Did the Catholic Church EVER condone Same Sex Marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Superstar905
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Superstar905

Guest
I ask this, because a friend of mine is taking this university class (gay literature, she didn’t have a choice so don’t ask, lol) and she has to do a paper on how at some point the Church blessed Same Sex marriage. Now, she has all these printouts, but I’m not sure of the sources (of course, you always have to consider the source).

So, does anyone have any reference materials to this at all? Was it ever true? She asked me and I can’t find anything on the internet about this.

I have my doubts to this, because I’m sure at some point an Anti-Catholic would have used this, and I’ve never heard of it.
 
I ask this, because a friend of mine is taking this university class (gay literature, she didn’t have a choice so don’t ask, lol) and she has to do a paper on how at some point the Church blessed Same Sex marriage. Now, she has all these printouts, but I’m not sure of the sources (of course, you always have to consider the source).

So, does anyone have any reference materials to this at all? Was it ever true? She asked me and I can’t find anything on the internet about this.

I have my doubts to this, because I’m sure at some point an Anti-Catholic would have used this, and I’ve never heard of it.
I just can’t imagine that this is true. Maybe it was instituted by Pope Joan…? j/k 😛
 
Here’s the only one I can think of.

Jesus and the rich young man who kept all the commandments.
In the real Gospels Jesus tells him to sell all his worldly posessions but the rich young man gives up and goes away. Then Jesus compares the odds of the rich getting into heaven with a camel going through the eye of needle.

But the (Gnostic and non-Catholic) Gospel of Thomas adds a secret ending. The rich young man returns after selling everything except his underwear. Jesus is impressed and the two of them stay up all night discussing the secrets of the kingdom. (The secrets are not recorded in the Gospel of Thomas because the Gnostics are a mystery cult – you have to cough up serious money to learn the secrets)

To some modern readers, the secrets of the kingdom is clearly a gay marriage because young man + underwear + teacher student relationship + all night long = homosexual love.

Abraham Lincoln and King David got a similar rap.
 
I ask this, because a friend of mine is taking this university class (gay literature, she didn’t have a choice so don’t ask, lol) and she has to do a paper on how at some point the Church blessed Same Sex marriage. Now, she has all these printouts, but I’m not sure of the sources (of course, you always have to consider the source).

So, does anyone have any reference materials to this at all? Was it ever true? She asked me and I can’t find anything on the internet about this.

I have my doubts to this, because I’m sure at some point an Anti-Catholic would have used this, and I’ve never heard of it.
I debated a guy on www.4forums.com some years ago where he claimed that the Catholic Church did do such. This fella (Duo_Maxwell) tried to suggest that the Catholic church has always supported homosexuals. (see thread "Why are Gay Rights not Civil Rights? post #41 and others) by basing his information on a site claiming to be “Catholic”.

It was not a Roman Catholic site but a liberal catholic church not in communion with Rome which itself had an article that was faulty in that it dealt with an icon of two saints, who weren’t gay.
He cited this as ‘the’ Catholic Church
forministry.com/USPALCCINSCCSC/GayMarriage.dsp
I stated…
Thanks for that. I made for interesting reading. Can I just point out that they are not ‘the’ Catholic Church’ For clarity of debate, when we generally refer to the Catholic Church, we mean the Roman Catholic Church, and those churches in communion with it (viz the Uniat Churches). My own church, the Orthodox Church has claim to be called ‘Catholic’, in that we are universal. We even pray every Sunday for the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church… our own.
They are not “Catholic” in that sense. They say this quite plainly…
“We are Catholic Churches but not Roman Catholic Churches.”
forministry.com/USPALCCINSCCSC/AboutUS.dsp
They are an ‘agenda’ church in that they are pushing for inclusion of homosexuality into the mainstream of Christianity, which is not a tradition. One of the greatest Orthodox saints was homosexual, but he was non-practicing. That is, he fought against the desires he, and we, consider sinful.
As to the examples, it appears frequently on the net, being repeated for instance at
angelfire.com/oh2/bibhom/mythsin.html
and again at
rense.com/general50/cath.htm
It is interesting to note that these icons are from Kiev, originally from the monastery of St. Catherine on Sinai, both of which are Orthodox, not Catholic domains. So your evidence for a start would at first suggest that gay marriages were approved of, in the Orthodox Church, not the Catholic. Given that we two churches were once one church, it’s understandable that they’d mix us up.
It is interesting to note here that putting “St. Serge St. Bacchus” in the search engine (www.ithaki.net) almost all the results lead to pro-gay-wedding sites. These icons of Christianity are now icons of social engineers.
A very good look at this was given by another Orthodox poster at
christianforums.biz/t682773
 
The more ‘convincing’ icon, is in fact a very very modern one, used in conjunction with a very modern translation of a text…
“The various words used for “bond” and “union” in the account are striking. For example, is not only the strongest of the possible words for “union,” or “uniting,” but combines a fascinating range of associations, all certainly familiar to the author of the Greek life of Serge and Bacchus. The most direct of these would be New Testament phrases, many quoted or echoed in the text, especially Col. 3:14 (“love, which is the bond of perfection” ) and Eph. 4:3 (“to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace”). Less clear but even more startling is the use of the same word in [LXX] I Kings 14:24, where it has been taken since the time of Jerome to refer to homosexuality (“And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations . . .”). This is likely a misprision of the Hebrew, but could hardly have been unknown to or missed by the author of the life, if it seemed obvious to Jerome. Its homosexual implication was, moreover, strengthened under Christian influence by the New Testament phrase “bonds of iniquity,” which employed the same Greek word for “bond.” Following classical usage, late antique and patristic writers used to describe particularly intimate unions of many sorts, ranging from the union of the Trinity to the marriage of husband and wife.”
John Boswell writing in 1904
(text given at site above)
However, an older version (also given at same site)
"The Passion of St. Sergius and Bacchus (BHL 7599)
“…They were one in the love of Christ, and were never separated from each other in their earthly military service, joined not by their natural temperament but by the chain of faith, always singing and saying, “How good and pleasant it is for brothers to live together” [Psalm 133:1]. They were, therefore, intelligent and happy soldiers of God, perfectly resolved by the divinely inspired scriptures upon the destruction of the devil’s error, and they exercised themselves fully in battle for the destruction of barbarians. …”
6. He said to them as they entered, “I see it this way, that trusting in my great clemency and humanity, with which protection the gods have provided you, you are willing on top of this to scorn the imperial edict as law-breakers and enemies of the gods. But I will not uphold the complaints which have made about you unless they are proven. Approaching, so, the altar of great Jove, offer sacrifice and taste the mystical offerings, just as the rest do.” However Sergius and Bacchus, the martyrs and most brave soldiers of Christ, said in response, “We must discharge to you, O emperor, the earthly military service of our bodies; but we have a true king, Jesus Christ eternal in heaven, the Son of God, to whom we devote our souls, he who is our hope and saving refuge. We offer to him everyday a holy and living sacrifice, and reasoned worship; for we do not sacrifice to, or adore, stones and wood. Your gods have ears but they do not hear the prayer of men. They have noses likewise, but they do not smell the sacrifice which is offered to them. They have mouths but they do not talk, hands but they do not touch, and feet but they do not walk. May they and all who trust in them become like those things which they make” [Psalm 134:18].
7. Thus the emperor was infuriated, his whole face changed, and he ordered that their military belts be immediately removed, that they be stripped of their cloaks and any other military garments, and, at the same time, that their golden collars be removed from about their necks. He dressed them in women’s clothing, and he ordered that they be dragged in this way, with the heaviest chains about their necks, right through the middle of the city as far as the palace. When the holy men were being dragged through the middle of the forum they chanted together, saying, “Although we walk in the shadow of death, we shall fear no evils, since you are with us,” [Psalm 24:5] and the words of the Apostle, “Denying to this extent all wickedness and earthly desire, [Titus 2:12] and having removed the clothing of the old-man, [Colossians 3:9] let us rejoice naked in our faith in you, O Lord, because you have clothed us in the garment of salvation, and you have wrapped us in the tunic of joy. You have adorned us in women’s clothes, like a spouse, unite us to you through our con- fession [Isaiah 61:10]. You, O Lord, have put your trust in us, saying, “You will be led before kings and governors on my account, and when they hand you over [to trial] do not worry how you will sound or what you will say. You will be given what to say at that hour. For they will not be your words which you are speaking, but words from the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you” [Matthew 10: 19-20].”
 
However, the most telling proofs come from geocities.com/catholicprayerpage/srgbchs.html. Remember these men were soldiers. Yet they were also Christians. Note a…"Prayer sung by Saints Sergius and Bacchus when they were stripped of their military garb and dressed in brides dresses and chains to be publicly humiliated.
"Denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, and putting off the form of the old man, naked in faith we rejoice in you, Lord, because you have clothed us with the garment of salvation, and have covered us with the robe of righteousness; as brides you have decked us with women’s gowns and joined us together for you [or: “joined us to you”] through our confession. You, Lord, commanded us, saying, ‘Ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake… But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.’ Rise, Lord, help us and rescue us for your name’s sake; strengthen our souls that we may not be separated from you and the impious may not say, ‘Where is their God?’ "
That is, they appear in the iconography as ‘married’ because they were placed that way by the Romans to humiliate them - to actually call them ‘sissy’ (or the Latin
equivalent)
In short, you’ve presented ‘an issue’ Church that’s not Catholic, which itself has assumed Orthodox iconography in order to promote it’s issue. They show truly two great saints who were made to suffer a humiliation of being ‘married’ to each other, but rather than be humiliated, the icon celebrates this mockery, in much the same way as gays call themselves ‘*****’ with a sense of pride. But, as I stated, they are an ‘issue’ Church, and they need to distort such things in order to push their agenda. This includes their gross distortion of the icon seen at the bottom of their page… where they’ve even made the Roman toga pink.
forministry.com/USPALCCINSCCSC/GayMarriage.dsp
I then wrote to this web-site to complain about their misrepresentations and the guy wrote back with a really weird e-mail, saying that I’d ‘hacked into’ his site - which is odd as its available to all memebers of the public.
 
The following articles might be of some help.

leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/darling.html
Gay Marriage: Reimagining Church History

Robin Darling Young is Associate Professor of Theology at the Catholic University of America, where she teaches early Christian history.

Professor Darling is writing here a review of : Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. By John Boswell. Villard Books. 412 pp.

Homosexuality and the Truth by Dr Elizabeth Moberly
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/opinion/moberly.html
 
The following articles might be of some help.

leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/darling.html
Gay Marriage: Reimagining Church History

Robin Darling Young is Associate Professor of Theology at the Catholic University of America, where she teaches early Christian history.

Professor Darling is writing here a review of : Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. By John Boswell. Villard Books. 412 pp.

Homosexuality and the Truth by Dr Elizabeth Moberly
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/opinion/moberly.html
Yes a review; a report on what someone else claims.
 
Actually, that book by John Boswell I believe is one of her sources that she was given.

Some really great information, I knew you people had some of this stuff handy. When I have time later, I’m going to read through some of the material given!
 
Actually, that book by John Boswell I believe is one of her sources that she was given.
paratheke.net/stephanos/articles/adelphopoiesis.html

Each of these figures— Boswell, Zymaris, SanFilippo and Halsall, has been working to construct a gay-friendly Christianity, complete with a particular interpretation of Scripture, patron saints, and iconography.

First, as a liturgical rite of the Orthodox Church, adelphopoiesis would not have been in conflict with the fundamental moral teachings of the Church.[24] Second, there exists a substantial body of scholarship on adelphopoiesis and similar rites of adoptive kinship which are known throughout the world. These rites are well understood and do not have the sense that Boswell and others would like to ascribe to them.[25]

Finally, it should be said that the scholarship underlying their claim is highly suspect. Even among those who might have been expected to be sympathetic, Boswell’s work was met with skepticism. As Robin Darling Young notes, “The reviews…have been notably skeptical—even from sources one would expect to be favorable.”[26]

Boswell’s* Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe* was greeted by reviewers with many colorful comments. Among them, David Wright, Senior Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History at the University of Edinburgh, wrote, “Mr. Boswell’s adventurous forays impress more for their speculative ingenuity than for common sense. One cannot but admire his immense resourcefulness and glittering intuitions, and lament the fallacious sophistry in whose service they are enlisted.”[27] Robert L. Wilken, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia, opines: “Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe creates a world that never existed, misrepresents Christian practice, and distorts the past. This is a book on a mission, scholarship at the service of social reform, historical learning yoked to a cause, a tract in the cultural wars, and it is in that spirit that it should be read.”[28]

In actual fact, scholarship on adelphopoiesis stretches back at least three hundred and fifty years.[29] By way of illustration, Young writes: “As for the texts printed in Greek, only a few of these texts have not been published before, and an examination of the ‘Manuscripts of Same-Sex Union’ shows that of the sixty-two manuscripts consulted, only eleven have not been previously translated.”[30] Thus, it should not be too difficult to answer Nicholas Zymaris’ objection: “What the critics of the Rite of Brotherhood and of Boswell’s work always fail to adequately explain is: if these ceremonies are not for the blessing of same-sex love, what exactly are they for?”[31]
 
No, the Catholic Church never did any such thing. John Boswell’s work has been thoroughly refuted by scholarly peer review, but, much like Cornwall’s Hitler’s Pope, the damage is already done.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Actually, that book by John Boswell I believe is one of her sources that she was given.

Some really great information, I knew you people had some of this stuff handy. When I have time later, I’m going to read through some of the material given!
Some modernist apologists have issues that they want to push and will do what they can to re-work Christian belief
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top