Effects of Catholic Teaching on Homosexuals

[Hadrianus]

First of all to Elizabeth502,

                    Well said.

To In Search of Grace,

                    I think we have to be careful with "abomination" in exegesis. Obviously, it is a bad thing, but what exactly it means in a context which does not specify the abomination in question remains unclear.
                    It is patently apparent that the attempt of the men of Sodom to sexually assault the angels would have been an abomination. It is still in the modern Middle East a practice used to humiliate males by other males. In this respect nothing has changed in 3,000 years. 
                   But whether consensual homosexual relations would fit this category is highly debatable. The sin remains,cf St Paul, but whether there is something unique about it as apart from the other sins listed by St Paul, seems unlikely. The Didache, circa 90 AD, refers to the "corruption of boys", but in the same context as other mortal sins, without making a distinction.
                  The Catholic moral theological tradition generally tends to classify homosexual acts along with contraception, and all other deliberately non procreative sexual acts.

 

[grandfather]

The story of Sodom is about their inhospitality.

And the tooth fairy leaves quaters under your pillow.

 

[sw85]

And the tooth fairy leaves quaters under your pillow.

Yeah, I’ve always found this to be a particularly galling bit of nonsense. For one thing, there’s the obvious fact that “sodomy” (i.e., the sin of Sodom) has always been understood to be sexual deviancy, not mere rape or inhospitality. Perhaps we’re all forgetting the bit where Lot, who sheltered the angels, offered them his daughter to rape instead and they turned him down.

Virtually everyone everywhere for the entire history of Christianity and Judaism until about five minutes ago understood this, that Sodom’s sin was sodomy, not being lousy or rape-y hosts. No less a theological and exegetical authority than Thomas Aquinas said as much, that “copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female . . . is called the vice of sodomy” (ST, II-II, q. 154, a. 11). Both Aquinas and Augustine identified the “unnatural vice” (i.e., sodomy) as the sin for which Sodom was punished.

These men consecrated their lives to contemplation and prayer. We are the products of a generation that has consecrated itself to sex. On what grounds do we get off saying we know better than these men?

 

[bilop]

Yeah, I’ve always found this to be a particularly galling bit of nonsense. For one thing, there’s the obvious fact that “sodomy” (i.e., the sin of Sodom) has always been understood to be sexual deviancy, not mere rape or inhospitality. Perhaps we’re all forgetting the bit where Lot, who sheltered the angels, offered them his daughter to rape instead and they turned him down.

Virtually everyone everywhere for the entire history of Christianity and Judaism until about five minutes ago understood this, that Sodom’s sin was sodomy, not being lousy or rape-y hosts. No less a theological and exegetical authority than Thomas Aquinas said as much, that “copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female . . . is called the vice of sodomy” (ST, II-II, q. 154, a. 11). Both Aquinas and Augustine identified the “unnatural vice” (i.e., sodomy) as the sin for which Sodom was punished.

These men consecrated their lives to contemplation and prayer. We are the products of a generation that has consecrated itself to sex. On what grounds do we get off saying we know better than these men?

Agree 100%.

Also, (as was said above) we don’t need the OT to know homosexual are sinful.

St. Paul, Romans Ch. 1

[26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

God Bless

 

[grandfather]

Yeah, I’ve always found this to be a particularly galling bit of nonsense.

The first time I heard the theory that Sodom’s sin was being inhospitable was from a Catholic bishop, one who turned out later to have been involved in moving a molester around when he go caught. That diocese filed for bankruptcy and paid tens of millions in damages.

It is amazing what bizarre contortions the human mind cooks up to justify, explain and reexplain the truth that is plain as the nose on your face.

I remember in the 90s meeting with midlevel and senior managers of a large tobacco company that asked my company to help remove nitrosamine from tobacco. The one was a VP. As he went from coughing fit to fit he straight faced said the smoking is good for you and proceeded to explain why. People believe what they want to believe and no evidence will change their minds.

Jesus said to the rich man in fire even if someone were to rise from the dead your brothers still will not believe.

The only thing that opens people’s eyes to the truth, including our own, is the grace of conversion.

 

[fix]

The story of Sodom is about their inhospitality. I’m not saying anyone that has posted here is homophobic, but that is one possible reason for the misinterpretation, the thought that homosexuality is “icky” therefore it must be evil, therefore it must be condemned frequently throughout the Bible. Only it does not seem to be.

Talk to us about some of the other “abominations.” Some of them are funny.

Well the Catholic Church teaches differently:

An essential dimension of authentic pastoral care is the identification of causes of confusion regarding the Church’s teaching. One is a new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous and call for particular attention here.

It is quite true that the Biblical literature owes to the different epochs in which it was written a good deal of its varied patterns of thought and expression (Dei Verbum 12). The Church today addresses the Gospel to a world which differs in many ways from ancient days. But the world in which the New Testament was written was already quite diverse from the situation in which the Sacred Scriptures of the Hebrew People had been written or compiled, for example.

What should be noticed is that, in the presence of such remarkable diversity, there is nevertheless a clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behaviour. The Church’s doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony. …

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

And the tooth fairy leaves quaters under your pillow.

If someone said the primary thing was inhospitality and sodomy was merely one of many things would you still be so outraged?

Yeah, I’ve always found this to be a particularly galling bit of nonsense. For one thing, there’s the obvious fact that “sodomy” (i.e., the sin of Sodom) has always been understood to be sexual deviancy, not mere rape or inhospitality. Perhaps we’re all forgetting the bit where Lot, who sheltered the angels, offered them his daughter to rape instead and they turned him down.

Virtually everyone everywhere for the entire history of Christianity and Judaism until about five minutes ago understood this, that Sodom’s sin was sodomy, not being lousy or rape-y hosts. No less a theological and exegetical authority than Thomas Aquinas said as much, that “copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female . . . is called the vice of sodomy” (ST, II-II, q. 154, a. 11). Both Aquinas and Augustine identified the “unnatural vice” (i.e., sodomy) as the sin for which Sodom was punished.

These men consecrated their lives to contemplation and prayer. We are the products of a generation that has consecrated itself to sex. On what grounds do we get off saying we know better than these men?

Aquinas describes sodomia perfecta, sodomia imperfecta is any inherently sterile sex between heterosexuals.

 

[sw85]

If someone said the primary thing was inhospitality and sodomy was merely one of many things would you still be so outraged?

Aquinas describes sodomia perfecta, sodomia imperfecta is any inherently sterile sex between heterosexuals.

“Heterosexual” was not a distinction Aquinas recognized anywhere, to my knowledge. Because the term didn’t even exist before 100 years ago. Perhaps you mean between a man and a woman, in which case the distinction is irrelevant (no one denies that a man can “sodomize” a woman). In any event the point is clear: sodomy refers to a specific sexual act (i.e., unnatural sexual conduct), not just a context (i.e., rape).

 

[grandfather]

One of the things that is interesting and important that we understand is how evil works to confuse and deceive mankind. Whatever the issue we are facing the same tactics are used.

Jesus said the devil is a liar and murderer from the beginning. What happened with Eve in the garden? She believed a lie. The lie is always presented to the intellect. It intrigues us. We fall for it.

It tells us what we want to hear. It convinces us the real truth is against our interests and hurts us and that if we go against or violate our nature and natural instincts we will be happy.

Think of the women’s movement, the lies deceived radical femminists believe and promote. They say they are for women and women’s rights. They want to set women free from oppression and injustice. They tell women to violate their most basic feminine instinct to nurture and love. They are told to destroy the life within them and deny their motherhood.

The lie is always the same. “Surely you will not die”. “God said you would die if you…”.
Don’t believe God. It is not true. The truth is that you will not die. God lied to you. You can be free. When we fall for the lie we lose our freedom and are enslaved.

So now and ever since the beginning of time the tempter comes and we are told if we do certain evil things we will not die spiritually. God says we will kill the life of our immortal souls and the devil says, don’t believe it.

Nothing has changed in this regard. The only thing that changes is the percentage of the population that believes the lies.

 

[bilop]

If someone said the primary thing was inhospitality and sodomy was merely one of many things would you still be so outraged?

God was going to destroy Sodom long before the inhospitality you speak of.

God Bless

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

“Heterosexual” was not a distinction Aquinas recognized anywhere, to my knowledge. Because the term didn’t even exist before 100 years ago. Perhaps you mean between a man and a woman, in which case the distinction is irrelevant (no one denies that a man can “sodomize” a woman). In any event the point is clear: sodomy refers to a specific sexual act (i.e., unnatural sexual conduct), not just a context (i.e., rape).

Yes I did mean between a man and a woman. What bothers means is how often people rant about homosexuals engaging in sodomy, but neglect the fact that heterosexuals can and do do it. If fellatio is done, both parties are committing the sin of sodomy, if cunnilingus (sp?) is done, both parties are committing the sin of sodomy. IIRC if someone is masturbating someone else that is also sodomy. If they are using things intentionally to try to thwart procreation they are attempting sodomy. The majority of sexually active heterosexuals adults have probably done at least once.

 

[sw85]

Yes I did mean between a man and a woman. What bothers means is how often people rant about homosexuals engaging in sodomy, but neglect the fact that heterosexuals can and do do it. If fellatio is done, both parties are committing the sin of sodomy, if cunnilingus (sp?) is done, both parties are committing the sin of sodomy. IIRC if someone is masturbating someone else that is also sodomy. If they are using things intentionally to try to thwart procreation they are attempting sodomy. The majority of sexually active heterosexuals adults have probably done at least once.

Imperfect sodomy has traditionally been held to be a man penetrating the anus of a woman. This is “imperfect” in the sense that it less characteristic of sodomy than “perfect” sodomy, i.e., two dudes. So clearly sodomy is something that occurs between two men which male/female couples can mimic only imperfectly. Also note that the consensus now seems to be that “imperfect sodomy,” while never advisable and probably a sin against prudence, is not necessarily sinful in itself if it is not ejaculatory, where perfect sodomy is always a sin because it can never in principle be ordered toward procreation. This is basically what is said, for instance, in Fr. Herbert Jone’s theological manual for priests.

Now it would hardly be meaningful to say that the most perfect form of sodomy was not the thing for which the city that gave it its name was punished! Sodomy is named for Sodom, and the most perfect form of sodomy is anal penetration of one dude by another. So, clearly, the sin for which Sodom was punished was anal penetration between dudes. If this were not true it would not be particularly meaningful to call it “perfect sodomy,” i.e., the sin that most perfectly represents the sin of Sodom. Again, note that Lot offered them his daughter to sodomize instead of the angels-in-the-form-of-men and they refused.

(Marital) cunnilingus isn’t contrary to the natural end of the sexual act so of course there is nothing wrong with it. Neither is (marital) fellatio if it is nonorgasmic. Neither is caressing of those areas if it is nonorgasmic for the man. Female orgasms are largely irrelevant to the natural end of the human sexual faculty so she can have as many of them as she wants in as many ways as she wants during the context of the sexual act, provided it doesn’t offend against chastity in other ways. I don’t know where you’re getting your information from but it doesn’t seem to be accurate.

 

[grandfather]

If someone said the primary thing was inhospitality and sodomy was merely one of many things would you still be so outraged?

.

Outraged is probably the wrong word to describe the reaction. I thought maybe incredulous might fit, but I am not that either. I am not surprised by anything that comes from darkened minds to justify anything anymore. A tenured professor of ethics advances the idea that parents should have the “right” to kill their handicapped children. It is impossible to get sixty senators to say the live dismemberment and destruction of a viable baby in the womb is evil.

Read Paul in Romans talking about the man of lawlessness coming. We are in that age.

Inhospitality applied to the events recalled in Sodom is a novel invention of the group whose motive is to ultimately rewrite the ancient consistent moral teaching of the Church, confirmed in Old Testament and New, by all the saints of the ages as part of divine revelation.

Inhospitality is what happened to Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem when they were in need of shelter. The angels had shelter in Lot’s house. They had all the hospitality they needed. They were sent there to get Lot out of town before fire fell from the sky.

Read the account of the approved apparition in Akita Japan to Sister Agnes. Mary told her that fire is going to fall from the sky and destroy millions of humans, the good and bad alike. God has had it with us. Sounds like Sodom to me. Here we go again. She said those left alive will be so desolute that they will envy the dead. The current pope said the message of Akita is a continuation of the message of Fatima much of which has come to pass exactly as foretold, especially the millions who would perish in WWII and the errors of Russia.

We can believe it or not.

You are suffering from an ongoing spiritual assault, tempted to go down a destructive path. Resist it with all of your might until you have nothing left to fight with. Continue to call out to Jesus and Mary to save you, for mercy, for help.

Faith tells us that we can fall again and again and always find mercy. We can’t deny that the evil we do is evil or we will never find mercy.

 

[JimG]

Outraged is probably the wrong word to describe the reaction. I thought maybe incredulous might fit, but I am not that either. I am not surprised by anything that comes from darkened minds to justify anything anymore. A tenured professor of ethics advances the idea that parents should have the “right” to kill their handicapped children. It is impossible to get sixty senators to say the live dismemberment and destruction of a viable baby in the womb is evil.

Read Paul in Romans talking about the man of lawlessness coming. We are in that age.

Inhospitality applied to the events recalled in Sodom is a novel invention of the group whose motive is to ultimately rewrite the ancient consistent moral teaching of the Church, confirmed in Old Testament and New, by all the saints of the ages as part of divine revelation.

Inhospitality is what happened to Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem when they were in need of shelter. The angels had shelter in Lot’s house. They had all the hospitality they needed. They were sent there to get Lot out of town before fire fell from the sky.

Read the account of the approved apparition in Akita Japan to Sister Agnes. Mary told her that fire is going to fall from the sky and destroy millions of humans, the good and bad alike. God has had it with us. Sounds like Sodom to me. Here we go again. She said those left alive will be so desolute that they will envy the dead. The current pope said the message of Akita is a continuation of the message of Fatima much of which has come to pass exactly as foretold, especially the millions who would perish in WWII and the errors of Russia.

We can believe it or not.

You are suffering from an ongoing spiritual assault, tempted to go down a destructive path. Resist it with all of your might until you have nothing left to fight with. Continue to call out to Jesus and Mary to save you, for mercy, for help.

Faith tells us that we can fall again and again and always find mercy. We can’t deny that the evil we do is evil or we will never find mercy.

Here’s a link concerning Our Lady of Akita.

theworkofgod.org/Aparitns/Akita.htm

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Imperfect sodomy has traditionally been held to be a man penetrating the anus of a woman. This is “imperfect” in the sense that it less characteristic of sodomy than “perfect” sodomy, i.e., two dudes. So clearly sodomy is something that occurs between two men which male/female couples can mimic only imperfectly. Also note that the consensus now seems to be that “imperfect sodomy,” while never advisable and probably a sin against prudence, is not necessarily sinful in itself if it is not ejaculatory, where perfect sodomy is always a sin because it can never in principle be ordered toward procreation. This is basically what is said, for instance, in Fr. Herbert Jone’s theological manual for priests.

Now it would hardly be meaningful to say that the most perfect form of sodomy was not the thing for which the city that gave it its name was punished! Sodomy is named for Sodom, and the most perfect form of sodomy is anal penetration of one dude by another. So, clearly, the sin for which Sodom was punished was anal penetration between dudes. If this were not true it would not be particularly meaningful to call it “perfect sodomy,” i.e., the sin that most perfectly represents the sin of Sodom. Again, note that Lot offered them his daughter to sodomize instead of the angels-in-the-form-of-men and they refused.

(Marital) cunnilingus isn’t contrary to the natural end of the sexual act so of course there is nothing wrong with it. Neither is (marital) fellatio if it is nonorgasmic. Neither is caressing of those areas if it is nonorgasmic for the man. Female orgasms are largely irrelevant to the natural end of the human sexual faculty so she can have as many of them as she wants in as many ways as she wants during the context of the sexual act, provided it doesn’t offend against chastity in other ways. I don’t know where you’re getting your information from but it doesn’t seem to be accurate.

I’d advise you to read Liber Gomorrhianus by Peter Damian (a Doctor of the Church)…

Outraged is probably the wrong word to describe the reaction. I thought maybe incredulous might fit, but I am not that either. I am not surprised by anything that comes from darkened minds to justify anything anymore. A tenured professor of ethics advances the idea that parents should have the “right” to kill their handicapped children. It is impossible to get sixty senators to say the live dismemberment and destruction of a viable baby in the womb is evil.

Read Paul in Romans talking about the man of lawlessness coming. We are in that age.

Inhospitality applied to the events recalled in Sodom is a novel invention of the group whose motive is to ultimately rewrite the ancient consistent moral teaching of the Church, confirmed in Old Testament and New, by all the saints of the ages as part of divine revelation.

Inhospitality is what happened to Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem when they were in need of shelter. The angels had shelter in Lot’s house. They had all the hospitality they needed. They were sent there to get Lot out of town before fire fell from the sky.

Read the account of the approved apparition in Akita Japan to Sister Agnes. Mary told her that fire is going to fall from the sky and destroy millions of humans, the good and bad alike. God has had it with us. Sounds like Sodom to me. Here we go again. She said those left alive will be so desolute that they will envy the dead. The current pope said the message of Akita is a continuation of the message of Fatima much of which has come to pass exactly as foretold, especially the millions who would perish in WWII and the errors of Russia.

We can believe it or not.

You are suffering from an ongoing spiritual assault, tempted to go down a destructive path. Resist it with all of your might until you have nothing left to fight with. Continue to call out to Jesus and Mary to save you, for mercy, for help.

Faith tells us that we can fall again and again and always find mercy. We can’t deny that the evil we do is evil or we will never find mercy.

Actually sometimes the logic is the greatest argument against them; does the fact that people managed to completely logically justify after birth abortion through abortion help or hinder the pro-choice movement?

The story of Sodom is completely unnecessary in relation to the Catholic logic opposing homosexual acts. All inherently sterile sexual acts are morally disordered.

Inhospitality in the Middle East and inhospitality in the West are very different.

“You are suffering from an ongoing spiritual assault, tempted to go down a destructive path. Resist it with all of your might until you have nothing left to fight with. Continue to call out to Jesus and Mary to save you, for mercy, for help.”? They don’t have death cookies so no temptation, also what path are you talking about?

 

[fix]

Now it would hardly be meaningful to say that the most perfect form of sodomy was not the thing for which the city that gave it its name was punished! Sodomy is named for Sodom

More from Rome:

In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its “spousal significance” but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion

 

[sw85]

I’d advise you to read Liber Gomorrhianus by Peter Damian (a Doctor of the Church)…

Peter Damian had an extremely dim view of sodomy and would’ve rejected your hstorically anomalous take on the sin of Sodom. He seems to endorse my view that there are ascending (descending?) gradations of sexually illicit behavior, with anal intercourse between two men at the top (bottom?), i.e., the most perfect deviation from normative sexual behavior. And he doesn’t seem to have endorsed your view that nonejaculatory mutual masturbation between a married couple constitutes sodomy (e.g., it seems that where he condemns mutual masturbation et al., he condemns it between men). Even if he did endorse your view, Peter Damian isn’t exclusively the Magisterium, nor are you. The Magisterium has already spoken pretty much definitively on what constitutes sexually licit behavior, including on what “sodomy” is.

You don’t get to decide what is or isn’t sexually licit. You don’t get to decide what the Bible does or doesn’t say about whatever. And you don’t get to decide whether what the Bible says about whatever is relevant or not to whatever else. Again, you’re not the Magisterium.

I understand this all bears on you personally, but this doesn’t give you license to invert traditionally-understood truths on the basis of one book you maybe read once and which you are improperly and illicitly interpreting outside of the context which Tradition alone furnishes.

More from Rome:

Excellent; thank you, fix.

 

[grandfather]

They don’t have death cookies so no temptation, also what path are you talking about?

I apologize. I misinterpreted your earlier post, read something into it that was not there.