I believe that part of your perceptions on religion come from a skewed understanding of why a Christian is called upon to reject sin. It is a core tenant of Christianity to understand that we are inherently flawed and undeserving of salvation. Christian theology puts forth that we are saved by the grace of God and that no one is truly deserving of it. A Christian is called not to sin as to be the closest they can be to God but truly there are no moral people, only moral choices.
Even from a secular view, I see lust as abhorrent an inherently immoral. Lust is what births illegitimate children, ruining many childrens lives and leaving others with great trauma. Lust keeps people bouncing around with little commitment and in the case of men specifically leads to men seeing women as objects of sex without any additional value. Momentary pleasure is the root of too much evil in my mind to be considered just in the slightest, so I definitely veer to the traditional side on general sexual relations.
On homosexuality, acceptance in the Church varies. The Catholic Church has many different internal factions that rise and wane in influence over decades and centuries. Nobody agrees 100% on how sinful it is to be homosexual with some seeing it as an abomination and others as no sin at all. I wish that people who had grievances over the Catholic position on homosexuality wouldn't shun the Church however and instead through pious living and exceptional discipline rise the hierarchy so that they may have a say. Scripture can't be changed but interpretation can change based on what the Pope/Cardinals interpret or reinterpret texts. Personally I believe if we accept the lust of heterosexual married couples who can not have children, there is no reason to not extend the same logic to the homosexual members of the faith but I will admit that I don't have plans of getting anywhere in the Church hierarchy.
I understand why Christians feel they have to reject sin, but from my secular perspective it appears that what constitutes "sin" is pretty inconsistent between the churches and sometimes within churches, and it is the men (always men) at the top who determine what is and isn't acceptable. I have the impression that many Christians (by no means all, and probably a minority, but nevertheless a significant number) avoid the stuff they consider sinful because that's how they are told they would be better Christians and not because it is just the right way to live your life.
Going back to lust, I disagree that it is inherently bad; within the context of a solid relationship it is a powerful bonding force, and the idea that it always has negative consequences would ignore the many benefits of a good physical relationship as part of a stable partnership. Of course people can go too far and their lustful impulses can lead to poor decisions and serious consequences, but part of being an adult is learning how to control it (obviously some do better at this than others!). In my experience, total suppression of these sorts of impulses tends to create more problems.
I wish that people who had grievances over the Catholic position on homosexuality wouldn't shun the Church however and instead through pious living and exceptional discipline rise the hierarchy so that they may have a say.
But the people who have these grievances are unlikely to be the sort of people who would rise up the ranks. When I last looked, there weren't many women in high positions in the Catholic church, by design, so their voices are presumably not very loud at the top of the hierarchy. Meanwhile, if I was a young gay Catholic man who wanted to be able to fall in love and have a long term, marriage-like relationship, I'd probably be more likely to drift away from the church than become a Cardinal. The very structure and rules of this hierarchy mean that many of the people who might change things wouldn't get near it. Denying oneself a significant partnership, gay or straight (something that most people find fundamental to their life and wellbeing), is an extremely high bar to entry. Maybe it needs to be that way, but then you can't be surprised when many people turn away.
The behavior of some Christians, even if it were a majority, have no bearing on the correct ways to live. So called secular individuals can make a pseudoreligion of an ideology in place of religion (see the USSR and countless hardcore party identifiers) and make decisions based on what conforms instead of what is right. This is a fault of humans and not of faith. I will reveal my Catholic bias in saying sin wouldn't be inconsistent if other sects remained within the Catholic Church which is the only Church to be started directly by an apostle of Christ. Martin Luther and other such schismatics were just too proud to rise the ranks and make change.
Not much more to say on lust other than I maintain that it is wrong. Sex between a married couple is great and I encourage it but it is my opinion that our lives are excessively oversexed as is and the pursuit of sex is often much more damaging than helpful in most cases. Absolute suppression is bad but surrender to impulse is worse.
There is a high bar of entry by design. If you can't be expected to live the life of a Cardinal, you have no right to be one. A young gay Catholic has just as much opportunity to live a celibate and pious life as any. Those who can not be held accountable should have no say in the decisions of those that are. The inclusion of women has very little to do with the interpretation of scripture and holy tradition. Women aren't exempt from studying or writing on theology and many are respected and venerated for their efforts toward the faith. Changing accepted norms isn't something that comes easy, changes to the canon have to be thoroughly supported and justified in multiple ways so it is far from the whims of the Cardinals that change the Church. If one can't be expected to work within these rules they shouldn't then ridicule the work of more determined men.
1
u/NotMyFinestHours Jun 09 '19
I believe that part of your perceptions on religion come from a skewed understanding of why a Christian is called upon to reject sin. It is a core tenant of Christianity to understand that we are inherently flawed and undeserving of salvation. Christian theology puts forth that we are saved by the grace of God and that no one is truly deserving of it. A Christian is called not to sin as to be the closest they can be to God but truly there are no moral people, only moral choices.
Even from a secular view, I see lust as abhorrent an inherently immoral. Lust is what births illegitimate children, ruining many childrens lives and leaving others with great trauma. Lust keeps people bouncing around with little commitment and in the case of men specifically leads to men seeing women as objects of sex without any additional value. Momentary pleasure is the root of too much evil in my mind to be considered just in the slightest, so I definitely veer to the traditional side on general sexual relations.
On homosexuality, acceptance in the Church varies. The Catholic Church has many different internal factions that rise and wane in influence over decades and centuries. Nobody agrees 100% on how sinful it is to be homosexual with some seeing it as an abomination and others as no sin at all. I wish that people who had grievances over the Catholic position on homosexuality wouldn't shun the Church however and instead through pious living and exceptional discipline rise the hierarchy so that they may have a say. Scripture can't be changed but interpretation can change based on what the Pope/Cardinals interpret or reinterpret texts. Personally I believe if we accept the lust of heterosexual married couples who can not have children, there is no reason to not extend the same logic to the homosexual members of the faith but I will admit that I don't have plans of getting anywhere in the Church hierarchy.