Homosexuality and the seperation of Church and State

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Ok but now then what is freedom in this context? and where does it lie and come from?

would not one’s human rights be violated and his freedom trounced if he were not able to practice his homosexual acts?

Our rights come from God, and God gives no one the right to do what He forbids. Therefore, homosexuality is not a human right.

When considering “rights” we must consider them in the proper context and order. The order is 1.) God’s rights. 2.) Man’s duties, and 3.) Man’s rights. That is the order.

1.) God has all rights. Therefore, God can command anything He desires from man.

2.) Man then has the duty to correspond to God’s commands by obeying Him.

3.) Man has the right to the means necessary for fulfill his duties toward God.

Here’s an example: God commands that man worship Him by going to Mass. Therefore, man has a duty to go to mass. Similarly, man has a right to go to mass since going to mass is necessary for him to fulfill his duty.

Let’s take a contrary example…

God forbids violations of the first commandment. Therefore, man can have no “right” to participate in a false religion, since our rights come from God, who strictly forbids false religions.

Liberalism, which is the error of our day, seeks to “liberate” man from his obedience due to God. One of the means of doing this is to emphasis man’s “rights” to the exclusion of his duties, and to extend “rights” to man that he does not possess.

As Pope Leo XIII said “a right is a moral power”. The liberals confuse natural liberty (free will) with moral liberty. Natural liberty (free will) is what man is capable of doing (which is anything he pleases), whereas moral liberty is what man is allowed - or has the “right” - to do. Moral liberty set the limits of natural liberty.

The eternal law of God is stamped upon the nature of man and is called the natural law. Human positive law is supposed to reflect the natural law, and thus help to direct man to his proper end. Divine positive law (revelation) is a law added to the natural law and directs man to his supernatural end.

A properly ordered state will reflect the laws of God, and thereby help man to attain his last end.

A great encyclical to read on this subject is Libertas, by Pope Leo XIII. It goes into these points in great detail and shines the light of truth on the fuzzy, and often times confusing, errors of our day.

 

[brandymmiller]

JR -
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states
**How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

Man’s first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history:

What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288**

Now, you are correct in stating that my statement that our very genetic code was altered is NOT stated by the Catholic Church, but is my own conclusion based upon the evidence of science and reason. However, I will say that what I stated does not in any way contradict what the Catholic Church does teach. It was through Original sin that all death, disease, and disorder entered the world.

 

[JReducation]

JR -
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states
**How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

Man’s first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history:

What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288**

Now, you are correct in stating that my statement that our very genetic code was altered is NOT stated by the Catholic Church, but is my own conclusion based upon the evidence of science and reason. However, I will say that what I stated does not in any way contradict what the Catholic Church does teach. It was through Original sin that all death, disease, and disorder entered the world.

What you’re saying here is fine. This is theology, pure and simple. The genetic component of your previous statement is not part of theology.

You are allowed your own conclusions, as long as you not present them as theology, unless you are theolgian. Even theologians must distinguish between their conclusions and the teaching of the Church. Catholic theology becomes Catholic when it is adopted by the Church or at least sanctioned material for dialogue.

I’m glad that you clarified that, because people who are not well educated in Catholic theology will come to CAF and go away saying “this is what Catholicism believes.” I believe that we should always beware of this and state what “I” believe and what the Church believes to avoid misleading another.

Thanks,

JR

 

[OTavern]

JR -
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states
**How to read the account of the fall …

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed:** the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered;** the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

Now, you are correct in stating that my statement that our very genetic code was altered is NOT stated by the Catholic Church, but is my own conclusion based upon the evidence of science and reason. However, I will say that what I stated does not in any way contradict what the Catholic Church does teach. It was through Original sin that all death, disease, and disorder entered the world.

Your statement may not be a direct contradiction, but it would be important to work out the implications of that claim. For example, a genetic alteration may, in fact, make humans less morally culpable since the claim could be made that what is in the genetic realm is beyond the control of the individual to counter. This would mean that original sin and even consequential personal sins would be beyond our responsibility. This would also mean the effects of grace are not just upon the soul but would alter genetic material, as well. Could grace be demonstrated by genetic testing then?

The fall does not need to entail alteration of genetic code, but a “disorder” between the “spiritual faculties” and the body; i.e., reason and will were weakened and no longer in control of desire and emotion so the body, through its emotional components began to assert inordinate dominance over the spirit, thus weakening it. It is this “disordering” or disharmony that is sin, not that the body nor creation itself is evil.

The spirit of man became weakened and submissive to the body and the world around him. Since this disorder is a social phenomenon individual human beings in a weakened state are also inordinately controlled by social ills – original sin writ large, so to speak. We are affected by original sin like “second hand smoke” as well as by the uniquely personal impact it has on each one of us through our weakened state or vulnerability.

 

[brandymmiller]

What is in our genetic code does not lessen in any way our culpability for our actions. I may be genetically predisposed toward alcoholism - but no one forces me to put the bottle to my lips and drink that first time. I may be genetically predisposed toward fits of rage and anger, but it’s my responsibility to learn to control those impulses and not to put myself in situations or circumstances which are likely to trigger that reaction. I may be genetically predisposed toward overeating, but if I know that then I also know that I need to control myself.

There is a long string of code at the front of our actual DNA which serves the purpose of determining the maximum length of our lifespan. Whether we live our maximum potential or not, though, is determined by what we DO in our life. For instance, if we abuse drugs or alcohol we can reasonably expect we will never reach that maximum age. Genetics do not determine the outcome of our life - they determine our potential and our possibilities.

 

[JReducation]

I’m going to have to agree with Brandy on this one.

Genetic coding and moral choice are not always so intimately linked.

I would also warn that we do not know enough about genetics to make solid connections between genetics and behaviour.

So far, what we have in the field of genetics is in it’s infancy stage.

I believe this is why the Catechism, in speaking about homosexuality take the precaution of saying that we do not know enough about this condition.

It sounds like the Church is waiting for science to say more on this as are the rest of us.

The Churh has to work with what she has. She has tradition, magisterium and scripture. She speaks passes judgement on the behaviour and makes broad comments on the condition.

I’m sure this is not the last that we’re going to hear the Church speak of this.

The one thing that I find most interesting is something that we learned in theology. If you look at the index of the Catechism, there is an entire page of listings on charity, justice and the other virtues. The subject of homosexuality takes up all of three paragraphs in the entire catechism.

The reason is that we really don’t know much about homosexuality. We know a great deal about sexuality and the rights and duties that go with human sexuality. Those are covered in other sections of Church teaching: chastity, family, marriage, the beatitudes, virginity and so forth.

We should be abe to apply those to anyone of any sexual orientation. Don’t you think?

JR

 

[brandymmiller]

My statement about Original Sin altering the genetic code explains why it is that Mary was Immaculately Conceived. When Christ was conceived, Mary’s DNA was mixed with that of the Holy Spirit. If her DNA had been flawed, Christ would have inherited those flaws. We know that He didn’t, that He was without any flaw whatsoever. Therefore Mary HAD to be Immaculately Conceived in order to be the Mother of God. However, just as with Eve who also was given a pure genetic code as a base to work from, her Immaculate Conception did not stop her from being able to sin - it merely meant that she wasn’t pre-inclined toward sin as we are.

 

[JReducation]

My statement about Original Sin altering the genetic code explains why it is that Mary was Immaculately Conceived. When Christ was conceived, Mary’s DNA was mixed with that of the Holy Spirit.

WHOAH!!! Stop! You’re threading on very dangerous ground here.

Marhy’s conception and Christ’s conception have nothing to do with DNA. First of all, the Holy Spirit does not have DNA. God is not physical. Jesus had DNA. He had Mary’s DNA. That’s it. He did not have a patrilineal DNA strand. How is that possible? That’s the mystery of the Incarnation. He had to have one, if he is truly human. Where did it come from? It must have been created out of nothing. But it did not come from the Holy Spirit. It happened through the power of the Spirit, but it’s not the Spirit’s DNA. Check out Dr. Scott Hahn on this one.

If her DNA had been flawed,

There is not teaching in the Church that says that sin is transmitted through DNA.

Christ would have inherited those flaws.

Whatever flaws Christ may have inherited from his mother would have been physical flaws for she was sinless. Maybe she had a large nose for all we know. But that has nothing to do with the state of her soul.

Therefore Mary HAD to be Immaculately Conceived in order to be the Mother of God.

Franciscan theology already explained this to the Church’s satisfaction, the how and why. Check out the writings of Blessed Duns Scotus, O.F.M. Scotus explains that there is nothing human involved in either Mary’s Immaculate Conception or Christ’s conception. So DNA and RNA do not enter into the equation.

However, just as with Eve who also was given a pure genetic code as a base to work from, her Immaculate Conception did not stop her from being able to sin - it merely meant that she wasn’t pre-inclined toward sin as we are.

Jewish writing is very clear on this. Eve was not conceived. There was no immaculate conception of Eve. Eve was created.

Eve comes from the ancient Hebrew word for Mother. It refers to womankind.

The Catholic exegetes are in agreement with the Rabbinical exegetes on this.

Please, let’s not add confusion to something that has already been clarified by scholars long ago.

JR

 

[brandymmiller]

WHOAH!!! Stop! You’re threading on very dangerous ground here.

Marhy’s conception and Christ’s conception have nothing to do with DNA. First of all, the Holy Spirit does not have DNA. God is not physical. Jesus had DNA. He had Mary’s DNA. That’s it. He did not have a patrilineal DNA strand. How is that possible? That’s the mystery of the Incarnation. He had to have one, if he is truly human. Where did it come from? It must have been created out of nothing. But it did not come from the Holy Spirit. It happened through the power of the Spirit, but it’s not the Spirit’s DNA. Check out Dr. Scott Hahn on this one.

There is not teaching in the Church that says that sin is transmitted through DNA.

Whatever flaws Christ may have inherited from his mother would have been physical flaws for she was sinless. Maybe she had a large nose for all we know. But that has nothing to do with the state of her soul.

Franciscan theology already explained this to the Church’s satisfaction, the how and why. Check out the writings of Blessed Duns Scotus, O.F.M. Scotus explains that there is nothing human involved in either Mary’s Immaculate Conception or Christ’s conception. So DNA and RNA do not enter into the equation.

Jewish writing is very clear on this. Eve was not conceived. There was no immaculate conception of Eve. Eve was created.

Eve comes from the ancient Hebrew word for Mother. It refers to womankind.

The Catholic exegetes are in agreement with the Rabbinical exegetes on this.

Please, let’s not add confusion to something that has already been clarified by scholars long ago.

JR

****First, I am not stating that Eve was conceived. I am merely stating that Eve was created with a genetic code which contained no impurities or imperfections, just as Mary was. We have already agreed that there is no Church teaching on a genetic component to Original Sin. I will check out the writings you recommend. ****

 

[JReducation]

****First, I am not stating that Eve was conceived. I am merely stating that Eve was created with a genetic code which contained no impurities or imperfections, just as Mary was. We have already agreed that there is no Church teaching on a genetic component to Original Sin. I will check out the writings you recommend. ****

My suggestion, unless you’re a theologian, philosopher or geneticist, stay out of the genetic area. It muddles the waters more than it helps.

JR

 

[brandymmiller]

Actually, I do study genetics. It is a field of great interest to me, being also a genealogist.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.