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

[buffalo]

The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality. You should really spend some time reading the story in Genesis without the bias. The greatest sin of Sodom was their lack of hospitality, which was a highly prized virtue in that time and culture. And even if Sodom’s main sin was homosexual activity, it still has no bearing on loving same sex relationships. The men of Sodom saught to gang rape the angelic visitors. Rape, no matter what your orientation, is depraved. Had the angelic visitors been women and the men of Sodom wanted to gang rape them, would we say that heterosexual acts are sinful? Of course not but you use exactly that logic when reading this story. You also have to take into account the social and cultural aspects. Lot was deemed a just and righteous man but offered his virgin daughters to the mob to appease their sexual appetites. We certainly wouldn’t suggest that that would be approbriate today, now would we?

LOL !

Quick Questions (1992)

In a recent homily our parish priest said, “No matter what anyone tells you, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was a sin against hospitality.” He said that Genesis 19, where the incident of Sodom’s destruction is recounted, is one of the most misinterpreted sections of the Bible. He claims the inhabitants of those cities were destroyed by God for not being hospitable to strangers. What is the official Catholic teaching on the nature of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? I’m worried that modern interpretations like this priest’s are used to downplay the sin of homosexuality.
If there’s any misrepresenting going on, it’s being perpetrated by your parish priest. There is nothing in Genesis 18 or 19 which could support his theory that a lack of hospitality was the crime that caused God to annihilate Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 18 God said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin [singular] is so grave . . .” (v. 20). What was the sin which “cried out” for punishment?
Genesis 19 recounts the story of how Abraham’s nephew, Lot, entertained two angels at his home in Sodom. Word got around that Lot had some visiting men in his home, and “the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old,” gathered outside his home, clamoring for the two visitors to be turned over so that they could be homosexually raped: “Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we might have intimacies with them.”
Notice what’s going on here. The strangers had been shown hospitality by Lot and his family (vv. 1-3). The townsmen didn’t cry out to Lot that they wanted to be “inhospitable” to the visitors, but that they wanted to have intercourse with them, which is something markedly different. Lot attempts to quell the mob by offering them his two virgin daughters, suspecting that because these men were homosexuals they would refuse. The entire account revolves around a single sin: homosexuality.
While it’s true that later Old Testament prophets pointed out other sins the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of (Is. 1:9-20, 3:9, Ezek. 16:46-51, Jer. 23:14), it’s clear that the primary sin, the sin which provoked God’s wrath, was homosexuality.
If you examine the Old Testament passages in which God outlines the sins which would merit the death penalty under the Mosaic Law (Lev. 20:27, 24:10-23; Deut. 13:5-10, 21:18-21, 22:21-24), you’ll see that homosexuality was condemned alongside such crimes as murder, idolatry, and blasphemy (Lev. 20:13). Search as you might, you won’t find the Lord meting out the death penalty to persons guilty of inhospitality.

Sin of Sodom?

Homosexuality

and

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality

 

[RyanML]

LOL !

Quick Questions (1992)

In a recent homily our parish priest said, “No matter what anyone tells you, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was a sin against hospitality.” He said that Genesis 19, where the incident of Sodom’s destruction is recounted, is one of the most misinterpreted sections of the Bible. He claims the inhabitants of those cities were destroyed by God for not being hospitable to strangers. What is the official Catholic teaching on the nature of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? I’m worried that modern interpretations like this priest’s are used to downplay the sin of homosexuality.
If there’s any misrepresenting going on, it’s being perpetrated by your parish priest. There is nothing in Genesis 18 or 19 which could support his theory that a lack of hospitality was the crime that caused God to annihilate Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 18 God said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin [singular] is so grave . . .” (v. 20). What was the sin which “cried out” for punishment?
Genesis 19 recounts the story of how Abraham’s nephew, Lot, entertained two angels at his home in Sodom. Word got around that Lot had some visiting men in his home, and “the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old,” gathered outside his home, clamoring for the two visitors to be turned over so that they could be homosexually raped: “Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we might have intimacies with them.”
Notice what’s going on here. The strangers had been shown hospitality by Lot and his family (vv. 1-3). The townsmen didn’t cry out to Lot that they wanted to be “inhospitable” to the visitors, but that they wanted to have intercourse with them, which is something markedly different. Lot attempts to quell the mob by offering them his two virgin daughters, suspecting that because these men were homosexuals they would refuse. The entire account revolves around a single sin: homosexuality.
While it’s true that later Old Testament prophets pointed out other sins the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of (Is. 1:9-20, 3:9, Ezek. 16:46-51, Jer. 23:14), it’s clear that the primary sin, the sin which provoked God’s wrath, was homosexuality.
If you examine the Old Testament passages in which God outlines the sins which would merit the death penalty under the Mosaic Law (Lev. 20:27, 24:10-23; Deut. 13:5-10, 21:18-21, 22:21-24), you’ll see that homosexuality was condemned alongside such crimes as murder, idolatry, and blasphemy (Lev. 20:13). Search as you might, you won’t find the Lord meting out the death penalty to persons guilty of inhospitality.

Sin of Sodom?

Homosexuality

and

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality

LOL! I love how people are looking right at the Scriptures and read something totally different than what they say. When our Lord mentioned Sodom in the Gospels, did he mention homosexuality? No, He said that those towns that did not welcome the Apostles would be worse off than Sodom. Jesus Christ linked the destruction of Sodom with inhospitality. And as another poster mentioned, the obvious sin in the story of Sodom is not homosexuality, it is gang rape. Sorry, but the anti-homosexual bias that you’re reading into the text just isn’t justified.

 

[buffalo]

LOL! I love how people are looking right at the Scriptures and read something totally different than what they say. When our Lord mentioned Sodom in the Gospels, did he mention homosexuality? No, He said that those towns that did not welcome the Apostles would be worse off than Sodom. Jesus Christ linked the destruction of Sodom with inhospitality. And as another poster mentioned, the obvious sin in the story of Sodom is not homosexuality, it is gang rape. Sorry, but the anti-homosexual bias that you’re reading into the text just isn’t justified.

Then you have a fundamental difference with official Catholic teaching and understanding.

 

[RyanML]

Then you have a fundamental difference with official Catholic teaching and understanding.

You never answered my earlier post about conscience:

So basically and informed conscience is one that professes something as true because he is told it is true, even if he is not convicted in his heart?

So, for an example, a Baptist would be expected to believe in the Immaculate Conception simply because the Church says it is true, despite the fact that their conscience would tell them it is a false doctrine?

 

[buffalo]

So basically and informed conscience is one that professes something as true because he is told it is true, even if he is not convicted in his heart?

So, for an example, a Baptist would be expected to believe in the Immaculate Conception simply because the Church says it is true, despite the fact that their conscience would tell them it is a false doctrine?

MORAL CONSCIENCE
1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47
I. THE JUDGMENT OF CONSCIENCE
1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. **When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking. **
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.50 1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of *interiority *is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:

Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.51 1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the* prudent judgment* of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.
1781 Conscience enables one to assume *responsibility *for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:

We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.52 1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53
II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE
1783 **Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. **
1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.
1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55
I

 

[buffalo]

II. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE
1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.
1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.
1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."58
  IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT
  1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
  1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
  1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
  1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
  1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61

 

[RyanML]

Please, if you can’t answer a question, don’t post a million links.

I spent years studying the Faith, praying that our Lord would take my attractions away from me, working with a priest and NARTH to “re-orient” my sexuality, to no avail. The only thing that came from it all was depression and despair. Those are not fruits of the Spirit. When I finally came to accept my sexuality as simply a part of who I am and that true re-orientation was bringing my homosexuality to the service of Christ just as heterosexuals can, then I found joy and peace and felt that I could approach the Father without believing He looked down on me in disgust. I’m sorry, but if I have to choose between a life of misery and despair or of grace and relationship with the Lord, I choose grace and relationship.

 

[buffalo]

Please, if you can’t answer a question, don’t post a million links.

I spent years studying the Faith, praying that our Lord would take my attractions away from me, working with a priest and NARTH to “re-orient” my sexuality, to no avail. The only thing that came from it all was depression and despair. Those are not fruits of the Spirit. When I finally came to accept my sexuality as simply a part of who I am and that true re-orientation was bringing my homosexuality to the service of Christ just as heterosexuals can, then I found joy and peace and felt that I could approach the Father without believing He looked down on me in disgust. I’m sorry, but if I have to choose between a life of misery and despair or of grace and relationship with the Lord, I choose grace and relationship.

Several time I have been chided on links.

My experience has been this. I make a Catholic claim. The claim is challenged. I respond. Then I am asked for sources.

I have decided to cut right to the chase. The links I have posted all square with Catholic teaching. You asked me about conscience I gave you a Catechism quote.

Obviously none of the supporting links agree with your claim. This nonsense about hospitality is of recent vintage. The Church never understood it the way someone told you.

Bottom -line - then where do you and the Church disagree?

Here is the reference for footnote 147 in the Catechism: (official Magisterial Document)

VIII
At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.
A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.
In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Please, if you can’t answer a question, don’t post a million links.

I spent years studying the Faith, praying that our Lord would take my attractions away from me, working with a priest and NARTH to “re-orient” my sexuality, to no avail. The only thing that came from it all was depression and despair. Those are not fruits of the Spirit. When I finally came to accept my sexuality as simply a part of who I am and that true re-orientation was bringing my homosexuality to the service of Christ just as heterosexuals can, then I found joy and peace and felt that I could approach the Father without believing He looked down on me in disgust. I’m sorry, but if I have to choose between a life of misery and despair or of grace and relationship with the Lord, I choose grace and relationship.

AMEN!!! I had a similar experience, trying to be “normal” only brought pain. Living as a gay person and accepting that this is part of God’s plan for me has brought peace and a connection with God that I never had before.

 

[buffalo]

AMEN!!! I had a similar experience, trying to be “normal” only brought pain. Living as a gay person and accepting that this is part of God’s plan for me has brought peace and a connection with God that I never had before.

Engaged in the act or not?

 

[RyanML]

Several time I have been chided on links.

My experience has been this. I make a Catholic claim. The claim is challenged. I respond. Then I am asked for sources.

I have decided to cut right to the chase. The links I have posted all square with Catholic teaching. You asked me about conscience I gave you a Catechism quote.

Obviously none of the supporting links agree with your claim. This nonsense about hospitality is of recent vintage. The Church never understood it the way someone told you.

Bottom -line - then where do you and the Church disagree?

Here is the reference for footnote 147 in the Catechism: (official Magisterial Document)

VIII
At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.
A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.
In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

In response to the “intrinsically disordered” argument, Deo Volente (#659) made some valid points, I think, which have yet to be addressed.

I might clarify that I realize I have no authority to speak definitively on these matters and what I present here is only my opinion. I don’t mean to say that Holy Mother Church is wrong. In fact it’s much more possible that I am wrong and if I am I pray that God will be merciful to me. But I can not intellectually assent to something if I find it impossible to believe.

 

[StillWondering]

(1) Same sex attraction =/= homosexual behavior. They are two different things. Just ask the thousands of male prison inmates who have acted out “homosexuality” in prison, while neither before nor after being homosexual in orientation or attraction.

I think that is very interesting. I wonder if there are any personal story books about being rape or having male-male sex in prisons.

 

[WillieWonka]

MKing and Ryan illustrate the strength of the gay rights movement. Gays came out and said, “This is me, this is who I am. and I intend to live a full life just as I am, regardless of what you think.”

The rest of the population then looked at them and saw a normal cross section of society. Nothing harmful, dangerous, or Satanic.

So, that’s why we have seen such progress in the last 40 years on gay rights. People stood up against the bigotry and won. It can’t be stopped as long as gays keep standing up, and more and more straights stand with them. I’m straight, and I’m standing with them. And now, there are more standing with them than against them.

(And I’m still searching my memory for that fateful day when I made the decision to be heterosexual.)

 

[buffalo]

MKing and Ryan illustrate the strength of the gay rights movement. Gays came out and said, “This is me, this is who I am. and I intend to live a full life just as I am, regardless of what you think.”

The rest of the population then looked at them and saw a normal cross section of society. Nothing harmful, dangerous, or Satanic.

So, that’s why we have seen such progress in the last 40 years on gay rights. People stood up against the bigotry and won. It can’t be stopped as long as gays keep standing up, and more and more straights stand with them. I’m straight, and I’m standing with them. And now, there are more standing with them than against them.

(And I’m still searching my memory for that fateful day when I made the decision to be heterosexual.)

Just to be clear -

How are you standing up for them?

Do you support the act?

 

[WillieWonka]

Just to be clear -

How are you standing up for them?

Do you support the act?

I vote in favor of gay marriage, hire them, rent to them, socialize with them, and convince others to do the same. To put it simply - I don’t care about their sex life. I treat Catholics the same way.

Act? I don’t care.

(Truth in posting: The gays I hired were always the best applicants for that particular job. I won’t hire second best for any reason.)

 

[buffalo]

I vote in favor of gay marriage, hire them, rent to them, socialize with them, and convince others to do the same. To put it simply - I don’t care about their sex life. I treat Catholics the same way.

Act? I don’t care.

(Truth in posting: The gays I hired were always the best applicants for that particular job. I won’t hire second best for any reason.)

Just so I understand. Thanks.

How did you know they were homosexuals when you hired them? Did you break the law and ask them?

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

Mainly because the rest of us would shoot them down. Self-interest always trumps faith.

That is very true, and a crying shame.

Still they logically can’t have it both ways. OT is good, or OT is not.

Unless they can show evidence as to why it is harmful, then we must respect them and give them the rights that they are due.

Peace

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

I vote in favor of gay marriage, hire them, rent to them, socialize with them, and convince others to do the same. To put it simply - I don’t care about their sex life. I treat Catholics the same way.

Act? I don’t care.

(Truth in posting: The gays I hired were always the best applicants for that particular job. I won’t hire second best for any reason.)

Good for you, why would any of us care about the sex lives of others??

Strange thing to fight against in the first place

Well said Willie

Peace

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

This nonsense about hospitality is of recent vintage.

Buffalo, you are quite wrong in this regard. Here is Ezekiel 16:49: “Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor.”

Note also (contrary to your source) that iniquity is singular, but a multitude of sins are understood by it. It is convenient to say that the “sin of Sodom” must be homosexuality because sin is singular, but convenience, as I’m sure you’re aware, does not make something true.

Furthermore, let’s look at Isaiah 3:8-9: “For Jerusalem is ruined, and Juda is fallen: because their tongue, and their devices are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his majesty. The shew of their countenance hath answered them: and they have proclaimed abroad their sin as Sodom, and they have not hid it: woe to their souls, for evils are rendered to them…” These verses indicate that Sodom’s great sin is the pride they took in their own wickedness. No mention of homosexuality.

If you insist on seeing homosexuality as the sin of Sodom, you must see it within the context of the Levitical sexual prohbitions. It is clear (I would refer you to Gaca’s “The Making of Fornication”) that what the ancient Hebrews understood as fornication was any sexual activity which compromised the religious integrity of the people of Israel (which is different, I may add, from what we generally call fornication). That is–fornication occurs when one has sex with an idolator. Paul understood it similarly, which is why he had such a problem with the Ephesians–Christian men were marrying pagan women, joining the true temple to a false temple, implicating the Christian in his very marriage and through thesexual act in an act of idolatry. Such an act was understood to be an act of fornication. The prohibition against “lying the lyings of a woman” in Leviticus must be understood within this context as well–and the context of Leviticus bears this out: homosexual activity was activity other cultures did, and, moreover was associated with idolatry. Anything bearing the taint of idolatry was forbidden, and homosexual acts were forbidden not because they were “un-natural” but because they were seen by the ancient Israelites as idolatrous. Even so, many scholars have indicated that the acts prohibited by Leviticus were penetrative acts which resembled heterosexual intercourse–that is, intercrural sex, anal sex. Other forms of sexual expression between men were evidently not proscribed.

Which is all to say that even if you (wrongly) understand the principle “sin” of Sodom to be homosexuality and NOT (based on the evidence of scripture) pride in wickedness or pompous cruelty which comes from a lack of charity (otherwise known as inhospitality), then all evidence must lead you to see homosexual activity in the story as shorthand for blatant idolatry. As RyanML has repeatedly mentioned, the story of Sodom is not a story illustrating that homosexual activity is bad.

By the way, the idea that sex is primarily for procreation (and should only be practiced with as little frequency as possible by husband and wife) is apparently a Pythagorean invention (again, I would refer you to Gaca), not an idea which finds its origin in Judaism per se. The Stoic position was that the genitals are naturally ordered toward reproduction, but that the sex act is prinicipally ordered toward relationship or friendship. This seems to point in the right direction, to me, and seems quite reasonable. How the Pythagorean notion of sex (which was incredibly puritanical and somewhat arcane–as witnessed by the calculation of the nuptial number which would determine the appropriate time to procreate in order to beget moral children) came to be regarded as the norm is beyond me, unless there is some veracity to the rumors of Christianity being, in part, the development of Essene-type spirituality through contact with Pythagorean/Therapeutae influences via Hellenized Judaism.

Ryan, thanks for your support. I’d be interested in some discussion on those points, but I don’t think it’s likely to happen! Ultimately, it is much more culturally advantageous to continue to believe in the homosexual-as-scapegoat paradigm as witnessed by the insistance on the sin of Sodom being homosexuality, than it is to believe that we, as a culture, have a responsibility to hospitality which we obstinately refuse to take seriously. If we focus on homosexuality and ignore the imperative to hospitality (which, by the way, speaks directly to our understanding of the Eucharist), then we can continue on with business as usual. Again: it’s all about power.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[StillWondering]

Please, if you can’t answer a question, don’t post a million links.

I spent years studying the Faith, praying that our Lord would take my attractions away from me, working with a priest and NARTH to “re-orient” my sexuality, to no avail. The only thing that came from it all was depression and despair. Those are not fruits of the Spirit. When I finally came to accept my sexuality as simply a part of who I am and that true re-orientation was bringing my homosexuality to the service of Christ just as heterosexuals can, then I found joy and peace and felt that I could approach the Father without believing He looked down on me in disgust. I’m sorry, but if I have to choose between a life of misery and despair or of grace and relationship with the Lord, I choose grace and relationship.

I would like to add that there is a huge difference between who you are and what you do.

A severe narcoleptic will fall asleep on the road periodically. He may not intend to get into the accident, but he did intend to drive knowing he may fall asleep. If you have severe narcolepsy, you are familiar with yourself falling asleep at one point. From a moral standpoint, my personal understanding of morality would say you are not fully culpable for the moment of falling asleep but you are culpable of getting behind the wheel knowing you may fall asleep. Luckily there are medications for this and change of lifestyle does help.

A sex addict will have inappropriate sex periodically if they are enticed by a semi attractive individual. They may not have full knowledge or consent at the moment when they pull that sexy new friend into a nearly hotel, but they are culpable for going out without a chaperon or frequently dating oriented functions.

A person with extreme violent tendencies may do something they regret when they are angry. They will be at fault for the things they do but may have some moral culpability relieved if they lost their mental capacity when they committed crime. However, they are fully culpable for getting angry.

In the first case, if a narcoleptic is unwilling to take medication he is not permitted by law to drive. In the second case, if the sex addict does not have a chaperon, avoid places where they know they will relieve their urges, or have a back up plan for themselves, they *will *end up in bed whether they regret it or not. In the last case, if the person with violent tendencies do not practice strict anger management or leave the scene whenever they know they will get angry, they will go to jail.

I cited three examples of those with a difficulty where their is a huge difference between what they are and what they do. Each situation, they are “force to a vocation” if they choose to live a Christian life. (in reference to Ryan’s post #530).

So as to not appear as a person that cannot relate and is just speaking from a safe standpoint, I relate to the above situations because I have a someone very dear to me with a difficulty. I do not call them problems but they can be problematic at times. At one point he has even broken doors, chairs, walls and other things around the house. You could describe him as going into a demonic rage. Well, as far as I know he is not possessed and is well loved when he is not in one of my moments. He have other problems besides being violet to furniture but for his own legal safety I cannot mention . He has never harmed anyone (though the closet was a flying sofa into the wall) while in these modes but the first thing his family and friends do when this happen (now that they know him better) is to grab him and hug him tight till he wakes up.

So was he meant to accept who he is and that is it? No, every time he comes out of those moments he cries and ask around to see if he hurt anyone. And his family, they cry with him, because they see him in pain. But it would be foolish for him to leave it as that and potentially hurt someone, himself, and give up his reason every so often. Instead he is seeking help and can tell when he needs to stop everything and leave to a safe place.

Let me repeat, I do not have problems with homosexuals as people. In fact, any who are having SSA and living in the fullness of the faith are so admirable to me who is a repeat sinner on big things and little things. For those who do not have the faith but still live justly, these are great men and women too. In general, whether a homosexual is engaging in sin or not, I can hang out with them, be friends with them, and can care for them. I must not do anything that will make it easier for them to commit the sin of homosexuality (St. Paul mentions this in his letters). I am not a homosexual so I do not know how difficult it is but as I mentioned I have my own difficulty. While different in manifestation, pain is pain, suffering is suffering.** At the same time, it is very different to take actions using the difficulty as an excuse versus working with it to build strength in other ways. **

Lastly, for anyone who says driving while being asleep is dangerous and being violet are harmful things while sex with those you choose is not. That is not true. All are called to chastity. This is important for the social well being. Much more importantly, this is for the individual soul. I have no proof that the soul is stronger for abstaining from same-sex relations that can be examined by science (though others may have documentation). I just hope everyone can consider this whether they believe in a soul or not. All the richness of the world and all the pleasures of life is meaningless without the soul, the only possibly immortal thing we have. I know it is immortal, but even for those who do not believe in Catholicism they may believe in an immortal soul.