.- The rector of St. Matthew Cathedral in South Bend disagrees with his fellow priestâs assertion that homosexual orientation is âa beautiful part of God's planâ and âa healthy act of God and nature.â
Fr. Michael Heintz wrote a response in the South Bend Tribune to Fr. Edward Reutzâs June 23 contribution to Michiana Point of View.
âDespite Ruetz's assertion that Jesus ânever condemned the lifestyle,â there is a clear and constant teaching within the Scriptures and the Catholic tradition in opposition to homosexual activity,â Fr. Heintz pointed out.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, he said, is clear on homosexuality.
âWhile the Church certainly distinguishes between homosexual orientation (which I believe is not, in the vast majority of cases, something chosen by an individual) and homosexual activity (which I believe is intrinsically disordered and also within the capacity of an individual freely to choose), those who are homosexual are encouraged and supported by the Church and its sacraments to live â no less than heterosexual individuals are â a chaste life,â wrote Fr. Heintz.
The rector said the Church calls all people, regardless of sexual orientation, to holiness.
âThere is ample evidence in early Christianity that this call was taken quite seriously and that there were certain âlifestylesâ and even occupations which were considered simply incompatible with the Gospel,â Fr. Heintz wrote.
âThere is no doubt that Jesus reached out to those on the fringes of society,â he concluded. âBut at the same time it is equally clear that he invited those whom he touched to entrust themselves to him and to emend their lives; that call is no less real â and no less demanding â today.â
New amendment would protect attacks on religion by âintolerant peopleâ
WASHINGTON D.C.â A constitutional amendment that would protect public expressions of faith and religion was introduced, after a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling removed the Ten Commandments from a Kentucky courthouse, reported CNSNews.com.
Buoyed by pro-family groups, more than 100 congressmen proposed the Religious Freedom Amendment.
"Intolerant people have been attacking the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, voluntary prayers at school, and other religious expression, but this amendment will halt those attacks," said Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) in a statement.
The Supreme Court has sent the clear message to public officials that âthey will face an onslaught of expensive litigation unless they remove the Ten Commandments from public property,â he said.
The amendment reads: "To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage and traditions on public property, including schools. The United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity."
"Our founders created a country and a Constitution that protected the ability of individuals to freely express their respective religions in public life,â said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md).
âWhat they opposed was a state religion,â he explained in a statement. âThe latest pair of Supreme Court decisions adds to decades of confusion about what seems so simple to most Americans.â
A two-thirds vote in the House and Senate is required to pass the constitutional amendment. Then, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the 50 states.