Homosexuals Hijack Christian Fish Symbol

[fix]

What a DISGUSTING and STUPID thing to say.
I am gay and Catholic.
It isn’t only heterosexuals who can be Catholic.
Just because you assume “gay” means “gay lifestyle” doesn’t mean it is. Where I’m from, gay is merely another word for homosexual. And I have no problem with being a “gay Catholic”

Words have meanings. I do not think the poster had bad intentions at all

There are people within the Catholic Church who might argue that those who label themselves “gay” or “lesbian” aren’t necessarily living unchastely. That’s true, but the implications of the terms in today’s society don’t commonly connote chaste living. Furthermore, they are limiting their own possibilities of growth by such self-labeling, and reducing their whole identity by defining themselves according to their sexual attractions. …

couragerc.net/FAQs.html

 

[El_Paulo]

Fix, I can’t believe you’ve just posted someone elses view point (of someone elses view point) as a response to what I wrote! I did read that second post you quoted the first time round, however, it would be nice to have it in your own words.

I didn’t say that the Church doesn’t teach that “homosexual practice” is sinful, I simply said that some theologians today disagree with the weight and interpretation the Church has put upon those scriptures quoted in the last few posts. They do not believe that the so-called ‘homosexuality’ described in scripture is the same thing that we are talking about today and here on this thread. That is why many are arguing for a fresh look at the whole issue.

 

[fix]

Fix, I can’t believe you’ve just posted someone elses view point (of someone elses view point) as a response to what I wrote! I did read that second post you quoted the first time round, however, it would be nice to have it in your own words.

I didn’t say that the Church doesn’t teach that “homosexual practice” is sinful, I simply said that some theologians today disagree with the weight and interpretation the Church has put upon those scriptures quoted in the last few posts. They do not believe that the so-called ‘homosexuality’ described in scripture is the same thing that we are talking about today and here on this thread. That is why many are arguing for a fresh look at the whole issue.

If I am understanding your position it seems you think that there are a plurality of views that may be held on this issue?

I will quote, again, from the Vatican document:

The Vatican Council II in Dei Verbum 10, put it this way: “It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls”. In that spirit we wish to outline briefly the Biblical teaching here.

The interpretation of Scripture and how that relates to Church teaching is the authority of the magisterium. If a scholar wants to disagree they are free to do that, but their view is not equal to constant Church teaching.

My words are that I assent to the teaching. The idea one can interpret Scripture to contradict Church teaching is an error.

 

[El_Paulo]

The interpretation of Scripture and how that relates to Church teaching is the authority of the magisterium. If a scholar wants to disagree they are free to do that, but their view is not equal to constant Church teaching.

I am yet to be convinced that the current position on ‘homosexuality’ has been consistently taught by the Church, because I do not believe that the concept of ‘homosexuality’ has been consistently understood.

My words are that I assent to the teaching. The idea one can interpret Scripture to contradict Church teaching is an error.

But it can be questioned and that is what I am doing - I am not the first and I won’t be the last.

Newman was one - “So little does the Pope come into this whole system of moral theology by which (as our conscience) our lives are regulated, that the weight of his hand upon us, as private men, is absolutely unappreciable”.

I am not using this quote to support the particular subject being discussed in this thread, but that questioning and challenge is a valid part of our Catholic faith. How else does the teaching of the Magisterium develop and grow and become refined if it is not reflected upon, lived out and struggled with by Christians everywhere? The gift of the Magesterium is something that proceeds from the whole Church - even if it is often portrayed as some exclusive source of truth - but the source resides elsewhere: and that is the Holy Spirit, who inhabits the entire body of Christ; that includes all of us, even those who feel compelled to question Magisterial teaching.

Peace

 

[pablo_rafael]

That genuine and thoughtful Catholics differ on this point just proves that being genuine and thoughtful is completely irrelevant to whether one is correct, since we know that people on both sides of the issue cannot both be correct at the same time. In fact, I would submit that those who are supposedly genuine and thoughtful are either deluded or in actuality deceitful and are driven by their agenda and bias.

I have a real concern about this type of thinking. Then who is right and who is wrong? Who gets to decide? This always leads to one side condeming the other. Having different views on issues is OK as long as I don’t say that I am always right and I am justified in condemning you because you think differently.

I would say that no one fully understands the ways of God. We are limited by our human understanding. I feel humility is a key component to our Catholic faith. We realize that we understand “as through a glass darkly” ( 1 Cor. 13). God is far beyond understanding. We need to be open to God as He speaks to us through His Word.

And let me ask is ** anyone** not biased? Don’t we all see things from a different perspective. You can’t say that only one side of an issue has bias.

Second, if they really loved the Church, then they would trust when she teaches clearly and unambiguously that homosexual acts are depraved and immoral. In fact, if they find the scriptures unclear, this is precisely when those who are “genuine and thoughtful” and “love the Church” should turn to the Magisterium for guidance.

I just can’t believe that God wants us to be robots who let someone else tell us what to think and believe. It is the duty of all Christians to search the Scriptures so that the Holy Spirit can work through the God’s Word. That is why we have the three Scripture readings at mass every weekend. I know I am not the most obedient Catholic, and my protestant upbringing is showing through, but with all the contradictory teachings that have been passed down from Rome over the centuries, I just can’t stomach the idea that “the church is always right” and just blindly believe. I think questioning and searching is healthy for one’s spiritual life. God can’t bring us closer to the truth if we refuse to open our minds Him.

Pablo

 

[irenaeus1]

This, then, is equally not a reason to assume that it WAS among them. If this is supporting evidence that the ‘Sin of Sodom’ definitively included homosexual acts, it’s a pretty poor one. This is the reason why I find these verses spurious for condemning ‘homosexuality’, and why I find the reaction against “gay Catholics/Christians” blown out of all proportion.

Fortunately, this is not the only verse condemning homosexual practice. As demonstrated in a previous post, several verses are quite clear and not at all spurious.

 

[irenaeus1]

Someone also mentioned that 1900 years of Church exegesis on this subject cannot be forgotten - my response to that is to ask the question whether the ‘homosexuality’ we are talking about is/was exactly the same thing as we know it today. I am of the conclusion (as some theologians are at the moment) that it wasn’t. How can scripture describe something it knew nothing about?

Because scripture is not describing something it new nothing about. The meaning of the homosexual act and the morality thereof has not changed, only the intent of certain people attempting to justify that it has changed. I’m curious to know what you believe has changed regarding homosexuality. I assume that the homosexual act between two people in a life-long, committed relationship is what you are calling as a change as contrasted with what scripture refers to. If this is your argument, then can we assume that the meaning of incest has changed? Obviously, the objective act has not changed (just as for the homosexual act), but if I really love my sister or my stepmother, and I make a life-long commitment, can I claim that my actions are morally licit because I don’t believe that was what the scriptures were actually addressing. After all, how can scripture possibly address something it knew nothing about? How about bestiality?… provided that I have a life-long commitment to one sheep?

 

[irenaeus1]

Fix, I can’t believe you’ve just posted someone elses view point (of someone elses view point) as a response to what I wrote! I did read that second post you quoted the first time round, however, it would be nice to have it in your own words.

Why do you want something in [his] own words? If the Church teaches a certain truth on faith and morals, then my opinion to the contrary is irrelevant.

I didn’t say that the Church doesn’t teach that “homosexual practice” is sinful, I simply said that some theologians today disagree with the weight and interpretation the Church has put upon those scriptures quoted in the last few posts. They do not believe that the so-called ‘homosexuality’ described in scripture is the same thing that we are talking about today and here on this thread. That is why many are arguing for a fresh look at the whole issue.

Many theologians teach all kinds of things, and if they are not in concert with the Church, they should not be used for guidance against Church teaching. They are not the Magisterium. Think about it, I could use the same argument you just made: Some theologians today agree with the weight and interpretation the Church has put upon those scriptures quoted in the last few posts. They do believe that the so-called ‘homosexuality’ described in scripture is the same thing. So what do we do, when there is disagreement… if you are Catholic, you look to the teaching office of the Church.

 

[pablo_rafael]

The Greek word used in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 that is translated into English as homosexual isarsenokoitai. The Greek word arsenokoitai (arsenokoitai) is a combination of the wordsarsen (arsen) = “male”; andkoitus (koitus) = “sexual copulation” i.e.,arsenokoitailiterally means “male sexual relations.” The wordarsenokoitai is found in classical Greek literature before and after the New Testament period and its definition is well understood. It appeared in the Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus 6, 10, 25; Anthologia Palatina 9, 686, 5; and Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum viii, 4, p. 196, 6; 8; and the Sibylene Oracles 2, 73 and Polycarp to the Philippians 5:3. So to claim that these passages really mean something other than homosexual behavior is extremely poor exegesis.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

I will make one last comment on this and then shut up. (cheers all around.) We can get bogged down in Biblical interpretation to pick at the littlest linguistic point. I know that pickiness is not the most endearing of traits so I will not make another one of these posts.

When a person can quote Greek, it makes him seem like an expert. There are differences among the Biblical scholars who can quote Greek on this issue. By the way, I know how to read Biblical Greek. I learned it in college.

As others have more eloquently pointed out. There are differences of opinion on this issue. Learned scholars are NOT in agreement. Since so many people have complained that I brought up John McNeil, a Catholic father who has made this issue his focus, I will bring up non-catholics. How about Dr. Jack Rodgers (Presbyterian), Bishop John Shelby Spong (Episcopalian), Mel White (fundamentalist, I don’t know denomination), Lars Claussen (Lutheran).

Just a comment on a couple of verses mentioned. Good Biblical interpretation says that when one is unsure of a translation of a word, he looks to other uses of it in the Bible. What about one term sometimes translated to mean “homosexual”. “Malakos” means “soft” and is used in Luke 7:25 to mean “living in excessive luxury” and in Matt. 11:8 to mean soft as in “not rough”. I think we can dismiss that one.

The term that you mention is “arsenokoitai”. We can’t look elsewhere in the Bible, for it does not appear anywhere else, and the context of rest of the verse is no help because it is just in a list of sins. We must use weaker methods of interpretation. So we look elsewhere in Greek literature for its meaning. You are right; it does seem to mean homosexual behavior, specifically in the context of excessive sexual behavior such as prostitution. If you look in the apology of Astrides it means one who corrupts boys or one who gains from male prostitution. In *Penitentiale * of Johannes Jejunator it is used to refer to a specific sex act and is used in speaking both of male-male intercourse and also interestingly to male-female intercourse. Also the Vulgate simply translates the term to the meaning of “male concubine”. In my thinking these verses refer more to prostitution and excessive sexual immorality than to monogamous same sex relationships. Also a minor point it is plural, further reinforces the idea that it means prostitution.

My point is not simply to argue, but to emphasize that these verses are unclear and their meaning is disputed by many scholars.

Pablo

 

[Jennifer123]

I just can’t believe that God wants us to be robots who let someone else tell us what to think and believe. It is the duty of all Christians to search the Scriptures so that the Holy Spirit can work through the God’s Word. That is why we have the three Scripture readings at mass every weekend. I know I am not the most obedient Catholic, and my protestant upbringing is showing through, but with all the contradictory teachings that have been passed down from Rome over the centuries, I just can’t stomach the idea that “the church is always right” and just blindly believe. I think questioning and searching is healthy for one’s spiritual life. God can’t bring us closer to the truth if we refuse to open our minds Him.

Pablo

The Bible isn’t self-explanatory. If that were so, how is it that there are so many different denominations with completely contradictory doctrines of Truth? That is completely illogical. How can a loving God condemn us all to a life void of knowing exactly what He means for salvation?

That’s not to say we shouldn’t check our brains at the door, but certainly humility requires a sense of knowing that as just a human being, we can’t possibly know everything. We have to acknowledge that someone knows something more than we do.

The Church has the authority to teach the Truth through the magisterial gift given to her through the keys given to Peter. Being a humble Catholic, one may not always agree, but certainly in all charity and recognizing God’s providence, we can acquiece to the Church on matters we don’t understand, give her the benefit of the doubt until we can better understand the situation. It has been around for 2,000 years and we know the gates of hell won’t prevail. Most people I know who disagree with Church teachings are very poorly catechised and don’t understand why the Church teaches what it does.

To believe otherwise is to rely on our own understanding and to worship God in our image, which is basically idolatry. :twocents: God wants nothing more than complete submittal. That includes our minds.

 

[setter]

There are good, faithful Catholic homosexuals on these very boards for whom I have a lot of respect who use that term to describe themselves, even though they aren’t having sex.

What bubble world are these alleged good and faithful self-labelling “gay” Catholics living in might I ask? I believe that that they are walking the fine line of bringing the sin of scandal upon themselves.

 

[setter]

What a DISGUSTING and STUPID thing to say.
I am gay and Catholic.
It isn’t only heterosexuals who can be Catholic.
Just because you assume “gay” means “gay lifestyle” doesn’t mean it is. Where I’m from, gay is merely another word for homosexual. And I have no problem with being a “gay Catholic”

Apparently your charity does not extend to this side of the Atlantic. Where I’m from (the USA), “gay” is a socio-politically charged term that commonly connotates one actively engaged in or condoning of the gay lifestyle.

 

[irenaeus1]

I have a real concern about this type of thinking. Then who is right and who is wrong? Who gets to decide?

The Church. The Church is the final arbiter.

Having different views on issues is OK as long as I don’t say that I am always right and I am justified in condemning you because you think differently.

No, if you’re Catholic, having different views on issues is OK as long as you remain within the boundaries of the teachings of the Church.

I would say that no one fully understands the ways of God. We are limited by our human understanding. I feel humility is a key component to our Catholic faith. We realize that we understand “as through a glass darkly” ( 1 Cor. 13). God is far beyond understanding. We need to be open to God as He speaks to us through His Word.

One does not have to fully understand God in order to understand whether God condemns a particular behavior. God is fully capable of revealing what He wants us to know of Him, His character, and what He demands of us without us having to fully understand Him. And if you acknowledge that we are limited in our human understanding, then why not lean on the Church whom Christ founded to be the pillar and foundation of truth?

And let me ask is anyone

not biased? Don’t we all see things from a different perspective. You can’t say that only one side of an issue has bias. Yes and no. We may have preconceived ideas, but that does not mean that we cannot be persuaded that our position is wrong, otherwise there would be no such thing as a conversion of heart.

I just can’t believe that God wants us to be robots who let someone else tell us what to think and believe. It is the duty of all Christians to search the Scriptures so that the Holy Spirit can work through the God’s Word. That is why we have the three Scripture readings at mass every weekend. I know I am not the most obedient Catholic, and my protestant upbringing is showing through, but with all the contradictory teachings that have been passed down from Rome over the centuries, I just can’t stomach the idea that “the church is always right” and just blindly believe. I think questioning and searching is healthy for one’s spiritual life. God can’t bring us closer to the truth if we refuse to open our minds Him.

We are not robots. We have free will and are free to reject whatever God proposes for our belief. And the Church is always right when she officially teaches on the issues of faith and morals. The Church claims this to be true, and if she’s right, then we had better submit. If the Church is wrong and she knows she’s wrong, then the Church is a deceiver. If the Church is wrong and she doesn’t know she’s wrong, then the Church is seriously deluded. Why anybody would want to willfully belong to a church that is either intentionally deceitful or seriously delusional is beyond me. So why be Catholic unless you believe it to be the Church that the gates of hell would never prevail against.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

P.S. The Church has not promulgated contradictory teachings down through the centuries… not one.

 

[irenaeus1]

As others have more eloquently pointed out. There are differences of opinion on this issue. Learned scholars are NOT in agreement. Since so many people have complained that I brought up John McNeil, a Catholic father who has made this issue his focus, I will bring up non-catholics. How about Dr. Jack Rodgers (Presbyterian), Bishop John Shelby Spong (Episcopalian), Mel White (fundamentalist, I don’t know denomination), Lars Claussen (Lutheran).

Sheesh! No wonder your moral theology is screwed up if you follow the lead of the likes of these. Why don’t you listen to Dr. D. James Kennedy if you want a ‘real’ Presbyterian (Reformed theological) position. Bishop Spong is so far left, you couldn’t see him from where John Kerry is standing. Mel White is a homosexual, and Lars Claussen’s explicit mission is to claim that Christianity is wrong regarding the moral illicitness of the gay and lesbian lifestyle. Of course you prop them up as supporting your position. Hardly a lineup for orthodoxy though.

Just a comment on a couple of verses mentioned. Good Biblical interpretation says that when one is unsure of a translation of a word, he looks to other uses of it in the Bible. What about one term sometimes translated to mean “homosexual”. “Malakos” means “soft” and is used in Luke 7:25 to mean “living in excessive luxury” and in Matt. 11:8 to mean soft as in “not rough”. I think we can dismiss that one.

The term that you mention is “arsenokoitai”. We can’t look elsewhere in the Bible, for it does not appear anywhere else, and the context of rest of the verse is no help because it is just in a list of sins. We must use weaker methods of interpretation. So we look elsewhere in Greek literature for its meaning. You are right; it does seem to mean homosexual behavior, specifically in the context of excessive sexual behavior such as prostitution. If you look in the apology of Astrides it means one who corrupts boys or one who gains from male prostitution. In *Penitentiale *of Johannes Jejunator it is used to refer to a specific sex act and is used in speaking both of male-male intercourse and also interestingly to male-female intercourse. Also the Vulgate simply translates the term to the meaning of “male concubine”. In my thinking these verses refer more to prostitution and excessive sexual immorality than to monogamous same sex relationships. Also a minor point it is plural, further reinforces the idea that it means prostitution.

First off, malakos is used as an adjective for clothing in Luke 7:25 and Matt 11:8, so of course it doesn’t mean “homosexual.” It doesn’t have any moral connotation in this context. However, it does have a moral context in 1 Cor. 6:9… so much so that it can preclude one from inheriting the kingdom of God. Blunders such as this demonstrate your confusion when interpreting rather simple texts. Also, malakos may more likely be referring to male prostitution (the passive or effeminate one, aka “soft”) and is listed separately from “male sexual copulations” (arsenokoitai). How the plural form some how implies or reinforces that prostitution is meant here makes absolutely no sense and again shows your confusion in interpreting texts. Every thing listed by Paul in this verse is in the plural form.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[El_Paulo]

Good morning!

Having just got out of bed it seems that people are continuing to disagree on various verses, on the meaning of certain Greek words, on the understanding of hostorical concepts - this is good and healthy and reflects what I believe Catholicism is all about. We are lucky to be in a Church which encourages open debate about things.

What no-one is saying (and especially not me) is that they deny the teaching office of the Church. What I think is unhelpful is simply the quoting of verses and Magesterial documents - it shows a distinct lack of imagination. I’ve read the quotes that have been posted before, so it’s not as if they were unknown prior this thread - but I think that the ultimate insult is to question whether a person is Catholic simply because they question Church teaching. One or two forumers have come very close to this and I think it is unjustifed.

People have a right to question and challenge - this is what is happening on this thread. The reason why I ask people to comment in their own words is because quoting (without explanation) shuts down valid conversation and does not recognise the innate value of a persons argument, even if it is disagreed with.

Peace

 

[Emproph]

Because scripture is not describing something it new nothing about. The meaning of the homosexual act and the morality thereof has not changed, only the intent of certain people attempting to justify that it has changed. I’m curious to know what you believe has changed regarding homosexuality. I assume that the homosexual act between two people in a life-long, committed relationship is what you are calling as a change as contrasted with what scripture refers to. If this is your argument, then can we assume that the meaning of incest has changed? Obviously, the objective act has not changed (just as for the homosexual act), but if I really love my sister or my stepmother, and I make a life-long commitment, can I claim that my actions are morally licit because I don’t believe that was what the scriptures were actually addressing. After all, how can scripture possibly address something it knew nothing about? How about bestiality?… provided that I have a life-long commitment to one sheep?

Can a sheep sign a marriage contract, or communicate consent to a “relationship” with a human? When it comes to morality in a relationship, I would have to say that consent is a requirement.

As far as incest goes, how do you think 6.5 Billion people came of two, (Adam and Eve)? Technically speaking, incest is Biblical from the very beginning. I’ve never received an answer to this question: At what point did incest become a sin?

I’m not arguing in support of incest as there are prudent genetic reasons to discourage it, but if you’re going to use it as a Biblically based argument to condemn homosexuals then there are some significant factors that apply to that situation that do not apply to the monogamously coupled homosexual love relationship.

The Bible says a lot of things about morality that we no longer adhere to. So just out of curiosity, what is “immoral” about a consensual incestuous relationship other than the “ick” factor?

More pointedly, I’m asking what your specific standard for morality is.

 

[Emproph]

P.S. The Church has not promulgated contradictory teachings down through the centuries… not one.

Not even limbo?

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp
google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Catholic+Church%22+limbo

And since you’re not centuries old, how would you know one way or the other? Who gives you the authority to make that claim other than yourself?

 

[Emproph]

God wants nothing more than complete submittal. That includes our minds.

Yet you say that:

The Church has the authority to teach the Truth through the magisterial gift given to her through the keys given to Peter…

…To believe otherwise is to rely on our own understanding and to worship God in our image, which is basically idolatry.

How is it not idolatry to submit to the Church if it was your “own understanding” that lead you to decide that the Church “has the authority” to teach the truth about God who “wants nothing more than complete submittal?”

By that standard the Church could decree that God does not want complete submission to Himself but to the Church and you would have to obey. How is that not the essence of idolatry?

I can understand respecting an authority that I do not agree with for the greater good, but I consider it of paramount importance to at least understand WHY I disagree with them.

The problem here is that the Church’s view of homosexuality is harming homosexual persons. If you agree as to HOW the love between two homosexual persons is evil and therefore IN AND OF ITSELF harms others, so be it. But if you accept that it harms others because of what you are told by those who supposedly know better than you, then you are still responsible for supporting the Church’s position, and also for any harmful and thus evil effects of that position.

Or have you determined that sin does not require the effect of harm in order to be a sin? If so, so be it. But is this your position or the Church’s?

And really that’s the ultimate question. Do you – or does the Church – base sin on whether it harms your “neighbor” or not? as per Matthew 22:36-40

• 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’** 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments**."

If God is truly Love, then the standard of sin is set. All qualities of justice and judgement are included in the idea of loving others as yourself.

If God is not All Love in the sense described above, then the definition of sin is left to “interpretation.”

As far as I see it, this is the most fundamental difference that exists is in regard to understanding the nature of sin.*

 

[Robert_Bay]

WARNING

This thread is off topic.

Please return to the topic of the original post or this thread will have to be closed.

Thank you for your cooperation

 

[Jennifer123]

Yet you say that:

How is it not idolatry to submit to the Church if it was your “own understanding” that lead you to decide that the Church “has the authority” to teach the truth about God who “wants nothing more than complete submittal?”

By that standard the Church could decree that God does not want complete submission to Himself but to the Church and you would have to obey. How is that not the essence of idolatry?

.

I try not to rely on my own understanding because God says so through the words of the Bible:
“Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.” Prv 3:5

If for the sake of argument, the Church claimed to have an infalliable teaching that Catholics should worship the Church and not Jesus Christ, I would know it to be false based on the teachings of the Bible. But that will never happen. The Church can never contradict God - The Church explicitly teaches us to love and serve the Lord. I fail to see how that is idolatry.

What I am saying is that yes, we have our own intellect, but even you have to admit that on some things you trust someone else’s judgement more than your own. You don’t do your own tonsillectomy, you’d trust a doctor, yes?

As for homosexuality, I don’t believe it is wrong because the Church says so, although I personally think that is probably the best reason, but also because I understand the real nature of human sexuality and have seen through experience and research how the lifestyle is harmful to people. I don’t declare it wrong to hurt people’s feelings, but because I truly love them and want them to be free of something very harmful physically, emotionally and spiritually. Love means speaking truth, not affirming people in sin in order that they like you. That is false compassion.

Jn 8:31-32 "Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples,
and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”