Homosexuality And Original Sin

[Rau]

Paul writes in I Corinthians 7:2, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband”. He properly identifies “marriage” - not “commitment” - as the proper venue for sexual relationship. For the record, the Church teaches all forms of fornication are intrinsically evil.

Does anyone truly believe that we (or you) now have some deeper understanding whereby - subject to the right “commitment” - one never before recognised in Scripture or by Christ’s Church - two men act properly and nobly when they sexually engage with each other?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

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.

Hi, InSearch.

You’re over-reaching, and you’re ignoring context. The first chapter of Romans is a sophisticated rhetorical set-up directed at the Roman Jewish converts to Christianity who had apparently been complaining regarding the unclean-ness (and the unclean practices) of Roman gentile converts. Paul begins by appearing to take the side of the Jewish converts, but then he turns the tables in the set-up’s payoff which is in Romans 2:1–“Therefore, thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thy self, for thou that judgest doest the same things.” It’s a sentiment that reaches its climax in Romans 13-15, but in particular, with Romans 14:10 – “But why doest thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? we shall all stand before the Judgement seat of Christ.”

So there’s context. There’s also over-reaching. Because even if you ignore context, the verse is clear that what’s being dealt with is being “consumed with passion,” or as the KJV has it, burning in lust. It’s doubtful that Paul had loving relationships in mind. Why? Because characterizing a loving relationship as characterized chiefly by lust is more than a bit nihilistically cynical and actually quite insulting to boot. You may argue, “Well, homosexual relationships can only be lustful because homosexual sex does not produce offspring,” which, apart from being massively reductionist, is akin to saying, “rugby is evil because it’s not played according to the rules governing soccer.” Sometimes different things are different things and should be evaluated on their own terms.

Second, it strains credibility that homosexual behavior could be absent in homosexual relationship of which we speak.

It seems you’re confessing a lack of imagination here. When two people love each other and are attracted to each other it is not necessary that they perform any particular sexual act. It just isn’t. It is indeed possible that two people can love each other and be attracted to each other and share a life together without sexual acts defining their lives, their relationship or their attraction.

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.

Keep in mind that physical expression can include holding hands, cuddling up while eating popcorn and watching a movie, resting your head on your beloved’s shoulder…

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.

I don’t think the argument is that Paul was unaware of such love, only that he was unaware of our contemporary understanding of sexuality generally, in the same way that he was unaware of a category of “classical” art and architecture and its cultural meaning to 19th and 20th century art critics, even though we would call the art and architecture of the time in which he lived “classical.” He certainly wouldn’t.

Regardless, what you’ve written here is one of those “absence of evidence” sorts of arguments, no? That Paul didn’t mention Homer doesn’t mean that he was ignorant of the Odyssey, nor does it mean he thought it was third rate. He simply didn’t mention it.

[CONTINUED…]

 

[Deo_Volente]

…COMPLETED]

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.

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe in either progress or decline.

But I do believe in change. Different socio-cultural circumstances produce differences in behavior and perception. It is doubtful, even given the Greek valorization of same-gender love, that an ancient Greek person would find a contemporary lesbian couple unsurprising. Women? Together? Owning property? Voting? And I imagine that a contemporary gay male couple would also confuse them a bit: it’d all well and good that they were in a relationship, but where are their wives and children? It’d be unusual for them not to have wives and children. And a contemporary heterosexual couple would also likely give them pause: why would the wife have a job outside the home? Why would the husband not feel free to have a relationship with the male au pair?

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.

This sounds dangerously close to a Protestant sola scriptura type of argument. But be that as it may, engaging the text from an historical-critical perspective does not mean that one is assuming that scripture is in error from the get-go. What it assumes, actually, is that the text is important, important enough for us to approach the text conscious of our own biases (cultural or otherwise) so that we can rule them out when they rear their heads. On the other hand, to insist that the “plain word” approach is the only way to inerrantly interpret scripture can have disastrous effects–the “ban” in Deuteronomy and Joshua can very easily be taken as divine justification for ethnic cleansing. It’s the plain word of scripture after all.

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.

We don’t know either way, actually, because it’s not addressed, at least not in a sola scriptura kind of way.

It’s always good to see you around, InSearch.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt View Post
Yes, you have, but you also use the term “intimacy”. To most people that means sexual relations. “To cuddle and sleep in the same bed” is a form of intimacy but you have to be careful here. Cuddling and sleeping together can be a near occasion of sin for ANY couple.

OH, of course…I forgot.:doh2:

In the Middle Ages, people who slept together and “cuddled” would NEVER think of having sex unless they were married.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

OH, of course…I forgot.:doh2:

In the Middle Ages, people who slept together and “cuddled” would NEVER think of having sex unless they were married.

Not the point, Zoltan. That we moderns may find such a thing as loving-intimacy-without-a-sexual-act unimaginable doesn’t mean that folks in other times and in other places were as unimaginative as we appear to be.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[bjryman]

Grace & Peace!

Not the point, Zoltan. That we moderns may find such a thing as loving-intimacy-without-a-sexual-act unimaginable doesn’t mean that folks in other times and in other places were as unimaginative as we appear to be.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Perhaps, but there are histories written, especially about the ruling classes throughout
the ages that indicate that their outward piety did not translate to private piety. They were a rather rowdy , and randy bunch

Much of what drove the change in severity of the Church was also due to the demise of the Roman Empire, and the Plague that wiped out over 60% of European population. ALL people of those times became quite supersticious (sp?) and turned to Church for answers. Oftentimes the local Church Bishops and Clergy succumbed to the same feelings. The result was devastating and thank God that along came the age of enlightenment which provided a new pathway out

 

[catholic1seeks]

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.

Paul simply does not say whether or not he is referring to committed homosexual relationships. But we have very good reasons to think he is not: (1) homosexual relationships of equal status that we are concerned with today simply did not exist in Paul’s day. Familiar forms of homosexual activity would have been expressed in pederastic relationships, prostitution, married men going after male lovers, and perhaps even for Pagan cultic practice. (2) The concept and understanding of homosexuality as a sexual orientation did not exist. Homosexuality was understood only in the sense of what people did, not who people are. So it was quite natural to pick out certain sexual acts as sexual excesss, as this was primarily – if not the exclusive – mode of homosexual expression apparent in Paul’s time.

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.

But isn’t that the subject at hand – whether or not all homosexual acts are in and of themselves sinful? I say that no biblical text necessarily entails this conclusion, and I think there are good reasons for this. Our idea that each and every homosexual act is “intrinsically evil” is intimately connected with our developed notion of natural moral law. The Church’s adoption of certain interpretations of natural moral law causes us to approach morality in certain ways. And it has caused sexual acts to be approached in a very phsyicalist apporach, whereby sex is only moral when it is line with the biological perspective of ordering to procreation. One can accept and believe these natural law approaches or not, but we have to realize that we often read these ancient biblical texts with heavily-developed theological lenses on.

For example, many people would like to read Paul’s use of “nature” here in Romans 1 as if he believed homosexuality to be against the natural moral law. However, Paul uses the same term for nature here that he does in 1 Corinthians when he says that “nature” tells us that women should wear a veil and men should have long hair. But we now understand that he is talking about cultural norms, not a universal binding law.

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.

He may have known that love could exist between same-sex couples. But that is not information we are given here in Romans. It is likely that he is not for reasons I have already provided; in addition, he says that these individuals “burn with passion.” The Church Father John Chrysostom agrees with this interpretation saying that Paul, here in Romans 1, speaks of men not who fell in love with each other but who burned with lust.

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.

Getting to what the biblical author originally meant is not at all discounting the inspiration of Scripture. That is what the Catholic Church teaches, that in order to understand the truth conveyed by a text, we have to know what the author is actually meaning to tell us. Paul’s words still stand: lustful and selfish sexual activity are sinful.

 

[catholic1seeks]

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.

I do not know what sense this teaching is unchangeable. It is not infallible per ex cathedra statement or ecumenical council. Things that have been long taught and accepted have been altered in the Church’s history, such as its understanding of religious freedom and salvation outside the Church, slavery, and the sin of usury.

But the subject is obviously important, if the Church is, at its very least, trying to find a new way to express its teachings on sexuality.

 

[Rau]

I do not know what sense this teaching is unchangeable. It is not infallible per ex cathedra statement or ecumenical council…

But the subject is obviously important, if the Church is, at its very least, trying to find a new way to express its teachings on sexuality.

The 2 means you list are not the only means by which we recognise infallible teaching. Would a definitive declaration in one of the forms you nominate change your position on the morality of the subject acts, or simply cause you to accept that the Church will not change this teaching?

The Church shows nil inclination to alter its teaching on the morality of same sex sexual acts. It shows a preparedness to alter the “language of disorder”, which, though fitting, is routinely misunderstood and used as a tool of misinformation.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The 2 means you list are not the only means by which we recognise infallible teaching. Would a definitive declaration in one of the forms you nominate change your position on the morality of the subject acts, or simply cause you to accept that the Church will not change this teaching?

The Church shows nil inclination to alter its teaching on the morality of same sex sexual acts. It shows a preparedness to alter the “language of disorder”, which, though fitting, is routinely misunderstood and used as a tool of misinformation.

I would consider this teaching as one that is more seriously held, and I would also consider it being very unlikely that the Church would ever change its teaching, if it were defined in one of those two means. If say a Vatican III convened to formally decide all the sexual issues that were controversial, then I would say that would be significant, and it would cause me to think about this issue differently.

When church leaders say we need to alter our language used to communicate this teaching, I don’t know how much can be done. Homosexual acts are sins, so what else can the Church say? If they are sins, any inclincation toward them is disordered. How else would the Church phrase it? This need to change the language seems like empty lip service or something, whereby there is recognition that the teaching is doing harm to people. But ultimately, it is the teaching itself at the end of the day, and not the words used, that is causing the confusion and harm.

 

[Rau]

I would consider this teaching as one that is more seriously held, and I would also consider it being very unlikely that the Church would ever change its teaching, if it were defined in one of those two means. If say a Vatican III convened to formally decide all the sexual issues that were controversial, then I would say that would be significant, and it would cause me to think about this issue differently.

When church leaders say we need to alter our language used to communicate this teaching, I don’t know how much can be done. Homosexual acts are sins, so what else can the Church say? If they are sins, any inclincation toward them is disordered. How else would the Church phrase it? This need to change the language seems like empty lip service or something, whereby there is recognition that the teaching is doing harm to people. But ultimately, it is the teaching itself at the end of the day, and not the words used, that is causing the confusion and harm.

How you think about the issue is not so much the issue. The question is “do you accept the teaching authority of the Church”? Do you accept infallibility?

The language is misconstrued and misunderstood. It is not lip service to consider a means to avoid that. It would only be called “lip service” by one who takes as a given that the teaching is wrong.

If a teaching is Truth, and some people suffer by hearing that teaching, what should be done? Abandon the Truth? Or do more to help the people who are suffering?

 

[JimG]

It seems to me that the wordy attempts to justify same sex relationships are similar to the arguments once and still used to argue for a change in the Church’s condemnation of artificial contraception. The Church will not change its view on either matter, and I’m certain that if St. Paul were alive today he would not be swayed by the current arguments for approving of same sex relationships.

 

[catholic1seeks]

It seems to me that the wordy attempts to justify same sex relationships are similar to the arguments once and still used to argue for a change in the Church’s condemnation of artificial contraception. The Church will not change its view on either matter, and I’m certain that if St. Paul were alive today he would not be swayed by the current arguments for approving of same sex relationships.

These two issues are of course related to each other.

 

[bjryman]

It seems to me that the wordy attempts to justify same sex relationships are similar to the arguments once and still used to argue for a change in the Church’s condemnation of artificial contraception. The Church will not change its view on either matter, and I’m certain that if St. Paul were alive today he would not be swayed by the current arguments for approving of same sex relationships.

I see you are an Elder poster here Thus, no doubt, you also seem to have a bit more inbred acceptance of the issues as presented by the Church. You may also be correct in your assertions regarding both issues noted.

Personally, I do not believe there is any link between artifical contraception and same sex relationsions. Regarding the former, the Church has evloved its teachings since the High Middle Ages from one where sex is only to be used to procreate, not for any other showing of love. Today, the Church teaches that planning for Children is appropriate, as long as the reason is not immoral. This is a change from early teachings. It teaches that sex between married men and women is a natural loving exchange by itself.

The Church also teaches that the rhythm method is acceptable. The case can definitely be made that responsible child rearing includes proper fiscal, emotional, spiritual planning. As the parable of the Talents indicates, one must invest wisely. Perhaps that is why over 90% of we Catholics practice artifical birth control As adamant as you are about your belief the Church will never change its teachings, I am about my hope that the Church will recognize that reasonable, moral planning can include either natural or artificial birth control. (Not abortion or abortion inducing drugs).

We’ll all see the Truth when we die and I for one will have no problem standing before Christ to be judged on my family planning and raising of my three children and four grand children.

 

[clem456]

It seems to me that the wordy attempts to justify same sex relationships are similar to the arguments once and still used to argue for a change in the Church’s condemnation of artificial contraception. The Church will not change its view on either matter, and I’m certain that if St. Paul were alive today he would not be swayed by the current arguments for approving of same sex relationships.

I agree. The biblical revelation regarding human nature is clear and timeless. The wordy and obtuse defuse used by Deo Volente reminds me anew of the heart of Romans 1. The heart of Roman’s 1 is not a condemnation of Sodomy, but a call to speak and live the truth.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 **because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie **and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.

The issue is deception. It is ongoing.
The claim that Scripture has not always and everywhere, New Testament and Old, for all cultures, supported the unique union of man and woman, is simply nonsense. It is a participation in the deception Paul speaks of.
Christ himself clearly expresses himself on this issue in the “from the beginning” passage.

 

[JimG]

I see you are an Elder poster here Thus, no doubt, you also seem to have a bit more inbred acceptance of the issues as presented by the Church. You may also be correct in your assertions regarding both issues noted.

Personally, I do not believe there is any link between artifical contraception and same sex relationsions. Regarding the former, the Church has evloved its teachings since the High Middle Ages from one where sex is only to be used to procreate, not for any other showing of love. Today, the Church teaches that planning for Children is appropriate, as long as the reason is not immoral. This is a change from early teachings. It teaches that sex between married men and women is a natural loving exchange by itself.

The Church also teaches that the rhythm method is acceptable. The case can definitely be made that responsible child rearing includes proper fiscal, emotional, spiritual planning. As the parable of the Talents indicates, one must invest wisely. Perhaps that is why over 90% of we Catholics practice artifical birth control As adamant as you are about your belief the Church will never change its teachings, I am about my hope that the Church will recognize that reasonable, moral planning can include either natural or artificial birth control. (Not abortion or abortion inducing drugs).

We’ll all see the Truth when we die and I for one will have no problem standing before Christ to be judged on my family planning and raising of my three children and four grand children.

Actually, I do think that there is a direct link between artificial contraception and same sex relationships and same sex marriage.

All the Protestant denominations had the exact same teaching on contraception as the Catholic Church, from the time of Luther and Calvin and Zwingli, all the way up to 1930, when the Anglican church made the first concession on the issue, allowing contraception for married couples for serious reasons. If anything, Protestant denominations were even more stern on the issue than the Catholic magisterium, expecting not just no contraception but large families, particularly so for pastors.

So there was 2,000 years of Catholic teaching on the issue and over 400 years of Protestant teaching on the issue, both identical, until 1930.

But once artificial contraception was widely accepted, accompanied by widespread rejection of Humanae Vitae, what were the results? Contraception broke the link between marriage and procreation. It broke the link between marriage and children. It broke the link between marriage and family. It broke the link between children and parents.

It led to abortion, because contraception fails. It led to fornication, extramarital relations, cohabitation, sex as recreation. That’s when marriage began to die. It led to a 70% out of wedlock childbearing rate in some communities; it led to fatherless children, single mothers, easier divorce, more poverty, less commitment in marriage, fewer marriages.

One can read the statistics of the social consequences of contraception in Mary Eberstadt’s book, “Adam and Eve After the Pill.” We can’t blame gays for the demise of marriage. That was begun with the widespread acceptance of artificial contraception. Same sex marriage is merely the most recent result of the adverse social consequences unleashed by the sexual revolution which was enabled and furthered by contraception.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I do not know what sense this teaching is unchangeable. It is not infallible per ex cathedra statement or ecumenical council. Things that have been long taught and accepted have been altered in the Church’s history, such as its understanding of religious freedom and salvation outside the Church, slavery, and the sin of usury.

But the subject is obviously important, if the Church is, at its very least, trying to find a new way to express its teachings on sexuality.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

Intercourse cannot be done in a same sex relationship as such they are inherently null

I would consider this teaching as one that is more seriously held, and I would also consider it being very unlikely that the Church would ever change its teaching, if it were defined in one of those two means. If say a Vatican III convened to formally decide all the sexual issues that were controversial, then I would say that would be significant, and it would cause me to think about this issue differently.

When church leaders say we need to alter our language used to communicate this teaching, I don’t know how much can be done. Homosexual acts are sins, so what else can the Church say? If they are sins, any inclincation toward them is disordered. How else would the Church phrase it? This need to change the language seems like empty lip service or something, whereby there is recognition that the teaching is doing harm to people. But ultimately, it is the teaching itself at the end of the day, and not the words used, that is causing the confusion and harm.

Is the desire for gay sex the entirety or only a small part of homosexuality?

I see you are an Elder poster here Thus, no doubt, you also seem to have a bit more inbred acceptance of the issues as presented by the Church. You may also be correct in your assertions regarding both issues noted.

Personally, I do not believe there is any link between artifical contraception and same sex relationsions. Regarding the former, the Church has evloved its teachings since the High Middle Ages from one where sex is only to be used to procreate, not for any other showing of love. Today, the Church teaches that planning for Children is appropriate, as long as the reason is not immoral. This is a change from early teachings. It teaches that sex between married men and women is a natural loving exchange by itself.

The Church also teaches that the rhythm method is acceptable. The case can definitely be made that responsible child rearing includes proper fiscal, emotional, spiritual planning. As the parable of the Talents indicates, one must invest wisely. Perhaps that is why over 90% of we Catholics practice artifical birth control As adamant as you are about your belief the Church will never change its teachings, I am about my hope that the Church will recognize that reasonable, moral planning can include either natural or artificial birth control. (Not abortion or abortion inducing drugs).

We’ll all see the Truth when we die and I for one will have no problem standing before Christ to be judged on my family planning and raising of my three children and four grand children.

spiritualfriendship.org/2015/05/25/joseph-ratzinger-and-rowan-williams-contraception-and-same-sex-marriage/
Both Pope Benedict XVI & Rowan Williams believed contraception and gay marriage are linked.

I agree. The biblical revelation regarding human nature is clear and timeless. The wordy and obtuse defuse used by Deo Volente reminds me anew of the heart of Romans 1. The heart of Roman’s 1 is not a condemnation of Sodomy, but a call to speak and live the truth.

The issue is deception. It is ongoing.
The claim that Scripture has not always and everywhere, New Testament and Old, for all cultures, supported the unique union of man and woman, is simply nonsense. It is a participation in the deception Paul speaks of.
Christ himself clearly expresses himself on this issue in the “from the beginning” passage.

Deo Volente is discussing theology which has a tendency to sound word and obtuse to a layman.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Years and years of acceptance and teaching on something does not equate to truth or authenticity.

Those who are in favor of artificial birth control and homosexuality could say they are on the side of progress, as those Christians who finally opposed slavery. Slavery was accepted by the Church far too long. But its existence and tolerance for hundreds of years did not imply its correctness. The abolition of slavery came too late, but it was still good nonetheless.

“There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, woman or man.” ~ Paul

We have the Gentile issue down. We have the slavery issue solved. Seem like the Church still needs work on this last category.

 

[clem456]

Deo Volente is discussing theology which has a tendency to sound word and obtuse to a layman.

No, he, is not discussing theology. He is imposing his personal interpretation and conclusions on a passage of scripture.

But thanks for the assumptions anyway.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Years and years of acceptance and teaching on something does not equate to truth or authenticity.

Why not?

The truth is as true today as it was centuries ago.

Those who are in favor of artificial birth control and homosexuality could say they are on the side of progress, as those Christians who finally opposed slavery. Slavery was accepted by the Church far too long. But its existence and tolerance for hundreds of years did not imply its correctness. The abolition of slavery came too late, but it was still good nonetheless.

“There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, woman or man.” ~ Paul

We have the Gentile issue down. We have the slavery issue solved. Seem like the Church still needs work on this last category.

Slavery was never “accepted” by the Catholic Church.