Homosexuality

[WatchingMedia]

I’m not smart enough to author the “Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second Edition”.
Nor am I a heretic.
Nor do I choose to accept your personal interpretations of the Bible. This Catechism CORRECTLY references Bible passages.

If you choose to remain a Catholic, and receive the Eucharist, you can not be a heretic.

" AMONG THE SINS GRAVELY CONTRARY TO CHASTITY ARE MASTURBATION, FORNICATION, PORNOGRAPHY, AND HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICES " 2396.

We must love the sinner, and never tolerate the sin.
You have a free will to choose God, or the devil.

 

[ladybri77]

Thank you for your courteous reply.

Let me deal with the last point first. It is possible that adultery is great for the two people involved but what makes it wrong is that it harms lots of other people. The reason that lots of people have changed their minds about gay sex is that it need not harm anyone and it has lots of pluses for the couple concerned. Or at least that is the way it seems to impartial observers. Of course it can go wrong but then so can marriage.

You are right, for hundreds of years people thought gay sex was wrong – their common sense told them so. But for hundreds of years people thought slavery was fine. Well after lots of discussion people changed their minds about slavery and, it seems, now many people are coming to the same conclusion about gay sex. That is why we have to think about it and discuss it coolly as you and I are doing.

You think that sexual sin is timeless but attitudes to sex have changed in many ways. Men and women are now considered equal partners in marriage for example. Sin may be timeless but the question is ‘have we got the sin correct or not?’.

Finally Jesus was certainly for monogamous faithful partnerships between opposite sex couples – whether he would have been for the same between same sex couples is what we are discussing. Now, remember his view on the law – man was made for the law not the other way round. Given that, what do you think he would have said on this issue?

OK – I have dealt with your points but please take them further as you wish.

Best wishes

Laurie

True, adultery harms other people, but have you considered the harm homosexuality may have on each person involved? Maybe spiritually of which we cannot see? It just might be a possibility. I’m just saying to consider it for a minute.

Yes, slavery was once accepted, and in many ways homosexuality is more accepted now because homosexuals are pushing it in our schools, in the books kids read, on television, and politically. Of course that’s going to have an influence on people. However, God does not change His mind with sin. Sin is still sin now and forever.

That is what is so great about the New covenant and God’s grace coming with Him upholding the law with grace as He didn’t come to abolish it. He wishes for all to come to Him. If they choose to live a life that is not pleasing to Him, He is saddened but lets them find their own way and gently draws them to Himself with the hopes that they turn away from sin and turn towards Him. Yes, I know many homosexuals profess to be Christians, but the same goes for them in giving up all for Him and leaving destructive things behind. We all go through this to some degree, something we have to give up for Him.

I also have heard the testimonies of many ex gays, one of which where a woman was in a long relationship, like 20 years with her partner, who came to know Jesus, and after this realized that what she was doing wasn’t pleasing to Him, and although difficult and painful as it was, ended the relationship. I believe she now experiences much peace in her life and a strong love of the Lord sharing her testimony with others.

Hope this was helpful.

 

[ladybri77]

Because I am not a Pharisee, and these passages are highly contested (as evidenced by these forums) in and outside of Catholicism.

Thank you for your honest concern though.

I am SO glad God’s Word is not heretical or pharisetical! Do you not have reverence for the Holy Word of God of which…“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God”…? I would be afraid not to!

 

[WatchingMedia]

In order to form a correct and good conscience in all matters, I recommend the following:

For the next 40 days -

1. Every morning, ask Jesus to give you a good and correct conscience that His will be done. (not your will or mine)
2. Go to confession and Communion this coming weekend.
3. Give up TV, the computer except for anwering your personal emails, and give up other unnecessary outside sources of distractions. Quiet time is important. Give your spare time to God.
4. From cover to cover - read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” as revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II, with a first printing in the year 2000. (over 900 pages)
5. Starting with the New Testament, read the Bible.
6. Pray the Rosary at least 3 times a week.

Many of your questions will be correctly answered.

Adultery is never permitted as you will read. Sexual behavior is only permitted within Marriage defined as between one man and one woman.

 

[Portrait]

You are correct to say that from a purely biological point of view our sex organs are designed for reproduction.

=>

From that you infer that if we do something that ‘frustrates’ this purpose, it is wrong. [This you call ‘unnatural’[/COLOR].

So how do you make the step in this reasoning? Well because you assume that if something is ‘unnatural’ as defined it is wrong.

**Question 1 - How do you justify this assumption?

Question 2 - Sex has a social purpose which is to demonstrate love. It could be argued that this is more important than its biological purpose. [Human sociability is a higher order activity than reproduction]. Why is it wrong then to have sex for this purpose alone as gay people do?**

Question 3.- A celebate person frustrates the purpose of his sex organs but this is not considered wrong. Why?

Question 4 - A couple who cannot have children, a couple who practise natural birth control [Which is actually not natural at all!] are frustrating the purpose of sex but they are not doing wrong. Why?

Question 5 - Suppose we assume that not being able to have children is a negative feature of gay sex. It is also the case surely that expressing their love is a positive feature. Could you explain why the former outweighs the latter.

Question 6 - You worship a God who is, you claim, all love - please explain how he can be if he denies gay people the right to express their love physically. You may say that it is because he has made some rules which imply that this is wrong. My question is - why did he make those rules and not others?

No need to answer all these questions - suggest you try 1, 2, and 6

Best wishes

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and apologies for the delay in responding to your questions. Again thankyou for your patience.

By way of reply may I first state that homosexuality, in terms of orientation, desire and temptation is unnatural because it is one of the sad effects of the Fall and Original Sin. Now clearly this is not to single out homosexuals in some particularly unkind way, for all of mankind is deeply flawed by the Fall and sin has corrupted the hearts and desires of us all - “none is righteous, no, not one”, to quote St. Paul. To put it quite simply, the presence of homosexual deviant behaviour is an evidence that we live in a fallen world; our personalities are now complexes of all manner of sinful desires, including homosexual proclivities, and no aspect of our humanity escapes unscathed. Our sexuality is not immune. As a consequence of the Fall, we inherit various tendencies to rebel against God’s order of things and frequently respond in a sinful way to the divers evil influences to which we are subjected in a fallen and imperfect world. Therefore, homosexual deviant acts are, incontrovertibly, an effect of the Fall, whatever other multifactorial causation may admittedly be at work in the aetiology of homosexuality. Man brings a fallen nature into a social environment that itself bears the marks of sin, and homosexuality is just one of the distortions that can result from that interaction.

Moreover, homosexual aberrant behaviour is unnatural because it is at variance with God’s norm for human sexuality and thus abhorrent in His sight (see Leviticus 18: 22, 20: 13). The book of Genesis informs us that human life, including sexuality, no longer reflects fully the original divine intent, owing to the sad fact that man’s life is disordered by sin. Thus man, as a consequence of disobedience, is marked by the curse (see Gen. 3: 16-19). Alas, even Holy Matrimony, intended to be a reflection of God’s love for man, is marked by lust, violence and the struggle for dominance and power. Homosexual vice is simply one expression among many of the basic disordering of human life. Indeed, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, Tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life” (para. 2357).

Man is of course a social being, notwithstanding he is not at liberty to form homosexual liasions with those of his own gender since such unions are incompatible with God’s created order. Now becuase that order (hetersoxual monogamy) was established by creation its validity is both permanent and universal. Clearly there can be no ‘liberation’ from God’s created norms.

Man is a sinner by nature and therefore requires ‘rules’ to keep him on the straight and narrow, hence the Ten Commandments and our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount. Man’s true liberation and ultimate felicity is to be found in seeking to obey the rules and in bringing his will into harmony with God’s - “Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every seceret thing, whether good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12: 13-14).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi Ladybri,

Another courteous reply – thanks.

You ask me to consider whether homosexuality might harm the people concerned even though they may not be aware of it. Well I agree that it MIGHT! Lots of things ‘might’ be. Religion ‘might’ be the opium of the people, I ‘might’ be a 18 year old man from Baltimore rather than who I say I am. The moon ‘might’ be made of green cheese!

So it is not enough to say that something ‘might’ be true – we need evidence that it is likely to be so too. And, to be fair to you, you do give it because you say that you know about some gays who regretted their actions. However, and this is the real reason* why people are changing their minds on this issue, there are many many gay couples who seem to be very happy together and whose relationship seems as fulfilling as any married couple. Of course they ‘might’ all be mistaken but that seems more and more unlikely.

Allow me a little story. A few years ago in a discussion with a fervent evangelical I was amazed to find that he approved of gay sex! I asked him why he was so out of line. He was from California and his experience of knowing gay couples had made him realise how absurd it was to condemn the love they so evidently displayed.

[There is a parallel with attitudes to women. Once a lot of people genuinely believed that women were not up to doing some jobs [policework, politics…]– these ought to be the province of men. Why has opinion changed? – because we have now seen women doing these jobs competently]

*Not just the reasons you give]

Regards

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hello Portrait and thanks for your reply.

The main point that you make is that gay sex is a sin which results, along with others, from the Fall. However we are discussing whether it is a sin at all. And we are looking at the reasons that your church gives for saying it is.

The argument that your church gives is that it is contrary to Natural Law. I pointed out a number of problems with this in my previous post and you hardly deal with them at all.

For example you say:

Moreover, homosexual aberrant behaviour is unnatural because it is at variance with God’s norm for human sexuality and thus abhorrent in His sight (see Leviticus 18: 22, 20: 13).

Now this answers my question about how you reason from ‘unnatural’ to ‘wrong’ but the answer is problematic.

1. It assumes that the ‘norm’ for sexuality is reproduction whereas I am suggesting it is for the expression of human love.
2. Celibacy and natural birth control also appear to be at variance with ‘God’s norm’.
3. Leviticus also tells us not to wear clothes made of two different types of material – I expect that you are a dreadful pervert here!

Also consider two extra points;

1. Jesus said that the Law was made for man not man for the Law. Blindly following rules when this causes evil is very wrong.
2. There are thousands of gay couples whose love is as good and wonderful as any married couples. Do you really think that a God whose nature is love will reject them because they express their love physically.

Please Portrait – have a look at my previous posts and also at the points made here and see if you can answer them.

Best wishes,

Laurie

 

[ladybri77]

Hi Ladybri,

Another courteous reply – thanks.

You ask me to consider whether homosexuality might harm the people concerned even though they may not be aware of it. Well I agree that it MIGHT! Lots of things ‘might’ be. Religion ‘might’ be the opium of the people, I ‘might’ be a 18 year old man from Baltimore rather than who I say I am. The moon ‘might’ be made of green cheese!

So it is not enough to say that something ‘might’ be true – we need evidence that it is likely to be so too. And, to be fair to you, you do give it because you say that you know about some gays who regretted their actions. However, and this is the real reason* why people are changing their minds on this issue, there are many many gay couples who seem to be very happy together and whose relationship seems as fulfilling as any married couple. Of course they ‘might’ all be mistaken but that seems more and more unlikely.

Allow me a little story. A few years ago in a discussion with a fervent evangelical I was amazed to find that he approved of gay sex! I asked him why he was so out of line. He was from California and his experience of knowing gay couples had made him realise how absurd it was to condemn the love they so evidently displayed.

[There is a parallel with attitudes to women. Once a lot of people genuinely believed that women were not up to doing some jobs [policework, politics…]– these ought to be the province of men. Why has opinion changed? – because we have now seen women doing these jobs competently]

*Not just the reasons you give]

Regards

Laurie

Thank you. Well again to equate changing beliefs of people who believed women were not up to doing some jobs and sexual sin is like comparing apples to oranges.

The evangelical that approved of homosexual sex I believe is deceived in his thinking.

Thanks for at least considering that their actions “might” be hurting them spiritually or in some other way.

 

[ladybri77]

Hello Portrait and thanks for your reply.

Now this answers my question about how you reason from ‘unnatural’ to ‘wrong’ but the answer is problematic.

1. It assumes that the ‘norm’ for sexuality is reproduction whereas I am suggesting it is for the expression of human love.

It is both! To truly love the other person in a same sex relationship or friendship is not having sex with them.

 

[Portrait]

Contrary to popular thinking, reproductive means is the primary purpose for sexual intercourse

Your evidence for this is???

hence man was made for woman and woman for man. All things unnatural are not wrong except when it comes to sexual expression which is destructive to the person or persons when used against its main purpose, to reproduce or to express love to the opposite sex in a marriage covenant.

**Why do you think that such love MUST be ‘destructive’? I suspect you reason that, because it was in your case it must always be so. This is known as a false generalisation. My daughter and partner have a gay love that is wonderful and positive. If you knew them you would admit as much. I am sorry that your experience was negative but don’t assume all gay experiences are like yours. **

The only way true love can be validated is when one is expressing it in concordance with the design plan by the Divine Designer, otherwise, why would one want to hurt the other or oneself either emotionally, spiritually or physically?

If God made a person gay how can it accord with his plan that they are denied love?

When I say sexual expression can be destructive, I mean when used in the wrong way it can destroy one spiritually, emotionally and physically. I can vouch for the first two, and there is plenty of evidence for the third.

**It ‘can’ be but often it is not – that is the point you need to think **about.

Regards

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

No one would deny the claim that a homosexual liasion can sometimes be loving ( although a priori it cannot attain the same richness as God ordained heterosexual mutuality). However, whatever the love-quality of your daughter’s liasion, it is not sufficient to justify an unnatural union. Indeed, I have to add that it is incompatible with true love because it is discordant with God’s law. Love is concerned for the highest welfare of the beloved; our highest human welfare is found in obedience to God’s law and purpose, not in revolt against them.

Needless to say, there is nothing abnormal or irregular in forming close and deep friendships with the members of one’s own gender, that is both perfectly natural and healthy. Indeed Sacred Scripture abounds with examples of such intimate friendships: David and Johnathan (II Sam. 1); Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1: 16-18; 2: 11,12; 4: 15) and Jesus and St. John (John 13: 23). David appears to have made close friends easily, with Hiram (I Kings 5: 1) , Ahithophel (II Sam. 15: 31), Hushai (II Sam. 15: 37), and Barzillai (II Sam. 17: 27-29; 19: 31-39). Moreover, there must surely have developed deep bonds of friendship between Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, and between St. Paul and Barnabas, Silas and young Timothy. True friendship is a Christian virtue and especially necessary for those who are single and perhaps all alone in the world. Now all of this is far removed from a homosexual liasion which is manifestly a deviation from God’s norm for human sexuality; it is not a sign of created order but of fallen disorder.

God did not ‘make’ any individual a homosexual. Homesexuality, as I stated previously, is an effect of the Fall and Original Sin in the same way as adultery, fornication, murder, rape, theft etc. are effects of the Fall. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17: 9), so, as our Lord said, “From within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man” (St. Mark 7: 21-23). By “licentiousness” Jesus means impurity of all sorts, which would include homosexual behaviour, in thought, word and deed. The heart is, as it were, the laboratory of all that is good or bad in the* inner* life of man; all of these ugly sins are the fruit of internal evil desires.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Hello Portrait and thanks for your reply.

The main point that you make is that gay sex is a sin which results, along with others, from the Fall. However we are discussing whether it is a sin at all. And we are looking at the reasons that your church gives for saying it is.

The argument that your church gives is that it is contrary to Natural Law. I pointed out a number of problems with this in my previous post and you hardly deal with them at all.

For example you say:

Moreover, homosexual aberrant behaviour is unnatural because it is at variance with God’s norm for human sexuality and thus abhorrent in His sight (see Leviticus 18: 22, 20: 13).

Now this answers my question about how you reason from ‘unnatural’ to ‘wrong’ but the answer is problematic.

1. It assumes that the ‘norm’ for sexuality is reproduction whereas I am suggesting it is for the expression of human love.
2. Celibacy and natural birth control also appear to be at variance with ‘God’s norm’.
3. Leviticus also tells us not to wear clothes made of two different types of material – I expect that you are a dreadful pervert here!

Also consider two extra points;

1. Jesus said that the Law was made for man not man for the Law. Blindly following rules when this causes evil is very wrong.
2. There are thousands of gay couples whose love is as good and wonderful as any married couples. Do you really think that a God whose nature is love will reject them because they express their love physically.

Please Portrait – have a look at my previous posts and also at the points made here and see if you can answer them.

Best wishes,

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Firstly, homosexual deviant acts are a sin first and fourmost because they are contrary to God’s norm for human sexuality. In the words of the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *they are “acts of grave depravity” and “intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. they close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complimentarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (para. 2357).

Secondly, when St. Paul wrote in his Romans epistle (see 1: 24-27) of women who had exhanged natural relations for unnatural ones, and men who had abandoned natural relations, he meant by ‘nature’ (Greek phusis) the natural order of things which God had originally established (as Romans 2: 14, 27 and 11: 24). What St. Paul was condemning, therefore, was any human behaviour which is against ‘Nature’. that is to say, against God’s created order.

Thirdly, God’s norm for heterosexual relationships surely includes both mutual love and companionship and procreation. It is not a case of either/or but of both/and. These two elements must be present for there to be a natural and healthy union between the sexes. Now clearly It is the fact that one of these elements is obvously wanting in a homosexual liasion that renders the union unnatural and unhealthy, in the words of the Catechism, it closes “the sexual to the gift of life” and does “not proceed from genuine affective and sexual complementarity” (para. 2357). Essentially there is a lack of wholeness in a homosexual liasion; it is imcomplete and irregular since one of the key components is absent, vis-a-vis, the necessary ability to copulate and procreate.

Fourthly, St. Paul quite unequivocally states that “that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor theives, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (I Corinthians 6: 9-10). This passage particularly shows that God declares homosexual deviant acts to be sinful. They are contrary to His will and, along with all other sins, merit his wrath and will ultimately debar the impenitent and persistent sinner from the kingdom of God

Finally, Sacred Scripture and the Church teach that a man and woman are designed for each other sexually, to the exclusion of all other sinful variants - they, and they alone, are capable of becoming ‘one flesh’. By contrast, both Old Testament and New validate the truth that homosexual aberrant acts are included in the category of sin. The Chuch and Sacred Scipture recognises only one sexual union which meets with God’s approval and that is a heterosexual monogamous union.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi LadyBri,

Let’s see where we have got to in this phase of our pleasant discussion. I just want to see if you agree as to where we are because then we can continue from there and not chase lots of red herrings!

I ask why gay sex is wrong.

You quote the bible where it condemns gay sex.

But we agree that what the bible says MAY not be correct [stoning adulterers] and we need a way to find out if gay sex correctly condemned or not.

You say that it may be wrong because it may always hurt the people doing it.

I agree that it MAY but we need a reason for thinking that IT ALWAYS DOES.

If you agree that this is where we are, it is now up to you to EITHER give a reason for thinking that it is wrong always OR to give evidence that it always harms the gay person.

Lastly I have asked you about the fact that God is Love and reminded you that Jesus said that the Law was made for man nor man for the Law and you have not yet answered that point.

Over to you.

With good wishes,

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi Portrait,

Let me answer your five points. I ask why gy sex is wrong.

1] You say it is wrong because it is unnatural and the church disapproves of it.
Please look at my previous post where I argue against the notion that because something is not natural it is wrong. Also please realise that I am arguing that your church is mistaken.
2] Paul condemns it. Paul approves of slavery and of women not speaking in church ergo he is not always right. You need to show he is right in this case.
3] Sex is BOTH for expressing love and for procreation. My wife is too old now to have children so it follows that we should not have sex because we cannot procreate. But expressing love is of a higher order than mere procreation! My wife and I because of our age can only do the former and that is OK. A gay couple ditto so why is that not OK too?

Most sex must be expressing love and not for reproduction because there is a limit to the number of children a woman can have and the occasions when she is ovulating. Hence the usual function of sex is the expression of love.

4] Back to Paul – see answer to 2]
5] The bible does condemn gay sex in the OT in the same book where it condemns farmers who plant two different crops in the same field. Paul too is sometimes mistaken. Therefore the Bible may be mistaken about gay sex too and we need reasons for thinking it is not.

Finally you ignore my remarks in the earlier post

1. Jesus said that the Law was made for man not man for the Law. Blindly following rules when this causes evil is very wrong.
2. There are thousands of gay couples whose love is as good and wonderful as any married couples. Do you really think that a God whose nature is love will reject them because they express their love physically?

So I ask again – in view of these remarks, why is gay sex wrong?

Thanks

Laurie

 

[ladybri77]

Hi Portrait,

2] Paul condemns it. Paul approves of slavery and of women not speaking in church ergo he is not always right. You need to show he is right in this case.
5] The bible does condemn gay sex in the OT in the same book where it condemns farmers who plant two different crops in the same field. Paul too is sometimes mistaken. Therefore the Bible may be mistaken about gay sex too and we need reasons for thinking it is not.

1. Jesus said that the Law was made for man not man for the Law. Blindly following rules when this causes evil is very wrong.

Will get back to you on your previous post at a later time. But for now, didn’t you read my previous posts on the above questions to this poster? Perhaps you didn’t understand my answers. I will pray that your mind be enlightened and God will give you understanding of the answers to these questions.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi Ladybri,

Please refer me to the posts you would like me to read and I would be happy to deal with them. You write lots on this subject so I am not sure which ones you would like me to consider particularly.

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Hi Portrait,

Let me answer your five points. I ask why gy sex is wrong.

1] You say it is wrong because it is unnatural and the church disapproves of it.
Please look at my previous post where I argue against the notion that because something is not natural it is wrong. Also please realise that I am arguing that your church is mistaken.
2] Paul condemns it. Paul approves of slavery and of women not speaking in church ergo he is not always right. You need to show he is right in this case.
3] Sex is BOTH for expressing love and for procreation. My wife is too old now to have children so it follows that we should not have sex because we cannot procreate. But expressing love is of a higher order than mere procreation! My wife and I because of our age can only do the former and that is OK. A gay couple ditto so why is that not OK too?

Most sex must be expressing love and not for reproduction because there is a limit to the number of children a woman can have and the occasions when she is ovulating. Hence the usual function of sex is the expression of love.

4] Back to Paul – see answer to 2]
5] The bible does condemn gay sex in the OT in the same book where it condemns farmers who plant two different crops in the same field. Paul too is sometimes mistaken. Therefore the Bible may be mistaken about gay sex too and we need reasons for thinking it is not.

Finally you ignore my remarks in the earlier post

1. Jesus said that the Law was made for man not man for the Law. Blindly following rules when this causes evil is very wrong.
2. There are thousands of gay couples whose love is as good and wonderful as any married couples. Do you really think that a God whose nature is love will reject them because they express their love physically?

So I ask again – in view of these remarks, why is gay sex wrong?

Thanks

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Thankyou most kindly for your response above.

What I think is the decisive point at issue in our discussion is the whole question of authority. As a Catholic Christian I submit to the magisterium of the Church and receive its teaching on faith and morals as error-free and therefore trustworthy. Catholics believe that “God is the author of Sacred Scripture. 'The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 105). Again, “The inspired books teach the truth. 'Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to Sacred Scripture” (CCC, para. 107). Now this would naturally include all those passages and texts that treat of the topic now under discussion - homosexuality. Therefore my *a priori *conviction of the truth of Holy Scripture and the infallibility of the Church is basic to all of my arguments and beliefs respecting this and indeed any other topic for that matter. This is a far better alternative to the world of Protestantism which basicly amounts to a quagmire of competing opinions because there is no teaching voice to declare authoritatively what is God’s truth.

Now I am assuming from your comments that we are not agreed on this terminus a quo; unlike me you do not hold to the inspiration and authority of the bible’s teaching on homosexuality and thus believe, for example, that St. Paul could be mistaken. This being the case it is inevitable that we are bound to reach an impasse before long.

However, regardless of whether people do or do not hold to the authority of Sacred Scripture, they do have a basic ethical intuition that certain behaviours are wrong because they are unnatral. Thus we perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human and not an animal.

By parity of reasoning the same applies to the case of homosexual acts of depravity. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality, vis-a-vis, that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each man naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, rape, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

In the case of your dear wife, it is through no fault of hers that she is past the age of child-bearing - that is perfectly ‘natural’ for a woman of advancing years. Clearly she did not make a deliberate choice not to procreate; in the case of the homosexual lifestyle a choice is made not to procreate, as that aspect of a normal union is sacrificed for the sake of an unnatural liasion. The two are not parallel. You are quite free to continue to express your love for one another by engaging in carnal copulation, which is perfectly natural.

As regards the subject of slavery, it was a long-established man-made institution and was accepted by all as a part of the social fabric in N.T. times, but it was not of divine institution. The prohibition of homosexual acts of depravity, as with beastality (which nobody seeks to normalize), was a divine mandate and hence has continuing validity, as the N.T. clearly attests.

Will answer your remaining questions next time old chap.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Thanks again P for your kind reply.

Your argument could go like this.

1. The Church’s teaches the truth.
2. The church teaches that gay sex in wrong
   Conclusion: Gay sex is wrong.

On the other hand I argue:

1. [for many reasons which I can enumerate] gay sex between faithful partners is right.
2. Catholic Church says it is wrong
   Conclusion: Catholic Church is mistaken.

So it all depends where you decide to begin.

However you do decide to give me some reasons.

A] We have a basic intuition, you say, that gay sex is wrong. However I and lots of other people knowing gay couples have an intuition that it is right! When intuitions clash other reasons are needed.

B] Holy Scripture. You do not accept those parts of the OT that prescribe the death penalty for adultery not those parts of the NT that accept slavery. These are products of their time and were not inspired by God. Many believe exactly the same thing about gay sex. [It is just your assertion that sexual matters are somehow excluded from this consideration] The most important consideration ought to be your Lord’s attitude to rules. He said they were made for us not vice-versa. The only rule was that of love. What would he have made of Catholics using old medieval reasoning to deny the life-affirming wonderful and positive gay relationships? [Oddly Catholics never seem to face this one how ever often I repeat it] So reasons are needed as to why the anti-gay verses are valid.

C] Murder, rape… condemned by natural law all cause immense suffering which is why they are wrong. Faithful gay relationships produce much happiness and that is the big difference you ignore and the reason people outside your church and lots within it have changed their mind on this issue. We need reasons then why gay sex, which causes no harm is wrong.

D] It is natural you say for my wife and I to have sex even though being aged we frustrate its reproductive purpose. It is equally natural for gay people [for them] to want to express their love physically. Gay people do not choose either to be attracted by their own sex. Again reasons are needed

Enough already. You still need to show that gay sex is wrong. On every point, more reasons are needed. I don’t think you can proived them but rely on the authority of your church. This authority has harmed countless gay people in the name of a God of Love – it is very wrong so to do.

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[scapularkid8]

I am SO glad God’s Word is not heretical or pharisetical! Do you not have reverence for the Holy Word of God of which…“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God”…? I would be afraid not to!

I think it is our mutual reverence that divides us on this issue, ironically. I don’t think a sidestep by questioning my love for God and his Word is appropriate at all.

 

[scapularkid8]

I’m not smart enough to author the “Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second Edition”.
Nor am I a heretic.
Nor do I choose to accept your personal interpretations of the Bible. This Catechism CORRECTLY references Bible passages.

If you choose to remain a Catholic, and receive the Eucharist, you can not be a heretic.

" AMONG THE SINS GRAVELY CONTRARY TO CHASTITY ARE MASTURBATION, FORNICATION, PORNOGRAPHY, AND HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICES " 2396.

We must love the sinner, and never tolerate the sin.
You have a free will to choose God, or the devil.

If this was directed at me, I’d like to answer with:

“…first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matt 5:7)

“You shut the kingdom of heaven in mens’ faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to!” (Matt 23:13)

“Woe to you…Pharisees! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.” (Matt 23:15)

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” (Matt 23:37)

I’m not saying Jesus’ words show he is some sort of love hippie accepting all views. I’m just saying this issue is not as black and white as you try to present it to me/us.

Everyone is an individual and is on a different spiritual path and you can’t possibly understand what type of cross this is for a gay person.

It’s for the Church to decide who’s heretical and who’s not, I would not be throwing around that word so lightly…

 

[ladybri77]

Hi Ladybri,

Please refer me to the posts you would like me to read and I would be happy to deal with them. You write lots on this subject so I am not sure which ones you would like me to consider particularly.

Best wishes

Laurie

#281 & 287 where I said using the argument of slavery vs sexual sin is like comparing apples to oranges. And we also had a discussion about the cultural laws of the OT not being relevant today compared to the ageless truth of sexual sin.