CATHOLIC DUTY TO DISOWN GAY SON
Here is a pro-Catholic argument that instructs Catholic parents to disown their
gay son:
Now let's say a child comes out to his devout Catholic parents that he's gay and
he is choosing to live an actively gay lifestyle and he refuses to repent of his
sin. Because of this, his parents become absolutely enraged and decide to disown
him and cut off all ties with him because he will not repent. The family will
not talk to him, has cut him out of their will and will not change until the son
decides to repent.
I would think of this situation as reasonable. Sort of like an incurred familial
excommunication that the son willed for.
Would that be wrong? It's not like the family hates him and won't forgive him,
but they simply want nothing to do with him because his sins bring great shame
upon the family and he will not give up on his sins. The family agrees to
"reown" (so to speak) him if he repents and comes back to them, but unless that
happens then they will not.
Shunning was certainly accepted by early Christians. I don't think it should be
dealt lightly, but sometimes the flock has to be protected against sinners, lest
they be drawn astray.
Quote:
11
But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is
immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to
eat with such a person.
12
For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those
within?
13
God will judge those outside. "Purge the evil person from your midst."
1 Corinthians 5:11-13
The text forbids such reasoning as, "They are not all bad." Paul evidently sees
their sins as intolerable. Lots of "sexually immoral" people do not mean any
harm or do any harm. Drunkard seems to refer to anybody that is drunk not just
an alcoholic. We are not told, "Lots of drunk people are great fun. Be nice to
them." Indeed we are told the opposite. It is clear from the text that the
apostle was advocating judgementalism over and beyond what an atheist would. It
is insanity to reason as some do, "Homosexuality can be relatively harmless
therefore it's not a sin" and claim to be a knowledgeable Bible believer.
Paul does not agree with tolerate the sinner but not the sin. It does not make
any sense anyway and is only cherished by those whom it turns into hypocrites.
Indeed Jesus himself said that anybody who goes to eternal punishment is in the
same condition as one who has never done a good deed in their life. He explained
all this in the Gospel of Matthew. He said they are going to Hell not for
hurting others but because when they hurt others it was him they hurt. This
implies that they could have been seen as good people but because they didn't do
good for his sake he condemns them. Both Jesus and Paul then suggested the
sinner must be completely rejected.
It is interesting that Paul says God will judge outsiders while urging Christians
to judge their own instead of letting God do the judging like he does for
outsiders. This is to emphasise that Christians breaking the rules must be given
zero tolerance.
Paul said that everything written in the Old Testament was written for our
instruction. Scripture permits parents to have a wayward son put to death by
stoning just for being a drunkard or immoral - see Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Clearly
the parent-child relationship must be ended by the parents if a son is gay.
Ideally, God wants the child murdered. If that is not possible today then
disinheriting and shunning the child is required.
1 Timothy 6:3-4 says "If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to
healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that
accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding
anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about
words.”
Christians may say that this is merely questioning the sanity of somebody who
leaves Christianity. They add that that questioning is understandable as
Christianity is such a marvellous religion. They say it is not incitement to
hatred or a medical diagnosis. It is incitement to hatred and a form of abuse to
say that somebody is mad when you are not qualified to give a medical diagnosis.
And 1 Timothy was giving a medical diagnosis. In those days, any quack had that
authority. Nowadays it is medical professionals who are properly accredited. The
letter does not have apostates only in mind. It is thinking of anybody who
claims to be a believer and who alters the teaching of Jesus Christ. The
Catholic then cannot respect the views of an LGBT child. That is making
disowning inevitable.
A big part of morality is that we cannot fully understand it and religion says
we need revelation from God who does know better than us. The scriptures do
state that there are circumstances in which offspring should be disowned. We
must obey and not protest. Arguments such as, "It will isolate the son or
daughter and he or she will get more stubborn and anti-God and such and such a
disaster will happen", simply ignore the fact that God lovingly takes care of
the seemingly bad results. They are his concern not ours. We use this logic when
obedience to the ban on birth control sometimes seems to cause great harm. And
if the son or daughter gets more anti-God, it is he or she alone who has
hardened into this attitude. Many believe that children should be disowned for
drug pushing etc. There is no mention of the fact that a gay son or daughter is
committing a sin graver than murder for he or she leads others into danger of
everlasting torment through sex and scandal. The Old Testament refers to
homosexuality as an abomination and says this is a quote from God. God comes
first - we are to love him with all our hearts and to love others as ourselves,
that is less than God. The more you love God the more you will abominate sin for
it is the converse of God. God commands us to love sinners but as he comes
first, the revulsion for sin we must feel has to be intense. Paul repeated and
confirmed the Old Testament teaching of God that evil must be purged from the
people by isolating the stubborn sinner. We are urged by scripture to judge as
God judges - fairly and by seeing our sin and that of others as something to be
hated. Is it fair to expect parents to put up with a gay son whose sin they are
to see as an abomination and have it flaunted in their faces?
On a forum where somebody condoned disowning gay sons, somebody wrote this
response "You should be ashamed of yourself for EVER thinking that's okay". That
shows more concern for rationalist humanistic thinking than for obedience to the
scriptures. St Paul was far more severe against the Corinthian man living in sin
with his stepmother than the the commentator you have a problem with so imagine
what Paul's reaction would have been had the man been having sex with men. He
handed the man over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh and excommunicated
him. What you wrote implicitly insults the holy apostle.
Jesus did say we must look for the lost sheep. But the gay son in the example is
not a lost sheep but a sheep that refuses to be found.
A poster said that parents disowning a gay son because of shame are being
selfish is forgetting the fact that we are entitled to feel shame. And if the
poster had taken a minute to think, no parents ever disown children simply
because of shame. There are other reasons as well. One of them and indeed the
main one should be is that the son or daughter has broken the law of God and
committed a sin that cries to Heaven for God to take severe action against it.
In brief, the post that started this controversy is orthodox. Catholic parents
do have the right to disown and cut off gay children. Jesus advocated tough love
for at the end of the day only it is real love (Matthew 23). Quote:
Jesus said
"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and
him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not
listen, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be
established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen
to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat
him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."
Matthew 18:15-17
Titus 3 says that if a man divides the Church you must give him a couple of
warnings and then "have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person
is perverted and sinful, he is self-condemned." The text is clear that the
person himself is to blame. Nobody can say it is just a rule.
MY THOUGHTS
The correct Christian view is that a gay son should be disowned. That the
question even arises in a religious context is homophobic in itself. Religion is
dangerous.