Homosexuality And Original Sin

[catholic1seeks]

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.

Early fathers, I mean the Early Church Fathers.

 

[clem456]

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.

That is true, and the complementarity of man and woman is manifested through body and soul. Sexuality is not merely physical, and not merely spiritual, but it cannot be without either, since we are made as a unity of body and soul.

 

[Rau]

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.

It is inconsistent with external and internal biology. Surely such gross inconsistency is sufficient to suggest something is “wrong”? Surely the first time a mature person engages in same sex acts, he must be haunted, not just by “what do I do?”, but “this can’t be right?”

 

[Rau]

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

Which is a cop out. The Church holds that much of its moral teaching has been infallibly taught, though not by a definitive act (papal declaration or council). Thus, you should be “thinking about the issue in a different light”.

 

[Thorolfr]

Surely the first time a mature person engages in same sex acts, he must be haunted, not just by “what do I do?”, but “this can’t be tight?”

You’re actually wrong about this. For gay people, their same-sex attraction feels perfectly right and normal to them. It’s all they’ve ever known or experienced since they’ve had sexual or romantic feelings. There is no confusion about what to do. Having sex with someone of the opposite sex (even the thought of it), on the other hand, feels totally wrong and not normal for a person who is predominantly or exclusively attracted to his own sex. This is why it is difficult for gay people to accept the claims of straight people about homosexuality when they don’t really have any idea about what it’s like to be gay. It’s like a straight man claiming he knows what it’s like to be a woman.

 

[Rau]

You’re actually wrong about this. For gay people, their same-sex attraction feels perfectly right and normal to them. It’s all they’ve ever known or experienced since they’ve had sexual or romantic feelings. There is no confusion about what to do. Having sex with someone of the opposite sex (even the thought of it), on the other hand, feels totally wrong and not normal for a person who is predominantly or exclusively attracted to his own sex. This is why it is difficult for gay people to accept the claims of straight people about homosexuality when they don’t really have any idea about what it’s like to be gay. It’s like a straight man claiming he knows what it’s like to be a woman.

Of course, I can’t debate with you what you say you feel. But a rational mind ought to be able to see the dissonance, objectively.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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

What “shifted” was our understanding of the nature and function of money, neither of which has doctrinal status. Once the understanding of money changed, the sin of usury ceased to be identified in any simple way with charging interest on money. This is development, not substantial change.

As Pope Benedict says in CARITAS IN VERITATE

Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers. Right intention, transparency, and the search for positive results are mutually compatible and must never be detached from one another. If love is wise, it can find ways of working in accordance with provident and just expediency, as is illustrated in a significant way by much of the experience of credit unions.

This is all the more necessary in these days when financial difficulties can become severe for many of the more vulnerable sectors of the population, who should be protected from the risk of usury and from despair. The weakest members of society should be helped to defend themselves against usury, just as poor peoples should be helped to derive real benefit from micro-credit, in order to discourage the exploitation that is possible in these two areas.

It should be clear that doctrine, as Catholics define it, has not changed. Put simply, usury is charging someone for something that has no value, in short, for defrauding someone, especially the poor and dependent, in a financial transaction. The Church is right to condemn it, as Pope Benedict XVI did in Caritas in Veritate. Our thicker understanding of money simply leads us to recognize that most ordinary bank loans exact a cost on the lender and have value to the borrower, and so are not usurious.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Early fathers, I mean the Early Church Fathers.

What did the Early Fathers say that was different from Sister Mary’s explanation??

 

[Thorolfr]

Of course, I can’t debate with you what you say you feel. But a rational mind ought to be able to see the dissonance, objectively.

When it comes to sex and love, I think that most people are not rational.

 

[Rau]

When it comes to sex and love, I think that most people are not rational.

That too is a cop out. It says that “when I feel love, or desire sex - I lose the use of my rational mind, and I am no longer responsible for, no longer can judge, my actions”. I no more believe that of the homosexually inclined than I do of any sane person.

 

[Rau]

…It should be clear that doctrine, as Catholics define it, has not changed. Put simply, usury is charging someone for something that has no value, in short, for defrauding someone, especially the poor and dependent, in a financial transaction. The Church is right to condemn it, as Pope Benedict XVI did in Caritas in Veritate. Our thicker understanding of money simply leads us to recognize that most ordinary bank loans exact a cost on the lender and have value to the borrower, and so are not usurious.

It is a common mistake made that what is thought to be a change or a difference or a distinction in teaching is actually a failure to recognise that the thing(s) being talked about are actually not the same thing.

 

[clem456]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorolfr View Post
When it comes to sex and love, I think that most people are not rational.

That too is a cop out. It says that “when I feel love, or desire sex - I lose the use of my rational mind, and I am no longer responsible for, no longer can judge, my actions”. I no more believe that of the homosexually inclined than I do of any sane person.

Ironically, it’s also the ultimate reduction to the animal or physical dimension of humanity.

 

[Thorolfr]

Ironically, it’s also the ultimate reduction to the animal or physical dimension of humanity.

When it comes to love, people often do things that they probably shouldn’t sometimes. I often see threads here in CAF where a Catholic is planning on marrying a Protestant before they’ve even figured out if such a match would work out. Does the Catholic person’s intended spouse agree that contraception will not be allowed or that the children must be raised Catholic? A rational analysis would tell such people that it would be better to marry someone from your own faith tradition. But love often comes first.

 

[clem456]

When it comes to love, people often do things that they probably shouldn’t sometimes. I often see threads here in CAF where a Catholic is planning on marrying a Protestant before they’ve even figured out if such a match would work out. Does the Catholic person’s intended spouse agree that contraception will not be allowed or that the children must be raised Catholic? A rational analysis would tell such people that it would be better to marry someone from your own faith tradition. But love often comes first.

love and reason are never at odds.

 

[JamesCaruso]

You’re actually wrong about this. For gay people, their same-sex attraction feels perfectly right and normal to them. It’s all they’ve ever known or experienced since they’ve had sexual or romantic feelings. There is no confusion about what to do. Having sex with someone of the opposite sex (even the thought of it), on the other hand, feels totally wrong and not normal for a person who is predominantly or exclusively attracted to his own sex. This is why it is difficult for gay people to accept the claims of straight people about homosexuality when they don’t really have any idea about what it’s like to be gay. It’s like a straight man claiming he knows what it’s like to be a woman.

A person can be in a relationship that he or she feels is right and normal, even totally fulfilling, in a worldly sense, while at the same time knowing that it is not right and not what we want and what pleases us is the wrong measure of our lives; doing what He good or desirable in God’s eyes. Who would sin if they found no benefit in doing so? We sin because of what we get out of it, or at least, what we think we will get out of it. Doing wants and what pleases Him is the key to happiness. Christianity without the cross is just another in a long line of social movements.

 

[bjryman]

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?

IMHO, this is one of the most frustrating issues with the Church. There either is or isn’t infalibility by definition. Yet, yes the Church wants us to believe everything it teaches, for us to be members in good standing. Trust these old men with all their foibles, there personal histories to be absolutely correct in every detail. Thats the premise here.

BUT, the fact is throughout history, actions taken by the church and then current culture, varied, and some are outright questionable. Only by issuing that statement of “well its not infallible, but still you should treat it that way”, can the continuity of it all be justified.

Fine, but it is not necessary for the Church to place itself in this severe, absolute position beyond the basic Creed. To me we have evolved to the point where the Jews were in Christs day regarding rules, regulations and the like. It leaves the Church in a most awkward position of not really being able to “take back” something previously stated, as more insight or current information becomes available.

So, my “core” belief is the salvation message as Christ as my Savior, that I am a sinner, and have confessed, repented and now walk down my own pathway to holiness. I practice my faith via the Creed, the 10 Commandments with special eye on the Beatitudes.

The rest is really non-core, if you will in my mind…and don’t need severe, definitive and absolute conclusions by the Church.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

IMHO, this is one of the most frustrating issues with the Church. There either is or isn’t infalibility by definition. Yet, yes the Church wants us to believe everything it teaches, for us to be members in good standing. Trust these old men with all their foibles, there personal histories to be absolutely correct in every detail. Thats the premise here.

BUT, the fact is throughout history, actions taken by the church and then current culture, varied, and some are outright questionable. Only by issuing that statement of “well its not infallible, but still you should treat it that way”, can the continuity of it all be justified.

The Catholic Church claims to be an instrument of God that can infallibly discern objective truth; truth that is independent of the church’s opinion or wishes. If the church says something is true, and then changes its mind and says it was wrong, then the church logically cannot be infallible.

Fine, but it is not necessary for the Church to place itself in this severe, absolute position beyond the basic Creed. To me we have evolved to the point where the Jews were in Christs day regarding rules, regulations and the like. It leaves the Church in a most awkward position of not really being able to “take back” something previously stated, as more insight or current information becomes available.

So, my “core” belief is the salvation message as Christ as my Savior, that I am a sinner, and have confessed, repented and now walk down my own pathway to holiness. I practice my faith via the Creed, the 10 Commandments with special eye on the Beatitudes.

Good luck on your journey, friend.

From my extensive studies and reflection, I have found that every religion on Earth, save the Catholic religion, has fatal logical flaws that must mean they are wrong. I have found no such flaw in the Catholic Church. There are numerous issues that were not explicitly defined in the bible or by the early apostles. There have been long debates to discern the truth. Some sides in these debates were wrong. It was the church as a whole that discerned the truth, and in most instances, the incorrect side humbly submitted to the church.

There have been political decisions that have been indefensible. There have been management decisions that were morally repugnant. However, none of these decisions impute the constant maintenance of the deposit of faith. Immoral popes and leaders have never attempted to justify their actions with theology that conflicted with established doctrines.

I accept as a matter of faith that the Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ. I accept this rationally and logically. I have inspected each doctrine and found it perfectly internally consistent. I acknowledge as a matter of intellectual honesty that the church is led by very intelligent philosophers who are never going to allow any deviation from this perfect consistency.

 

[Rau]

IMHO, this is one of the most frustrating issues with the Church. There either is or isn’t infalibility by definition. Yet, yes the Church wants us to believe everything it teaches, for us to be members in good standing. Trust these old men with all their foibles, there personal histories to be absolutely correct in every detail. Thats the premise here.

BUT, the fact is throughout history, actions taken by the church and then current culture, varied, and some are outright questionable. Only by issuing that statement of “well its not infallible, but still you should treat it that way”, can the continuity of it all be justified.

Fine, but it is not necessary for the Church to place itself in this severe, absolute position beyond the basic Creed. To me we have evolved to the point where the Jews were in Christs day regarding rules, regulations and the like. It leaves the Church in a most awkward position of not really being able to “take back” something previously stated, as more insight or current information becomes available.

So, my “core” belief is the salvation message as Christ as my Savior, that I am a sinner, and have confessed, repented and now walk down my own pathway to holiness. I practice my faith via the Creed, the 10 Commandments with special eye on the Beatitudes.

The rest is really non-core, if you will in my mind…and don’t need severe, definitive and absolute conclusions by the Church.

Fortunately the Holy Spirit guides her to avoid teaching error in faith and morals. If not for that, why would anyone listen to the Church?

 

[bjryman]

Fortunately the Holy Spirit guides her to avoid teaching error in faith and morals. If not for that, why would anyone listen to the Church?

My point exactly…the Church is losing truly committed faithful worldwide

 

[Rau]

My point exactly…the Church is losing truly committed faithful worldwide

So, is it your intention to blame the Holy Spirit?

And actually, Jesus did not break the law regarding the Sabbath - that law forbid doing “your work” - the law did not forbid works of service towards God. The reference in Scripture to Jesus having broken the Sabbath is from the Pharisees perspective…