Catholics cannot accept gay marriage, pope says

[_Abyssinia]

As to the Old Testament…

religioustolerance.org/hombiblot.htm

There is a general agreement among the over 1,500 Christian denominations and sects in North American about what the Bible says. But there is a wide diversity of belief about what Bible passages meant when they were written. There is also disagreement on which passages were only intended for ancient Hebrews and early Christians during biblical times, and which are still valid today.

Protestant denominations, not Catholic. The Catholic Church has had clear teaching on homosexuality since the beginning, and the term ‘clobber passage’ is silly, you can try to liberalize the passages all you want, but it will not make them correct, oh it means, no he really means this, it is nonsense, you need the spirit of the interpretation of the community of the Church.

 

[comrade1789]

What if the essence of marriage is not limited to heterosexual couples? A union is about more than the flesh, and gay couples can be just as loving as any. It seems like there’s no point reiterating “No to gay marriage!” without also consulting the theology to sustain the statement.

English has one word for love, so we put all kinds of attractions, distractions, obsessions, attachments and the like into the category of love. Fact is, love that is from God is never disordered, never misplaced, never perverted. “Gay” “love” is not, and cannot be from God.

 

[please4giveme]

I support the Pope, 100%

 

[James1215]

This is interesting, I don’t know, over all I’ve been in Limbo about the whole issue A while ago I supported it then opposed it then supported then opposed it

Ultimately I can see how this is a more difficult issue for you than me; my beliefs do not pose problems for how to view homosexuality. However, I at least know of Christians who strongly believe gay unions are morally good, and due to the ground I share with them, I contribute keenly to that side of the debate.

 

[James1215]

The “religious tolerance” webiste is riddled with errors in biblical scholarship, first of all. Second of all, it does not reflect the Catholic perspective on marriage, on sexuality, and how Catholics are to conform their understanding to the teaching of the Magisterium. The subject of the thread is not whether secularists, atheists, Protestants, and other non-Catholics should have a different opinion about homosexual “marriage” than what the Catholic Church has, but that Catholics should become Faithful Citizens in applying the truths they have learned from their Church to their voting decisions and other civic behavior. The Pope was addressing Catholics.

This should be a complete no-brainer for any practicing Catholic on or off CAF.

It should be a no-brainer that the Pope should only be followed as far as he is telling the truth. There are serious reasons to consider that Catholicism is wrong for condemning gay unions.

Are you up on biblical scholarship so as to comment on what you have read?

 

[rlg94086]

No they’re not, they’re just different. How do you take the fact that gay sexuality was ordained by God, via the genes He put in humans?

So, genetic defects that cause a sinful nature are “ordained by God?” That’s a pretty ridiculous assumption. If someone is born with or develops a disposition that inclines them to a particular sin, it is a trial for them. It does not mean they are allowed to sin without consequence.

James1215:

Do you disavow evolution?

Nope. What does that have to do with it?

 

[James1215]

English has one word for love, so we put all kinds of attractions, distractions, obsessions, attachments and the like into the category of love. Fact is, love that is from God is never disordered, never misplaced, never perverted. “Gay” “love” is not, and cannot be from God.

How can you or anyone else say that love is not love? What is wrong with romantic love that (for example) a woman has for another woman?

Does God ask us to love Him with a list of criteria of what love means, or does He leave it to us to realise what our love for Him is? I think the latter is more accurate, because love is not prescriptive - that is obedience.

As to the implication that gay love might be misplaced, what would you say to the possibility that it was fully designed and intended?

 

[rlg94086]

Genetic engineering is an interesting moral topic. Lets assume for a moment that there is an allele which predicts something like a 40% chance of a male ending up with a homosexual orientation. Should that be “fixed” through genetic engineering?

Not necessarily. That said, if an allele were to be found, it wouldn’t change anything regarding the licitness of homosexual acts and relationships.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It should be a no-brainer that the Pope should only be followed as far as he is telling the truth.

A basic tenet of Catholicism is that the Pope does speak the truth, and that the Church, as Christ’s representative on earth, represents He Who is Truth (Christ).

Are you up on biblical scholarship so as to comment on what you have read?

Indeed I am, but I refuse to derail this thread. This is not the Sacred Scripture forum. Further, the scriptural references have been aired voluninously on CAF over the last several years. Do a search.

 

[rlg94086]

You are entitled to your opinion. Every psychologist and psychiatrist which I know disagrees with you. They tend to be the types who are in academia. The bulk of the evidence is that there is come genetic link. We would probably agree that there is nothing definitive, such as a genome sequence identified. We would disagree in that you believe there is no evidence whatsoever.

Please provide a citation showing that they have found a genetic link. With “the bulk of the evidence” supporting that, it shouldn’t be too difficult to find…

 

[Dale_M]

Why is the desire unnatural?

Because according to Catholic theology God created humans to be male and female. And he made us in such a way as for one to need the other.

The desire is not wished-for by gay people, not a result of pride, but a product of the genes which evolved as a result of God’s plans. If homosexuality is the product of genes, and these genes stretch back to the time before we were human, homosexuality existed before human corruption. It cannot be regarded as intrinsically sinful (which it is not seen as), and it is not wrong simply because it is ordered towards a non-straight union. It would be distorting them to try to impose heterosexuality on gay people, and homosexuality on straight.

I am not sure if you are aware, so I will mention this just to be sure… The Catholic Church is neutral about so-called “conversion therapy.” Unlike other Christian churches, it does not push gay people into trying to be straight. It is enough that gays refrain from sex with one another.

But why did God create a genetic predisposition to being gay? I admit I don’t know the Catholic theological answer to this. What follows is an attempt for me to defend the Catholic position.

Genetic variations in humans shouldn’t be assumed to be a reflection of God’s will. Some variations (e,g, red hair) are neutral while others may have once been evolutionarily advantageous (e.g. the loss of dark skin pigmentation as the human species migrated into colder climates.) yet are neutral today. Other genetic variations (e.g. sickle cell trait) may have offered evolutionary advantage in certain endemic environmental conditions despite occasional deleterious effects. However, when individuals are freed from that environmental constraint, the genetic variation offers no advantage and only deleterious effects (e.g. sickle cell disease.) And other genetic variations, offer no advantage but only harm (e.g. cystic fibrosis)

Simply because a genetic condition or predisposition exists does not mean that God intended that condition or considers it to be good. God created the world, and directs it. But he doesn’t micromanage it. Hurricanes and tornadoes arise from natural processes, but that does not mean that God thinks hurricanes and tornadoes are good for humans and that they should be indulged.

Indeed. So it should be fine with monogamous gay couples, given that unity does not depend upon genital difference.

At first I thought you were asking about the appropriateness of a celibate gay couple living together and providing one another emotional (but non-sexual) support. I think that is an issue debated among Catholics, and that the Church does not have a position on it.

But I see you are asking about civil unions/marriages for same-sex couples. The Catholic Church’s opposition to to this (I think) is based on the notion that such legal arrangements will legitimize homosexual relations, and make them more common.

However, I will let others explain why the Catholic Church is opposed to civil unions and secular marriage for gay and lesbian folks, as I really don’t understand the argument.

 

[James1215]

So, genetic defects that cause a sinful nature are “ordained by God?” That’s a pretty ridiculous assumption. If someone is born with or develops a disposition that inclines them to a particular sin, it is a trial for them. It does not mean they are able to sin.

I’m glad someone has challenged that. However, if there is a genetic basis to our sexualities, including homosexuality, we should ask ourselves this:

Did this genetic basis develop after the Fall, as a result of Original Sin, or was it there before the first taint of human corruption?

The Church accepts evolution as an account of the development of human physiology, so I do not need to argue with you over whether our family tree is topped off with bacteria and slime. The difference is that Catholics believe that God made us fully human with the creation or insertion of a soul at a certain point. If at that point we already contained the genes responsible for homosexuality, it is rational to believe that homosexuality is a part of our design.

 

[Quirious]

The “religious tolerance” webiste is riddled with errors in biblical scholarship, first of all. Second of all, it does not reflect the Catholic perspective on marriage, on sexuality, and how Catholics are to conform their understanding to the teaching of the Magisterium. The subject of the thread is not whether secularists, atheists, Protestants, and other non-Catholics should have a different opinion about homosexual “marriage” than what the Catholic Church has, but that Catholics should become Faithful Citizens in applying the truths they have learned from their Church to their voting decisions and other civic behavior. The Pope was addressing Catholics.

This should be a complete no-brainer for any practicing Catholic on or off CAF.

There are two controversies, one is cultural vs religious. The other is the debate which has not taken place yet within the Church. Back in the 70’s, a priest and scholar, John J McNeill took three years to get an imprimatur from the Church to publish a book. He drew on the best biblical scholarship he could find, and he was hoping it would be the beginning of the discussion. The book hit the media, and the imprimatur was withdrawn, and he was ordered not to make any more public appearances. There may be some on this site who are actually qualified as biblical scholars, but that requires an understanding of the Greek language, and the culture of the time, since Professor McNeill’s argument was founded in part of what he viewed to be a faulty translation, one loaded with cultural bias. Simply parroting back the translated version does not address his theses. One interesting example he gives is that the relevant passages are translated to have very different meanings in French, German and English. According to McNeill, this points to how difficult the accurate translation can be.

McNeill begins with the OT, then goes on to consider Romans, and some other passages. He points to the rather unusual use of some of Paul’s words, and tries to determine their meaning by his other uses of the same words, and also what was normative at the time. He claims that Paul also drew on some of the language of the Stoics, but appears to have a different understanding than we take the Stoics to have had.

Father McNeill then traces the origins of the concept of “natural law” from the Stoics through the centuries to Aquinas.

For anyone who is seriously interested in the topic, McNeill’s may be the only book written to academic standards, and reviewed for accuracy. It is particularly applicable to this discussion because he was a priest teaching at a Catholic university at the time, and he did have the Vatican’s permission to publish the book.

The book is available on Amazon. “The Church and the Homosexual”. If you look for it, be sure you have the right author, as there is at least one other book with the same title, which is an historic overview of Church/SSA relations, etc.

 

[James1215]

A basic tenet of Catholicism is that the Pope does speak the truth, and that the Church, as Christ’s representative on earth, represents He Who is Truth (Christ).

Indeed I am, but I refuse to derail this thread. This is not the Sacred Scripture forum. Further, the scriptural references have been aired voluninously on CAF over the last several years. Do a search.

The Pope may be wrong, because a later pope may contradict him. If you do not want to discuss why you do not accept the interpretations of Christian belief presented to you, so be it. I will have a look around myself

 

[_Abyssinia]

As to the Old Testament…

religioustolerance.org/hombiblot.htm

some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them” (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.

archive.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

 

[James1215]

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.

archive.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

No, it does not. It makes very specific comments on particular sex acts in various contexts, and it is the brilliance of modern Catholic ‘thought’ that this appears to be unequivocal condemnation of any same-sex relationship. All attention to translation, context and nuance seems to have been lost in the face of justifying a modern taboo.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m glad someone has challenged that. However, if there is a genetic basis to our sexualities, including homosexuality, we should ask ourselves this:

Did this genetic basis develop after the Fall, as a result of Original Sin, or was it there before the first taint of human corruption? The Church accepts evolution as an account of the development of human physiology, so I do not need to argue with you over whether our family tree is topped off with bacteria and slime. The difference is that Catholics believe that God made us fully human with the creation or insertion of a soul at a certain point. If at that point we already contained the genes responsible for homosexuality, it is rational to believe that homosexuality is a part of our design.

Okay. As soon you find out whether or not there is a genetic basis, you should get to work on proving that Adam and Eve were both born with it. In the meantime, I’ll just stick with Church teaching.

 

[rlg94086]

No, it does not. It makes very specific comments on particular sex acts in various contexts, and it is the brilliance of modern Catholic ‘thought’ that this appears to be unequivocal condemnation of any same-sex relationship. All attention to translation, context and nuance seems to have been lost in the face of justifying a modern taboo.

Please find something in Scripture that directly approves of homosexual relationships. The fact that the acts are condemned and tradition has always held that such relationships are condemned is sufficient.

To argue that since such relationships are not directly disappoved of by Jesus is not a compelling argument for their acceptance.

1. Not everything Jesus said is recorded in Scripture (according to Scripture itself).
2. There are plenty of things that Jesus didn’t say anything about. I would surmise that there was no need to, since they were givens. Or, do you think homosexual relationships were accepted by the Jews of the day?

 

[James1215]

Okay. As soon you find out whether or not there is a genetic basis, you should get to work on proving that Adam and Eve were both born with it. In the meantime, I’ll just stick with Church teaching.

Should a genetic basis for homosexuality emerge prior to our becoming fully human, what would your reaction be?

We can already trace back the lineages of various parts of DNA to way before we were human, so it would be possible to prove in theory. We can see our bacterial heritage in our mitochondria, for example.

 

[James1215]

Please find something in Scripture that directly approves of homosexual relationships. The fact that the acts are condemned and tradition has always held that such relationships are condemned is sufficient.

To argue that since such relationships are not directly disappoved of by Jesus is not a compelling argument for their acceptance.

1. Not everything Jesus said is recorded in Scripture (according to Scripture itself).
2. There are plenty of things that Jesus didn’t say anything about. I would surmise that there was no need to, since they were givens. Or, do you think homosexual relationships were accepted by the Jews of the day?

If gay relationships had never been approved of, they would still be right. It is not good for man to be alone (the Bible tells us). If it is a man’s nature to seek the company of another man, he ought to be in a relationship with him in a way consummate with his natural desires.