E
El_Paulo
Guest
I’d like to add to this clarification that I believe the terms ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Catholic are a misnomer.
- Status
I
irenaeus1
Guest
I don’t know where you get this, but Paul never advocated monogamous, lifelong *homosexual *relationships. And he would have had to be pretty explicit if he did advocate it since, to the Jew, homosexual acts were considered an abomination before God.
That’s because lifelong and committed are irrelevant qualifiers. The Bible is clear in prohibiting same-sex relationships period… lifelong or not.
Only look at the above works if you are open to seeing things in a new way. Actually, listen to those who are orthodox and faithfully teach what the Church teaches. Also, you are correct, there is a Catholic organization that ministers to people with SSA, but it ain’t Dignity. Dignity is not recognized by the Church because it severely compromises the true teaching of the Church with regard to sexual morality. Courage is what you are looking for if you are seeking a **Catholic **ministry.
Great, so long as this is not confused with tacit approval of a depraved lifestyle.
In Christ,
Irenaeus
E
El_Paulo
Guest
The Bible is clear in prohibiting same-sex relationships period… lifelong or not.
Actually, there is much disagreement as to whether this is so. The Bible is actually quite unclear about it - if it were not so why would there be genuine and thoughtful Catholics (who love the Church) questioning this today? They are certainly not disagreeing with the Church just for the hell of it - and there are many who do on a veriety of different issues, why should this be a special ‘untouchable’ issue?
Why have you questioned the sincerity of his conversion to Catholicism? I don’t think you have given pablo much credit for this - he should be welcomed not suspected
J
Jeffrey
Guest
The Bible is VERY clear about the sin of homosexuality:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
E
El_Paulo
Guest
I think it would be wrong to get into a scripture slanging match. Tell me your thoughts in your own words!
You know as well as I that scripture can be interpreted in particular ways. All some theologians are suggesting is that the understanding of scriptures like these, to date, is incomplete (or read with a contemporary mindset).
For example the word ‘homosexual’ may not be found in some other translations of the Bible. Equally, if you use such scriptures to back up your perspective, would you also advocate - as Leviticus does - the ‘putting to death’ of such people? Please tell me whether it is legitimate to question scriptues like this and, thus, Church understanding?
Where do you draw the line and why (honest question)?
Peace.
You know as well as I that scripture can be interpreted in particular ways. All some theologians are suggesting is that the understanding of scriptures like these, to date, is incomplete (or read with a contemporary mindset).
For example the word ‘homosexual’ may not be found in some other translations of the Bible. Equally, if you use such scriptures to back up your perspective, would you also advocate - as Leviticus does - the ‘putting to death’ of such people? Please tell me whether it is legitimate to question scriptues like this and, thus, Church understanding?
Where do you draw the line and why (honest question)?
Peace.
J
Jeffrey
Guest
The verses I posted explain it well enough. There is no twisting. That is what I believe.
I think it would be wrong to get into a scripture slanging match. Tell me your thoughts in your own words!
You know as well as I that scripture can be interpreted in particular ways. All some theologians are suggesting is that the understanding of scriptures like these, to date, is incomplete (or read with a contemporary mindset).
For example the word ‘homosexual’ may not be found in some other translations of the Bible. Equally, if you use such scriptures to back up your perspective, would you also advocate - as Leviticus does - the ‘putting to death’ of such people? Please tell me whether it is legitimate to question scriptues like this and, thus, Church understanding?
Where do you draw the line and why (honest question)?
Peace.
E
El_Paulo
Guest
Fair enough.
All I’m saying is that other (equally thoughtful) people diagree with you and for reasons that are just as valid.
Peace.
P
pablo_rafael
Guest
C
Christus_Rex
Guest
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”
J
Jeffrey
Guest
- But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. [KJV Genesis 19:4-5]
- There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abominations unto the Lord thy God. [KJV Deuteronomy 23:17-18]
- Because of this, God gave them over to their own shameful lusts. Even their women exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received themselves the penalty for their perversion. [Romans 1:26-27]
- Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. [KJV I Corinthians 9:19]
There ya go… Levitcus passages removed. Its enough proof for me.
Cannot see how ppl can’t see that.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
I appreciate Jeffrey’s thoughts here on this thread because in regards to his biblical postings, he is right. Homosexual activity is an abomination before God. 
But I don’t believe Jeffrey is correct about being gay means one cannot be Catholic. “Gay” is just a label for that person’s particular cross of sin to bear and I don’t personally think one should define themselves by their sexual proclivities. We are all sinners, and we all have our one or two (maybe more or less) personal issues that we struggle mightily. The Church is a place for sinners, not for the righteous.
I personally wouldn’t want to label myself as “wrath” and have that define me as a person, let alone be prideful of it, and that is what bothers me about the use of a “rainbow fish”. The rainbow is a sign of “gay pride” and as I mentioned before no faithful Catholic should find pride in their sinfulness.
This is what I find troubling about the gay culture in general, is that they have a specific and persistant agenda to make homosexuality a “right” above all others, and these activists will stop at nothing to further this agenda, which truly is an assault against our faith and way of life, at least here in America.
But condemn all homosexuals for merely having to struggle with this particular sin of lust? Even though many are indeed trying to live within the teachings of the Church? No, I don’t think so, that is not what the Church teaches.
But I don’t believe Jeffrey is correct about being gay means one cannot be Catholic. “Gay” is just a label for that person’s particular cross of sin to bear and I don’t personally think one should define themselves by their sexual proclivities. We are all sinners, and we all have our one or two (maybe more or less) personal issues that we struggle mightily. The Church is a place for sinners, not for the righteous.
I personally wouldn’t want to label myself as “wrath” and have that define me as a person, let alone be prideful of it, and that is what bothers me about the use of a “rainbow fish”. The rainbow is a sign of “gay pride” and as I mentioned before no faithful Catholic should find pride in their sinfulness.
This is what I find troubling about the gay culture in general, is that they have a specific and persistant agenda to make homosexuality a “right” above all others, and these activists will stop at nothing to further this agenda, which truly is an assault against our faith and way of life, at least here in America.
But condemn all homosexuals for merely having to struggle with this particular sin of lust? Even though many are indeed trying to live within the teachings of the Church? No, I don’t think so, that is not what the Church teaches.
E
El_Paulo
Guest
I thought you said the verses in your last post explained it well enough? Quoting verses at people does not make it true - it just closes down conversation. Again, if you could please explain it in your own words.
I think you first need to accept that there are “‘gay’ Catholic/Christians”. Catholicism is not the mechanistic religion you believe - it’s full of lives which are full of ‘contradictions’ and which don’t seem to add up on the surface.
Peace.
P
pablo_rafael
Guest
Jeffrey,
I hope you don’t take offense. I solidy know where you are coming from. I used to believe this way myself. A few years ago I would have said exactly the same thing.
Since you seem to want to spar over this issue with Bible proofs, I will take the bait, at least once more. How about dealing with the “Sin of Sodom” this time.
First off, I think we can all agree that these dudes in Sodom were a pretty bad group. What exactly were they wanting to do? Can we agree that they were not there to be friendly, get aquainted with the visitors, and then enter into loving long-term homosexual relationships? They were there to attack. It was a gang rape situation. They were there to humiliate and intimidate. If homosexuality is the crux of the matter, then would it be OK if the visitors were women, and the men wanted to rape ** them**? Rape is wrong no matter whom is victimized. Psychologists tell us that rape is not about sex; it is about power.
In my opinion it doesn’t follow that since these men were planning a homosexual gang rape, that it automaticallly follows that all homosexuals are bad, any more than it follows that since the Bible condemns heterosexual rape, all heterosexuals must be bad.
Plus in Ezekiel God says. “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me” Ez 16:49-50 (NIV)
No mention of homosexuality in THE sin of Sodom there.
In Luke 10:8-15 (I won’t write out the whole section.) Jesus condemns the cities of Galilee because they were worse than Sodom. Was it because they were “gayer” than Sodom? No Jesus says it was because they refused to welcome God’s messengers, hear God’s word and repent.
Let me quote the above verse from a little more modern translation.
No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute nor a male prostitute into house of the Lord, Your God to pay any vow, because the Lord, your God detests them both. Deut 23:17-18 NIV
I agree with you. Prostitution is bad. It is not part of God’s plan.
Pablo
F
Fashina86
Guest
I have read through all of this, and still cannot find a viable reason for them to use this symbol. It is rediculous… and yet, I have never seen this used around Berkeley’s campus nor have heard any people at school talk about this or sport this distorted symbol…
Laura
Laura
I
irenaeus1
Guest
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. This novel approach to interpret the scriptures to negate any condemnation regarding homosexuality is of recent origin. The previous 1900+ years have never entertained such sloppy hermeneutics.
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.
In Christ,
Irenaeus
I
irenaeus1
Guest
With regard to Leviticus, you are confusing ceremonial and/or disciplinary laws with moral laws. The moral law has never been abrogated, which is why “a man shall not lie with a man as he would a woman” still holds. Think about it… if you want to dismiss this particular moral law simply because we are no longer bound by the dietary laws of abstaining from eating meat with blood or from eating lobster for example, then according to your logic, you have to also accept rape, or incest, or bestiality as morally licit. After all, since Jesus did not explicitly condemn these, all the moral laws must be abrogated along with the ceremonial, dietary, disciplinary laws… that is, if you want to remain consistent with your approach. But we know that this is not true; the New Covenant incorporated the moral law of the Old Covenant, which is why that Church has always condemned homosexual practice.
But for the sake of argument, let’s only refer to the NT. People who (mis)interpret Rom. 1:27, 1 Cor. 6:9, or 1 Tim 1:10 as not referring to homosexual practice are kidding themselves. One cannot use the argument that homosexual behavior is compatible with Christianity and that the supposed incompatibility has erroneously been propagated due to poor translations of the Bible. What you have been told regarding inaccurate translations is simply incorrect and indicates the lengths some will go to rationalize a certain position or viewpoint in the name of diversity, inclusion, and political correctness and/or to justify their own homosexual lifestyle.
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
J
Jeffrey
Guest
Wow… you put it way better than I could. Thank you for the post.
I
irenaeus1
Guest
We don’t know all the details of the sins that rose up to God for vengeance, but you cannot say definitively that homosexuality is NOT among them. I think homosexual practice along with other sexual sins, whether rape or orgies, etc, were among the detestable things being done before God. Jude 7 corroborates this.
In Christ,
Irenaeus
E
El_Paulo
Guest
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.
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? - the Bible does not recount every experience of humanity and I believe we need to give it the prayerful and honest attention it deserves.
Peace.
F
fix
Guest
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.
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? - the Bible does not recount every experience of humanity and I believe we need to give it the prayerful and honest attention it deserves.
Peace.
- Status