I
Incomplete
Guest
I read on Wikipedia that he resigned from active ministry in 1995. The same article that he came out as gay in the 1976. It sounds like he had an agenda when he wrote the book.
- Status
I
Incomplete
Guest
In other words, some people don’t agree with Catholic theology. There is nothing new in that.
I
Incomplete
Guest
M
Michcool1012
Guest
Can anyone explain these passages which seems to indicate homosexual behavior?
Sam 18:1-4, Sam. 20:16-17, especially Sam. 1:19-27
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
You have been very pleasant to me;
Your love to me was wonderful,
Surpassing the love of women.
Sam 18:1-4, Sam. 20:16-17, especially Sam. 1:19-27
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
You have been very pleasant to me;
Your love to me was wonderful,
Surpassing the love of women.
T
thistle
Guest
Helminiak has NOT been a priest since 1995. His views on homosexuality contradicted Church teachings and he resigned from the priesthood.
The Church teachings on homosexuality are infallible teachings underpinned by Sacred Scripture.
Are you really trying to suggest that a gay ex-priest has got it right and the Catholic Church has got it wrong. The Church established by Christ and given authority by Christ. The Church that was entrusted with the Deposit of Faith. The Church that cannot err in matters of faith and morals you are suggesting has erred which would mean Christ lied??
J
jps23430
Guest
Did you really just tell him to choose the lesser of two evils? this is terrible advice. furthermore, where does it say that homosexual relations are more reprehensible than relations outside of marriage, or relations inside OR outside of marriage where Artificial birth control is utilized? I didn’t know there was a weighted scale of mortal sins.
“Well that IS a mortal sin, but not as mortal as THAT is.”
Huh?
M
Michcool1012
Guest
I wanted to thanks everyone for their thoughts and prayers… I just really do feel lost. At least I’m not one of the many people who denounce god from their lives because if they take the bible at face value it says some not so great stuff on homosexual stuff.
M
Michcool1012
Guest
I am not saying I agree or disagree with him, but at the present moment I feel indifferent about it.
I think it is a dangeous frame of mind to take many of the bible passages litterly. I believe that this, and many other issues are much more complex than face value suggests.
Here is an example of why I toss and turn. If you read Romans it does not take long to learn that **unrighteousness **and **uncleanness **are two different things. The New Testament makes it clear that unrighteousness is inherently wrong, while uncleanness is not. And Paul clearly identifies homosexuality as uncleanness (Romans 1:26-27). So, how can you honestly conclude that based on scripture, that homosexuality is wrong?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
The moral, inerrant doctrines of the Church are not subject to my feelings or your feelings.
Nor does whether we “agree” with those doctrines have any effect on their validity.Are you aware that, unlike Protestant sects, Catholicism is not a religion of private interpretation of scripture? And that the Church is the one who authoritatively interprets scripture? Also that the Church’s moral doctrines are based on that authoritative teaching + sacred Tradition + magisterial teaching? In other words, we cannot claim superior knowledge, authority, or contradictory scriptural interpretation, to select which doctrines we must or must not comply with?
M
Michcool1012
Guest
I realise this. I guess what I am trying to say is that I think some people interpert what the bible and or chuch says the wrong way. Usually fueled by their zealous attitudes.The moral, inerrant doctrines of the Church are not subject to my feelings or your feelings.
Are you aware that, unlike Protestant sects, Catholicism is not a religion of private interpretation of scripture? And that the Church is the one who authoritatively interprets scripture? Also that the Church’s moral doctrines are based on that authoritative teaching + sacred Tradition + magisterial teaching? In other words, we cannot claim superior knowledge, authority, or contradictory scriptural interpretation, to select which doctrines we must or must not comply with?
T
thistle
Guest
You cannot be indifferent. The Church teaching on homosexuality is an infallible teaching. That means you have no wiggle room to disagree. You must believe it.
J
jps23430
Guest
Be sure to differentiate homosexuality and homosexual relations. The Church does not say that homosexuality is a sin, but rather a homosexual act, just as is any sexual act outside of marriage, or any sexual act for that matter that isn’t inside of marriage and for both unitive and procreative purposes.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
What does it matter, then?
All that matters is what our Church states. Be aware that the other side of the coin is that plenty of Catholics choose to “interpret the wrong way” (“fueled by zealous attitudes”) other doctrines of the Church. But in terms of biblical interpretation, we can be assured that the Church in her scholarship knows what she is doing.
It matters that we can correct others for over-interpreting (out of zealousness) what is not there in the moral teachings, but we cannot control extremism on either end. We just have to be sure that we ourselves are within the moral boundaires laid out for us.
T
ThyKingdomCome
Guest
Michcool, I was thinking along these lines as well. I wouldn’t say this is true for all people who have homosexual inclinations, but I think that when we indulge a disordered behavior, it is more likely to get a hold on us. There is an addictive quality to a lot of things that are bad for you - and when you are experiencing attractions that feel like addictions, maybe this is a sign that there is something wrong with them?
I am not qualified to debate what the Bible says about homosexuality, or more importantly homosexual ACTS. But what comes to mind when I read your question is that maybe a more useful focus would be for you to study about the purpose of sexual love. Are you familiar with the Theology of the Body? I have to say again, that I am not an expert, and am not qualified to give you all the answers here. But one meaningful thing that I took from the introduction to the Theology of the Body that I attended is that the sexual act between a husband and wife is a reflection of the communion of the Blessed Trinity. It is such a beautiful reflection, that it can result in the creation of life - something that only God can do. I have yet to hear about a more complete earthly reflection of the love of the Blessed Trinity than that of a committed husband and wife giving themselves to each other completely, while being open to the potential creation of new life. When I look at it that way, it is impossible for me to see any other form of sexual gratification (ie. gay sex, masturbation, etc…) as possibly being the way God meant for us to use our bodies. I’m sure I am not explaining this very convincingly, but I would encourage you to study up on the Theology of the Body. The Theology of the Body Institute is one very accessible source of instruction on the matter. There may be others as well…
May God bless your search for the Truth,
TKC
T
thistle
Guest
When the Church talks about homosexuality it means sexual relations between two men or two women. They differentiate by using the expression same sex tendency or same sex attraction to mean those who are not sexually active.
In short:
Homosexuality = sexual relations between same sexes
Same sex tendency/attraction = no sexual relations
S
Saburo
Guest
No, I did not really tell him to choose the lesser of two evils. Nor did I even suggest that he should sin. I questioned what drove him to choose the more reprehensible of two mortal sins given that he faces (one assumes) equal temptation. He has since stated that he does not face equal temptation.
If you do not recognize that some mortal sins are more reprehensible than others, than you must foolishly accept that mass murder is only as reprehensible as a homosexual encounter. Seriously? You believe that?
Neither did I make the silly comparison you allude to regarding one sin being more mortal than another. That is quite an imagination you wield. Be careful before you hurt yourself.
P
Philotheatoo
Guest
I think our prayers are the best help for the OP as well as for Fr. Helminiak who, no matter what, at one point did what I was not selfless enough to do ~ truly dedicate my life to God and make a sincere attempt to sacrifice material, worldly, sexual, etc., desires in an attempt to help God, himself, and others. If he failed to complete that mission, he is no lesser than you or I. I have failed God (thus, myself & family) on more occasions than I can count. I have also ignorantly passed on incorrect information in attempt to bring God’s love to others. I pray for you, Michcool 1012, as well as Father Helminiak because Admonsta is right, we ALL struggle to overcome some things more than others. Please don’t ever give up, pray without ceasing. You have our support.
P
Philotheatoo
Guest
MichCool1012, I assume you were referring to 2 Samuel 1.19-27? Although I have a degree in Theology, I always refer to the Magisterium, Concordances, Study versions, etc. According to the Harper Collins Study Bible; those particular verses are defined possibly as “If this rendering of this difficult pass. is correct, Israel’s glory is Saul; another interpretation is to understand the word to mean gazelle, an example of the common practice of referring to military commanders with the names of strong male animals. Presumably the high places mentioned here are the heights of Gilboa, but the same expression is used in the Qumran War Scroll to mean backs of the slain. … Gath and Ashkelon are 2 of the principal cities of the Philistines. Bounteous fields is an old crux; other interpret. & emendations incl. “fields of offerings” and, “upwellings of the deeps.” The translation, like the Hebrew text, is ambiguous as to whether it is Saul or his shield that is anointed with oil no more. Although Sault was the anointed of the Lord it is probably the shield that is meant; a leather shield was rubbed with oil to keep it supple and ready for battle. The dried bodies of “kermes” insects produced the brilliant red dye called crimson that was a sign of luxury.” Lastly, “David’s lament is more personal when he expresses his grief over his friend Jonathan; on Jonathan’s love for David, see 1 Sam 18-1, 20.17.” If you want quoted interpretations on those, let me know or, you can refer as I do to the Harper Collins Study Bible. I hope that helps.****
P
Philotheatoo
Guest
Here is 1 Sam 20.17. Again, from Harper Collins’ Study Bible:
The statement that Jonathan loved David as he loved his own life is an indication not only of personal affection but also of political loyalty; it evokes the traditional language of ancient Near Eastern fealty oaths See 18.3 which states, Jonathan and David enter into a covenant, a formal agreement of friendship and mutual loyalty. It goes on to state (past 18.3) It has been suggested that by giving David his Robe and other apparel, Jonathan is formally transferring his claim on Saul’s throne to David. Saul’s jealousy of David begins when David’s military exploits become the subject of public celebration.
The statement that Jonathan loved David as he loved his own life is an indication not only of personal affection but also of political loyalty; it evokes the traditional language of ancient Near Eastern fealty oaths See 18.3 which states, Jonathan and David enter into a covenant, a formal agreement of friendship and mutual loyalty. It goes on to state (past 18.3) It has been suggested that by giving David his Robe and other apparel, Jonathan is formally transferring his claim on Saul’s throne to David. Saul’s jealousy of David begins when David’s military exploits become the subject of public celebration.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
[bolding mine]
This post (and his others) highlight why it is very important to leave scripture interpretation to the experts, even while we are encouraged always to engage in lectio divina as a spiritual exercise (daily if possible). Depending on one’s own formal scriptural education (the typical Catholic has little of that, if any), lifting phrases, from verses, from chapters, from structured biblical ‘books,’ through translations, leaping centuries, into a contemporary culture vastly removed from the linguistic understandings which surrounded these ancient texts, is an exercise fraught with danger of error – especially when attempting to derive a theological conclusion from that exercise, or to question a theological conclusion of the Church.
The meaning of any text, secular or sacred, is embedded in the anthropology of the time, the literal meanings and the symbols which the original words evoked, the allusions artistically indicated by parallelisms, equivalencies, and linguistic “reminders,” etc. Further, standards of behavior within the culture, and what that behavior signified, cannot be anachronistically applied from a 21st century perspective, let alone a Western mindset. Even today in the Middle East, gestures of public affection are different than modern Western norms.
Those of us who have studied some of these texts in Hebrew, and some or all of the NT in Greek, can readily see the awkwardness of trying to simplify a translation attempt to a word or a few isolated words, without understanding the above factors, let alone not accounting for the biblical book as a whole. (Luke’s Gospel has a shape to it; Matthew’s Gospel has a shape to it, etc. That shape has significance when it comes to “meaning” in the fuller sense.)
It’s also important to recognize that Catholic biblical scholars are like biblical scholars from other faith traditions: they read widely the analyses of others. It’s sometimes assumed that Catholic scripture scholarship merely proceeds eisegetically – from theology to text-“proofing” – but that is not true. It is merely that a lot of scholarship has occurred since these texts were handed down, and that Catholic scholarship also considers the spiritual dimensions of those texts, as understood by the earliest masters, such as the Fathers, Doctors, Saints of the Church (Sacred Tradition).
Thus, theology (including moral theology) is based on:
~comprehensive scripture scholarship, applying all the tools & discipline of biblical criticism that Protestant and Jewish scholars also apply
~spiritual understanding and application of that scholarship
~the structuring of those understandings within a coherent and consistent philosophy
- Status