’m serious.

Oh, and yeah, as a Catholic (I still consider myself one, FWIW) and a gay, you’d think I’d know. But all I can tell you is, the present pope seems to take a more liberal approach to the topic. That’s all I know.

(And BTW, I did message a moderator about this question. So at least as I explained to him, it should be alright :slight_smile: .)

(EDIT: BTW, I just realized I didn’t put ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’ in the title anywhere. Mods please insert a quick ‘Re: Gays’ in it. Thank you :slight_smile: .)

And then there are all the gay people who have pets, rather than kids. :wink:

Some types I can think that the Church would consider unjust:
Refusing to employ them
Refusing to allow them to rent from you
Refusing to sell them things

Heck, let’s stay within the confines of the RC Church - refusing to give them communion.

That is all I have to see to know that the RC church is bigoted about homosexuality. Their only basis for calling it “objectively disordered,” since there is no actual real-world evidence to support that, is their faith in an objectively cruel and unsympathetic god. I would not, by the way, call that a middle-of-the-road approach myself.

If they don’t themselves define or give examples of unjust discrimination, it just means (to me) that they want to leave themselves wiggle room to do whatever discrimination they think is right and proper at any given time. They don’t want to be rules-lawyered into a corner.

This actually fits very well with my interpretations of the Roman Catholic Church.

The homosexual act is a sin (note - this is not my belief; this is the “official” belief of the Church). I think they’ve gotten away from “just having an urge is a sin” (or, as George Carlin said "it’s a sin for you to wanna feel up Ellen, it was a sin for you to plan to feel up Ellen, it was a sin to figure out a place to feel up Ellen, it was a sin for you to take Ellen to the place, it was a sin to try to feel her up, and it was a sin to feel her up! 6 sins in one feel!). They’re saying above that having the urge and unable to act on it is hard enough for people; don’t make it worse on them. Everyone has a “cross to bear”; homosexual urges are theirs. Love the sinner; hate the sin.

Also, what would qualify as just discrimination? In order for there to be some discrimination that is unjust, there has to be something to compare it to…

What’s the difference? In my book, homosexual and gay are synonymous. The real difference the Catholic Church draws is that they don’t reject gays for their sexual orientation, but for practicing homosexual acts, which is all kinds of fucked up and deep discrimination in itself.

If they now acknowledge that there are over 2,000 gay people, I suppose that’s a start.

Here’s a story that approaches the question from the opposite angle: what does the RC Church (or at least some elements within it) consider justifiable discrimination against gays? It’s a story I’ve told before, but it bears repeating here because it does shed some light on the Church’s apparently ambivalent attitude.

Some years ago the students at a Catholic public high school here established a club they called the “Gay-Straight Alliance”. They established the club in response to discrimination and bullying that gay students were experiencing, to discourage such bullying and make them feel like welcome members of the school community. Some gay students (not necessarily at this school) were so incessantly bullied that they were driven to suicide.

The school quickly shut down the club, stating that such activities were inappropriate on school property. They apparently had the support of the Catholic school board. Shortly after, a Catholic bishop sent a fiery opinion piece to a local newspaper decrying the fact that such a sinful club had ever been allowed to exist in the first place.

To be fair, this was seven or eight years ago and things may have changed by now, but it was a clear stance that discrimination and bullying against gay students was acceptable, or at least, that it was preferable to trying to normalize acceptance of gay students.

It’s not hard to see the underlying roots of these beliefs. Catholic dogma holds that it’s the duty of every good Catholic to procreate like a rabbit, and have as many kids as possible. Conversely, they also believe that the sole purpose of sex is the production of babies, and that any other motivation is a terrible sin. Since gay sex violates both of those principles, in their eyes it is – as the Bible so neatly puts it – an abomination.

Could you please check and see if it actually has changed-if such clubs are now allowed?

It has, but not necessarily due to enlightenment, but due to law (the Accepting Schools Act in Ontario). The following text and link is from the secular (“public”) Toronto School Board and not the Catholic one, but it references the law that applies to all:

In Ontario, every student has a right to a GSA in their school and school boards are required to support students in establishing GSAs. In the past, homophobic administrators in Ontario have told students they cannot call their group a Gay-Straight Alliance. The Accepting Schools Act protects students’ choice to name their GSA themselves. Students who would like to start a GSA at their elementary, middle, or secondary school should contact their school principal or the TDSB’s Gender-Based Violence Prevention office.


The Catholic board doesn’t seem to have much to say about it, but they are subject to the law, and at least one Toronto-area Catholic school has a GSA:


ETA: I’m glad you asked me to check – I had not been following up on subsequent changes. My story must also have been more than 8 years ago, because the Accepting Schools Act came into force in 2012. The events that I related were probably a year or two before that, and the public kerfuffle that resulted probably spurred the government to action. Nevertheless, the point about Catholic dogma remains. I’m sure that there are some Catholic bishops and school administrators still fuming about the godless heathens passing a law to protect gay students.

Well, I don’t know about the school wolfpup told about, but at least my home diocese, the diocese of Paderborn, has just established a “queer-sensible” group to work out these issues. I don’t have much hope that it’s a big step for Catholic policies about (or shall we say against) queer people, but given that we are a rural, conservative and still very Catholic region, it’s a step forward. You have to take into account that German Catholicism is very liberal per se, forced by the public opinion of their believers (and more and more unbelievers who quit the RCC in droves).

Sorry, I only found German links:

One form of discrimination that the Church definitely considers permissible is that the Church does not allow same-sex marriage.