Homosexuality and general questions

[simon]

wbb…

thanks for the info…i’ll check it out.

peace
simon

 

[Vincent]

Simon,

Leviticus contains precepts based on several kinds of laws: natural law and Jewish ceremonial and juridical laws.

Homosexual activity is contrary to natural law, in which reason identifies sex as ordered to procreation and union between husband and wife.

Homosexual activity is wrong not because Leviticus says so. Rather, Leviticus says it’s wrong because it’s contrary to natural law. Natural law is based on what human beings are by nature, and so it applies to everyone, by virtue of being human, everywhere and at all times.

On the other hand, the other items the list have to do with Jewish ceremonial and juridical laws, which can and do change (and which in fact Christians aren’t bound to).So even if Leviticus itself were no longer binding, it wouldn’t make homosexual activity ethically permissible.

The list (written to mock Dr. Laura, or, as I read in an email, our re-elected President) demonstrates several weaknesses…

1. 
   *]Of certain Christians, who not only argue from the Bible alone, but also mistakenly reduce all ethical issues to articles of faith (like a former Presidential candidate).
   
   *]Of certain non-Christians, like the original author of this list, who doesn’t (or is unwilling to) make a distinction between natural law and ceremonial and juridical laws.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

It’s like this: Old Covenant law is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. They are not voided, they are completed and thus do not bind. (Although, we would probably say they instruct.) So, we don’t run afoul of the eternal unchangeble Word of God problem.

Jesus Christ establishes a new covenant. He establishes an authoritative Church to teach in his name. In subsequent Scripture and Sacred Tradition (taken together are the Word of God), we see unambigously that sexual pervesity is condemned. This IS binding.

Scott

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

patg:

I think that ignoring most of God’s direct commandments in Leviticus while picking one or to to condemn people for makes the Church the ultimate “cafeteria” religion.

I’ve heard the arguments about the admonition being mentioned in other places but just where do you think those “other places” got the idea - from Leviticus, of course!

Just remember that the polyester blend shirt you are wearing or the scallops you had last night are reserving you a spot right next to the homosexuals in the hereafter.

Pat

The question is why this particular commandment in the Holiness Code is the one that gets picked out for attention.​

IMO, part of the problem in using Leviticus intelligently - and non-selectively - is that Christians work with a distinction (that between moral laws and ceremonial laws) which would not have made sense in 1200 BC. Ceremonial uncleanness was as “sinful” or “unholy” as kidnap or murder. Sexual activity between spouses, make them “unclean”, not because the OT is “against sex”, but because the Israelites shared many of the ideas of their neighbours about man’s relation to “the Divine”.

The prophets, by contrast, insist on the ethical nature of God and His commands. Bodily uncleanness, important in Leviticus, is not of itself an ethical matter. Outward religion for them is no good without inward purity of heart, inward truthfulness, inward fair dealing and social justice.

So that if we rely on Leviticus for our morals, we are in some danger of staying with a form of Israel’s religion that was itself improved upon and deepened. So using Leviticus - not just Leviticus, either - raises problems for someone who is a Christian: which of the old commands still apply, and which do not, and on what principles are they to be distinguished ? ##

 

[Vincent]

Gottle of Geer:

IMO, part of the problem in using Leviticus intelligently - and non-selectively - is that Christians work with a distinction (that between moral laws and ceremonial laws) which would not have made sense in 1200 BC. Ceremonial uncleanness was as “sinful” or “unholy” as kidnap or murder. Sexual activity between spouses, make them “unclean”, not because the OT is “against sex”, but because the Israelites shared many of the ideas of their neighbours about man’s relation to “the Divine”.

Hmmm…

At Mass, we “purify” the vessels which contained the Body and Blood of Christ with a napkin called the “purificator”. Of course, there’s nothing sinful going on here. It’s a holy “contamination”.

 

[AnnieD]

That whole page that you copied and posted here, is a joke page, Simon. It is on a website called “Political Comedy Central.”
Why don’t you go play somewhere else?

Annie

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

No bible reference. No need to ascribe to Christianity. Homosexual marriage is wrong according to natural reason.

intrinsic value

Secularists would have us believe that marriage is a social and legal convention that in a variety of possible ways serves a purely emotional bond between two persons. (And if it is a purely emotional bond, some ask, why only two?) They believe that, apart from revealed religious doctrine (which other people may, in the exercise of their religious freedom, happen not to share), no one has reasons for believing marriage to be anything more. Again, this is untrue.

Marriage is a basic human good. By that I mean it is an intrinsic good that provides noninstrumental reasons for choice and action, reasons which are knowable and understandable even apart from divine revelation. Rational reflection on marriage as it is participated in by men and women makes it clear: since men and women are essentially embodied (and not simply inhabitors of a suit of flesh), the biological union of spouses in reproductive–type acts consummates and actualizes their marriage, making the spouses truly, and not merely metaphorically, “two in one flesh.” The sexual union of spouses—far from being something extrinsic to marriage or merely instrumental to procreation, pleasure, the expression of tender feelings, or anything else—is an essential aspect of marriage as an intrinsic human good. Marital acts are the biological matrix of the multi–level (bodily, emotional, dispositional, spiritual) sharing of life and commitment that marriage is.

But, one might ask, is a true bodily or “biological” union of persons possible? Indeed it is. Consider that for most human functions or activities, say, digestion or locomotion, the organism performing the function or act is the individual human being. In respect of the act of reproduction, however, things are different. Reproduction is a single act or function, yet it is performed by a male and female as a mated pair. For purposes of reproduction, the male and female partners become a single organism, they form a single reproductive principle. This organic unity is achieved precisely in the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species—even in cases (such as those of infertile couples) in which the nonbehavioral conditions of reproduction do not obtain.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Properly understood in light of a non–dualistic account of the human person, the goodness of marriage and marital intercourse simply cannot be reduced to the status of a mere means to pleasure, feelings of closeness, or any other extrinsic goal. Indeed, it cannot legitimately be treated (as some Christians have, admittedly, sought to treat it) as a mere means to procreation, though children are among the central purposes of marriage and help to specify its meaning as a moral reality even for married couples who cannot have children.

So marital acts realize the unity of marriage, which includes the coming to be of children. In consensual nonmarital sex acts, then, people damage this unity, the integrity of the marriage, inasmuch as the body is part of the personal reality of the human being and no mere sub–personal instrument to be used and disposed of to satisfy the subjective wants of the conscious and desiring part of the “self.”

The psychosomatic integrity of the person is another of the basic or intrinsic goods of the human person. This integrity is disrupted in any sexual act that lacks the common good of marriage as its central specifying point. Where sex is sought purely for pleasure, or as a means of inducing feelings of emotional closeness, or for some other extrinsic end, the body is treated as a sub–personal, purely instrumental, reality. This existential separation of the body and the conscious and desiring part of the self serves literally to dis–integrate the person. It takes the person apart, disrupting the good of acting as the dynamically unified being one truly is.

Did our Christian forebears invent this idea of integrity? Did they dream up the notion that sexual immorality damages integrity by dis–integrating the person? No. Christianity has had, to be sure, a very important role in promoting and enhancing our understanding of sexual morality. But in the dialogues of Plato and the teachings of Aristotle, in the writings of Plutarch and the great Roman stoic Musonius Rufus, and, of course, in Jewish tradition, one can find the core of this central, important teaching about the way sex is so central to integrity, and therefore so central not only to us as individuals but to us as a community. Disintegrated, individual human beings cannot form an integrated community.

Essentially, the fundamental unit of the family must be based on a unitive relationship if soceity can be expected to remain stable. Homosexuality does not bioliogically provide for that unitive-creative act. The marriage as a model for society for raisinjg children would be harmed by discarding this unitive-creative bonding model for family life.

Too big a risk No thanks.

 

[jeffreedy789]

simon posted: ‘and often bear contracting accounts?’

i believe the word you’re looking for is ‘contradicting’, rather than contracting. just fyi.

and just so all of you know (those who have chimed in on the issue), the church teaches that same sex attraction is not sinful in itself, only sexual misconduct. any sexual misconduct, hetero or homo in nature. this means sexual actions outside of marriage. for the hetero, that means only sex in marriage. for those with homosexual attraction, that means celibacy.

the church has the best teaching on homosexuality i’ve read anywhere. surprise, surprise. it takes into very kind and prayerful consideration the fact that there are many people who find themselves attracted to the same sex. but it doesn’t say ‘well, then - have at it!’ it teaches responsibility with the great gift of our sexuality, and admonishes us to use all of our gifts for the good of others, and the glory of God.

i have several friends who find themselves in the predicament of same sex attraction. the ones in protestant churches are generally miserable, as they’re not taught the liberating truth of God’s calling that the RCC provides.

i pray for those of you who experience this attraction - that God might teach you the freedom and joy of obeying His call to holiness - no matter who is botching the example.

God bless.

 

[kepha1]

An excellent post, jeffreedy. Being kind and compassionate to those who suffer with same sex attraction will not make it contagious.

The Catholic Church thus teaches: “Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.

“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (CCC 2357– 2359).

Paul comfortingly reminds us, “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (1 Cor. 10:13).

catholic.com/library/homosexuality.asp

Homosexuals who want to live chastely can contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.
couragerc.net

They won’t ever get there if we beat them with scriptures.

 

[dumspirospero]

The problem is that all of this is Jewish Law…things that Orthodox Jews still faithfully practice…since Jesus Christ came and died for our sins…the new convenant was established and Jesus (which is recorded in the New Testament) taught us how we are supposed to live our lives…he gave us the Catholic Church with Peter as Vicar…and the rest is history…You need to read the New Testament, i.e. Acts of the Apostles, the 4 Gospels, and then ask questions…this is a Catholic Forum…not a Jewish Forum

simon:

Hi All…

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states that it is an abomination…End of debate.

I do need some advice from someone, however, regarding some other specific laws and how to follow them:

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9), The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what’s a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am not allowed contact with women (my wife, specif.) during her period of mestrual cleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). Could anyone recommend a reasonably priced hotel where I might send her for that week?
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, providing they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Why can’t I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 5:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him, or is that a federal or state issue?
6. A friend of mine ffeels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t see the difference. Can someone help?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I must admit I do wear reading glasses. Does this bar me from Communion? I mean, do I have to be 20/20, or is there some ‘wiggle room’ here?

8.Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though it is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

1. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
2. My uncle owns a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two crops in the same field (corn/soybeans rotation) as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also curses and blasphemes. is it really necessart to gather the whole town to stone them?(Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you all have studied these things extensively also, so I am confident someone can help!
Thanks, all, and remember that God’s word is eternal and unchanging!

Simon

 

[patg]

dumspirospero:

The problem is that all of this is Jewish Law…things that Orthodox Jews still faithfully practice…since Jesus Christ came and died for our sins…the new convenant was established and Jesus (which is recorded in the New Testament) taught us how we are supposed to live our lives…he gave us the Catholic Church with Peter as Vicar…and the rest is history…You need to read the New Testament, i.e. Acts of the Apostles, the 4 Gospels, and then ask questions…this is a Catholic Forum…not a Jewish Forum

And just where did Jewish law come from? - directly from God as I remember. I also don’t recall a Jewish God as being some deity different than the Catholic God… Once again, its OK to condemn people for some of God’s direct commandments but not others?

 

[Vincent]

patg:

Once again, its OK to condemn people for some of God’s direct commandments but not others?

The question is not whether homosexual *acts *(not *persons *with homosexual orientation) are to be condemned, but whether it’s reasonable to base that condemnation on Leviticus. I don’t think it is, for good reasons.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Vincent:

Hmmm…

At Mass, we “purify” the vessels which contained the Body and Blood of Christ with a napkin called the “purificator”. Of course, there’s nothing sinful going on here. It’s a holy “contamination”.

That’s an excellent example of the sort of thinking one finds in the Talmud and Leviticus - the purificator is “set apart”, “holy”, because it comes into contact with the chalice and paten, and also with the Eucharistic Gifts, before and after the consecration.​

That is why the Gospel-book is kissed - it represents Christ through His words, and is incensed and sprinkled too, for that reason.

Holiness “contaminates” in Leviticus, & in 2 Samuel 6: that is why Uzzah died for touching the ark, and why King Uzziah was smitten with leprosy later on: because they were not “holy” in the sense that the Levites were “holy”: they were not “set apart” in the same way for the service of the Deity - so they were crossing over the boundary between “holy” and “not-holy”. Holiness in this sense - holiness as the quality peculiar to the Divine realm, holiness which is not necessarily ethical - is pre-Israelite, and shared with many cultures. Prostitutes wrer “consecrated” to a deity, they were “holy” - but they were not “holy” in a Christian sense. An understanding of holiness as non-ethical, is one of the things that makes evil deeds for the glory of a deity possible. And - getting back to the thread - such an outlook is related to sexual morality too.

That notion of “contamination by the holy” is another reason that “holiness” is not a purely ethical category, though Christian understanding of sin has come to be mainly ethical. Rubrics are a shadow of Leviticus, yet the instinct is the same - the setting apart of Divine Worship from all other activities. How far this instinct is authentically Christian, is another matter. ##

 

[jeffreedy789]

‘Once again, its OK to condemn people for some of God’s direct commandments but not others?’

no, it’s not ok to condemn people for any reason, at least not for us mortals. we don’t condemn (or shouldn’t. i’m not saying there aren’t those who do, but they don’t represent Christianity) - we only pass on what we’ve been told. we teach what we’ve been taught - that certain things are good, and certain things are not good.

and we’re not passing them on to hurt people or make ourselves feel superior or discriminate against anyone (once again, i mean we shouldn’t. certainly there are those who do, but they don’t represent the church), but to help people, to allow people freedom from their sins - into love and peace and joy. into holiness. into God.

it’s misleading to present the situation as though modern day christians are holding on to an antiquated view of sexuality. the church, TODAY, God’s mouthpiece on earth, has stated that sexual activity outside of marriage (man and woman marriage) is sinful. this isn’t a teaching from the old testament. this is a teaching from today.

 

[Marcellinus]

simon:

Hi All…

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states that it is an abomination…End of debate.

The plagiarism is a nice touch. For those who don’t know, this was a letter written to Dr. Laura Schlesinger after she said that she believed homosexuality was an abomination because of the (Hebrew) Bible’s clear condemnation of it.

One wonders why saying the act of homosexuality is immoral is much worse than saying that traditional Jews and Christians are fools.

simon:

I do need some advice from someone, however, regarding some other specific laws and how to follow them:

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9), The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

First of all, what is pleasing to God might not be pleasing to us. Secondly, the only place where animal sacrifices could take place was in the Temple of Jerusalem which was destroyed 2000 years ago. Thirdly, animal sacrifice is not an inherent natural law which we would normally feel an obligation to follow. It was revealed to the Jews that (at that time) it was pleasing to God, and then it was made obligatory by Him. Later Christ said that it was no longer necessary.

Homosexuality itself is by its very nature disordered and immoral. God did not need to reveal this for it to be true. Even before Leviticus was written God expected men to know that it was wrong as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrha. (sp?)

 

[patg]

jeffreedy789:

… this isn’t a teaching from the old testament. this is a teaching from today.

Which brings us right back to the other teachings in Leviticus…I don’t recall an encyclical or anything else rescinding God’s law about that polyester blend shirt you are probably wearing…

 

[Mijoy2]

Marcellinus:

Homosexuality itself is by its very nature disordered and immoral. God did not need to reveal this for it to be true. Even before Leviticus was written God expected men to know that it was wrong as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrha. (sp?)

I think the disordered is obvious but the immoral is not so obvious. If we were to disregard the teachings of the Bible (lets say we were not aware the bible existed) I wouldn’t come to a conclusion that homosexuality was immoral on my own.

Clearly it’s disordered and abnormal (so is skydiving)
Clearly it doesn’t have a purpose as does heterosexual sex. (procreation). People often use this to lend evidence to the fact that it is immoral. It lends evidence to it being disordered but it doesn’t lend evidence to it’s being immoral.

I often think of the example of eating candy.

We eat for nutrition and life, without eating we would die.
This is much the same as having relations for procreation.

Candy has not nutritional value, it is disordered, yet not immoral.
Homosexuals have sex out of love for one another (there may be other reasons, such as pure lust but that is not confinde to homsexuals), isn’t this like eating candy? No nutritional value/ no procreation.

I am Catholic, I humble myself and attempt to believe what I am instructed to believe. However it is a struggle.

 

[patricius]

I know that today’s culture has conditioned us to think otherwise, but candy actually does have nutritional value. Really. We need sugars and calories to survive. As a matter of fact, you can make the case that fatty, sugary, salty, and rich foods taste good to us precisely because they contain a lot of the dietary resources that were very scarce during the period in which the human sense of taste was evolving. So the pleasure of sex is an incentive to procreation, and the pleasure of eating is an incentive to supply our bodies with nutrition.

The trick is to not eat too much candy. That’s when it becomes bad for you. It’s only because, contrary to conditions prevailing throughout history, it’s currently easier to eat too much than too little that candy and other foods are thought of as “bad for you.”

 

[buffalo]

simon:

Vincent. the questions have been asked before, but they still have not been answered. What about them? They were valid then and they are valid now…what say you? Is it frightening to admit that there are obsolete/contradictory statements in the old testament, and that the four gospels don’t match up exactly, and often bear contracting accounts? Look, I don’t bring this up to move anyone from faith…only to remind that the Bible is a mystery in many ways…our job is to study it with humility…not interepret it for the masses when we, as sinners, do a pretty miserable job of following it’s most basic and undeniable tenants.

Peace,
Simon

Study natural law. You will see homosexuality is incompatible there also. Nice try though.