This a very nearsighted approach to say that the teaching was “no different” at the time of the Levitical Laws from today’s Catholic magisterium. One may claim that there exists a universal moral law, and therefore the moral evaluation of homosexual acts cannot ever change. After all, if homosexual activity is inherently wrong, then indeed it cannot be true one day and wrong another.That is one thing. But people at the time of Leviticus or **Paul did not understood the morality of homosexuality as we do because they simply did not understand homosexuality in the same way. **The modern church refers to homosexual activity in relation to natural moral law and inherently sinful acts. Scripture does not indicate homosexual behavior as being inherently sinful. There is no reason from the Bible to think that each and every gay act is “intrinsically evil.” **There is no reason to think the Bible in any place is talking about committed homosexual relationships. **We like to layer our modern concept of natural moral law on top of biblical passages, but there was no such developed concept then. It may be in error to think various authors are referring to acts as in and of themselves wrong.
So your argument is that homosexual acts can be or are wrong but not in a committed homosexual relationship. That Paul and the early Church had no understanding of committed homosexual relationships and if they understood the concept, the teaching against all expressed homosexuality would not have been instituted.
Okay, as exercise, let’s take Paul’s admonition in Romans 1:26-27
*“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” *
First, that does not read like Paul was
only referring to homosexual behavior (sexual acts) separate from a homosexual relationship, committed or not.
Second, it strains credibility that homosexual behavior could be absent in homosexual relationship of which we speak. You concede that physical expression of homosexual desire is a component in a homosexual relationship. The distinction you make between homosexual behavior and homosexual relationship is therefore irrelevant. Sexual acts (involving the genitals) in any and all forms short of or including sodomia perfecta in a homosexual relationship were always and still are considered sinful.
Third, that Paul could not have known or was not aware that true love can exist between two homosexuals, implies that he was ignorant of a form of exalted homosexual love that is pure and right in the eyes of God. On the contrary, Paul was high minded Hellenic Jew, one of the most educated men of his day. Raised in Tarsus, the third most intellectual city in the world, ranking behind Athens and Alexandria then, Paul knew the Stoic poets and studied Greek literature and culture. It would be naïve to think that Paul was not cognizant of the fact that certain Greeks regarded homosexuality as the highest form of love. It is also arrogant to conclude that Paul and the early Church knew nothing of exalted homosexual love.
If you believe self serving “research” and writings of historians like John Boswell, our time has arrived at the pinnacle of some new form of thought or practice. “That which has been is what will be, that which is done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). The 21st century may be the most inventive and progressive time period so far, but it is doubtful that it invented the idea of a loving homosexual relationship.
Fourth, and importantly, you are in effect discounting the inspiration by the Holy Spirit of Scripture, these parts of the NT on homosexual relations, specifically, that there was a lapse on God’s part in letting error in the recording of His Word and meaning. To follow such error, other parts of Scripture would or should be up for grabs, other transgressions regarded by a Christian or Catholic as no longer sins given enough human justification.
In short, to claim that homosexual relationships, those that may be faithful and committed, would have been morally approved is revisionist interpretation, to justify rejection of behavior of homosexual partners clearly prohibited in the holy book.
It is a shame one cannot be Catholic because one disagrees with one point of teaching that is not even dogma. Also, teaching on sexuality has not been defined ex cathedra or ecumenical council so there is some degree of development possible you would admit and at least some sense this teaching is “current.”
The teaching is doctrinal and the issue is one of faith and morals unchanging according to time and place. It is infallible teaching. The individuals mentioned, founders of New Ways Ministry and Dignity, were recalcitrant in their insistence that an exception be made for homosexuality, in the name of a narrowed definition of love and compassion. These Catholics made the choice to step out of the tent.
With respect, you lament the same points, even extensibly doing in the thread you opened “Can the Catholic Church Ever Change Her Teaching on Homosexuality.” What do you hope to achieve in this forum? You received all the answers to your question. There are scores of threads on this site submitted by others where your same arguments have been hashed and rehashed. They are rendered unpersuasive under scrutiny, rebutted by many Catholic members (much more learned than I am). If you would bother to check, this site offers tracts and articles by CAF staff apologists on the subject.
