Homosexuality And Original Sin

[bjryman]

It is not irrational (IMHO) nor is it hateful to view SSA as some kind of “problem” afflicting the person. I have no idea of the cause(s), or the question of “nature vs. nurture”, but it is objectively evident that it takes a person in a direction that is inconsistent with the body he possesses.

Or, conversley, one might conclude that Homosexuality is simply Extraordinary…that is, out of the normal path, but still part of Creation. To conclude that it is absolutely disordered is one view, so too is that it is just another minority condition in the complexity of mankind. Throughout history, this condition has been disparaged by many authorities, who have added the negative outcomes to their writtings, rules and regulations. So too has the Church.

 

[Rau]

Or, conversley, one might conclude that Homosexuality is simply Extraordinary…that is, out of the normal path, but still part of Creation. To conclude that it is absolutely disordered is one view, so too is that it is just another minority condition in the complexity of mankind. Throughout history, this condition has been disparaged by many authorities, who have added the negative outcomes to their writtings, rules and regulations. So too has the Church.

If you are referring to an inclination to same sex sexual acts, I suggest that goes a little beyond “extraordinary”, though these days, that term might be regarded as politically correct.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It is not irrational (IMHO) nor is it hateful to view SSA as some kind of “problem” afflicting the person. I have no idea of the cause(s), or the question of “nature vs. nurture”, but it is objectively evident that it takes a person in a direction that is inconsistent with the body he possesses.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

There are plenty of valid reasons to reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Millions of Christians do.

Non-Catholic Christians may reject anything they want…and place their eternal salvation at peril.

There are also plenty of bible scholars who have different interpretations of Paul’s writings and plenty about the historical and social context, meaning, and vocabulary of what he wrote that we do not fully understand.

With all these “individual interpretations” floating around and clouding up religious theology, it is very comforting to rely on the legitimate teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

And there are also many areas of knowledge that undoubtedly did escape people of Biblical times. Scientific knowledge, medical knowledge, historical knowledge, etc. has advanced over the last few thousand years.

"The Church is called Catholic or universal because . . . it teaches fully and unfailingly all the doctrines which ought to be brought to men’s knowledge, whether concerned with visible or invisible things, with the realities of heaven or the things of earth.”-- St. Cyril of Jerusalem

 

[catholic1seeks]

With all these “individual interpretations” floating around and clouding up religious theology, it is very comforting to rely on the legitimate teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Has the “legitimate teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church” always been correct in its teachings?

:juggle:

 

[clem456]

Has the “legitimate teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church” always been correct in its teachings?

:juggle:

Yes is the simple answer.
The obvious comeback to that is, “how can teachings change then?”
The answer is, core doctrines do not change, the understanding of them develops. The understanding and expression of salvation is one example.

The teachings of the Church cannot change because Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, he is unchanging God. The Church is Christ’s mystical body. The Church is expressing Christ as he is understood. He has completely revealed himself, but the understanding of him develops.

It should be added that disciplines are not the same as dogma or doctrine.
The married priesthood is a discipline. Fasting for a certain time before communion is a discipline.
The particular mechanisms related to divorce, remarriage, and annulment are disciplines and do change, BUT the core doctrine that valid marriage between man and woman is binding for a lifetime can never be changed.
Likewise the teaching that marriage can only be between a man and a woman can never change, no matter what civil authorities do.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Or, conversley, one might conclude that Homosexuality is simply Extraordinary…that is, out of the normal path, but still part of Creation. To conclude that it is absolutely disordered is one view, so too is that it is just another minority condition in the complexity of mankind. Throughout history, this condition has been disparaged by many authorities, who have added the negative outcomes to their writtings, rules and regulations. So too has the Church.

Some users on this thread don’t get the point I’m trying to get across: that their view of homosexuality as deviance comes not from observance of nature itself but from traditional moral teaching. They regard the “condition” (or whatever) of homosexuality as just another inclination to sin, comparable to desires that lead to adultery or fornication. But homosexuality in nature is not just behavior and not just a desire to commit a specific sexual act (it cannot be reduced to mere temptation); it is everything that sexuality is for a typical heterosexual person – a means of relating to another and giving oneself to another. And this happens to be a non-chosen state for people, probably caused by biological factors, as research suggests. This does not exclude social and environmental factors as well, but the point is that homosexuality is not just another temptation to commit a specific act; it is lasting “mode” or orientation of how one relates to people, specifically romantically.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Yes is the simple answer.
The obvious comeback to that is, “how can teachings change then?”
The answer is, core doctrines do not change, the understanding of them develops. The understanding and expression of salvation is one example.

The teachings of the Church cannot change because Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, he is unchanging God. The Church is Christ’s mystical body. The Church is expressing Christ as he is understood. He has completely revealed himself, but the understanding of him develops.

I understand the discipline vs doctrine distinction.

I accept that core doctrines do not change, i.e., those proposed infallibly or regarded as central to the Faith, as testified in Church councils, such as the nature of the Trinity.

The teaching on homosexuality is not a core doctrine, and this teaching has not been proposed infallibly.

Teachings change. Common doctrine changes, not just develops. It used to be taught that there was no salvation outside the visible Catholic Church. The early fathers were strong on this, especially regarding schism. We now teach that anyone can be saved, even outside the Church, even if there is a better chance within the Catholic Church.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Has the “legitimate teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church” always been correct in its teachings?

:juggle:

The legitimate teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to faith and morals are “without error.”

 

[catholic1seeks]

The legitimate teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to faith and morals are “without error.”

So what about the shift in teaching regarding the sin of usury? That is a moral issue.

 

[Thorolfr]

Has the “legitimate teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church” always been correct in its teachings?

:juggle:

I wonder about that, too. For example, in 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas which authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery and to also take all their possession:

“We weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit – by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors”.

So apparently the Catholic Church didn’t have any problem back then with making non-Christians into perpetual slaves. And yet Pope John Paul II stated in Veritatis Splendor:

the Church teaches that ‘there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object’ - The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: ‘Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator’

 

[clem456]

I understand the discipline vs doctrine distinction.

I accept that core doctrines do not change, i.e., those proposed infallibly or regarded as central to the Faith, as testified in Church councils, such as the nature of the Trinity.

The teaching on homosexuality is not a core doctrine, and this teaching has not been proposes infallibly.

Teachings change. Common doctrine changes, not just develops. It used to be taught that there was no salvation outside the visible Catholic Church. The early fathers were strong on this, especially regarding schism. We now teach that anyone can be saved, even outside the Church, even if there is a better change within the Church.

Without derailing the thread, the core doctrine on salvation did not change, it developed. We have always believed there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. The understanding of the possibilities that God offers through his grace, and the understanding of the nature of the Church have changed, as has the pastoral tone of the doctrine. Still, all those in heaven are part of the Catholic Church. Let’s not derail as this issue can be a bottomless pit.

The teaching on homosexuality is a core teaching that can never change. Disciplines and statements of the teaching may change. The teaching is solidly rooted in revealed nature, scripture, and the words of Christ himself:
“from the beginning…” If you ever get a chance, delve into Theology of the Body by JP2. You may not agree with all of it, but you will have to admit that the philosophical ground the teaching rests on is very substantial and hard to refute.

There are no disciplinary statements from Christ specifically on homosexuality because it was not necessary in the times he was living in. There was no social pressure to accept an idea (gay union being the same as marriage of man/woman) so contrary to revealed human nature.

 

[clem456]

It would take a very blind eye to look at the words of Christ here and not observe the definitive statement of human nature. The subject he is challenged on is divorce, but his words so powerfully refer to the timeless nature of the truth within. When Christ says to us “From the beginning he made them”, that ought to give us pause to stop and reflect.

Concerning Divorce

  1When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; 2and large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there.
  3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that **He who created them from the beginning made them male and female**, 5and said, ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and **the two shall become on flesh’**? 6“So **they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.**” 7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

This is also a good example of Christ noting a discipline that changed due to hardness of heart.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The teaching on homosexuality is a core teaching that can never change. Disciplines and statements of the teaching may change. The teaching is solidly rooted in revealed nature, scripture, and the words of Christ himself:
“from the beginning…” If you ever get a chance, delve into Theology of the Body by JP2. You may not agree with all of it, but you will have to admit that the philosophical ground the teaching rests on is very substantial and hard to refute.

There are no disciplinary statements from Christ specifically on homosexuality because it was not necessary in the times he was living in. There was no social pressure to accept an idea (gay union being the same as marriage of man/woman) so contrary to revealed human nature.

Saying the teaching on homosexuality is a core teaching is an assertion, and I think that there is no reason to think it is a core teaching. Did the Apostles go around teaching the right way to have sex, or did they preach the good news of Christ?

 

[Rau]

Some users on this thread don’t get the point I’m trying to get across: that their view of homosexuality as deviance comes not from observance of nature itself but from traditional moral teaching. They regard the “condition” (or whatever) of homosexuality as just another inclination to sin, comparable to desires that lead to adultery or fornication. But homosexuality in nature is not just behavior and not just a desire to commit a specific sexual act (it cannot be reduced to mere temptation); it is everything that sexuality is for a typical heterosexual person – a means of relating to another and giving oneself to another. And this happens to be a non-chosen state for people, probably caused by biological factors, as research suggests. This does not exclude social and environmental factors as well, but the point is that homosexuality is not just another temptation to commit a specific act; it is lasting “mode” or orientation of how one relates to people, specifically romantically.

The nature of the condition may be as you say. But reason allows us to see that the way it inclines us to use the body is contrary to the nature of the body. Sexual acts are not necessary for love, and reason allows us to recognise the circumstances when it, by its nature, is inappropriate.

Do you understand that I am saying that the cause does not matter because the acts to which they incline a person are objectively inconsistent with the body. The inclination cannot itself justify the act.

 

[clem456]

I wonder about that, too. For example, in 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas which authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery and to also take all their possession:

So apparently the Catholic Church didn’t have any problem back then with making non-Christians into perpetual slaves. And yet Pope John Paul II stated in Veritatis Splendor:

These issues have been debated on CA ad nauseum as I am sure you are aware.
Do a search.
Maybe we can stick to the topic.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The nature of the condition may be as you say. But reason allows us to see that the way it inclines us to use the body is contrary to the nature of the body. Sexual acts are not necessary for love, and reason allows us to recognise the circumstances when it, by its nature, is inappropriate.

Do you understand that I am saying that the cause does not matter because the acts to which they incline a person are objectively inconsistent with the body. The inclination cannot itself justify the act.

Homosexual acts are only inconsistent if one determines what is of nature from external biological parts alone. But a human person, even in his biology, is much more than his external biological parts.

 

[Rau]

Saying the teaching on homosexuality is a core teaching is an assertion, and I think that there is no reason to think it is a core teaching. Did the Apostles go around teaching the right way to have sex, or did they preach the good news of Christ?

What is “core”? Is it the creed? The Church requires you to try to believe all that it teaches, which goes beyond the creed. Teachings do not need to be declared as infallible to be so. But tell me - would an infallible declaration that homosexual acts are immoral change your position at all?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Teachings change. Common doctrine changes, not just develops. It used to be taught that there was no salvation outside the visible Catholic Church. The early fathers were strong on this, especially regarding schism. We now teach that anyone can be saved, even outside the Church, even if there is a better chance within the Catholic Church.

God introduced salvation to the world through his chosen people, the Jews. God’s revelation to the Jews found its fulfillment in Christ, the Messiah, who established the Catholic Church. The grace necessary for salvation continues to come from Christ, through his Church.** Those who innocently do not know and embrace this might still attain salvation but those who knowingly and willingly choose to reject it, reject salvation on God’s terms.**

The Catechism (quoting Lumen Gentium) summarizes all this as follows:

" Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)"

I remember clearly, 61 years ago asking Sister Mary Francis, our fourth grade teacher, if only Catholics could get to heaven. She said that good people who didn’t know anything about God or Jesus could go to heaven…but those who did know and refused to believe would have a very hard time getting there.

It seems that Vatican II simply re-enforced a teaching that was held throughout the last century.

 

[catholic1seeks]

What is “core”? Is it the creed? The Church requires you to try to believe all that it teaches, which goes beyond the creed. Teachings do not need to be declared as infallible to be so. But tell me - would an infallible declaration that homosexual acts are immoral change your position at all?

I think I answered that question before. It would cause me to think about the issue in a different light.