The Catholic acceptance of gays

Regarding Jeff Kingston’s Aug. 25 Counterpoint article, “Gay marriage in Japan? Only over the reactionary LDP’s cadaver“: This sentence in the article caught my eye: “Despite the Philippines being largely Roman Catholic, 73 percent of respondents there said society should accept gays.”

What an alarming display of ignorance of Catholic teaching. Accepting “gays” — as in homosexual people — is required by Catholic teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in plain language that homosexual people are to be treated with dignity, respect and Christ-like love. The majority of people in the Philippines don’t accept gays “despite” being mostly Catholic — they accept them because of it!

What the Catholic Church does not accept, though, is homosexual behavior. Kingston errs gravely in equating this with a nonacceptance of homosexual people.

Simply put, “hate the sin but love the sinner” is the best way to sum up Catholicism’s view on homosexuality and those who engage in it. The former is morally out of bounds, but the latter are human beings who deserve to be treated as such.

Hopefully Kingston will recognize this difference in future pieces touching on homosexuality and Catholic teaching pertaining to it.

jennifer kim
obihiro, hokkaido

The opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Japan Times.

  • GIJ

    Hey Jennifer, how would you feel if somebody started a religion that declared heterosexual behavior to be a sin?

    • Jennifer Kim Baumann

      Your question contains a fundamental flaw: It implies that heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are fundamentally the same. They’re not. Heterosexuality is what our bodies are designed for — by nature and by nature’s God. Homosexuality is not. It takes a total rejection of Biology 101 to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. And then some people have the audacity to claim that the Catholic Church, and other churches, are “against science.” As with its teachings on abortion, Catholicism’s teachings on homosexuality square fully with science and biology. Secularist views on these issues don’t square with science at all; they spit in its face.

      • “Of course, the Church’s position on abortion takes no more notice of the details of biology than it does of the reality of human suffering. It has been estimated that 50% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, usually without the woman even realizing she was pregnant. In fact, 20% of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgement: if God exists, he is the most prolific abortionist of all.” – Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

        Jennifer, if you haven’t read the above book, I highly recommend it. It’s short – you can get through it in a day.

      • timthesocialist

        No, sorry, you’re wrong. Gay behavior does exist in nature. It is exhibited in thousands of species, and is completely natural. Humans have sex for pleasure, not only procreation. Then again, I don’t think it would behoove anyone to take biology lessons from the Catholic church.

  • camnai

    @Jennifer Kim
    I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense. How is somebody a homosexual if they don’t behave like one?

    And if homosexual behaviour is, as you put it, a ‘sin’, why does God (assuming for the sake of discussion that he/she/it exists) keep on making homosexuals? If they go through life without behaving as homosexuals, do they get extra credit at the Pearly Gates for the sin they have resisted that the other 99-or-whatever per cent of us haven’t had to? That doesn’t sound fair to the rest of us.

  • timthesocialist

    So Catholicism doesn’t condemn or hate gays, it just condemns and hates what makes them gay. So God made gay people, gave them the attraction towards the same sex, and then decided to condemn them for being who they are. No, that doesn’t make a lick of sense. The Catholic church DOES condemn homosexuality, and to claim the reverse is an exercise in disingenuous cognitive dissonance.