Colombian bishop apologizes for ‘gay apostle’ remarks

[gilliam]

A Colombian bishop who said that one of Jesus’ 12 apostles could have been gay, or that Mary Magdalene, another key figure of the New testament, could have been a lesbian, has apologized for his “unfortunate colloquial expressions.”

Bishop Juan Vicente Córdoba of the Colombian diocese of Fontibón said Friday that he embraces the moral teachings of the Catholic Church when it comes to same-sex relationships.

“Even if homosexuality as an inclination doesn’t constitute a sin, it’s regarded as a disordered conduct,” he said.

Córdoba’s clarification, published by the Colombian Bishops Conference, came a day after he stated that homosexuality isn’t a sin and that “we don’t know if one of Jesus’ disciples” had a same-sex orientation.

“We don’t know either if Mary Magdalene was a lesbian,” he said Thursday during a local university conference about gay marriage and adoption. The comments came as Colombia is debating gay marriage and adoption rights.

cruxnow.com/church/2015/05/16/colombian-bishop-apologizes-for-gay-apostle-remarks/

 

[CHRISTINE77]

"In the letter published Friday, Córdoba said that his words were not intended to modify the “solid and unchangeable moral position of the Church,” but to express respect in an auditorium which, according to the prelate, was mostly composed of leaders and members of the LGBT community.

The bishop also admitted that he didn’t know there were members of the press present at the event, and that he only used such colloquial expressions because of the academic and dialogic context of the encounter, adding that they had no theological or moral value."

Here’s the rest of the story. He was pandering to the LGBT community. Yikes what a sycophant!

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

A Colombian bishop who said that one of Jesus’ 12 apostles could have been gay, or that Mary Magdalene, another key figure of the New testament, could have been a lesbian, has apologized for his “unfortunate colloquial expressions.”

Bishop Juan Vicente Córdoba of the Colombian diocese of Fontibón said Friday that he embraces the moral teachings of the Catholic Church when it comes to same-sex relationships.

“Even if homosexuality as an inclination doesn’t constitute a sin, it’s regarded as a disordered conduct,” he said.

Córdoba’s clarification, published by the Colombian Bishops Conference, came a day after he stated that homosexuality isn’t a sin and that “we don’t know if one of Jesus’ disciples” had a same-sex orientation.

“We don’t know either if Mary Magdalene was a lesbian,” he said Thursday during a local university conference about gay marriage and adoption. The comments came as Colombia is debating gay marriage and adoption rights.

cruxnow.com/church/2015/05/16/colombian-bishop-apologizes-for-gay-apostle-remarks/

I didn’t actually see anything he said that was theologically wrong.

 

[commenter]

I didn’t actually see anything he said that was theologically wrong.

Whether or not it was “theologically wrong”, it was imprudent. There were other ways he could have shown that compassion towards persons has been a part of Christian faith.

By the way, “Crux” is not a Catholic publication. It is part of the anti-Catholic Boston Globe. It looks worldwide for any item that might cause Catholics to question their faith, especially the Magisterium. To put it another way, it overlooks any item that might, in any way, strengthen the faith of Catholics.

Can you imagine if they had developed an offshoot publication that was anti-Semitic or racist?

 

[Micosil]

I think one of the people commenting on that news item says it best, imho:
Will Thompson:

There weren’t “homosexuals” back then. There was homosexual behavior, which was forbidden by Judaism, and all the apostles were Jews. So, no, there weren’t any homosexual apostles or lesbian Mary. There may have been same-sex attraction amongst some of them of varying degrees, but very unlikely that any would have acted on that: it was considered an abomination. And even if any of them did have same-sex attraction, there’d be no chance that any of them would have defined themselves because of that attraction.

We all have temptations that we resist because of some moral compass, religious or otherwise. The inclination to engage in same-sex sexual acts is one of many kinds of temptations. There is no dignity in such acts; quite the contrary. But I thought it was funny that the bishop here had referred to the dignity of homosexuality. There is dignity of people, but not dignity of homosexuality.

 

[PTL]

Originally Posted by Will Thompson

There weren’t “homosexuals” back then. There was homosexual behavior, which was forbidden by Judaism, and all the apostles were Jews. So, no, there weren’t any homosexual apostles or lesbian Mary. There may have been same-sex attraction amongst some of them of varying degrees, but very unlikely that any would have acted on that: it was considered an abomination. And even if any of them did have same-sex attraction, there’d be no chance that any of them would have defined themselves because of that attraction.

We all have temptations that we resist because of some moral compass, religious or otherwise. The inclination to engage in same-sex sexual acts is one of many kinds of temptations. There is no dignity in such acts; quite the contrary. But I thought it was funny that the bishop here had referred to the dignity of homosexuality. There is dignity of people, but not dignity of homosexuality.

Well said!

 

[Illmatic15]

I think one of the people commenting on that news item says it best, imho:

I definitely agree with Will on that one. In Ancient Greece & Rome, where it would have been practically abnormal to not be bisexual, there was no defined “sexual orientation”, homosexuality wasn’t discovered until WAY later. That’s why even in those places, marriage was between man and woman, and there was no “homosexual marriage” (at least in Greece, as Rome had some cases of same-sex marriage).

It’s not sinful to be a homosexual because you can’t really control that, it’s just the acts that are sinful. So his comments were sound, but, yes, probably imprudent.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I think one of the people commenting on that news item says it best, imho:

There weren’t heterosexuals back then either.

 

[Darryl1958]

SSA is only a disorder for those who desire to express their sexuality through the sacrament of marriage and the family. This becomes very difficult, and therefore is a disorder.

SSA is never a disorder for the celibate, who sacrifice their sexual desires for the Lord. The greater the desire in fact, the greater the sacrifice, and the more pleasing it is to the Lord.
At any rate, disorders do not preclude people from sainthood and a life in Christ. Most certainly there have been saints who are schizophrenics or who have had any sort of dysfunction that have made it difficult to have a normal social life.

The bishop for all intents appears to have sincere enough intent to be accepting of people whose propensities put themselves out of the norm. His wording was clumsy, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that many of the celibate saints in Catholicism have been celibate only by sacrificing all sorts of sexual desire all in the glory of God.
Historic figures are only historic figures to the extent that facts about them are not fantasized into narratives that one uses to get a larger point across. Nothing is known about the inner sexual proclivities of Mary M or any of the apostles. That is outside of the historic record, and that is all that anyone can honestly say about them.