Homosexuality

[Laurie_Gibson]

Soccergirl -

Try not to think in such a black and white way! Truth is not so simple. On another thread a poster said:

God is always right, but neither the Church nor the scriptures may always be right. When I think back over history, and the way the Church blessed the wholesale murder of Albigensians, Hussites, Waldensians and others - forgive me if I suggest that the Church was very wrong. Human beings misinterpreted the will of God. In recent years, as I recall, the Vatican even admitted that it had condemned Galileo unfairly. As I recall the Church accepted the evil notion that witches should be slaughtered, and thousands were. Heretics, too, of course. Even that brilliant St. Thomas Aquinas urged the execution of heretics.

If you want to find sexual corruption, I would suggest tackling some of the heroes of the Old Testament. How, for example, Abraham wanted to pass off his wife as his sister. How about that noble King David who sent Uriah to be killed so that he could have Bathsheba. How about Solomon, that wisest of all men, who had 1000 wives and 600 concubines!

By the way, check out Exodus 21, Lev. 20 and Deut. 22-23. For Catholics and Protestants who take the ‘word of the Lord’ literally, what do you think of such punishments for sexual transgressions?

Now tell me - can you really say that the Bible and your Church is always right?

 

[camerong]

Soccergirl -

Try not to think in such a black and white way! Truth is not so simple. On another thread a poster said:

God is always right, but neither the Church nor the scriptures may always be right. When I think back over history, and the way the Church blessed the wholesale murder of Albigensians, Hussites, Waldensians and others - forgive me if I suggest that the Church was very wrong. Human beings misinterpreted the will of God. In recent years, as I recall, the Vatican even admitted that it had condemned Galileo unfairly. As I recall the Church accepted the evil notion that witches should be slaughtered, and thousands were. Heretics, too, of course. Even that brilliant St. Thomas Aquinas urged the execution of heretics.

If you want to find sexual corruption, I would suggest tackling some of the heroes of the Old Testament. How, for example, Abraham wanted to pass off his wife as his sister. How about that noble King David who sent Uriah to be killed so that he could have Bathsheba. How about Solomon, that wisest of all men, who had 1000 wives and 600 concubines!

By the way, check out Exodus 21, Lev. 20 and Deut. 22-23. For Catholics and Protestants who take the ‘word of the Lord’ literally, what do you think of such punishments for sexual transgressions?

Now tell me - can you really say that the Bible and your Church is always right?

I was polite before, but this is becoming tedious. It has been explained to you MANY times before what we claim about the Church’s infallibility. You have shown yourself unable or unwilling to accept that the Church does not claim EVERYTHING its members do is infallible. The Church does not teach that every story told in the Bible is literally true, it does not teach that every person in the Bible was a saint, it does not teach that we are still bound by Old Testament law. If you need more instruction on this, please search on this forum the three requirements necessary for an infallible proclamation. And then quit fabricating what you think the Church teaches and then arguing why it is wrong. You are quickly loosing credibility on this forum.

 

[ladybri77]

Soccergirl -

Try not to think in such a black and white way! Truth is not so simple. On another thread a poster said:

God is always right, but neither the Church nor the scriptures may always be right. When I think back over history, and the way the Church blessed the wholesale murder of Albigensians, Hussites, Waldensians and others - forgive me if I suggest that the Church was very wrong. Human beings misinterpreted the will of God. In recent years, as I recall, the Vatican even admitted that it had condemned Galileo unfairly. As I recall the Church accepted the evil notion that witches should be slaughtered, and thousands were. Heretics, too, of course. Even that brilliant St. Thomas Aquinas urged the execution of heretics.

If you want to find sexual corruption, I would suggest tackling some of the heroes of the Old Testament. How, for example, Abraham wanted to pass off his wife as his sister. How about that noble King David who sent Uriah to be killed so that he could have Bathsheba. How about Solomon, that wisest of all men, who had 1000 wives and 600 concubines!

By the way, check out Exodus 21, Lev. 20 and Deut. 22-23. For Catholics and Protestants who take the ‘word of the Lord’ literally, what do you think of such punishments for sexual transgressions?

Now tell me - can you really say that the Bible and your Church is always right?

That’s the mistake people who don’t know God make. They say humans (Christians) should be perfect like God. Well, we are NOT God, ONLY GOD IS PERFECT. We are human beings who make mistakes. Have people in the name of religion made mistakes in the past? YES! They have. We all have sinned and come short of the glory of God! Romans 3:23

Holy scripture is divinely inspired, especially in the New Testament. Why wouldn’t God want to make His truth known? Soccergirl is right, if God and the bible are wrong, then Jesus dying and rising were a farce, and the majority of things in the bible are wrong too! How preposterous!

Why don’t we say that if people want to marry their brother, sister, cousin or whoever is okay as long as they’re happy? They are already throwing around the idea in Europe to make incest legal, so if the Bible is all wrong, then let’s say everything is okay! If it feels good or makes people happy, do it, why not??

 

[camerong]

I’m seriously thinking I should go with what the Bible and the church teaches because I feel like if the Bible/Church is wrong about this, then everything else it teaches would have to be questioned, and there would be no final answer to what is right and wrong.
I believe that the catholic church is the true church Jesus founded so even though I don’t understand why people were made in different ways, I decided that I just have to trust Jesus/God and His judgement since He is all knowing.

That is unquestionably the truth. That is the truth that hundreds of Catholic saints and philosophers have arrived at. If I were not Catholic, I’m not sure I would even be Christian, because I have grave doubts that Christ would create a church and then leave it to be split in a million factions and to have everyone “find their own way.” Thankfully for us, he didn’t.

But as you have come to understand, it really is this simple. The Church claims for example, that homosexual sex is wrong, that Christ is literally in the Eucharist, and that we an pray to Mary and the saints. If you disbelieve that homosexual sex is wrong, then why automatically believe those other two things? You will then have to evaluate these claims, as well, along with every other claim the Church makes. And at that point, the Catholic faith has nothing more to offer you than an interesting perspective. That Catholic faith has so much more to offer you than that. Laurie is trying to win over a convert to his way of thinking on this issue, but I tell you, if he succeeds, you will also someday find yourself a converting FROM the Catholic Church.

If you continue to have doubts about this, I would encourage you to spend some time refreshing yourself on your faith generally–about Christ, the Eucharist, about the Church, in terms other than its teachings on homosexuality. These are the things that make up our faith, and it is easy to get lost in debating a single issue, forgetting Catholicism as a whole.

 

[djeter]

That’s not actually true. In honey bees there exist sterile males whose sole purpose is to care for other bees. Evolution would not necessarily remove homosexuality because it may have provided for additional non-childbearing caretakers. Genetically, given that a gay persons’ nieces and nephews have 1/4 of their genes it would be beneficial to the continuity of their gene pool to act as an additional caretaker to those nieces and nephews.

What is so objectively wrong about sodomy as an act? Oral sex? I used to propose them as being disordered also but how exactly are they ‘sinful’? That’s a rather heavy word to use for acts that do not harm other people in any way, is it not?

Part of the problem you’re facing here is that Church teachings use a particular vocabulary and the uninformed sometimes add a few of their own. First of all, the Church stops short of declaring homosexuality as “sinful” and you should too. The following comes from an essay on the matter by M. Cathleen Kaveny, a law professor at Notre Dame:

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Homosexuality has been called a deviation, an irregularity, a wound. The fact that an act is called an intrinsic evil tells us two and only two things.

First, it tells us why an action is wrong — because of the “object” of the acting agent’s will. To identify the object of an action, one has to put oneself in the shoes of the one acting, and to describe the action from his perspective. The object is the immediate goal for which that person is acting; it is “the proximate end of a deliberate decision”

Second, the fact that an act is intrinsically evil tells us that it is always wrong to perform that type of act, no matter what the other circumstances are. A good motive cannot make an act with a bad object morally permissible. In other words, we may never do evil so that good may come of it.

To echo an example used by both Pope John Paul II and St. Thomas, a modern-day Robin Hood should not hold up a convenience store at gunpoint in order to give the money to a nearby homeless center. Robin Hood’s good motive (altruistic giving) does not wash away the bad object or immediate purpose of his action (robbery).

But to say that an act is intrinsically evil does not by itself say anything about the comparative gravity of the act. Some acts that are not intrinsically evil (driving while intoxicated) can on occasion be worse both objectively and subjectively than acts that are intrinsically evil (telling a jocose lie). Some homicides that are not intrinsically evil are worse than intrinsically evil homicides. Furthermore, the fact that an act is intrinsically evil does not by itself tell third parties anything at all about their duty to prevent that act from occurring. Confused yet?

For an act to be morally wrong, however, any single defect will suffice. It can be performed for the wrong motive; if I give alms solely in order to earn fame, then my act is morally wrong. It can be performed under the wrong circumstances; it is entirely good for a newly wedded couple to consummate their union, but not in the church vestibule immediately following the ceremony. Most significantly for our discussion, the immediate “object” of the acting agent’s will can be disordered or defective. Because an act takes its identity primarily from its object, Catholic moralists say that an act with a defective or disordered object is “intrinsically” evil.

Intrinsically evil acts are acts that are wrong by reason of their object, not by reason of their motive or their circumstance. The Splendor of Truth (No. 80) states that they are “‘incapable of being ordered’ to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image.” Consequently, they can never be morally good, no matter what the intended outcomes. What are some examples? It is always wrong to act with the intention of killing an innocent human being, no matter what the context or larger motivation. This prohibition rules out not merely contract killing but also intentional killing of the dying in order to end their suffering, intentional killing of unborn children and saturation bombing of cities in wartime…

The church has taught, however, that there are other intrinsically evil acts that have nothing to do with violent assault. Not surprisingly sex, like death, also provides fertile ground for their identification. Masturbation, homosexual acts and contracepted heterosexual acts are all, according to Catholic moral teaching, intrinsically evil, in part because “they close the sexual act to the gift of life” (Catechism, No. 2357). It is never licit for a married couple to use contraception, even if a pregnancy would threaten the life of the woman and the baby she carried. The church teaches that if natural family planning does not provide sufficiently reliable protection, the couple must refrain from sex until menopause rather than use contraception even once…"

There is more to this little essay (I’m over the word limit here) with more examples to explain the theological concepts, along with other comments on Homosexuality and Church teachings that I have collected here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/07/%e2%80%9cis-it-really-me-they-spite-is-it-not-in-fact-themselves-to-their-own-confusion%e2%80%9d/

dj

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Thanks Camerong for your post which forces us to get more clarity here.

Soccergirl says, referring to the Church and the Bible and the thought that it might be mistaken;

**then everything else it teaches would have to be questioned, and there would be no final answer to what is right and wrong. **

Let’s look at the Church first. It seems we must divide its teachings into two types. Those that are infallible and those that are not - and teachings re gay sex it seems are in the former but teachings in the past re burning of heretics etc are not.

So far as the bible is concerned we do not accept every word as lots of it - stoning adulters is obviously wrong. What the church says about the Bible must again into two categories, namely infallible teaching about the bible and potentially fallible teaching.

Is this broadly correct?

I am not sure that Soccergirl or many other people have these distinctions clear so it is useful for you to force clarification here.

Now in deciding whether to accept some allegedly infallible teaching the record of the church on its possibly fallible teachings is a consideration. On this latter the record is very spotty - to be charitable. And when some infallible teaching tells us to turn off our moral empathy because it contradicts some rather dubious medieval ethical theory, well that is a reason to doubt the infallible claim too.
All the best

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Camerong.
You say:

we are still bound by Old Testament law.

At the risk of being tedious, perhaps you might like to qualify this, or else you will be off stoning aduluters, condemning farmers who plant different crops in the same field and marrying an extra wife or two!

Regards

Laurie

 

[ladybri77]

Thanks Camerong for your post which forces us to get more clarity here.

Soccergirl says, referring to the Church and the Bible and the thought that it might be mistaken;

**then everything else it teaches would have to be questioned, and there would be no final answer to what is right and wrong. **

Let’s look at the Church first. It seems we must divide its teachings into two types. Those that are infallible and those that are not - and teachings re gay sex it seems are in the former but teachings in the past re burning of heretics etc are not.

So far as the bible is concerned we do not accept every word as lots of it - stoning adulters is obviously wrong. What the church says about the Bible must again into two categories, namely infallible teaching about the bible and potentially fallible teaching.

Is this broadly correct?

I am not sure that Soccergirl or many other people have these distinctions clear so it is useful for you to force clarification here.

Now in deciding whether to accept some allegedly infallible teaching the record of the church on its possibly fallible teachings is a consideration. On this latter the record is very spotty - to be charitable. And when some infallible teaching tells us to turn off our moral empathy because it contradicts some rather dubious medieval ethical theory, well that is a reason to doubt the infallible claim too.
All the best

Laurie

The church has never changed it’s teaching on the wrongness of sexual sin nor has scripture changed what it states about sexual sin.

I’m interested to know what you think about post #401.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi Ladybri,

Post 401 makes a number of points. Which one would you like my opinion on?
Let me know and I’ll oblige.

Laurie

 

[ladybri77]

Hi Ladybri,

Post 401 makes a number of points. Which one would you like my opinion on?
Let me know and I’ll oblige.

Laurie

All of them.

 

[Jarichonas]

yes, all.

 

[soccergirl]

"Black or White again Soccergirl! Either the Bible/Church is all right or it is all wrong. Not so simple.

People don’t like having to think, you know, and so decide to find something or someone who will just give them the answers. Sorry but truth is not so easily obtained, and you have to think things out yourself."

• I think that finding truth is actually simple… I see it as, someone can lie to you and you can believe it is the truth, but in reality it isn’t the truth, and the real truth won’t ever change from being the truth. That’s how I think of it. Ultimately, I feel like there has to be an answer to everything that is the right/correct answer…like the truth is always there and you can’t change it, or else I think I would go crazy. So yes, I do think it is simple, and I think there has to be black and white, or else we would be lost in the grey with no answer…

 

[soccergirl]

I’ve also thought about this for so much time. You act like I’m not trying hard enough to think about what the truth is because I haven’t agreed with you. It takes alot of time/thought/meditation to take in what the church says, and try to prove it wrong, so that by realizing you can’t prove it wrong you have proven it right.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Ladyri,

Happy to answer all - but one at a time please - so let me know please.

Soccergirl,

I know you are thinking about these issues but, so far, you have not answered any of the points I have made to you. Let me make it again and perhaps you will tell me what you think?

Do you really think a God of Love would condemn people who, because through no fault of their own are gay, express their love physically? Love that harms nobody but helps to make their lives fulfilled.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Laurie

 

[davidv]

Black or White again Soccergirl! Either the Bible/Church is all right or it is all wrong. Not so simple.

Actually, in this case it is that simple.

People don’t like having to think, you know, and so decide to find something or someone who will just give them the answers. Sorry but truth is not so easily obtained, and you have to think things out yourself.

The truths of morality are easy to obtain from the teachings of the Church.

When it comes to right and wrong you also have to be able to ‘put yourself in the other person’s place’.

Not true. This only lets one see from another perspective. In itself this will not lead to truth.

Do that now with gay sex.

It is still sin, no matter from which perspective.

**Here is a couple who have lived and loved in a wonderful happy relationship for over 20 years. Nobody has been harmed. **

This is unstantiated opinion, particularly on the no harm part.

How do you think they would feel [how would you feel?] if told that their love was a perversion and a God of Love was going to send them to eternal torment, because they were of the same sex.

Feelings don’t define morality.

Are you willing to agree to that because you don’t want to do some thinking yourself.

Actually, the fact that you are starting to question what you have been taught means that you can never really go back to just accepting it.

Best wishes

 

[camerong]

Now in deciding whether to accept some allegedly infallible teaching the record of the church on its possibly fallible teachings is a consideration. On this latter the record is very spotty - to be charitable. And when some infallible teaching tells us to turn off our moral empathy because it contradicts some rather dubious medieval ethical theory, well that is a reason to doubt the infallible claim too.

Thank you for recognizing this important distinction.

On to your post. So what you’re saying is that the non-infallible, the non-inspired actions of Church members must still be quite good–better than average for the time period, perhaps?–or that is reason to believe the Church is not infallible in other areas? This is an odd contention. I can only see two ways this is true–either there is some kind of quasi-infallibility for ALL of the Church’s actions (obviously not true) or Catholicism would be a type of religion that people could not disobey (also obviously not true).

Your second sentence is just trying to tack on your general argument to make your first seem more persuasive. Also, its inaccurate to call it a “medieval” theory, whatever you mean by that, because these ethical theories existed since Christ or at least since the first few centuries thereafter.

Camerong.
You say:

we are still bound by Old Testament law.

I said we are NOT still bound by Old Testament law.

 

[ladybri77]

Love that, David - Feelings don’t define morality! Amen!

Laurie, okay, first the part where I said if Jesus didn’t die and rise again, our religion would be a farce, and the bible would be untrue.

 

[soccergirl]

God doesn’t condemn people, He condemns sin, and the sin is what hurts Him. I think God makes everyone for a reason, gay or straight. Just because I’m heterosexual doesn’t mean I should go have sex with my boyfriend/partner because it’s my natural instinct. I can’t do that, because sex is only right within marriage. God defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Any sex outside of marriage is wrong. If it isn’t wrong then you have to question what is said in the Bible/Church. How can you believe anything in the Bible if you have proven that one thing isn’t credible? If that were to happen then I wouldn’t be Catholic or even Christian because I wouldn’t be able to know for sure if it was all real.

 

[soccergirl]

If you are Christian, how can you change the definition of marriage, or say it’s okay for sex outside of marriage. God is clear when He says it’s wrong. How can you believe in the one God? In order for God to fit into your life, and what you think is right, you have to change Him. Can’t God still be a God of Love, and condemn what is wrong. Why would He condemn it if it wasn’t wrong? If you believe God was wrong in condemning it, then how can you follow anything else God says or condemns in the Bible?

 

[soccergirl]

Or even believe in the God of the Bible?