Are people born homosexual ?

[CopticChristian]

What does that have to do with my post?

“radically pro-homosexual” is that supposed to be some sort of bizarre personal attack, which makes sense only in your own mind? If I am a radical, then I shudder to think what century people might think of your thinking as belonging to.

I will admit to leaning toward libertarianism, and to be concerned for social justice.

When I see absurdity, I call it out, regardless of ideology. Looking at some of your posts, I can see why you might object to that habit, and call it radical perhaps. Is that where you are getting the idea of radicalism? That we disagree?

Epan,

All things must be seen in context, this is a Catholic website with those that adhere to the Catholic faith…you figure it out.

 

[epan]

Epan,

All things must be seen in context, this is a Catholic website with those that adhere to the Catholic faith…you figure it out.

I think you misuse the word radical.

Please explain why you chose to make an irrelevant statement in response to that post?

It may surprise you to learn that the Catholic Church exists in the context of a larger world. Try to figure that one out.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think you misuse the word radical.

Please explain why you chose to make an irrelevant statement in response to that post?

It may surprise you to learn that the Catholic Church exists in the context of a larger world. Try to figure that one out.

Epan,

Where did I use the word Church?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Then lets have a go with this one…

I’m unclear as to what you’d like to do with that old APA quotation. Would you like to study it? Refute it? Understand it? Affirm it? Reflect on it? Consider it? Parody it?

Also, I’m not sure how your comment and the APA quotation follows on from the comment of mine you quoted…unless you’re confusing the terms “sex” and “gender” or are positing a causal or deterministic relationship (like that posited by reparative therapy) between sex and gender and between gender and sexual orientation, making all of them roughly categorical, more or less equivalent, and mutually expressive in some fundamental (though largely fictional) way? I really don’t know.

Tell me what you would like to have a go at with regard to that quotation and then we’ll see if we can have a discussion. Okay!

Biogenetichormonalplaydeterminansignificantlyinsexualityintruthwestildon’tknow…

How is that for a word?

It is as absurd as it is majestic. You might lose points for it being relatively incomprehensible and not filled with enough buzzwords, but I think you may have won Buzzbabble Bingo. I will defer, of course, to the impartial judgment of our scorekeeper.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[TimeEntrance]

Neither dogs nor bonobos are human, and are therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

That may not be entirely true.

For an “open lab” for a practical my A&P class was having I had a TA in the lab room that was a physical (biological) anthropologist that works or worked at the local museum. She was helping me (and other students) with our histological slides in an attempt to identify certain tissue types (more than one tissue type were on many of the slides labeled for one specific type of tissue). My point being here is that as with A&P and all basic biology course physical anthropology investigates, seeks to better understand the human, in relation to the rest of the known living world. Comparison and contrasting are pretty status quo.

I’m not implying or insinuating I’m a scientist or even a graduate student of a science. But what I have come to see is pretty common place in the science department at my university is that they emphasize to undergrades to try to pick up on concepts. Kind of like trying to promote puzzle solving. Which I might add… I find particularly frustrating as it’s not done in a mentoring way, but more like a Sherlock Holmes throwing out a riddle and you’re challenged to solve it.

My point here is I’ve picked up on the concept of looking for similarities and differences between humans and other species. We all share the genome of life. Which means we share many of the same genes. Both dogs and bonobos sexually reproduce and have two sexes I might add.

Regardless of these expressions of femininity, there are always certain things in every culture that (until recently) were the near-exclusive domain of males or females. Men take on the high-risk tasks such as hunting and protecting the group because - speaking from a strictly biological standpoint - we’re expendable. Necessary, but expendable. Strictly speaking, the male’s biological role in forming a child ends at the moment of orgasm. The female role continues for 9 months. The female biological role being so much more demanding and long-term, they take on the lower-risk tasks of caring for the home and being the “gatherers” in hunter-gatherer cultures. This isn’t some “construct” - this is, at the root, how we are, as evidenced by the presence of this labor division across all historic (and pre-historic) cultures until recently.

I never took any cultural anthropology courses as the only thing that interests me in anthropology is physical (biological) anthropology (e.g., forensic anthro., human evolution etc.).

Your observations strike me as one more answerable by cultural anthropology that physical anthropology. But maybe I’m wrong. But the solving that riddle may require overlapping the cultural with the physical (biological). I dunno.

Hunting was more dangerous but also prestige work. Men being protectors may have correlations to the more robust skeletons and physiques of men, resulting tribal/community expectations because of that, and not necessarily from a genetically, heritable, phenotypic behavior.

What I was trying to say about domesticated dogs is that they are not Homo sapiens and don’t have developed culture (extra-somatic adaptions to the environment) like humans, our species, and the fact that they hump legs as a sign of domination provides some evidence that one or more traits regarded as “masculine” are possibly phenotypic traits influenced by genotype and biological sex. Or to put it in a more simply way: trait Q might be contingent on having a Y chromosome.

 

[TimeEntrance]

my sense is that my grandparents generation held being of service to others as a high value. even to the extent of locking their doors. my grandfather refuses to lock his doors, because he thinks, quite logically, that they should be unlocked in case someone wants to get in. what if a neighbor needs something?

That is insane.

He must live in a rural area or something?

 

[RevDon]

There are certain things that a person who wants to be Catholic has to believe and uphold. This is one of them, Catholics do not support gay marriage. Can a Catholic be a homosexual? Yes, in fact there are some studies which do in fact say a person is born with their sexual orientation. Certainly there are other studies which contradict this idea. But, whether or not they are born homosexual or choose to be homosexual they may remain completely in line with Church teachings by remaining celibate.

"On the issue of marriage, the report [pdf], compiled by the Public Religion Research Institute using past polls and studies, showed “nearly three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only 22% of Catholics say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.”

 

[CopticChristian]

"On the issue of marriage, the report [pdf], compiled by the Public Religion Research Institute using past polls and studies, showed “nearly three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only 22% of Catholics say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.”

Reverend Don,

Your prior statements listed here…

The argument posted suggests that allowing homosexual persons to have a permanent, faithful, supportive relationship endorsed by civil and religious society would threaten the existence of the human race because no one would procreate.
The best statistics estimate that 10% of the population is homosexual. It seems unlikely that permitting marriage will affect that statistic.
Another statistic that might be examined is the birthrate of caucasians in places like France or Germany. There heterosexuals have not reproduced sufficiently to maintain the native population.
Sorry, but this argument won’t work

Aside from the procreation argument, which I believe has been addressed adequately elsewhere in this string, there is really no argument that can show harm when two people intend to live in unity.

When Jesus lived and taught there was no New Testament. There was no Christian Church. There was no Bishop of Rome, hence, no Pope. All of these things came about as a result of the faith of Jesus’ followers, and the confidence that, in the power of the Holy Spirit, they were authorized to make whatever decisions were necessary to promote what they had learned from their Master.

It is likely that Peter went to Rome, where he likely was received by the Followers of the Way with great respect and reverence. History shows that it took centuries for the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to be recognized. Prior to that, there was a sense of collegiality among bishops. The appeal to the Peter’s primacy was advanced as part of the argument that Catholicism needed a Pope.

1. Are you deciding what part of tradition takes precedence?
2. Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the 24 books of the Masoretic Text, commonly called the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible, as authoritative. Evidence suggests that the process of canonization occurred between 200 BCE and 200 CE. A popular former theory is that the Torah was canonized c. 400 BCE, the Prophets c. 200 BCE, and the Writings c. 100 CE, perhaps at a hypothetical Council of Jamnia, but this position is increasingly rejected by modern scholars. Never the less, there was a canon of what we have come to call the Old Testament that pre-dated the New Testament, which frequently quotes from it.
3. There were communities in Rome, Ephesus, Corinth and many more, which saw themselves as part of the body of Christ, but could not yet be called the Catholic Church except in the broadest of terms. It is apparent that there was not uniformity in the style or worship until the Middle Ages, and even then, various rites in unity with Rome preserved (and to this day preserve) differences.

Lead me to conclude that you oppose Catholic Teaching, the notion that the Catholic Church of today is that founded by Christ and that you believe the Protocanonicals were delivered by God…they were not…

Your posting here is similar to other detractors you have posted…

What is it you want me and others to see by way of this polling…?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Sexual attraction begins at an early age, with Satan determining the outcome. Satan controls the sexual urges and tempts with one gender or the other. Satan is like a behavioral psychologist who conditioned tendencies of erotic pleasure from one sex or the other. Thus, whether or not identical twins become homosexual will depend on behavioral learning the begins at a very early age.

To think of homosexuality in terms of environment or genetics is to ignore the subtle temptation of Satan.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Sexual attraction begins at an early age, with Satan determining the outcome. Satan controls the sexual urges and tempts with one gender or the other. Satan is like a behavioral psychologist who conditioned tendencies of erotic pleasure from one sex or the other. Thus, whether or not identical twins become homosexual will depend on behavioral learning the begins at a very early age.

To think of homosexuality in terms of environment or genetics is to ignore the subtle temptation of Satan.

Sexual attraction, like our appetite for food, is a natural thing. But that is as far as the analogy goes. Food is necessary for a person to survive, sex is not. Each of us has the ability to keep our sexual urges and attractions in check. Satan can tempt us, but again, we have the ability to decide. Whether our “orientation” is learned, innate or a combination of both is irrelevant. There is no sin in having sexual urges or attractions. There is sin in having sex in any other context but marriage with a member of the opposite sex.

I am no sociologist, but I assume that most people fail to completely control their sexual urges in their youth. This was my experience, and I assume it is most other people’s. As we mature, with proper guidance in Christian morals, we can become better and better at controlling sexual urges and practicing the virtue of chastity. If we fail, we confess. For some, I am sure this must be a lifetime of struggle, for men especially in the area of masturbation. For others, uninterrupted chastity is achieved. The important thing is that God’s forgiveness is always available.

No one said Christianity was easy. We each have a cross to bear-- but if we think we can refuse our cross without consequence, we are kidding ourselves. The easiest path through life is actually what looks the most difficult at first. To be a disciple of Christ we have to give up everything. That seems impossible. But if we go our own way, we find that the troubles that overtake us are far worse than we counted on. It is the long way to salvation to run from our cross, only to find every door and every window closed to us. Happiness is only in God, and the path to God is only by taking up our cross. The dead end streets away from Christ are painful and lonely. Their promise soon fades into disillusionment. Didn’t they call early Christians “followers of the way?” It was true. There is only one way, and that is to follow Jesus Christ, including all his difficult teachings. But life teaches us that He was truthful when He said, “For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.”

 

[RevDon]

Sexual attraction begins at an early age, with Satan determining the outcome. Satan controls the sexual urges and tempts with one gender or the other. Satan is like a behavioral psychologist who conditioned tendencies of erotic pleasure from one sex or the other. Thus, whether or not identical twins become homosexual will depend on behavioral learning the begins at a very early age.

To think of homosexuality in terms of environment or genetics is to ignore the subtle temptation of Satan.

The posting to which I was responding in the first instance stated that Catholics do not support Gay Marriage. The statistics prove otherwise.

Do you really believe that human sexuality is controlled by Satan?

Let me digress concerning Catholic teaching.
First, Catholics like to believe that Church teaching is immutable. That provides a sense of stability in a changing world. It’s not a bad idea; it’s just not correct according to Church history. There have been many instances when Church teaching was changed, to the credit of the Church leaders who risked being seen as inconsistent, even heretical. They used the same basis from the deposit of faith, but as a result of deepening knowledge and experience, arrived at a realization that a different path might be taken without being unfaithful to the roots of faith.

The Church’s teaching on homosexuality are based in two things: Sacred scripture and a long-standing tradition that holds homosexuality as an abomination and condemns those who practice it.

The Scriptures themselves are the record of how people heard God’s word over an extended period of time, how they found inspiration and direction in their relationship with God (and by extension, with other people and creation). The words were governed by their context, including language and circumstances. God was speaking to the needs of the prople. We give reverence to those words and continue to try to apply them to our relationships with God, others and creation. The Church’s task, in part, is to guide us in that task. The Great Commission states the purpose of the Church, and as long as there are those who may be converted, her task is left undone.

In accomplishing that task, it is the Church’s obligation to speak in such a way that the argument may be understood by those she is addressing. This is difficult, and requires that the form and means of communication be adapted to the comfort of the listener, not the speaker.

The scripture used in formulating Church teaching on the issues around homosexuality originate in Leviticus, written at a time when Israel was concerned about its very existence. Producing offspring (especially male) was crucial for defense. Maintenance of ethnic and religious purity were also essential. In writing down laws that upheld the life of the People Specially Chosen, they were convinced that God not only inspired them to create these laws, but that God insisted that they be obeyed. Hence some very harsh punishments for law-breakers. Radical means because the very existence of the people was at stake!

Today we cringe in revulsion when we see such punishments meted out by fundamentalist Islamists, yet they are enshrined in our holy books, too. There are many instances in which Christians have concluded that parts of the code of Leviticus need not be observed, much less enforced. Why do we feel obligated to selectively enforce some and not all?

Perhaps we feel so obliged because there are hints of proscription of homosexuality in Paul’s writing. Paul admits that his formation was in Pharisaical Judaism, so we can readily understand his affection for the Law. But he was among the leaders of the Christian community who held that old laws must be examined in light of new circumstances, especially in light of the inclusive teaching of Jesus. Surely James argued that kosher laws and circumcision were part of their tradition, written in black and white in their holy book. Surely James said that Gentiles were unclean sinners who ought best to be avoided. But in allowing the conversation to continue, the Church opened herself to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which might have otherwise been hooted down by calls of “Tradition!” Probably James went away grumbling about the Gentile agenda, and how influence had been bought by the wealthy God-fearers, and how Christianity would be ruined by it, but a major change had been accepted and aren’t we non-kosher Christians grateful?

Those who use the scriptures as an argument need to look carefully at the context of the scriptures as well as the words. What circumstance was the writer addressing? In what way was the writer using the language of the listeners to make the point God wanted to be made? How would those to whom the words were originally address understand the message?
There is plenty of first-class scholarship dealing with the usual scriptures called up in condemnation od homosexuality that calls into question the usual conclusions drawn by interpreters who are beginning from the second position: the tradition of condemning homosexuality. Is it possible that the reason for condemnation was not what persons who seek gay marriage want, but rather promiscuity and idol worship?
The Church needs to let go of the old perspective, go back to Scripture, the Holy Spirit and the life of Jesus to apply an understanding to a new situation. That’s being faithful to the Church’s mission.

 

[RevDon]

There is sin in having sex in any other context but marriage with a member of the opposite sex.

Happiness is only in God, and the path to God is only by taking up our cross. The dead end streets away from Christ are painful and lonely. But life teaches us that He was truthful when He said, “For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.”

There are two assumptions that need to be addressed: first, that marriage is all about sex. I think the Church has had plenty to say about the many ways marriage contributes not only to the happiness, but also to the holiness of spouses. That has been my experience of married life.
Second, too many people who participate in these discussions call up images of perverted, promiscuous sexual relations, perhaps recalling televised scenes of Gay Rights parades with their outlandish costumes. That’s not what it’s about. Promiscuity- homosexual or heterosexual- should be roundly condemned.

It seems to me that allowing same-sex persons to marry draws them into a lifestyle that promotes wholesome values and gives them an alternative to the life they want to leave behind. The only option the Church now offers is celibacy, which seems to me to offer a painful and lonely life. And in that regard, the Church repeatedly states that celibacy for her clergy is a special gift from God.

Is it the role of the Church to place a burden on people when Jesus said his burden would be light? Is it the role of the Church to withhold her blessing from people whose goal is to live decent, holy lives, often in service to their Church? Should the Church be in the business of creating sinners (isn’t that what Paul was criticizing about Jewish law) by creating a situation in which they have no viable alternative since clearly the “gift” of celibacy is not given?

 

[JamesCaruso]

There have been many instances when Church teaching was changed, to the credit of the Church leaders who risked being seen as inconsistent, even heretical. They used the same basis from the deposit of faith, but as a result of deepening knowledge and experience, arrived at a realization that a different path might be taken without being unfaithful to the roots of faith.

I’d like to see cites to support your assertion above.

Here is in part the Church’s clear teaching on homosexuality:

1. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.

To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

1. Thus, the Church’s teaching today is in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition. Though today’s world is in many ways quite new, the Christian community senses the profound and lasting bonds which join us to those generations who have gone before us, “marked with the sign of faith”.

Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

More at – vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

 

[RevDon]

I find it interesting that the trend is away from marriage for heterosexuals, while homosexuals are fighting for what they see as the right to marry. The broader social trends of the two demographics are moving in opposite directions.

This is because the issue is being contended in law, where there is some hope that equal protection under the Constitution gives some hope of success. According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights and responsibilities apply to only male-female couples, from the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

In a forum such as this, other interests may be considered. Much of the argument against same sex marriage posed by opponents to it claim that allowing it will change the definition of marriage. It seems to me that persons seeking to benefit from this provision want to change the nature of their relationship to conform to what marriage means.

Perhaps we might consider just what religious benefits an individual gains from the sacrament.
Does not the Church also experience benefits from marriage?

If we can get our imagery out of the bedroom, I think there is much to consider in religious terms, quite apart from the issue of justice (in which the Church should show concern anyway).

 

[RevDon]

Responding to Coptic Christian 168

I’d like to see cites to support your assertion above.

uscatholic.org/church/2010/05/how-does-church-teaching-change
nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/22STEINFE.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
rccaucuslgcm.co.uk/index.php?nuc=content&id=18
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=556264
need more? There’s plenty

Here is in part the Church’s clear teaching on homosexuality:

1. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.
   Hence, since same-sex people want to experience their sexual union in the sacrament of marriage and the Church is preventing that, who is at fault?
   To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

Here’s what Jesus says, “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Yes, he says male and female. You might even add that the quotation alludes to “be fruitful and multiply” Do you think that the main thing Jesus was concerned about in marriage was the sexual meaning of “the two will become one flesh”?

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

The label of moral disorder is part of the issue that is being discussed. There are plenty of competent authorities that would assert that it is not a moral, physical or psychological disorder.

1. Thus, the Church’s teaching today is in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition. Though today’s world is in many ways quite new, the Christian community senses the profound and lasting bonds which join us to those generations who have gone before us, “marked with the sign of faith”.

This reading of scripture in light of modern critical techniques does not stand. The tradition was shaped and encouraged by that faulty reading of scripture, as well as misapplication of the term.

Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

A long-standing influence in Christianity is Neo-Platonism, which results, ultimately, in the determination that “things of the flesh” are inherently evil, and that the flesh itself is evil. From Augustine on, this has been a dominant view in the Church, and has been extended in numerous ways to the way the Church operates. The incarnation (not to mention Genesis 2) suggests that there is inherent goodness in the things of this world (including sex—and before you jump on this, yes, sex, like many other things, can be misused in a sinful way).

The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

It is the Church’s duty to end the confusion and present a message so convincing that it is irresistible. Declaring that the debate is closed fails miserably at that.

More at – vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

 

[CopticChristian]

The posting to which I was responding in the first instance stated that Catholics do not support Gay Marriage. The statistics prove otherwise.

Do you really believe that human sexuality is controlled by Satan?

Let me digress concerning Catholic teaching.
First, Catholics like to believe that Church teaching is immutable. That provides a sense of stability in a changing world. It’s not a bad idea; it’s just not correct according to Church history.
The Church’s teaching on homosexuality are based in two things: Sacred scripture and a long-standing tradition that holds homosexuality as an abomination and condemns those who practice it.

The Scriptures themselves are the record of how people heard God’s word over an extended period of time, how they found inspiration and direction in their relationship with God (and by extension, with other people and creation). The words were governed by their context, including language and circumstances. God was speaking to the needs of the prople. We give reverence to those words and continue to try to apply them to our relationships with God, others and creation. The Church’s task, in part, is to guide us in that task. The Great Commission states the purpose of the Church, and as long as there are those who may be converted, her task is left undone.

In accomplishing that task, it is the Church’s obligation to speak in such a way that the argument may be understood by those she is addressing. This is difficult, and requires that the form and means of communication be adapted to the comfort of the listener, not the speaker.

The scripture used in formulating Church teaching on the issues around homosexuality originate in Leviticus, written at a time when Israel was concerned about its very existence. Producing offspring (especially male) was crucial for defense. Maintenance of ethnic and religious purity were also essential. In writing down laws that upheld the life of the People Specially Chosen, they were convinced that God not only inspired them to create these laws, but that God insisted that they be obeyed. Hence some very harsh punishments for law-breakers. Radical means because the very existence of the people was at stake!

Today we cringe in revulsion when we see such punishments meted out by fundamentalist Islamists, yet they are enshrined in our holy books, too. There are many instances in which Christians have concluded that parts of the code of Leviticus need not be observed, much less enforced. Why do we feel obligated to selectively enforce some and not all?

Perhaps we feel so obliged because there are hints of proscription of homosexuality in Paul’s writing. Paul admits that his formation was in Pharisaical Judaism, so we can readily understand his affection for the Law. But he was among the leaders of the Christian community who held that old laws must be examined in light of new circumstances, especially in light of the inclusive teaching of Jesus. Surely James argued that kosher laws and circumcision were part of their tradition, written in black and white in their holy book. Surely James said that Gentiles were unclean sinners who ought best to be avoided. But in allowing the conversation to continue, the Church opened herself to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which might have otherwise been hooted down by calls of “Tradition!” Probably James went away grumbling about the Gentile agenda, and how influence had been bought by the wealthy God-fearers, and how Christianity would be ruined by it, but a major change had been accepted and aren’t we non-kosher Christians grateful?

Those who use the scriptures as an argument need to look carefully at the context of the scriptures as well as the words. What circumstance was the writer addressing? In what way was the writer using the language of the listeners to make the point God wanted to be made? How would those to whom the words were originally address understand the message?
There is plenty of first-class scholarship dealing with the usual scriptures called up in condemnation od homosexuality that calls into question the usual conclusions drawn by interpreters who are beginning from the second position: the tradition of condemning homosexuality. Is it possible that the reason for condemnation was not what persons who seek gay marriage want, but rather promiscuity and idol worship?
The Church needs to let go of the old perspective, go back to Scripture, the Holy Spirit and the life of Jesus to apply an understanding to a new situation. That’s being faithful to the Church’s mission.

Reverend Don,

There have been many instances when Church teaching was changed, to the credit of the Church leaders who risked being seen as inconsistent, even heretical. They used the same basis from the deposit of faith, but as a result of deepening knowledge and experience, arrived at a realization that a different path might be taken without being unfaithful to the roots of faith.

List 5 teachings that changed…

 

[CopticChristian]

This is because the issue is being contended in law, where there is some hope that equal protection under the Constitution gives some hope of success. According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights and responsibilities apply to only male-female couples, from the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

In a forum such as this, other interests may be considered. Much of the argument against same sex marriage posed by opponents to it claim that allowing it will change the definition of marriage. It seems to me that persons seeking to benefit from this provision want to change the nature of their relationship to conform to what marriage means.

Perhaps we might consider just what religious benefits an individual gains from the sacrament.
Does not the Church also experience benefits from marriage?

If we can get our imagery out of the bedroom, I think there is much to consider in religious terms, quite apart from the issue of justice (in which the Church should show concern anyway).

Reverend Don,

In dialogue on this CAF when you use “we” you don’t speak for the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church…you not be we.

 

[RevDon]

Reverend Don,

List 5 teachings that changed…

see posting 175

 

[CopticChristian]

The posting to which I was responding in the first instance stated that Catholics do not support Gay Marriage. The statistics prove otherwise.

Do you really believe that human sexuality is controlled by Satan?

Let me digress concerning Catholic teaching.
First, Catholics like to believe that Church teaching is immutable. That provides a sense of stability in a changing world. It’s not a bad idea; it’s just not correct according to Church history. There have been many instances when Church teaching was changed, to the credit of the Church leaders who risked being seen as inconsistent, even heretical. They used the same basis from the deposit of faith, but as a result of deepening knowledge and experience, arrived at a realization that a different path might be taken without being unfaithful to the roots of faith.

The Church’s teaching on homosexuality are based in two things: Sacred scripture and a long-standing tradition that holds homosexuality as an abomination and condemns those who practice it.

The Scriptures themselves are the record of how people heard God’s word over an extended period of time, how they found inspiration and direction in their relationship with God (and by extension, with other people and creation). The words were governed by their context, including language and circumstances. God was speaking to the needs of the prople. We give reverence to those words and continue to try to apply them to our relationships with God, others and creation. The Church’s task, in part, is to guide us in that task.
In accomplishing that task, it is the Church’s obligation to speak in such a way that the argument may be understood by those she is addressing. This is difficult, and requires that the form and means of communication be adapted to the comfort of the listener, not the speaker.

The scripture used in formulating Church teaching on the issues around homosexuality originate in Leviticus, written at a time when Israel was concerned about its very existence. Producing offspring (especially male) was crucial for defense. Maintenance of ethnic and religious purity were also essential. In writing down laws that upheld the life of the People Specially Chosen, they were convinced that God not only inspired them to create these laws, but that God insisted that they be obeyed. Hence some very harsh punishments for law-breakers. Radical means because the very existence of the people was at stake!

Today we cringe in revulsion when we see such punishments meted out by fundamentalist Islamists, yet they are enshrined in our holy books, too. There are many instances in which Christians have concluded that parts of the code of Leviticus need not be observed, much less enforced. Why do we feel obligated to selectively enforce some and not all?

Perhaps we feel so obliged because there are hints of proscription of homosexuality in Paul’s writing. Paul admits that his formation was in Pharisaical Judaism, so we can readily understand his affection for the Law. But he was among the leaders of the Christian community who held that old laws must be examined in light of new circumstances, especially in light of the inclusive teaching of Jesus. Surely James argued that kosher laws and circumcision were part of their tradition, written in black and white in their holy book. Surely James said that Gentiles were unclean sinners who ought best to be avoided. But in allowing the conversation to continue, the Church opened herself to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which might have otherwise been hooted down by calls of “Tradition!” Probably James went away grumbling about the Gentile agenda, and how influence had been bought by the wealthy God-fearers, and how Christianity would be ruined by it, but a major change had been accepted and aren’t we non-kosher Christians grateful?

Those who use the scriptures as an argument need to look carefully at the context of the scriptures as well as the words. What circumstance was the writer addressing? In what way was the writer using the language of the listeners to make the point God wanted to be made? How would those to whom the words were originally address understand the message?
There is plenty of first-class scholarship dealing with the usual scriptures called up in condemnation od homosexuality that calls into question the usual conclusions drawn by interpreters who are beginning from the second position: the tradition of condemning homosexuality. Is it possible that the reason for condemnation was not what persons who seek gay marriage want, but rather promiscuity and idol worship?
The Church needs to let go of the old perspective, go back to Scripture, the Holy Spirit and the life of Jesus to apply an understanding to a new situation. That’s being faithful to the Church’s mission.

Reverend Don,

The Great Commission states the purpose of the Church, and as long as there are those who may be converted, her task is left undone.

When was this great commission stated? What Church?

 

[JamesCaruso]

I’d like to see cites to support your assertion above.

uscatholic.org/church/201…eaching-change
nytimes.com/2005/05/22/bo…anted=all&_r=0
rccaucuslgcm.co.uk/index…=content&id=18
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=556264
need more? There’s plenty

I looked at your first cite. It wasn’t about how Catholic teaching changes from one thing to another, but how what was always held to be true in the Church finally comes to be officially expressed by the Catholic Church in an official pronouncement. Change in the sense of development into more formal expositions and change in the sense of changing one’s mind are two different things. If all you mean is what I have said here, we need go no further. I thought you were saying that what the Church once taught was true it now says is false and vice versa. I don’t know of any flip flops in teachings of faith and morals, which is what I thought you were saying. This is also why I say that the Church will never change its mind of homosexuality. It will always treat homosexual relations as intrinsically evil. You can bet the farm on that.