Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-sex “Marriage”

[WillieWonka]

Yes. Between siblings, never between parent and their offspring.

OK for a guy to marry his sister and have sexual relations, but not OK for two guys to marry? And all that is written in natrural law?

 

[buffalo]

OK for a guy to marry his sister and have sexual relations, but not OK for two guys to marry? And all that is written in natrural law?

Yes - collateral incest is regulated by canon law and could be changed.

Perhaps you need to study up on this.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Yes - collateral incest is regulated by canon law and could be changed.

Perhaps you need to study up on this.

I spent 16 years in the Catholic education system (grammar, HS and college) and I have never heard such a thing. If the Catholic Church teaching is that incest is just fine and that there really were two people named Adam and Eve and they were the only two people on the planet-please provide me some evidence. The Catechism section you posted earlier stated no such thing, and I’m really looking forward to the one on incest being ok.

 

[buffalo]

I spent 16 years in the Catholic education system (grammar, HS and college) and I have never heard such a thing. If the Catholic Church teaching is that incest is just fine and that there really were two people named Adam and Eve and they were the only two people on the planet-please provide me some evidence. The Catechism section you posted earlier stated no such thing, and I’m really looking forward to the one on incest being ok.

In the beginning God allowed incest out of necessity. The gene pool was pure and little risk of genetic defects. As time went up the risk went up and it was no longer necessary and God rescinded it.

You need to ask for a refund.

 

[buffalo]

Genesis questions and one that isn’t

 

[mkingdomlvr]

In the beginning God allowed incest out of necessity. The gene pool was pure and little risk of genetic defects. As time went up the risk went up and it was no longer necessary and God rescinded it.

You need to ask for a refund.

I need to ask for refund??? What I was taught made SENSE.

Where are you getting this???

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Genesis questions and one that isn’t

the presumption is that they also had daughters and that in the first generation–by necessity–there was marriage between siblings.

It’s a theory, by NO MEANS is it presented as FACT.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Catholic Bishops warn against literal interpretations of the Bible

-04/10/05

Roman Catholic bishops have published a teaching document which points out that sections of the bible can not be taken literally, and challenges many ideas held by some Evangelicals about both creation and the end of the world.

As reported by Ekklesia, three weeks ago the document from the Catholic Bishops of England, Wales and Scotland was presented in Rome.

Now the document has been published in the UK, reports the Times newspaper.

‘We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,’ they say in The Gift of Scripture.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing ‘intelligent design’ to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be ‘historical’.

In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is ‘God’s word expressed in human language’ and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways ‘appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries’.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: ‘We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.’

 

[buffalo]

Again - what has been the constant belief and teaching of the Church?

Is there a Magisterial document that says we did not have first parents?

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Again - what has been the constant belief and teaching of the Church?

Is there a Magisterial document that says we did not have first parents?

Show me the Magisterial document that says we MUST believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and the Creation story. I’ve already provided information saying otherwise.

I believe that the Bible is inerrant in matters of FAITH and SALVATION. I do not look to it to answer scientific or historical questions.

 

[WillieWonka]

Yes - collateral incest is regulated by canon law and could be changed.

Perhaps you need to study up on this.

Well, 1954 says in part, “The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man…”

So, who writes it on the soul? The Church? Does the Church get to amend what is written on the soul? Just erase it and write something else?

 

[WillieWonka]

Again - what has been the constant belief and teaching of the Church?

Is there a Magisterial document that says we did not have first parents?

There are all kinds of things not mentioned in Magesterial documents. So what? What does their silence on a million topics tell us?

 

[buffalo]

Well, 1954 says in part, “The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man…”

So, who writes it on the soul? The Church? Does the Church get to amend what is written on the soul? Just erase it and write something else?

Here is a pretty good summary with references:

What Does the Catholic Church Teach about Origins?

God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.(Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
· Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 19091)
· Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
· Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
· Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994
Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
· The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
· The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have
originated via evolution.
· Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason
dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
· Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had
remained obedient (Pius XII).
· After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second
Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
· Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
· The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican
Council I).
· We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
· All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
· The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
· St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
· The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
· Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.(Pius XII, Humani Generis)
· Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

Now the ball is in your court to refute these with Church documents one by one.

 

[WillieWonka]

Here is a pretty good summary with references:

What Does the Catholic Church Teach about Origins?

God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.(Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
· Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 19091)
· Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
· Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
· Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994
Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
· The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
· The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have
originated via evolution.
· Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason
dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
· Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had
remained obedient (Pius XII).
· After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second
Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
· Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
· The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican
Council I).
· We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
· All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
· The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
· St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
· The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
· Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.(Pius XII, Humani Generis)
· Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

Now the ball is in your court to refute these with Church documents one by one.

That says nothing about sex between siblings and natural law. You said incest was regulated by the Church.

Nor does it tell us who wrote natural law on the soul. Did the Chuch write it? Who wrote it before the Church?

It doesn’t say if the Church gets to amend natural law that is written on the soul. Does it get to do that?

And it doesn’t tell us the significance of a lack of Magestrial documents on a subject.

 

[buffalo]

Show me the Magisterial document that says we MUST believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and the Creation story. I’ve already provided information saying otherwise.

I believe that the Bible is inerrant in matters of FAITH and SALVATION. I do not look to it to answer scientific or historical questions.

There is no document that says Catholics interpret in a strict literal sense. Catholics interpret the Bible as follows:

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75
110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
[112](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/112.htm’) 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
[113](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/113.htm’) 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
[114](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/114.htm’) 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/117.htm’) The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/119.htm’) "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

We must listen to the long standing of the Church which I have provided.

 

[buffalo]

That says nothing about sex between siblings and natural law. You said incest was regulated by the Church.

Nor does it tell us who wrote natural law on the soul. Did the Chuch write it? Who wrote it before the Church?

It doesn’t say if the Church gets to amend natural law that is written on the soul. Does it get to do that?

And it doesn’t tell us the significance of a lack of Magestrial documents on a subject.

This was addressing another posters question about what the Church teaches about origins.

 

[WillieWonka]

This was addressing another posters question about what the Church teaches about origins.

Well, you cited my quote in offering the Church teachings. I presume that was a simple mistake.

So…

What about sex between siblings and natural law? You said incest was regulated by the Church. Where is that Church teaching found? Where does the Church say it regulates incest?

Who wrote natural law on the soul? Did the Church write it? Who wrote it before the Church?

Does the Church get to amend natural law that is written on the soul? Who amended it before the Church?

What is the significance of a lack of Magestrial documents on a subject.

 

[Other_Eric]

So, if a gay desires a 24" lawnmower, it is a depraved desire.

But if a Catholic husband and father desires a 24" lawnmower, it is not a depraved desire?

I suggest you reread my response. If a "gay" desires a 24" lawnmower, we may say that such a desire is utterly depraved by virtue of his psychological disorder which moves him to be self-centered. If a Catholic husband desires the same lawnmower, we are unable to say the same since we do not know of any psychological ailment that would render the desire depraved. In the latter case, the desire may be depraved or it may not be. This is why I indicated that in the absence of a psychological pathology that would indicate otherwise, we may only say that the desire has the potential to be depraved.

 

[WillieWonka]

I suggest you reread my response. If a “gay” desires a 24" lawnmower, we may say that such a desire is utterly depraved by virtue of his psychological disorder which moves him to be self-centered. If a Catholic husband desires the same lawnmower, we are unable to say the same since we do not know of any psychological ailment that would render the desire depraved. In the latter case, the desire may be depraved or it may not be. This is why I indicated that in the absence of a psychological pathology that would indicate otherwise, we may only say that the desire has the potential to be depraved.

Can you show us the Church teaching that indicates a gay who wants a 24" lawn mower has a depraved desire for such lawn mower?

 

[Benadam]

Well, you cited my quote in offering the Church teachings. I presume that was a simple mistake.

So…

What about sex between siblings and natural law? You said incest was regulated by the Church. Where is that Church teaching found? Where does the Church say it regulates incest?

Who wrote natural law on the soul? Did the Church write it? Who wrote it before the Church?

Does the Church get to amend natural law that is written on the soul? Who amended it before the Church?

What is the significance of a lack of Magestrial documents on a subject.

Any act that is necessary for man to return to God is good and natural to do. The false presumption Lot’s daughters made to have children from their father.
31 And the elder said to the younger Our father is old, and there is no man left on the earth, to come in unto us after the manner of the whole earth.