Gay rights activists protest N. California mall

[bellasbane]

And when they do, they are committing grave sin.

The misuse of the law that he decried was not the use of it which you object to here. What he condemned was the creation of artificial new “laws” which were not essential to the moral code, but which were practices characterized by extreme interpretations of the Mosaic code.

Jesus affirmed the Mosaic code in its original core and original entirety.

I think Jesus was pretty clear about not judging people or misusing the law.

In Matthew 23:3-4 he tells his followers to obey the scribes and pharisees, but not to act like them. Specifically, he says “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they never lift a finger to move them”.

If what you say is true, then Jesus is telling his followers to obey “extreme interpretations of the Mosaic code”. I don’t think that is what he means at all. The law only becomes a burden when it is used as an excuse to oppress people.

Which is exactly what I think is going on here.

“Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take up my yoke and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves; For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.” - Mt. 11: 28-30

I stand by what I said. The CCC should not be misused. It’s purpose is “to guard and present better the precious deposit of Christian doctrine in order to make it more accessible to the Christian faithful and to all people of good will. For this reason the Council was not first of all to condemn the errors of the time, but above all to strive calmly to show the strength and beauty of the doctrine of the faith.”. FIDEI DEPOSITUM

That doesn’t sound like a smack-down to me.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If what you say is true, then Jesus is telling his followers to obey “extreme interpretations of the Mosaic code”.

No he isn’t. That’s not what the moral code was, which Jesus re-affirmed in Matthew 5-7. Jesus’ interpretation of Mosaic law was more pure, more comprehensive, more pervasive, especially in the area of sexuality and violence. It helps to have some academic expertise in this area.

The law only becomes a burden when it is used as an excuse to oppress people.

No one here is “oppressing” anyone. (Unless, of course, you define fidelity to Church teaching as “oppression.” Maybe you do.)

 

[epan]

The Burden is on me?

I’m afraid not.

This new facet of your clarification is your argument based on your theories.

So have at it. Flesh it out. (no pun intended)

Not a very clever dodge. Nowhere have I espoused my own theories, yet you fail to advance any theory whatsoever.

Let’s start the lesson at first grade for you.

Do you understand that while human nature may be immutable, that our understanding of human nature changes over time? “Yes” or “no”, if that is not too much to ask of you? As a former teacher used to say, a monkey could get this right half of the time. I am sure that you can do better than that.

If the answer is no, then you have failed first grade, professor.

If the answer is yes, then you are to now explain to the class how you came to believe that understanding of human nature stopped in the 13th century. Failing that, then you admit that we are in the 21st century, and science applies to our understanding.

I’ve repeated this simple lesson enough times. Now say something relevant, instead of dodging the discussion.

 

[Lochias]

Do you understand that while human nature may be immutable, that our understanding of human nature changes over time? Yes or now, if that is not too much to ask of you?

How do you equate the biological understanding of human nature with moral authority? You’re making a religion out of science, which is the height of foolishness.

 

[bellasbane]

I agree that we are all sinners, bella, and that we should treat acting on same sex attraction like other sins of the flesh, and be welcoming to those who struggle with it…

However…

The topic of the thread isn’t that activists (or other posters) are saying that any of the above are “not sinful”, or “the Church needs to change its position on premarital sex, and get with the times”, or that the sins you mention above are acceptable in public.

Unfortunately, there has been a push our era to label the sins you mentioned as “normal”, or “natural” (It’s just natural for a young man to do that!), even acceptable, despite the fact that they can be very damaging. I for one don’t want the same thing done with this issue.

Hi Scipio,

I worry very much about the new “normal” when it comes to human sexuality. I’ve seen the damage it has done to real people, both young and old. The older folks can’t seem to find any peace or happiness and the young wander lost and afraid. I also believe that what our Church teaches is really the solution. My problem is how to get them to listen to what I’m saying.

It’s the tone of our brethren that makes me upset. There is so much vindictive in it. It is so unhelpful. Cor Cordis has gone off the deep end and I shouldn’t be the only one objecting to a blanket characterization of a group of people based on their sexual orientation. Our sexuality is part of us, it is not a sin. It is what we do with our sexuality that matters.

You don’t think this statement crosses the line from hating the sin to hating the sinner?

The depravity of straight people doesn’t erase or offset the intrinsic evil, the grave depravity, the intrinsically disordered, the objectively disordered dysfunction of homosexuality.

In my posts, I was trying to point out that if we simply accept current social definitions of what makes a person “gay” or “lesbian”, we are making a huge concession to the new “normal”. In our culture, intimacy is sexualized to the point of disorder. The second a young person feels any real affection for a same-sex companion, he or she immediately questions his/her sexual orientation. If people perceive the Catholic Church as hostile to homosexuals (note the above post) they are not going to turn to the Church for guidance in this situation. That is very dangerous.

 

[bellasbane]

No he isn’t. That’s not what the moral code was, which Jesus re-affirmed in Matthew 5-7. Jesus’ interpretation of Mosaic law was more pure, more comprehensive, more pervasive, especially in the area of sexuality and violence. It helps to have some academic expertise in this area.

I have plenty of academic expertise in this area. Here’s a tip. Learn to site your sources, if you don’t your committee with slam your at your defense. Favorite questions are “how do you know that?” and “why should we care?”.

Anyway, claiming special credentials is frowned upon in this forum. :tsktsk:

No one here is “oppressing” anyone. (Unless, of course, you define fidelity to Church teaching as “oppression.” Maybe you do.)

You need to put my comment back into context in order to see what I mean. Try going back through the thread and see if you can’t figure it out.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Not a very clever dodge. Nowhere have I espoused my own theories, yet you fail to advance any theory whatsoever.

Let’s start the lesson at first grade for you.

Do you understand that while human nature may be immutable, that our understanding of human nature changes over time? “Yes” or “no”, if that is not too much to ask of you? As a former teacher used to say, a monkey could get this right half of the time. I am sure that you can do better than that.

If the answer is no, then you have failed first grade, professor.

If the answer is yes, then you are to now explain to the class how you came to believe that understanding of human nature stopped in the 13th century. Failing that, then you admit that we are in the 21st century, and science applies to our understanding.

I’ve repeated this simple lesson enough times. Now say something relevant, instead of dodging the discussion.

Who’s dodging? I mean other than you?

I have no need to advance any “theories”, because I have been citing the simplicity of timeless self-evident observable human nature all along.

You see, the onus of exemplified deviation from the observable norm is on you.

So let’s try this again, shall we:

Tell me, what 21st discovery in human understanding has suddenly revealed homosexuality to be conducive to our observable human design?:ehh:

Feel free to placate your wounded pride by any laborious display of scholarship you wish to employ.

I’ll await your answer with the patience of Job.:coffeeread:

 

[Cor_Cordis]

If people perceive the Catholic Church as hostile to homosexuals (note the above post) they are not going to turn to the Church for guidance in this situation. That is very dangerous.

Point of fact: Most are not turning to the Church for guidance.

Rather, they are relentlessly attacking the Church with all the open mindedness of the Brown Shirts during Kristallnacht.

But how exactly are you suggesting we should define “homosexual” and “homosexuality”?

And are you suggesting that a sizable portion of this inclination and or behavior, is effected or possibly even induced by societal influence?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have plenty of academic expertise in this area.

I seriously doubt you have graduate credentials in Scripture Studies, and in the specialty field of Matthew specifically, which I do. If you did, you would not make ther previous remarks which you did.

You need to get oriented to this, because it’s not terribly useful for me to “go through the thread” to see what you supposedly meant, because what you said most recently is misleading, and is a common misconception about what Jesus did and did not promote:

Scholars who are universally respected in the academic community share their stature for a good reason: their methodology is solid and reliable; they apply the shared discipline that all scholars of biblical texts share. The only “scholars” who “disagree” with the irrefutable fact that Jesus embraced the Jewish condemnation of homosexuality are those who have proven to be weak in scholarship, especially in the contextual understanding of key terms and figures.

These prominent Protestant and Jewish scholars coincidentally come to the identical conclusion about the biblical basis of sexuality that Catholic scholars reach, as well.

It is thoroughly ahistorical to imagine that Jesus approved of homosexuality (and yet that revolutionary statement never made it into the NT, even though the radical-enough discussion of Gentile circumcision did). It conflicts with the history, anthropology, and culture of the time. Anyone who manipulates the text to arrive at that “conclusion” is being disingenuous, or eisegetical for personal or political reasons. (Or, it is a matter of ignorance of the tools of analysis.) It would be one of those three possibilities.

Both abortion and homosexuality were condemned by faithful Jews, and there is no scriptural evidence that Jesus departed from that same fidelity. All of the scriptural evidence points to the contrary – that he was ultra-faithful.

The Gospels were News, as in something different. What was continued by Jesus (Torah, which included prohibitions against homosexuality) was not News. What was News (worthy of being recorded, worthy of both oral and later written tradition) was what was unusual and unique about the message, not what was stable and unchanged. In fact, had Jesus approved of homosexuality, it would not for one moment have been overlooked. That would have been considered so radical that (a) it would have banner headlines all over every gospel, and (b) most likely Jesus would have been thoroughly rejected even by his original staunch followers. Thus, there would have been no Jesus history to continue, no lasting Christian message which proceeded directly from the Jewish message.

The written word was the recording of the oral tradition, handed down by being repeated. Any radical new sexuality code would not have been an oversight in terms of the recording of that.

What the entire Gospel of Matthew communicates is: Listen Up: Stop concentrating on what’s superficial about the Law; follow it deeply and pervasively: that includes sexuality, which extends to lust in the heart; that includes violent thoughts about others, not just actions, and the mitzvah to care for the poor which has been a moral obligation of God’s People since before the Prophets. Material charity is essential to tzedakah, and you cannot rewrite what God has commanded, nor excuse yourself if you yourself are poor. To follow the Law authentically includes all of it: the sexual code and the specific ways of charity which are also mitzvot. After Jesus, the great medieval Torah scholar Maimonides developed a hierarchy of material charity for Jews to follow, the morally highest form being that which promoted financial independence of the recipient.

 

[aprilfloyd]

I agree that I think cafeteria Catholics (sadly, whether they know they are or not) are a large and growing problem. And I don’t think Catholics know the definition of scandal or when they are involved in scandal. In my life, I have family members who give the appearance of being devout (they are EM’s, lectors and fundraisers in their church) while openly supporting SSM.

I also think that some of the problem lies with many of our priests either not preaching on or openly dissenting on this subject. Having bishops who do not discipline these priests or lead by example is compounding the problem.

I truly fear that SSM will become the law of the land in the U.S., which will further decay the morals in this country and make parenting (at least for me) that much harder. I pray the Supreme Court will do the right thing and uphold traditional marriage and realize that Catholics disapprove of SSM our of charity and not contempt.

In the UK we are enacting same sex marriage legislation. I see this as a step forward in equal rights.

 

[aprilfloyd]

I agree that I think cafeteria Catholics (sadly, whether they know they are or not) are a large and growing problem. And I don’t think Catholics know the definition of scandal or when they are involved in scandal. In my life, I have family members who give the appearance of being devout (they are EM’s, lectors and fundraisers in their church) while openly supporting SSM.

I also think that some of the problem lies with many of our priests either not preaching on or openly dissenting on this subject. Having bishops who do not discipline these priests or lead by example is compounding the problem.

I truly fear that SSM will become the law of the land in the U.S., which will further decay the morals in this country and make parenting (at least for me) that much harder. I pray the Supreme Court will do the right thing and uphold traditional marriage and realize that Catholics disapprove of SSM our of charity and not contempt.

In the UK we are enacting same sex marriage legislation. I see this as a step forward in equal rights.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I have plenty of academic expertise in this area. Here’s a tip. Learn to site your sources, if you don’t your committee with slam your at your defense. Favorite questions are “how do you know that?” and “why should we care?”

With all due respect, your defense of Galileo was was less than academic.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Two homosexuals kissing each other is offensive because it is unnatural. I understand that some here will disagree. This is not to say that we hate the sinner…quite the contrary.

Bishop Fulton Sheen has a few words to say about “tolerance”:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0014.html

It is natural, how can it not be?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Just FYI, Floyd, our new Pope has had, as a Cardinal, an awful lot to say about homosexual behavior, s.s. “marriage” and ss. adoption, and it vastly differs from your view, as well as the view of dissenting Catholics on this very thread.

 

[aprilfloyd]

So heterosexuals need to reprogram their natural inclination towards disgust so that a population of less than 2% of the people with an obvious psychological/genetic dysfunction that is observable in it’s unnaturalness can feel better about themselves?

Really?

Why?

I am heterosexual and not disgusted. Homophobia disgust me.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Homosexuality is the antithesis to our natural design, it is also an anomaly to the natural paradigm of human reproduction. That is why it is bad. Whether it occurs “naturally” or not is irrelevant.

That is ridiculous on it’s premise. Even if there is a connection, homosexuality cannot cause fecundity. Homosexuality is at best, only a possible byproduct of it in some cases. And even still, it is an anomaly. Cause and effect is everything.

Homosexuals evolved just like heterosexuals.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am heterosexual and not disgusted. Homophobia disgust me.

And “homophobia” is something you define as the Catholic doctrine on homosexuality? The Catholic Church is “homophobic” by having a specific doctrine defining same-sex attraction as disordered?

 

[aprilfloyd]

No, you don’t get out of answering all these questions so easily. It’s not fair to run away and not address these serious accusations you’ve lobbed at the Catholic Church. It’s a cowardly way of doing things.

How does the Church persecute homosexuals? It is really persecution to say that marriage is only the right of one man and one woman? No, it is not. Catholics are called upon to have love and understanding for those who suffer from same-sex attraction. But that does not extend to accepting same-sex behavior as normal.

The church persecutes homosexuals in a very subtle way expressed to it’s large audience. It says that a homosexual is not a sinner, but if he/she expresses physical love it is wrong. That is cruel.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Scientific discovery has no authority in the moral way in which we live our lives. This is where your disconnect lies. Science can, at best, help us further elucidate what we already know to be true. Take the example of suicide and how we now know that many people do not take their lives of their own true, free will.

Science only explains HOW the world works. Religion explains the WHY.

If religion explains why, then surely, we would have consensus on which religion and god is the true One. Why do religious people disagree so much?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I am heterosexual and not disgusted. Homophobia disgust me.

Ah, so one can be “acclimated” towards the normalization of homosexuality.

I see.