Homosexuality and marriage

[RevDon]

I mean… dang. How can you refute it?

Sheen is masterful at being bold and covering the bases. What a truly holy and strong witness to the Truth.

it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom.
Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.
Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment.
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

This is great, but how did Sheen mean this? How did he live it?
Didn’t he entertain opposing positions and answer them rationally, so that those in error could have an “Ah-ha” moment and see the error?

His language here is a language of violence, but he was not a violent man. He was respectful of his opponents and he always believed in the inherent goodness of people and their capacity to accept the truth when it was presented to them. For his age he was a radical, and he is sorely missed today.

 

[buffalo]

I would hope that a couple are aware of risks that are involved in everything they do. If one or another has any doubts that what they are doing in their love-making is safe, then that constitutes a reservation that makes that act coerced and it cease to be loving.
If they don’t know the risks, then I would say that they’re acting foolishly and dangerously, but not sinfully.

What are you fishing for?

How would you answer your question?

What is safe? Are we speaking only biologic health? Or Spiritual health?

Do you really think that with the protection of the media and our politically correct climate the average person knows them? The press has pretty much put it off limits.

 

[buffalo]

Get a decent translation of scripture that at least pays attention to the meaning of Greek words.

An earlier post claimed I was likening the way other posters have responded me to the betrayal of Jesus. Not so! But there is a trial going on here.
I participate in this web site to put my ideas on trial, not to put myself on trial. I believe that this is what the web site is asking of us, and it cautions us not to make it personal.

CONDUCT RULES

Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language

If you are a follower of the law, try following that one!

Recommend one?

 

[SonSearcher]

Recommend one?

The Message comes to mind, or how about Funky News for Modern Man?.

 

[RevDon]

What is safe? Are we speaking only biologic health? Or Spiritual health?

Do you really think that with the protection of the media and our politically correct climate the average person knows them? The press has pretty much put it off limits.

I was responding to the question you posted.

From a confessor’s -not a physician’s – perspective: their ignorance renders them not culpable.
If you want to blame media, the times, etc. go ahead, no argument from me. Just answering your question

Again I ask:
How would you counsel this couple?
How would you answer them in terms of medical concerns?
How would you answer them in terms of spiritual concerns?
Or does that distinction matter to you?

 

[RevDon]

Recommend one?

I have suggested the Little Rock booklets that deal with individual parts of the Bible for a more thorough, though still brief help in understanding.
I do much of my reading in the St. Jerome Study Bible, but it has limitations.
For help with my Greek I rely on Tyndale’s Word Study New Testament and Concordance. This can give you Greek words for the words you read in English and even show you at a glance where and how that same word is used elsewhere in the NT.

 

[buffalo]

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

1. 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.
2. 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. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church’s living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.

Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.

**To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. **Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.

 

[RevDon]

The Message comes to mind, or how about Funky News for Modern Man?.

These are the sources you use and recommend? That explains a lot.

 

[buffalo]

I was responding to the question you posted.

From a confessor’s -not a physician’s – perspective: their ignorance renders them not culpable.
If you want to blame media, the times, etc. go ahead, no argument from me. Just answering your question

Again I ask:
How would you counsel this couple?
How would you answer them in terms of medical concerns?
How would you answer them in terms of spiritual concerns?
Or does that distinction matter to you?

see post 406

 

[SonSearcher]

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

1. 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.
2. 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. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church’s living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.

Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.

**To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. **Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.

Again I have to say that if this gets refuted then it ices it down for me. The Sheen sidestep was nauseating, but this…If the good Rev argues with this. Man I don’t know what.

 

[dandingo]

I have written earlier that Catholics often think that what they experience has always been, and you just proved me right.
You know quite well that it was not so long age people taught that there were tremendous differences between the races.
Medicine is showing that there are differences today, for example in succeptibility to particular diseases.
What we have come around to as a civilization is that the differences don’t matter for functions that were at one time prohibited.

Are you actually taking the position that there differences shouldn’t matter between men and women? Or between boys and girls?

If so, why do we have separate bathrooms? Should schools should start having co-ed gym locker rooms, where 12 year old boys and girls get dressed together? Why not, differences are virtually non-existent according to you and the majority of the left.

Like I’d mentioned to another member, if you’re for marriage equality, would you support the redefining of the age of consent so that a 55 year old man can marry a 13 year old girl, who’s able to procreate and is willing and able?

 

[dshix]

If so, why do we have separate bathrooms? Should schools should start having co-ed gym locker rooms, where 12 year old boys and girls get dressed together? Why not, differences are virtually non-existent according to you and the majority of the left.

Shhhh, don’t mention it; they’ll do it.

 

[RevDon]

see post 406

There’s a lot of text there. How do you intend to use that in connection with the post you quoted?

 

[pete_29]

That is exactly what they claim. God didn’t get it right and mighty man knows better.

Pity them for they know not what they do.

 

[RevDon]

another says - Webster’s

MAR’RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

AS I have previously noted the portions in red define marriage. References to man and woman are descriptors concerning who may enact that reality.
Did Webster’s really have the part in green? That’s a surprise.

 

[RevDon]

Are you actually taking the position that there differences shouldn’t matter between men and women? Or between boys and girls?

If so, why do we have separate bathrooms? Should schools should start having co-ed gym locker rooms, where 12 year old boys and girls get dressed together? Why not, differences are virtually non-existent according to you and the majority of the left.

Like I’d mentioned to another member, if you’re for marriage equality, would you support the redefining of the age of consent so that a 55 year old man can marry a 13 year old girl, who’s able to procreate and is willing and able?

I have previously posted that there are very significant differences between men and women. My repeating it doesn’t make it true, but perhaps that statement is consistent with your own experience.

But in terms of functions, the roles, especially of women, have expanded to include functions previously held to be possible only for men. Perhaps the most extreme of these is military women in combat. Men are also doing things previously considered appropriate only for women: teaching young children, nursing.

Our culture is very sex-oriented and squeamish about it. In other cultures unisex bathrooms are common. I don’t know much about locker rooms elsewhere.

I will repeat a response made earlier concerning your age-difference question, even though it’s off-topic: Marriage can only take place between people who are physically and psychologically capable of living as married people. Procreation, in my view, is not an argument in favor of or opposed to marriage. No marriage should be proposed that is not mutual. The Church would quickly annul such an attempted marriage of the type you describe on the grounds of “incapacity.”

 

[Apolojez]

For the most part, I agree with you, especially on your civil law argument.
The hearts of many Christians have reached adamantine hardness on this. But what’s interesting is that the poll number, including those on Catholic opinion, have shifted.
Conservatives will give that a religious spin to the right and say that the devil is having his way; liberals will say the Holy Spirit is at work.
As we have seen many times over in this string, one of the determining factors in affecting opinion is actually knowing a same-sex couple. As long as the people oppressed are a faceless minority it’s easy to apply the harshest judgment. When even the most hard-nosed conservative gets to know a same-sex couple it’s “I didn’t mean you.” Then, gradually the humanity begins to have its effect so that gradually even those folks can love others as they love themselves.
That’s my loooooong term hope.

It’s refreshing being able to have a real discussion Rev. I appreciate your effort to at least think about what I’m saying. I agree that seeing both sides of this issue becomes much easier if you actually know a same-sex couple and take the time to see it from their point of view. There’s so much fear involved with this issue but the majority comes from what we do not know.

 

[Apolojez]

Balderdash!!! God created us male and female for a reason. You can spin it anyway you want, but God made it natural that a man be with a woman and a woman be with a man. Anything more than that is humankind trying to prove that they are superior to God.

Didn’t God also create the animal kingdom? So why does every single species we know of that engages in intercourse in order to procreate, also engage in same-sex intercourse? It’s a fact of nature.

 

[RevDon]

I will not refute this document, but I will point out weaknesses in it. First note that as a structure, the document does not draw conclusions from evidence but rather starts with a conclusion and then presents a structured argument to try to prove that conclusion. That is an acceptable method of discourse, but the reader ought to be aware that this is what is going on:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

1. 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.

The Catholic Church was at the forefront of developing historical-critical exegesis. This manner of exegesis does what the next paragraph states

1. 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.

This substantiates that the Early Church had no difficulty seeing meaning in the Old Testament that differed from the way it had previously been interpreted.

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. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church’s living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.

The actual degree to which the New Testament addresses this is miniscule, and not entirely clear when put into context as this document admits below in connection with Romans 1: 18- 32. Those two factors do not amount to consistency.
Earlier this document says that the tradition of scripture between Old Testament and New Testament was broken; now it’s unbroken. The other problem is whether it is more appropriate to interpret the scriptures in light of the tradition of the Church or to interpret the tradition of the Church in light of the scriptures. You pick.

Continued…

 

[RevDon]

continuation…

Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

**Traditionally Catholics have interpreted Kingdom of God as “heaven.” Jesus seems to hint about an imminent and present Kingdom. **

In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.

That’s absolutely correct. Paul was battling pagan religions which used sex- of all kinds- as a sort of sacrament in their temples. These have been collectively called fertility cults, and were very popular in the ancient Middle East.

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

The above is probably close to the translation the writers of this document used. In verse 10 the word translated as “those practicing homosexuality” is arsenokoites, a word that only appears here and in 1 Cor 6:9. It appears to have been made up by Paul, since it appears nowhere else in the Bible or non-religious literature of the time. It was made up from two words arsen (which means male and koites, which means bed. That’s all there is. If you want to imagine two men in bed having sex with each other, then do so, but it can also mean a man in bed with a woman, or even a man who doesn’t get out of bed, which Paul criticized in Thessalonians.

To chose [sic] someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

**This paragraph is alluding to procreation and without coming out with it, and crudely defines everything, especially complementarity, according to the way the parts fit together. Complementarity is a great deal more than that, and this document is doing a great disservice to married couples in not recognize that. Without giving any explanation, the document assumes everybody knows that same-sex people are disordered. **

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

How can these celibate men tell other people what fulfills them and makes them happy?

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.

If the only incidence of homosexuality were promiscuity, then it would be wrong, because it would do harm to people and the society as a whole. The Church’s position is blocking the cure for promiscuity. These people have no idea that same-sex people can form relationships that have all of the beneficial attributes of heterosexual couples, and that is a big gap in this argument.