Homosexuality

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hello Soccergirl,

Thanks for your answer. Let us deal with one thing at a time. You say;

How can you believe anything in the Bible if you have proven that one thing isn’t credible?

But, as I say in a previous post, the bible in the OT allows polygamy, says adulterers should be stoned and says that farmers should not plant different crops in the same field. St Paul in the NT allows slavery and thinks women should not speak in church.

Do you agree with any of that? If the answer is ‘No’ then you have agreed with me that everything in the Bible cannot be true haven’t you?

Look forward to your answer.

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hello Ladybri,

You ask:

** if Jesus didn’t die and rise again, our religion would be a farce, and the bible would be untrue.**

Yes I agree with that hypothetical statement.

Next quesion please.

Regards

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Thanks Camerong,

You say:

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).

What I am saying is that the Church, if it is what it claims to be, ought to have a very good record in all it says and does. You would expect that God’s inspiration and the receptiveness and holiness of the Church would ensure this If it doesn’t then that throws doubt on the claim that it is infallible in some of its pronouncements. Not a knockdown argument but a reasonable consideration. [Of course human sin and free will etc etc makes it unreasonable to expect an unblemished record but that is not what I am claiming we ought to see]

The main reasons to doubt the Church’s infallibility claims are:

1] On gay sex and contraception to name but two issues they contradict the informed moral judgements of just about all non-Catholics - religious and non.
2] Many of the religious pronouncements, for example about Mary, have not thought true by non-Catholic theologians.

Of course, despite this they could, in theory, still be infallible, but it seems to me that unless you have already decided on the matter because you are a Catholic you are likely to doubt this claim.

The point I make at the start just adds some weight to that consideration.

[Thanks for clearing up the OT matter, I misread it - sorry]

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Portrait – you write directly so I’ll reply.

Please forgive me if my tone sounds peremptory, but what authority does fallen man have to differentiate between one mortal sin from another? Look, according to St. Paul both adultery and homosexual vice are equally sinful and morally blameworthy and those who persist in them and remain unrepentant will be debared from the Kingdom of Heaven (see I Corinthians 6: 9). The words of the apostle are both unqualified and unnuanced and only the most forced and arbitrary modes of biblical interpretation could conclude otherwise.
No wonder St. Paul warns his readers “not (to) be deceived”.

Why should we accept Paul’s word is always correct? He is wrong on slavery – why not on this?

In any event it is surely a matter of individual perception as to whether or not homosexuality produces “immense happiness”. Many homosexuals would confess, if they were downright honest that is, to feelings of guilt, rejection, fits of depression, social anxiety, loneliness and even thoughts of suicide.

Yes and many are not! And, of course, it is my perception that my daughter has been radiantly happy but I can see no reason why that should be mistaken. [Unless I have an a-priori dogma telling me she MUST be!]

[continued in the next post]

Dear Laurie,

Greetings to you and apologies for the lengthy delay in responding to your posts old chap.
Unfortunatley there was a fault at my local telephone exchange which was hindering my internet access.

The debate has moved on since my last contribution but I will, as a matter of courtesy, reply to your posts of a few days ago.

Whilst St. Paul did not attack the essential element of slavery, what he did say certainly revolutionized Christian thinking uopn the subject. In the first place masters were taught that they had a responsibility to their slaves - “Masters, give to your servants that which is just and equal”. Thus the work of the slave was to receive an adequate and fair reward. Now this virtually lifts his status to that of a free man who is under an oridinary contract of employment. It meant that payment was no more a mere pittance just to keep the poor fellow alive for further work. Rather he was to be recompensed in accordance with the service which he rendered. Now this sort of ‘slavery’ is far removed from the wretched servitude of the miserable serfs in the average Roman household of that time.

In any event, it is incorrect to say that St. Paul “was wrong on slavery” because he did direct a Christian master to treat his Christian slave “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother…both in the flesh and in the Lord” (see Philemon 16 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2414). That is decidedly not the voice of tacit approval or indifference.

The Catholic Church teaches the divine inspiration of Sacred Scripture, which includes the writings of St. Paul: "God inspired the human authors of the sacred books…God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written and no more (CCC, para. 106).

Whilst no man on this thread would deny the love that you undoubtedly have for your daughter, will you not at least concede that this love may be colouring your whole thinking with respect to this homosexuality issue? This is a perfectly understandable but also a very subjective and therefore unsound criterion when evaluating questions of faith and morals. Clearly a more objective standard is called for, one uncoloured by feelings and opinions, when deciding the rightness or wrongness of weighty moral issues. The Catholic Church and its moral teaching provides such an impartial and, indeed, infallible benchmark. Since it has been established by Christ to faithfully teach the truth, it will not lead us astray as our own unreliable subjective opinions are likely to.

Following on from this, that your daughter is “radiantly happy” is not, for the Christian, a sufficiently sound criteria with which to appraise the morality of her lifestyle. For this would be tantamount to saying that the moral law of God is of no relevance and only what makes a person “radiantly happy” is what really matters. This cannot be so; love requires a priori God’s law to guide it aright.

So then the loving quality of a relationship (any relationship) is an essential, though by itself insufficient, criterion to authenticate it. For example, if love were the only test of authenticity, then there would be nothing immoral against polygamy, for the polygamist would certainly claim to enjoy a relationship with several wives that was loving and that made him exceedingly happy. Clearly quality of love and happiness is not the only yardstick by which to measure what is good or right.

Your whole line of reasoning appears to have much in common with the ‘situation ethics’ mindset of the 1960’s, namely that love is an adequate criterion by which to judge every relationship (which it most decidedly is not). Sorry but ‘love’ cannot be the sole and all-sufficient norm of moral action. Clearly if we truly love God then we must keep his commandments and where these conflict with our own notions of love, then God’s commandments must always be the overriding criteria.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Portrait,

Thanks for your courteous reply.

1. Slavery - Paul’s teachings were certainly an advance on what had gone before but they were still ‘of his time’ because he did not unequivocably reject slavery.
2. I agree that happiness is not the sole criterion of a morally good relationship. The happiness must not hurt others - so that rules out ‘happy’ polygamy, adultery etc. It must also have a beneficial result for the participants so does not just refer to how they ‘feel’. My daughter, who I know as well as anyone in the world has a relationship which fits every criterion for happiness and goodness you can name - save one - she does not conform to the rules of natural law morality as propounded by the Catholic Church. [You must know of similar same-sex relationships]

So much the worse for natural law morality is my point!

And my further point is that a consequence of the Catholic church’s position here is a moral blindness that I can only call evil. Let me give you an illustration. Before I do, please do not misunderstand, I am emphatially not saying that the Catholic Church is as bad as the Nazis, but I am using the example as a startling and clear way to illustrate my point.

Many of the Germans who persecuted the Jews were not moral monsters in the rest of their lives. They were not all sadists etc. They had been taught that the Jews were vermin and therefore they had to be eliminated and somebody had to do this distasteful job. Now it is hard to condemn them for not working out that the Nazi arguments and ‘scientific’ evidence were bogus. How could you expect an ordinary person to evaluate these, most people do not have the skill? No, the condemnation is that they should have used their eyes and their empathy to see that the Jews were simply human beings like themselves and realised that, however clever and apparently convincing the Nazi arguments were, they just HAD to be mistaken. Very sadly the Nazi propaganda had made these people morally blind so they could not see their fellow human beings as they were or see that many Jews were good people and very few were moral monsters as they had been taught.

My point from the start re faithful gay sex is that your Church makes a similar mistake [Though obviously not as grevious]. Before you is a couple who are radiently happy. Their happiness makes them better people in their community, makes them whole people, etc. In short they have all the qualities that you would commend and celebrate in the usual way and yet your church says they are perverted and bound for Hell on the basis of medieval arguments propounded by Aquinas in turn based on Aristotle! Can you not see that, however clever these arguments might be, they MUST be flawed.

Morality does involve rules, I do not advocate situation ethics, but crucially it involves emotions and feelings too and moral empathy is absolutely vital.

And then when you realise that no person of good will [or bad come to that] outside the Catholic Church accepts Natural Law morality, [Despite the fact that the claim was that such ethics were supposed to be obvious to all including those outside the faith] surely you have to conclude that there must be severe problems here.

I know it is hard for you devoted as you are to your church to hear it described as morally blind on this issue but, sad to say, ‘the spectator see most of the play’, and on this issue it is horribly wrong. On this issue the Church = the Pharisees and I have no doubt that Jesus would weep over it.

Sorry to speak so frankly.

With best wishes

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

The question is, however, are these propositions truthful and accurate, irresepective of what homosexuals or any progressive Christian may assert to the contrary? There will never be wanting sinful men to legitimize and normalize their sinful behaviour. It is because man knows that he is a sinner that he seeks to supress or stifle the knowledge of God and His laws. Although sin has not utterly erradicated man’s religious capacities, it has turned them away from the living God, so that he now has a preference to his own sinful desires. Man has been deeply wounded by the Fall and Original Sin.

Moreover, some men are evidently cauterized as to their own conscience; by continually arguing with conscience (as persistent sinners are want to do), stifling its repeated warnings and muffling its bell so to speak, they at length reach a point where their conscience hardly bothers them. Through their rebellion and obstinacy, their conscience will have been rendered callous; how pitiful to have such a dulled moral sense of right and wrong?, however I feel such sad cases are becoming increasingly common nowadays.

Regarding the Infallibility of the Church, surely one should seriously examine its claims before venturing to find fault with it. Have you ever read a book on Catholic apologetics where objections are faced openly and honestly and where the exposition of Catholic doctrine is clear and extensive?, or have you only read material by authors who are already unfavourably disposed towards the Church and who therefore have an axe to grind? You at least owe it to yourself to investigate thoroughly the claims of the Catholic Church by reading authoritative sources. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a good place to start.

Notwithstanding the normal and harmless image often attributed to homosexuality, the facts reveal that, like immoral heterosexual behaviour, those who engage in homosexual liasions pay a sad an tragic price and that their alternative lifestyle is anything but ‘gay’.

One prevelant emotional price is acute depression. This is frequently accompanied by strong feelings of lonliness and guilt, dulled only by alcohol or “one more” sexual encounter. Female homosexual relationships are particularly burdened with extreme possessiveness and jealousy.

Homosexuality is also associated with elevated suicidal thoughts and attempts. Research reveals that approximately 40 percent of both male and female homosexuals have seriously contemplated or attempted suicide (The Gay Report, K. Jay and A. Young, p. 728). It is believed that a desire to end the empty despair often found in homosexuality partly explains the high rate of suicidal tendencies.

It is of no consequence whether this clergyman in your area accepts my views on homosexual deviancy, but rather whether or not he accepts God’s and the Church’s veto on such behaviour. His position is entirely untenable since by living with another man, when both have a homosexual predisposition, he is sending out a clear and unmistakable message to the parish that such relationships are perfectly acceptable to God. Moreover, their is surely an immense daily temptation to both men, dwelling as they do under the same roof, and in a moment of weakness it would be all too easy for them to commit homosexual acts of depravity. Clearly their liason is unwholesome, unnatural and potentially hazardous and should be terminated forthwith. I suspect that it is already causing offence in the parish.

Never have I said that homosexual love is permissible, on the contrary I have consistently argued against it. If a man with a homosexual attraction lives a chaste life then, according to the Church, he does not sin, that is quite true. However, that is not the same as two men living together, when both have a homosexual predisposition, since such a union is both unwholesome and potentially dangerous in so far as both will be subject to daily temptation when such temptation could be easily avoided by ending the liason. Surely this is a matter of plain common sense.

Laurie, in the final analysis it is all a matter of whether your interpretation of love is consonant with the commandments of God or at variance with them. As I have remarked in my previous post, using the quality of your daughter’s liason as a benchmark as to what is right, whilst perfectly understandable, is a fundamentally defective criterion when evaluating questions of ethics. Incontrovertibly, a more objective standard than “radiant happiness”, “positive and life enhancing” liasion, is required to judge in such weighty matters. Now I would contend that only Sacred Scripture and the magisterium of the Church provide such a needful standard amidst all the moral relativism of todays morally degenerate world.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear Portrait,

I notice that you do not attempt a direct answer to my points.

You say:

It is because man knows that he is a sinner that he seeks to suppress or stifle the knowledge of God and His laws. Although sin has not utterly eradicated man’s religious capacities, it has turned them away from the living God, so that he now has a preference to his own sinful desires. Man has been deeply wounded by the Fall and Original Sin.

**My point is that people outside the church using their consciences, their reason, moral empathy and their thoughts on ethics, seeing the positive lives of many gay people, have concluded that their relationships are morally fine. Of course such people **are not perfect in their judgements but there is no evidence that they are all mistaken.

Notwithstanding the normal and harmless image often attributed to homosexuality, the facts reveal that, like immoral heterosexual behaviour, those who engage in homosexual liaisons pay a sad and tragic price and that their alternative lifestyle is anything but ‘gay’.

This is rather a desperate throw. Of course there are gay people who for one reason or another have problems with their condition. The Catholic Church calling them perverts will not help much here! But there are thousands, like my daughter who have no problems and there are no non-Catholic psychological associations who think that homosexuality is pathological.

**
Laurie, in the final analysis it is all a matter of whether your interpretation of love is consonant with the commandments of God or at variance with them.**

As I keep saying – read my last post – in the final analysis it is a question of whether your moral blindness prevents you seeing what is before your eyes and whether you really think a God of Love would arbitrarily condemn it. I suspect that God, if he exists, is not an Aristotelian.

With good wishes

Laurie

 

[ladybri77]

Laurie, the next question being what if people fell in love with their brother, sister, cousin, making incest legal, should we then say it’s morally okay if they are happy?

 

[ladybri77]

From Portrait: “Female homosexual relationships are particularly burdened with extreme possessiveness and jealousy.”

I have found this especially to be true in my past relationships and have heard it specifically in other homosexual relationships. I am not saying it happens in all of them but from what I know, the number is high. I’ve also heard of an increase in arguing and sometimes physical abuse which occurred in two of my relationships.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Why is homosexuality, from a logical perspective, wrong?

From a logical perspective, as has been answered but bears repeating - Logically speaking there is no point to homosexuality. Logically speaking there are male and female parts, logically speaking those differing parts fit together quite naturally and serve a purpose. That purpose being pro-creation. No other arrangement outside of male/female union, logically speaking, serves this purpose. Therefore homosexuality is illogical.

The fact that two people of the same gender can love one another, is without question. This fact is even encouraged. However, the fact of love does not automatically equate to sex. This should be logically obvious also. Even if sex is technically possible, in some form or other, does not make it logical, or necessary to the expression of love, or beneficial to either person. ( or even legal, in many cases) Rationalization and Justification aside - again, homosexuality is illogical, purely because sex is not necessary to the expression of love, and again, said sex is not beneficial to the species as a whole (I.E. procreation). Logically speaking.

The fact that two people can, with the help of modern medicine, have children in one way or another, does not make such unions logical. Because again, logically speaking - if the appropriate parts are present, and used according to their obvious purpose, procreation will happen quite naturally ( barring any medical problems) so rationalizing and then justifying homosexuality through medical means to circumvent what is logical is again, illogical.

Stepping away, for the moment, from what is logical - I feel St. Paul addressed this from the moral perspective quite succinctly:

Romans Ch 1:24 Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

Therefore - from the moral perspective as well as the logical perspective - Homosexuality cannot be defended. IMO.

Pax

John

 

[camerong]

The above discussion about the morality of homosexuality is off-point, from both sides. If any of us were atheists, we would probably have no basis to tell homosexuals their sex is immoral. None of us should be interested in arguing the existence of right or wrong in the absence of God, for the very discussion of right or wrong presupposes the existence of God. To speak of morality in the absence of God is meaningless. That is why the conversation will always go round and round.

The more constructive conversation, on the other hand, is that which I have steered us towards–is the Church infallible, and what, if anything, does the Church’s stance about homosexuality say about its infallibility?

Thanks Camerong,
What I am saying is that the Church, if it is what it claims to be, ought to have a very good record in all it says and does. You would expect that God’s inspiration and the receptiveness and holiness of the Church would ensure this If it doesn’t then that throws doubt on the claim that it is infallible in some of its pronouncements. Not a knockdown argument but a reasonable consideration. [Of course human sin and free will etc etc makes it unreasonable to expect an unblemished record but that is not what I am claiming we ought to see]

The main reasons to doubt the Church’s infallibility claims are:

1] On gay sex and contraception to name but two issues they contradict the informed moral judgements of just about all non-Catholics - religious and non.
2] Many of the religious pronouncements, for example about Mary, have not thought true by non-Catholic theologians.

Of course, despite this they could, in theory, still be infallible, but it seems to me that unless you have already decided on the matter because you are a Catholic you are likely to doubt this claim.

Re: the bold section, you’re quite right this is not a knock-down argument. Is there any evidence that a valid religion, if one exists, would necessarily make its adherents better people? I sincerely doubt it. For example, every single Mormon I know has, as far as I can tell, impeccable morals. I would even go so far as to say that, among those I know, Mormons act more morally as a whole than the Catholics I know. Is that somehow evidence that Mormonism is more likely to be correct, and Catholicism not likely to be correct? Of course not.

What you’re saying is that the true religion is likely to be that which its adherents best uphold. Surely you could imagine that the religion which most truly reflects God is one that is very hard to uphold, and many fall from it. In such a case, most of those who claim to be following the religion, actually did not do so. In fact, this is exactly what Christ predicted about His followers.

Re: Bracketed points 1 and 2. On 1, even if that were true, why does that matter? Does the fact that many people belief something–particularly something which cannot be proved–make it any more likely to be true? I don’t think so. Catholics believe that the existence of an objective morality is obvious and undeniable, but the specifics of that morality cannot be known fully without the Magisterium. Once again, what you’re doing here is implicitly assuming my religion is false and then explaining why it is false. For if my religion were true, it wouldn’t make any difference whether 5 billion people believed homosexual sex is acceptable. What you need to try to do to convince me my religion is false is to show me contradictions between my religion and reality. Everything you have ever said on this forum perfectly harmonizes with my religion, if it is true, and I believe it is.

On 2: again, so what? A consensus among theologians is no better than a consensus among laypeople, if that consensus is objectively wrong, as I believe it is.

This debate started (at least so far as I became involved) regarding whether it was logical for a Catholic to believe homosexual sex is a sin. Your points may be quite valid as to why you believe homosexual sex is not wrong, but none of them have any teeth against a Catholic.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

The above discussion about the morality of homosexuality is off-point, from both sides. If any of us were atheists, we would probably have no basis to tell homosexuals their sex is immoral. None of us should be interested in arguing the existence of right or wrong in the absence of God, for the very discussion of right or wrong presupposes the existence of God. To speak of morality in the absence of God is meaningless. That is why the conversation will always go round and round.

The more constructive conversation, on the other hand, is that which I have steered us towards–is the Church infallible, and what, if anything, does the Church’s stance about homosexuality say about its infallibility?

Sorry - I guess I wasn’t aware the title of the thread was the infallibility of the church.

 

[MarkInOregon]

DavidV

Thanks for your brief comments

1] It is somewhat utopian to expect any human organisation, even one divinely inspired, to be right ALL the time. I am sure you know that the Catholic Church has been wrong in the past and it is surely unlikely that right now we are in the lucky situation where she is not in error anywhere!

Best wishes

Laurie

Laurie,

I have about half the thread to read through yet --so I don’t know if you’re still posting or reading or if anyone has responded to your statement above yet–I have seen it in several posts and yet no one has called you on it yet.

The Catholic Church has not been wrong in the past regarding its teaching on faith and morals and it has not changed any of its positions on faith and morals but that is a topic for another thread and i am sure those threads exist.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Thankyou most kindly for your response to my post.

Of course St. Paul’s teachings on the slavery issue reflect the times in which he lived, it could hardly be otherwise. Many people have expressed surprise that there is no outright condemnation of slavery in the N.T. However one must remember that slavery was so much a part of the social fabric that an unequivocal attack on it would have been considered revolutionary doctrine and would have evoked the opposition of the authrorities. Now the early Christians would obvously not wish to court persecution and arouse any unecessary hostility so perhaps sometimes discretion was the better part of valour. However, what the apostles did say upon the subject was tantamount to a radical transformation of attitude adopted towards slavery.

Many polygamists, adulterers and fornicators would claim that their illicit ‘relationships’ do not wound or cause any emotional distress to anyone and are therefore perfectly harmless and wholesome. In some cases they would no doubt argue that they serve the greater happiness of all those involved, including innocent parties. Thus, for example, the unmarried couple who live in sin might maintain that the best way to discover compatibility before marriage is by living together for a while before commiting. They would say that this makes very good sense since it avoids any unecessary mistakes and misery later. Again, what about the married man who claims he has fallen in love with another woman and who claims that this relationship is the ‘real thing’, that he and this new woman were just made for each other and that the quality and depth has been unkown hitherto. He asserts, “It must be right for I am so happy”. However no man is justified in breaking his marriage bond on the ground of the quality of love for another woman. Clearly without an objective and authoritative benchmark to measure the right or wrong of certain behaviours we are in very deep waters indeed, for every man will justify that which seems right in his own eyes and who are we to say that such behaviours are wrong or “hurtful” if we have no recourse to any infallible and authoritative point of reference with which to judge them?

We cannot disregard the moral law of God and argue that whatever appears compatible with love is ipso facto good and wholesome, irrespective of all other considerations. In emphasizing love for God and neigbour as the two great commandments, our Lord and His apostles did not discard all other commandments. On the contrary, Jesus said “if you love me keep my commandments”.

Your parallel between the persecution of the Jews under the Germans and homosexuals will simply not stand up to scrutiny and is most fallacious. The Jews were not guilty of any violation of the moral law of God, indeed they would have upheld it as rigourously as any Catholic. Homosexuals, on the contrary, are morally culpable if they engage homosexual aberrant behaviour; like all other men they are responsible for their sins. Moreover, the Jews could not help being Jews for that was their racial origin and therefore something over which they had no control. When it comes to our moral acts our desires do not over-ride our wills; our conduct is under the control of our wills. Homosexuals do not need to pursue their preferences anymore than their heterosexual counterparts who, outside of wedlock, must exercise a disciplined response to their own kind of preferences.

I have already stated that I do not deny some homosexual liasons can be loving. However their love-quality is not sufficient to justify them. Indeed, I have to say that they are incompatible with true love because they are incompatible 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.

There are many non-Christians opposed to homosexual deviant acts on the grounds that they are unnatural and unwholesome. It is not because they have read Leviticus or St. Paul, but they instinctively know that it is immoral. This actually proves my point that the law of God is indelibly written on men’s hearts; it is a clear evidence of our indestructable moral nature and a veritable proof that God bears witness to himself in our hearts.

Will continue our debate Laurie but I am going to take my leave for now to watch coverage of the General Election - real riveting stuff, what!

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[MarkInOregon]

Portrait,

Good wishes in return.

My problem with your reliance on your church is this. In the past your church has been grievously in the wrong – the crusades, the inquisition, the divided papacy, the persecution of Galileo… Please do not reply, explaining, excusing etc because I’ll take that as read. The simple fact is – your church has often been mistaken. Why then do you think that 2010 it has reached the wonderful position of always being right?!

I am sure you can find threads on all these topics. But it should be pointed out that the events you are citing are not dealing with the Churches teaching on faith and morals however and cannot be cited to invalidate or question those teachings. They also show a lack of understanding re: the events and actual history. I fail to understand your comment–“please do not reply, explaning, excusing etc because I’ll take that as read.” What does “take that as read” mean?

You cannot get out of the necessity of thinking for yourself! Particularly when your church’s teaching causes so much suffering as it does over gay sex. It is thinking for ourselves that has led many of us to see the truth of Christ and his Church and leads us to try to live in conformity with the Truth. Following Christ requires much suffering–look at Christs life, look at the Apostles lives, look at the lives of the great saints. Christ did not teach that following him would be a bed of roses full of joy and happiness and getting to live how we want. The Church is not required to modify its teachings on faith and morals in order to make you or me happy or to alieviate our suffering. The Church is required to proclaim the Truth and to assist us in living out the Truth.

Now, as regards my daughter, as a father nobody is good enough for her as far as I am concerned! Or so I thought, but her gay partner of 20 years is such a lovely person and makes my daughter so happy that I have made an exception in her case. Nice try P but your surmise is way off beam.

As regards intuitions. Either we disregard them because we are fallen creatures in which case intuitions against gay sex are as worthless that those for OR intuitions of fair minded people are fine, in which case those for are as valid as those against.

One last point P. I have lost count of the number of times I have made the point about your Lord being against the following of rules for their own sake. Man was made for the rules not vice-versa. However I have not lost count of the number of replies – ZERO! Perhaps you will break this duck?

---

Would you please cite the verse you are refering to. We are not following rules for their own sake. I think you forget Matthew chapter 23:1-3: "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice” We try to follow the moral laws as set down by God and we follow Church disciplines or laws, if you prefer, which are designed to help us live out the moral law. The Pharisees are not condemned for following the “rules” as you call them but for not practicing what they peached.

---

And also we seem to forget today that while Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultry–he didn’t just send her on her way to continue in that life but he commanded her to "go and sin no more."

---

We follow the rules because – well I can only speak for myself-- after much reading and study I believe that Christ was the son of God, that he rose from the dead, that he established a Church, that he has sent the Holy Spirit to protect that Church from teaching error in matters of faith and morals (i.e. the gates of hell shall not prevail against it) and that that Church is the Catholic Church.

---

Once discovering the Truth it is up to me to conform (to the best of my ability) my life to the Truth–even when I don’t understand it. It is not for me to try to conform the Truth to how I want to live. Today what most people seem to want to do is to conform Christianity to their version of the truth and that is why we see so many different churches springing up.

---

Finally, you seem to confuse moral teaching with juridic law – for example you have previously cited adultry and stoning. The prohibition against adultry still stands–it is a moral teaching. Stoning (the punishment for violating the moral law) no longer stands as a punishment. Stoning is not a moral law or teaching and is subject to change. Many of the “laws” from the old testament were to try and keep the Jews faithful to the moral law. It is the moral law that is timeless not the juridic laws. One must distinguish between the two. The changing of a juridic law does not invalidate the moral law–anymore than your disciplining your child differently at age 10 than at age 3 for breaking the same rule–would invalidate that rule.

Regards and salutations,

Old Laurie

Peace,
Mark

 

[camerong]

Sorry - I guess I wasn’t aware the title of the thread was the infallibility of the church.

Thanks for your snide comment. But if you would take the time to consider my words, you would see that it all boils down to my point. This conversation either way is pointless beyond it, because every point atheists mean nothing to Catholics, and every point Catholics bring up mean nothing to atheists. If I see you or anyone else make a convincing argument beyond “it’s what the Church teaches,” (not that this is not sufficient, as you will see if you read my earlier posts) I’ll retract my statement. As of yet, I have seen nothing, including your latest post.

It would be irrational for an atheist to believe homosexual sex is immoral, and irrational for a Catholic to believe homosexual sex is moral.

The only relevant question is what, if anything, does the Church’s stance about homosexuality say about its infallibility?

 

[Cinette]

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 faith is never a matter of opinion. Your reasoning is spot on. It is good to be enlightened at a young age. Being Christian is not easy especially a Catholic Christian. It is the right path and you will benefit if you stick to the truth. You need to pray much and receive the Sacraments as often as you can to keep strong in the Faith.

God love you
Cinette
*

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Thanks for your snide comment. But if you would take the time to consider my words, you would see that it all boils down to my point. This conversation either way is pointless beyond it, because every point atheists mean nothing to Catholics, and every point Catholics bring up mean nothing to atheists. If I see you or anyone else make a convincing argument beyond “it’s what the Church teaches,” (not that this is not sufficient, as you will see if you read my earlier posts) I’ll retract my statement. As of yet, I have seen nothing, including your latest post.

It would be irrational for an atheist to believe homosexual sex is immoral, and irrational for a Catholic to believe homosexual sex is moral.

The only relevant question is what, if anything, does the Church’s stance about homosexuality say about its infallibility?

Hi

So, let me try and see if I understand you here. I answered the OP’s question regarding how homosexuality is wrong from a logical perspective - by using logical arguments…and then showed also, how the moral argument fit right in to that. I said nothing about “The Church teaches thus and such”…only that the moral viewpoint, (albeit from the Bible - true) - agreed with that.

But this is wrong, because I should have been arguing how an infallible Church’s position regarding homosexuality would somehow make more of a point to an Atheist?

Forgive me if I’m a little dense in this…but wouldn’t it make more sense to make a logical argument, (Which is what was asked for) tie it in with a moral viewpoint that agrees with it, then build off of that? Obviously if the moral viewpoint fits with the logical argument, I.E. what is natural and what is unnatural - then the moral viewpoint is also logical - no? Regardless of any Church teaching then, the moral viewpoint is logical at least…which then leads one to naturally consider what God has to say about the matter - if that is even a consideration. If the individual in question is an Atheist - then none of that matters anyway. But at least the moral viewpoint is shown to also be logical.

Pax

John

 

[Cinette]

Thanks Camerong,

You say:

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).

What I am saying is that the Church, if it is what it claims to be, ought to have a very good record in all it says and does. You would expect that God’s inspiration and the receptiveness and holiness of the Church would ensure this If it doesn’t then that throws doubt on the claim that it is infallible in some of its pronouncements. Not a knockdown argument but a reasonable consideration. [Of course human sin and free will etc etc makes it unreasonable to expect an unblemished record but that is not what I am claiming we ought to see]

The main reasons to doubt the Church’s infallibility claims are:

1] On gay sex and contraception to name but two issues they contradict the informed moral judgements of just about all non-Catholics - religious and non.
2] Many of the religious pronouncements, for example about Mary, have not thought true by non-Catholic theologians.

Of course, despite this they could, in theory, still be infallible, but it seems to me that unless you have already decided on the matter because you are a Catholic you are likely to doubt this claim.

The point I make at the start just adds some weight to that consideration.

[Thanks for clearing up the OT matter, I misread it - sorry]

Best wishes

Laurie

*Your reasoning is flawed Laurie.

Jesus knew what he was doing. First of all he chose ordinary human beings as his Apostles. He chose Judas - Judas was bad - Judas had free will and made the wrong choice (he did not repent). Peter denied Jesus three times shortly after he had witnessed Jesus’ divinity at the Transfiguration. Yet Jesus chose Peter to head his Church.

The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit but is led here on earth by human beings with human failings. However, on matters of faith and morals it cannot and does not err.

People leading the Church have sinned but that never altered the truth of the Church - never altered the teachings of the Church.

Laurie - you want the Church to bend to your beliefs instead of bending to the teachings of the Church.

You want to tell God what to do - what is right and wrong. You can’t do that!

Cinette:shrug:*

 

[Cinette]

Thanks for your snide comment. But if you would take the time to consider my words, you would see that it all boils down to my point. This conversation either way is pointless beyond it, because every point atheists mean nothing to Catholics, and every point Catholics bring up mean nothing to atheists. If I see you or anyone else make a convincing argument beyond “it’s what the Church teaches,” (not that this is not sufficient, as you will see if you read my earlier posts) I’ll retract my statement. As of yet, I have seen nothing, including your latest post.

It would be irrational for an atheist to believe homosexual sex is immoral, and irrational for a Catholic to believe homosexual sex is moral.
The only relevant question is what, if anything, does the Church’s stance about homosexuality say about its infallibility?

Hello Camerong!

I disagree with you my friend! Absolutely! An atheist can believe homosexual sex is immoral. My husband was an atheist for over 60 years and he thought like a Catholic in these matters - it was the natural law, reasoning.

Talking about atheists - there are those who suffered enormously in solitary confinement for a cause they believed in.

Hey and don’t forget that atheists have also converted and become wonderful Catholics. My husband is now a daily communicant.

No - you must not discount atheists. You will see them in heaven too.

Cheers
Cinette