Evangelicals with gay children challenging church

[Prodigal_Son]

The passage in 1 Corinthians does not say anything about “sodomites” and the concept of “sodomy” as a sexual sin did not even exist before the 11th century when it was first used by the Catholic theologian Peter Damian. The Greek word used in Paul is “arsenokoitai” which appears to have been invented by Paul since it is not known in any Greek text before him. It is made up of the Greek words “arsen” which means “man” and “koitai” which means “beds.” It’s exact meaning is unknown. It could hardly have been intended by Paul to refer to sexual activity between males since he would have used the standard Greek word for that which was “paiderasste.”

The exact meaning of “arsenokoitai” is obviously “men who lie =have sex with] with men”. The Greek is extremely clear.

In Greek and Roman history, a strong minority of philosophers taught that homosexual activity was wrong and should be made taboo. Plato and Aristotle were part of this group. They specifically distinguished intimate friendship between two men from a sexual relationship between two men.

“Pederasty” was not usually used to refer to adult male lovers. In such couplings, there were words for “active partner” and “passive partner”. The passive partner was thought of as effeminate and despicable. The active partner was perfectly well respected, in most cases.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And here people in this forum constantly point out that certain body parts are only supposed to be used in certain ways. So I take it that a penis in a mouth with heterosexual married couples (as long as the sex act is not completed) is a proper use for those two body parts.

This strikes me as fishy too. See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=864991

 

[cjforJesus]

This strikes me as fishy too. See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=864991

This is the same old argument you continue to use.Prodigal.I repeat there is nothing in Catholic teaching that says oral or anal “foreplay” is acceptable.I think the Church expects us to base our actions on common sense.

These debates are virtually pointless.
For the Catholic Church to accept homosexual unions it would have to throw out 2000 years of teachings.It would have to ignore the writings of the church fathers and saints,and it would not only have to totally rewrite the Catechism but dismiss the Bible as not relevant. THere is a great homosexual lobby that is pushing desperately for that as then it will give legitimacy to acts that many find abominable. This lobby exist within the Catholic church and most education insitutions.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is the same old argument you continue to use.Prodigal.I repeat there is nothing in Catholic teaching that says oral or anal “foreplay” is acceptable.I think the Church expects us to base our actions on common sense.

There have been prominent handbooks in moral theology that have said so. The Vatican hasn’t spoken, but the Vatican has allowed there to be confusion on this point.

These debates are virtually pointless.
For the Catholic Church to accept homosexual unions it would have to throw out 2000 years of teachings.It would have to ignore the writings of the church fathers and saints,and it would not only have to totally rewrite the Catechism but dismiss the Bible as not relevant.

You seem to be confused. I’m as opposed to gay marriage as anyone I know. I’m suggesting that there is a problem in straight marriages, if sodomy within them is winked at.

 

[cjforJesus]

There have been prominent handbooks in moral theology that have said so. The Vatican hasn’t spoken, but the Vatican has allowed there to be confusion on this point.

You seem to be confused. I’m as opposed to gay marriage as anyone I know. I’m suggesting that there is a problem in straight marriages, if sodomy within them is winked at.

The “handbooks” you speak of are probably the one written by Jone MANY years ago.I think in it he said that anal sodomy is perfectly fine. Really? You have to wonder how many priests were corrupted by this odd attitude supposedly outlining moral behavior. This was the beginning of the child sex abuse era and the lauding of kinsey as some sort of scientific genius. Well one of Kinseys aims was to promote sex between any consenting person be it child or adult. pretty sick stuff

 

[cjforJesus]

There have been prominent handbooks in moral theology that have said so. The Vatican hasn’t spoken, but the Vatican has allowed there to be confusion on this point.

You seem to be confused. I’m as opposed to gay marriage as anyone I know. I’m suggesting that there is a problem in straight marriages, if sodomy within them is winked at.

m Fr. Heribert Jone's _Moral Theology_, Section 757, on "The Sins of Married People”:

"Imperfect Sodomy, i.i., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted."

"Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution. - Positive co-operation on the part of the wife in sodomitical commerce is never lawful, hence, she must at least offer internal resistance. However, she may remain externally passive, provided she has endeavored to prevent the sin. She thus applies the principle of double effect and permits the sin to avert the danger of a very grave evil which cannot otherwise be averted; it remains unlawful for her to give her consent to any concomitant pleasure." (emphasis mine)

Prodigal,do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?? He is basically saying that by a husband raping his wife anally he commits no grave sin because she resists mentally but not physically. HUH?
This is a classic pre-Vatican II Catholic moral theology manual, with an Imprimatur, currently reprinted by TAN Books.

 

[commenter]

From the OP cited article:
“Bill Leonard, a specialist in American religious history at Wake Forest Divinity School, said church leaders should be especially concerned about parents. He noted that many evangelicals began to shift on divorce when the marriages of the sons and daughters of pastors and “rock-ribbed” local church members such as deacons started crumbling. While conservative Christians generally reject comparisons between the church’s response to divorce and to sexual orientation, Leonard argues the comparison is apt.”

I think the comparison is apt. Churches that surrendered and adopted the secular position on the divorce issue find it easier to adopt the secular position on homosexuality. In both cases, the surrender is justified by calling it “compassion”. But in both cases this false compassion causes people to get hurt. I have read other stories of Christian spouses and children who suffered, partly because their churches were accommodating to the secular view of “compassion”, rather than Scripture, on divorce. Those stories don’t get picked up by the mainstream media.

Homosexuality has some similarities to alcoholism. Both may have some genetic and social causes. Christians have sometimes been cruel or unfair to both. There have always been some who were formerly acting out their homosexuality or alcoholism, who later reduced this activity, or stopped it totally. For alcoholics and homosexuals, the churches have sometimes been a help for those who wished to stop that activity, just as the churches have historically advocated for the spouse and children, in families where divorce is threatened. It sounds like evangelicals are not only walking away from conversion therapy, but perhaps from conversion itself.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

m Fr. Heribert Jone’s Moral Theology, Section 757, on "The Sins of Married People”:

"Imperfect Sodomy, i.i., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted."

"Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution. - Positive co-operation on the part of the wife in sodomitical commerce is never lawful, hence, she must at least offer internal resistance. However, she may remain externally passive, provided she has endeavored to prevent the sin. She thus applies the principle of double effect and permits the sin to avert the danger of a very grave evil which cannot otherwise be averted; it remains unlawful for her to give her consent to any concomitant pleasure." (emphasis mine)

Prodigal,do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?? He is basically saying that by a husband raping his wife anally he commits no grave sin because she resists mentally but not physically. HUH?
This is a classic pre-Vatican II Catholic moral theology manual, with an Imprimatur, currently reprinted by TAN Books.

I had never read the entirety of that citation. It is insane.

 

[adrift]

Sorry,but there is nothing in the Catechism or in that references that allows sodomy.Like I said there is no teaching.The only one I can find even close is the one regarding homosexual acts not being approved under ANY circumstances.It does not say person but ACT which implies a certain behavior.

As I wrote you did not read my post carefully. You have made a straw man argument.
I wrote

The official Church Teaching states that each sex act must be ordered toward unification and procreation.

Where is the magisterial document though on this official church teaching you claim.

The claim that I was making was the statement above and only that statement. Read carefully. Do you disagree that the Catechism makes that statement?
Continuing with what I wrote

There is no Church Teaching on what is or is not allowed as far as foreplay or preparation for sex. (If someone thinks there is a Catholic Teaching that says that oral stimulation of the genitals in preparation for sex is illicit, please provide it. I won’t hold my breath though. )

As you can read there is no claim about sodomy being taught.

I don’t know if you missed this what I wrote but I will repeat.

Do they? As delicate as possible what is oral sex? The definition I believe is completion of the sex act and it is oral. Oral foreplay is not the same as oral sex.

I repeat Oral foreplay is not the same as oral sex and as such is not sodomy. Sodomy is unnatural sex -sex is copulation no copulation no sodomy.

 

[Thorolfr]

I repeat Oral foreplay is not the same as oral sex and as such is not sodomy. Sodomy is unnatural sex -sex is copulation no copulation no sodomy.

I’m surprised how many people in this forum give me this song and dance about how certain sexual body parts can only fit together in certain prescribed ways and then try to defend oral sex as long as it’s only used in foreplay. If it’s only foreplay, then those body parts apparently can fit together in other ways with other body parts.

 

[WilT]

It’s properly best to get ones mind off of sex and into the topic mentioned by the op

 

[adrift]

Straw man reply

From the same link I gave previously

The argument that “oral stimulation in preparation for natural sex is licit” is based on natural moral law and the fact that stimulating the genitals in preparation for natural sex is ordered toward unification and toward procreation so long as the intent is to complete natural sex. If the argument was made that the oral stimulation is illicit because it involves using the organs contrary to their purpose, then you would necessarily have to conclude that it is also illicit to touch you spouse’s genitals with your hand or to even rub the genitals on your spouse’s body as you prepare for natural sex. This would lead to the natural conclusion that any touching of the genitals to any part of the body that is not the complimentary genital is also illicit. Therefore, it would be a sin for your wife to try to stimulate your penis prior to sex. This rules out foreplay and then one can only have sex if one is able to instantly achieve an erection without any stimulus

 

[CarmelJerome]

We might talk about the pornographic agenda of which the homosexual agenda is a primary part. The ultimate end of all this is to wreck familial relationships in which the beauty of generation of children is made to appear unnatural while every other use of the genitalia is not only considered normal, but fit for public display and acclamation. Thus parents who attempt to correct the severe spiritual and psychological disordered of lust in its severest distortion are portrayed as torturers rather than as good parents, even though if they tried to work to correct the drug addiction of their children they would be lauded.

A part of the goal is also to continually reduce the conversation to discussion of genitalia in order to clarify the teaching since those advancing these evils have already consented to the destruction of the good of intellect, and have reduced that to mere rationalization of contemporary forms of bodily idolatry.

 

[WilT]

adrift keep off the sex talk.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Straw man reply

From the same link I gave previously

If you think “oral sex” and “oral stimulation” are even NEARLY the same thing, you’re blessedly innocent. I don’t think many rational people think it is intrinsically wrong to kiss the genitals. Oral sex, as it is practiced in America, involves many actions that are not kissing.

The argument you quote is equivalent to saying that vibrators are morally permissible, simply because they can be used to stimulate, and stimulation can lead to the marital act. It’s all special pleading, from a moral theology standpoint. If vibrators and oral sex are moral, then gay sex is moral.

The sexual revolution is one piece: you accept it or reject it. I choose to reject it – all of it.

 

[cjforJesus]

As I wrote you did not read my post carefully. You have made a straw man argument.
I wrote

The claim that I was making was the statement above and only that statement. Read carefully. Do you disagree that the Catechism makes that statement?
Continuing with what I wrote

As you can read there is no claim about sodomy being taught.

I don’t know if you missed this what I wrote but I will re

I repeat Oral foreplay is not the same as oral sex and as such is not sodomy. Sodomy is unnatural sex -sex is copulation no copulation no sodomy.

Definition of oral sex:
sexual contact between the mouth and the genitals or anus; fellatio, cunnilingus, or anilingus.

There is absolutely no distinction between “oral foreplay” and oral sex,they are one in the same.It is sexual stimulation using the mouth regardless where ejaculation eventually occurs. Sorry I do not mean to be graphic or legalistic but that is the definition.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please return to the original topic of this thread or it will need to be closed. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[cjforJesus]

Please return to the original topic of this thread or it will need to be closed. Thank you for your cooperation.

You are welcome.

This article the original poster linked to was about evangelical parents of SSA children trying to change church teaching on homosexual acts.Instead of finding a denomination that will embrace it they seek to change it.

The young man referenced in the article was found to have SSA when he was 12 and the parents endeavored to get him spiritual and psychological help which did not work. The young man was said to have died of a drug overdose.It does not say if he was addicted to drugs or if it was a
one time accident or suicide.

The overall tone of the article was in accepting homosexual behavior(sodomy) not just showing compassion for someone in need…

The Catholic church always makes a distinction between the person and the sin though I am not certain if evangelicals are harsher in their views of this

 

[Sarcelle]

You are welcome.

This article the original poster linked to was about evangelical parents of SSA children trying to change church teaching on homosexual acts.Instead of finding a denomination that will embrace it they seek to change it.

The young man referenced in the article was found to have SSA when he was 12 and the parents endeavored to get him spiritual and psychological help which did not work. The young man was said to have died of a drug overdose.It does not say if he was addicted to drugs or if it was a
one time accident or suicide.

The overall tone of the article was in accepting homosexual behavior(sodomy) not just showing compassion for someone in need…

The Catholic church always makes a distinction between the person and the sin though I am not certain if evangelicals are harsher in their views of this

This is the beauty of our Church. People who suffer from SSA have the option of celibacy. Evangelicals do not. There is the requirement that anyone who is a serious Christian must get married.

 

[cjforJesus]

This is the beauty of our Church. People who suffer from SSA have the option of celibacy. Evangelicals do not. There is the requirement that anyone who is a serious Christian must get married.

I had no idea that there was any religious denomination that required everyone get married!