I can't believe this - qs about St Paul

[Struggle]

My husband was telling me that one of the guys whom he works with ( a nominal Catholic) believes that St. Paul was a homosexual. My husband - who is a strong Lutheran - is surprised by this and asked me if this is what we as a church believe. I said no, but recently I have heard this belief from many people of different religions. Can someone tell me why this idea is circulating and what is it based on?
Thanks so much.

 

[utunumsint]

Rom 1:26-27 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

Whoever said Paul was a homosexual has never read the Bible, or is bringing in a personal agenda. This has never been taught by any Catholic who is remotely orthodox, so I wouldn’t worry about it. You can reasure your husband that his friend is mistaken.

Also, the Catechism explicitly says that homosexuality is a grave sin.

I hope this helps.
Ut

 

[FightingFat]

I have heard accusations of misogyny leveled at the great apostle, but never homosexuality. I would be interested to hear what evidence these accusations are based on!

 

[Struggle]

I think, but I may be wrong, that people are saying this because they believe Paul hates women and because Paul pleads with God to remove a thorn from his side, and because he states he has been given the gift of chastity (this is what I was told). I don’t see the jump to homosexuality at all, but others tell me that I can not prove that he was not gay.

 

[FightingFat]

I think, but I may be wrong, that people are saying this because they believe Paul hates women and because Paul pleads with God to remove a thorn from his side, and because he states he has been given the gift of chastity (this is what I was told). I don’t see the jump to homosexuality at all, but others tell me that I can not prove that he was not gay.

I suppose it can be said you also cannot proove he was. It’s flimsy evidence don’t you think?

 

[Montie_Claunch]

Romans 1

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Doesn’t sound like something that a person of that orintation would say.

 

[Fidelis]

This has been floating around for a number of years and amounts to an extreme attempt to be inclusive by liberals, as well as wishful thinking by gay activists, who commonly ascribe homosexuality to everyone from Shakespeare, to Galileo, to Lincoln, to anyone other notable person that isn’t around to defend themselves.

These allegations have no basis in fact; give them all the consideration they deserve – none.

 

[Genesis315]

I think it’s fair to say that he struggled with some sort of temptation of the flesh (who doesn’t?). He talks about the thorn in his flesh he has to deal with and he remarks that he often practices corporal mortification. But, it seems he successfully fought these temptations using penance and prayer. In that way, he became an even greater example of chastity and continence.

That being said, I always assumed these were standard male temptations and not anything of a homosexual nature. I don’t think there’s any evidence of it.

 

[Writer]

My husband was telling me that one of the guys whom he works with ( a nominal Catholic) believes that St. Paul was a homosexual. My husband - who is a strong Lutheran - is surprised by this and asked me if this is what we as a church believe. I said no, but recently I have heard this belief from many people of different religions. Can someone tell me why this idea is circulating and what is it based on?
Thanks so much.

I have had as much told me by a liberal gentleman working in the Episcopal administrative offices here in Oregon–a few years ago when we were still trying to stay in that misguided denomination. It is, of course, absolute nonesense to say such a thing about Saint Paul! Anyone who has any grasp of Pauline theology knows that it is Saint Paul who makes some of the clear declarations regarding the serious sin of homosexuality.

 

[RNRobert]

This reminds me… I ‘ve heard people say that King David was gay (I think I even saw a blurb on the topic years ago in Time magazine. Their "proof’" is a passage in the first chapter of 2nd Samuel where David is mourning the death of his friend Jonathan and says in verse 26:
“I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother! most dear have you been to me; More precious have I held love for you than love for women.” (NAB)

Personally, I feel that the love David felt for Jonathan was not sexual at all. Many times, men who serve together in combat or survive disasters form a close bond between them.

 

[MariaG]

I think it’s fair to say that he struggled with some sort of temptation of the flesh (who doesn’t?). He talks about the thorn in his flesh he has to deal with and he remarks that he often practices corporal mortification. But, it seems he successfully fought these temptations using penance and prayer. In that way, he became an even greater example of chastity and continence.

That being said, I always assumed these were standard male temptations and not anything of a homosexual nature. I don’t think there’s any evidence of it.

I had heard this while in non-Catholic Churches, using these verses, but it was not used as a validation of homosexuality but to show how a man who was “born that way” would act. A chaste man who did not give into the desires of the flesh. Note, this church did not get into whether or not one is “born” that way or not, but just was using those verses to show that EVEN IF one is born that way, the proper response is prayer to take away those desires and a chaste life.

Nor did not claim St. Paul was homosexual, but that it has been suggested by some that Paul’s “thorn” were homosexual desires.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Wheter or not in was homosexuality or not, it is obvious that St. Paul thought his actions to be sinful and prayed to rid himself of the thorn in his flesh. This should be a testament to any sinner homosexual or otherwise that we are called to live a chaste life.

Peace!

 

[Abira]

Wheter or not in was homosexuality or not, it is obvious that St. Paul thought his actions to be sinful and prayed to rid himself of the thorn in his flesh. This should be a testament to any sinner homosexual or otherwise that we are called to live a chaste life.

Peace!

I was just about to write pretty much the same reply…

to me it simply doesn’t matter. We all have our issues to deal with and if St. Paul had his issues, whatever they were, the point is that he dealt with them in the right way.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

sometimes laughter is the best refutation.

There are “christian” gay churches, and I would not be surprised if that theory started in one of them while trying to redefine the scriptures to fit their sin.

 

[Abira]

I don’t think it’s a kind of gay prpaganda at all.

to the opposite end, because Paul struggles with his sin and does not accept it as a natural route for him… I think Gay churches would prefer not to have Paul ‘on their side’… because…

let’s just say they believe he was gay just for the point…

they would prefer not to have Paul as a gay man because then a gay man of the bible would still refute the rightness of homosexuality despite his own homosexual orientation.

It would be better to leave st paul as a heterosexual man if they were after propaganda…and I don’t believe they are.

 

[Fidelis]

I don’t think it’s a kind of gay prpaganda at all.

to the opposite end, because Paul struggles with his sin and does not accept it as a natural route for him… I think Gay churches would prefer not to have Paul ‘on their side’… because…

let’s just say they believe he was gay just for the point…

they would prefer not to have Paul as a gay man because then a gay man of the bible would still refute the rightness of homosexuality despite his own homosexual orientation.

It would be better to leave st paul as a heterosexual man if they were after propaganda…and I don’t believe they are.

Nah! They would just say he was repressed and a victim of the closemindedness of his time, isn’t the Church horrid, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada…

I went through public school in California. I’ve heard it all.

 

[MariaG]

I don’t think it’s a kind of gay prpaganda at all.

to the opposite end, because Paul struggles with his sin and does not accept it as a natural route for him… I think Gay churches would prefer not to have Paul ‘on their side’… because…

let’s just say they believe he was gay just for the point…

they would prefer not to have Paul as a gay man because then a gay man of the bible would still refute the rightness of homosexuality despite his own homosexual orientation.

It would be better to leave st paul as a heterosexual man if they were after propaganda…and I don’t believe they are.

When it was discussed in our church, it was being discussed as that some churches* were* saying that Paul was gay and that it validated a gay lifestyle.

That clearly is not the case and this was pointed out in the bible study. And basically as others have stated here, it doesn’t matter if he were gay or not, he clearly taught that LIVING the homosexual life was unacceptable to God and the only response to this is prayer and a chaste life.

 

[Riley259]

My husband was telling me that one of the guys whom he works with ( a nominal Catholic) believes that St. Paul was a homosexual. My husband - who is a strong Lutheran - is surprised by this and asked me if this is what we as a church believe. I said no, but recently I have heard this belief from many people of different religions. Can someone tell me why this idea is circulating and what is it based on?
Thanks so much.

This accusation is absurd. Paul strongly condemns homosexual activity in Romans. Just read the Bible and you’ll have your question answered.

 

[Struggle]

Well, it seems absurd, but it is true that people are saying this. I am shocked. However, I do not think that just because one preaches against a certain sin means that person does not commit that sin. For instance, I tell my children not to speak poorly of others, but I catch myself doing that same thing. (Don’t get me wrong, I know I am no St. Paul!)

 

[seek]

Folks this grew out of speculation bandied about by.
a Bishop who frequently publishes. His name is John
Shelby Spong. I think it first appeared in his book, “Rescuing
The Bible From Fundamentalism”.

PS An Episcopal Bishop