I really need advice

[Musician]

Same-sex attraction is a difficult cross to bear, and at your age, it can be overwhelming, dealing with sexual urges.
You are not alone, and this can be overcome, but only by constant prayer and partaking of the Holy Sacraments.
The teaching of the Church is correct, however: homosexuality is not permitted to Christians. Period. That is the way it is, and no amount of trying to explain it away will change that.
Do you want to be a committed Catholic? Then you must give the lifestyle up. It is that simple. It will be one of the hardest things you have ever done, but it is better to do it now than later. Build good habits for yourself. Pray for Holy Spirit guidance every morning to keep you pure. Go to Confession to a good confessor who will help you. Partake of Holy Communion in a state of grace as often as possible. Go to Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. It all helps.
Courage, the group, is very helpful.
I will pray for you!

 

[tominrichmond]

Our Lord calls on us to overcome our sinful inclinations. Whether your homosexual inclinations are in some way inherent or a product of conditions, it matters not. What matters is that you avail yourself of the grace God provides (principally through the Eucharist and Penance) to become no longer a slave to your disordered inclinations.

You are not alone-- we all have some variety of disordered inclinations. For many men, it’s impurity arising from lust about women. For you, it happens to be occasional lust for people of the same sex.

Either way, our universal call is to use grace to transform, utterly to rise above, these disordered desires and inclinations.

You can do it. When the Scriptures say it is better to pluck out your eye if need be in order to enter Heaven, God is telling us that there will be some amount of sacrifice and pain in giving up those things which hinder us spiritually.

But it can be done. Pray, sacrifice, deny yourself, and above all, be devoted to the Sacraments.

 

[Dear_God]

I was about to say this very thing. You are attracted to women, but you choose to sin with another man. Why? If you are going to commit a mortal sin, why choose the more reprehensible variety? Someday, you may find yourself married to a woman. Do you intend to disregard your marriage vows and have relationships with men? This would be similar to a heterosexual, married man having an affair with a brunette simply because she is attractive in a way different than his blonde wife. It’s a lousy excuse, and it is not harder for you to tamp down your SSA than it is for any of us to stay faithful to our spouses. That is not to say it is easy, but chastity is not easy for most. Yet, God has given you the ability to resist this sin if you only embrace and exercise that ability. The fact that you struggle rather than entirely give in shows that you have the start of a successful fight. Keep trying, and stay away from the “gay lifestyle” in every form. It is poison that will kill you.

BTW, Daniel A. Helminiak is a homosexual and an activist resigned from the priesthood. He is not exactly coming from a neutral corner when he tries to tell you that the Bible is neutral on homosexuality. You could say he has an ax to grind.

May be, that is, an ax to grind but, I find nothing in his book that indicates he has an ax to grind. Homosexuality is close to his heart. His book takes one in-dept into hermeneutics used to interpret God’s Word. I also find that the Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed., 1968 parallels his exegesis on the issue of homosexuality. He takes you deep into St. Paul’s thought process. What is natural to Paul is often not what lay people read in a literal reading. Helminiak does not teach how to read the Bible but one begins to see clearly how one is supposed to read it. Keeping in mind that there are many tools to use to read the Bible; ancient Hebrew, Hebrew, Greek; Church tradition and/or Christian thought; Scripture verifying Scripture. All of which supports Helminiak’s “neutral corner.” If Helminiak is wrong in his “neutral corner” I have yet to find that wrong. Regarding Catholic Faith, remembering Sunday’s homily, change within the Church is very much apart of Church’s history but change comes after many years of discourse. Which, by the way, is what defines Christianity. What the Church gets wrong in time will be corrected in time.

 

[Dear_God]

The Bible is most definitely NOT neutral on homosexuality.

Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, they have committed an abomination; the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.

Jude 7 Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Rom 1:26-27
26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 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.

1 Tim 1:8-10
8 We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law,
9 with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,
10 the unchaste, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching

1 Cor 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I have argued every one of these verses used to condemn homosexuality. Whether my argument is with a fundamentalist or a Catholic, the disagreement remains the same; condemnation of homosexuality as a sin. I first find that Catholics would condemn homosexuality as a sin. So, I ask, where in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is a sin? Or, if Catholics do not condemn homosexuality as a sin then, could you please explain what Leviticus 18:22 means by “abomination.” I realize that the above verses are used to condemn homosexuality (which was not a word used in ancient writings) but could you please show me where early Church Fathers condemned or translated said verses to speak of homosexuality? I have spent countless hours researching this issue on homosexuality. My studies takes me into issues of marriage, polygamy, adultery (ancient understanding) and of course homosexuality. Does Jesus speak of homosexuality? What is a sodomite? Who are the modern sodomites?

 

[Dear_God]

Hi and welcome to the forums.

As was mentioned in the posts about, there are two issues here my brother. The first is that you are having sex outside of marriage. It doesn’t matter if it is with a man, woman, sheep, chair, etc. This is something we can all control (and we all stuggle with) regardless of our sexual orientation.

The second issue is same sex attraction whether you are homosexual or bisexual. This one is more of a cross than the first.

Perhaps what Father meant was that being gay or bisexual in and of itself is not a sin. It is when we give in to those desires and act on them that sin enters. As an analogy, if you were to be sexually attracted to 12 year old girls that would not in and of itself be a sin, however acting on it would be (and a felony to boot)

Anyone can write a book even people with lots of letters after their name. What you need to consult is solid church teaching such as the catechism or the Courage Ministry couragerc.net/. Perhaps you have SSA because God is calling you to a life of chastity for some greater purpose or perhaps this will pass. You don’t know unless you let God work in you.

We - you, I, all the posters here, have our crosses to bear. This one is yours at this time of your life but Jesus will help you to carry it if only you slide over and hand it to him. I sense the pain in your post and I will keep you in my prayers this evening.

What you refer to here is called Catholic Faith. And, rightly so, yours is an unconditional belief. It amazes me that Fr. Helminiak still considers himself a Catholic but he does so because he believes that change must take place from within the Catholic Faith. With that said, your analogy of a 12 year old girl, I might point out that, not only was the Virgin Mary’s age 12 but, marriage was more often than not reserved for virgins at this young age. Time has changed what we now consider unacceptable.

 

[Dear_God]

Yes, I am aware of these quotes but taking direct quotes from the bible is usually something reserved for a pentecostal or a few other branches (no offense) Even due to the first issue of mistranslations from Hebrew to English etc

This is from the aformentioned book:

“biblical scholarship holds that these believers’ conception of inerrancy is naively based, for English versions of the originally Hebrew and Greek scriptures are rife with problematic translations. Some scholars further maintain that the supposedly antihomosexual passages are not blanket condemnations of homosexual persons and acts. Indeed, in some cases, these verses aren’t about homosexuality at all; they meant quite different things to those for whom they were first written, peoples whose social conceptions of sexuality were vastly different from ours. Helminiak provides cogent, accessible precis of these revisionist findings on the Bible’s six major passages and few minor references that seem to denounce homosexuality. The Bible does not condemn gay sex as we understand it today, he concludes; those who seek to know outright if gay or lesbian sex is good or evil . . . will have to look elsewhere for an answer.”

KJV,
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The English words “good” and “evil” (or bad) do not completely convey the Hebraic meaning of the word tov and ra which are more related to the function of a person, place or thing rather than their appearance or morality as implied in the English.
ancient-hebrew.org/9_comparison.html

Further research needs to be done on “dysfunctional”, specifically, contacting the Ancient Hebrew Research Center to ask a specific question.

Footnote from NAB: Ed. 1970, 1986. Geneisis:
“18,20: Israelite traditon was unanimous in ascribing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to the wickedness of these cities, but tradition varied in regard to the nature of this wickedness. According to the present account of the Yahwist, the sin of Sodom was homosexuality (19, 4f), which is therefore also known as sodomy; but according to Isaiah (1,9f; 3,9), it was a lack of social justice: Ezekiel (16, 46-51) described it as a disregard for the poor, whereas Jeremiah (23,14 saw it as a general immorality.”

What is not evident or scripturally verifiable is this notion that the Story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about the sin of homosexuality or that scripture condemns homosexuality. As in the above paragraph, there is scriptural evidence that does identify the sin of Sodom.

Genesis:
NAB, 18:20 “Then the LORD said: "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave,”

KJV, 18:20“And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;”

RMT, 18:20
and “YHWH [He exists]” said,
given that the outcry of “Sedom
[Secret]”
and
“Ghamorah
[Rebellion]” had increased in
number and given that their error
had become very heavy,

It is interesting that in the modern translations, both NAB and the KJV are represented by the issue of Sodom and Gomorrah’s “sin.” But in the RMT, the issue is “their error.” Also note that in the modern translations, “their sin is very grievous” and “so grave” whereas, the RMT states “that their error had become very heavy.” Now one must assume that “error” and “sin” are synonymous. And that “heavy” is synonymous with “grave” or “very grievous.” I would caution about any representation of sin in the Bible because I find that the Bible is more about our relationships than sin. It is easy to see that there is a relationship being talked about in 18:20 but still as apparent that said relationship is against human morality, ethics (where morality is about relationships, as in function). Here the dysfunction is not in regards to homosexuality but to the establishing a relationship of the townspeople and the two strangers. Sin is therefore about the heart, not about homosexuality.

 

[Dear_God]

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??

I would have to say that this is circular reasoning. The Church establishes what is given discourse regarding Christ hence, Catholic tradition or Christian thought. Since the Church says so, it must be true, right? But given such discourse, the Church has changed or has been wrong in the past. History bears this out or, should I say, Christian thought or, tradition.

 

[Dear_God]

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?

It does not amaze me that Catholics would relate private interpretations to Protestantism because many Protestants do a personal interpretation of scripture but, this is not so within many Protestants, especially those whom have spent a lifetime studying the scriptures. Nobody should claim superior knowledge of God for all is man’s perception anyway. Idolatry is not becoming of a Christian. After 2000 years of discourse you’d think they’d get it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Nobody should claim superior knowledge of God for all is man’s perception anyway. Idolatry is not becoming of a Christian. After 2000 years of discourse you’d think they’d get it.

Are you accusing the Roman Church of idolatry, including in its claim of inerrant interpretation of Scripture? Or are you accusing me personally of idolatry?

 

[Dear_God]

Are you accusing the Roman Church of idolatry, including in its claim of inerrant interpretation of Scripture? Or are you accusing me personally of idolatry?

The discussion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elizabeth502 View Post
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?
It does not amaze me that Catholics would relate private interpretations to Protestantism because many Protestants do a personal interpretation of scripture but, this is not so within many Protestants, especially those whom have spent a lifetime studying the scriptures. Nobody should claim superior knowledge of God for all is man’s perception anyway. Idolatry is not becoming of a Christian. After 2000 years of discourse you’d think they’d get it.

It is not my intention to discredit your faith. It is my intention to address your post (as read above). My theology is not Thomism nor do I follow Catholic doctrine. I do not consider myself Catholic anymore although, I am not excommunicated, as far as I know. I address issues in regards to Church tradition (Christian thought) and through a critical reading of the Bible. My intent is to address such issues biblically. If your faith dictates otherwise, such a discussion would be fruitless for both of us. For you to address Catholicism as opposed to my addressing the Bible will get us know where fast. What I said above in regards to idolatry is Thomism in as much as it is classical Thomas Aquinas take on God.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

This is from the aformentioned book:

“biblical scholarship holds that these believers’ conception of inerrancy is naively based, for English versions of the originally Hebrew and Greek scriptures are rife with problematic translations. Some scholars further maintain that the supposedly antihomosexual passages are not blanket condemnations of homosexual persons and acts. Indeed, in some cases, these verses aren’t about homosexuality at all; they meant quite different things to those for whom they were first written, peoples whose social conceptions of sexuality were vastly different from ours. Helminiak provides cogent, accessible precis of these revisionist findings on the Bible’s six major passages and few minor references that seem to denounce homosexuality. The Bible does not condemn gay sex as we understand it today, he concludes; those who seek to know outright if gay or lesbian sex is good or evil . . . will have to look elsewhere for an answer.”

If you are looking to sources like Helminiak’s book, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, to help you understand your personal struggle with same sex attraction, it will only become too easy to surrender to a sin or worse to fall further in love with a pet sin that will be more difficult to shake 10, 20 or more years from now and well into middle age. The path that Mr. Helminiak took is no different from that taken by John Boswell, both trying to find in Scripture and history a justification for homosexuality that is not there. You have much to benefit if you do not confine your research to pro-gay sources and sites. Actually, CAF is a wealth of information and references on the subject of interest to you in the Library sub-menu, Ask an Apologist section, stickies above Sacred Scripture and Social Justice sub-forums, etc.

Do you see yourself embracing the lifestyle to the end without remorse, or like so many who are in fact spiritually suffering in their older years, and would like a way back but overcoming the hold of an entrenched habit is much more difficult?

You solicited advice in a Catholic forum for a reason and several Catholic members have given good advice, such as michelleds and Elizabeth502. Just be careful in accepting the advice from those who may use the scholarly approach and whose motivation in participation in these forums is to sway Catholics from the teachings of the faith. Gay activism may have penetrated religious life and academia, but it cannot alter what the bible has taught for 2000 years on homosexuality. Just ask yourself why many ‘academics’ and ‘scholars’ attempt to propagate in this site a revisionist rendering of biblical verses in the OT and what St. Paul preached in his letters in the New Testament. Further, posters who feed you with anti-Catholic views will not admit to certain eternal truths and unchanging teachings, confusing and maintaining said teachings with temporal instructions and those meant for a particular culture.

I close with a thought and prayer for you.
,

 

[Dear_God]

“10 (A) God’s Past Judgments on the Wicked (5-7). Three OT examples are briefly cited. 5. destroyed those who did not believe: Cf. Nm 14:26-35. Paul draws more detailed morals from the account of Israel in the desert: 1 Cor 10:1-11 (cf. Also Heb 3:7-4:11; Ps 94:8-11). 6. The second example probably refers to the “sons of God” who took to wife the daughters of men (Gn 6:1-4). This seems implied in v. 7, since the Sodomites sinned “in a similar manner” to the angels. Furthermore, Enoch (quoted in vv. 14-15) gives great emphasis to this sin of the angels (or heavenly “Watchers”) and to its punishment, in terms very similar to those used here by Jude (cf. Enoch 6-16; esp. 10:4-6, 11,13; 12:4; 15:3;19:1). Cf. Also 2 Pt 2:4-6, where the fall of the angels occurs along with that of the Sodomites; and also T. Naphtali 3:4-5. The imprisoned angels awaiting judgment in 2 Pt and Jude are identified by some with the “spirits in prison” of 1 Pt 3:19 (see comment). 7. Sodom and Gomorrah: Cf. Gn 19:4-25. These cities are frequently cited as prime examples of sin and its punishment in the OT Prophets and in the Apocrypha. Cf. Also Mt 10:15 par.;11:24; Lk17:29; 2Pt 2:6. surrounding cities: Admah and Zeboiim (Dt 29:22; cf. Hos 11:8). in a similar manner to them: Probably refers to the sinful angels of v. 6. going off after an alien flesh: As the angels sought out creatures of another order of being (women), so the Sodomites sought out angels (Gen 19:5; cf. T. Asher 7:1). serve as an example: The Dead Sea area, redolent of fire and brimstone, was a constant reminder of the punishment of these buried cities. In Jewish tradition the fire that fell upon them continues to burn on as the fire of hell (cf. F. Lang, ThWNT 6, 945f.).” JBC[60:10].

In any Bible study, one must follow the references given for a specific text. One must not take out of context any passage. By following references, one can establish what scripture says in regards to what is being referred to and in so doing understand from the authors process of thinking. After one begins to develop a picture of what the author’s intent was those issues we deal with in our own day and age begin to fall into place with regards to what the author was speaking to. Christian thought/tradition throughout the last 2000 years has generally been progressive. This all began with the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and it is still so today. The discourse still continues.

Claiming Jude speaks about homosexuality fails as good exegesis because the issues mentioned don’t address homosexuality. Here, one has to infer that Jude is speaking of homosexuality because someone along the line of centuries of discourse decided that homosexuality was the issue. And now, given scholars like Boswell, with their documentation, the issue was nor is about homosexuality. In depth research brings forth the underlying meaning of such passages. It is as wrong to condemn homosexuality as it is to avoid the real meaning of the passages.

In my studies/research, what I’ve found is that the passages representative of the condemnation of homosexuality were not condemning homosexuality. My research led me to the likes of Boswell’s work, to Helminiak’s and others. They collaborate what my personal studies found questionable. When I look into their documentation I find no misrepresentation. Their documentation is sound.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

^The above is homosexualist drivel. It falls in line with advocacy ‘scholarship’ made up of improbable and fanciful interpretation of biblical verses, serving the argument of homosexual writers like Boswell and Helminiak.

For balance, the OP should also read the following …

from a Catholic perspective,

In the case of John Boswell by Richard John Neuhaus

and on Daniel Helminiak from a Christian perspective,

A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak’s Gay Theology

A Further Look at Pro-Homosexual Theology

For the time being, if all the above prove to be too much reading for a 22 y.o. struggling with questions on homosexuality, may this serve as a short cautionary cite as there are forces that try to destroy authentic teaching.

2 Timothy 4 3-4:

For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers

and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.

 

[Dear_God]

“Historically, autonomous reason has liberated and maintained itself in a never ending fight with heteronomy. Heteronomy imposes a strange (heteros) law (nomos) on one or all of the functions of reason. It issues commands from “outside” on how reason should grasp and shape reality. But this “outside” is not merely outside. It represents, at the same time, an element in reason itself, namely, the depth of reason. This makes the fight between autonomy and heteronomy dangerous and tragic. It is, finally, a conflict in reason itself. As long as reason is prerational, a confusing mass of sense impressions, a chaotic mass of instincts, strivings compulsions, no genuine heteronomy has appeared. All this is outside reason, but it is not a law to which reason is asked to subject itself; it is not law in any rational sense. The problem of heteronomy is the problem of an authority which claims to represent reason, namely, the depth of reason, against its autonomous actualization. The basis of such a claim is not the superiority in rational power which many traditions, institutions, or personalities obviously have. The basis of a genuine heteronomy is the claim to speak in the name of the ground of being and therefore in an unconditional and ultimate way. A heteronomous authority usually expresses itself in terms of myth and cult because these are the direct and intentional expressions of the depth of reason. It is also possible for nonmythical and nonritual forms to gain power over the mind ( e.g., political ideas). Heteronomy is this sense is usually a reaction against an autonomy which has lost its depth and has become empty and powerless. But as a reaction it is destructive, denying to reason the right of autonomy and destroying its structural laws from outside.”
Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, I, p. 84, 85.

What prompted my reply was your quote of 2 Timothy 4: 3-4.

“3-4. The emphasis is on the future, but the present is also included (see comment on 3:1-9). fables: See comments on 1 Tm 1:4; 4:7. sound doctrine: See comment on 1 Tm 1:10. evangelist: A preacher of the gospel whose activity was not restricted to a particular area (Acts 21:8; Eph 4:11).
JBC[57:45:3-4].

“4. fables and endless genealogies which promote useless speculation rather than the design of God based on faith: The context (vv. 7ff.) and parallel passages in the Pastorals (especially Ti 1:10, 14; 3:9) show that the false teachings included a strong Jewish element; Ti 1:14 refers explicitly to “Jewish fables.” Accordingly, “fables and endless genealogies” seems t refer to legends and fictitious genealogies of OT personages in the manner attested to in Jub. design of God: The eternal divine plan (oikonomia) of salvation and the working out of this plan in man’s history according to his faith. 5. The purpose of Christian preaching, here referred to as a “charge,” is the development of love in the hearts of the faithful (cf. Rom 13:10: “Love is the plenitude of the law”). This love proceeds from faith, and faith expresses itself in love (cf. Gal 5:6). good conscience: This phrase and “clear conscience” are favorite expressions in the Pastorals.”
JBC[57:14:4].

15 7. The false teachers misunderstand the very nature of the Old Law. Paul calls them nomodidaskaloi, strict sense of professional scribe (as in Lk 5:17 and Acts 5:34).
JBC[57:15:7].

Now, InSearchofGrace, I assume (forgive me if my assumption is wrong) that you are addressing with, 2 Timothy 4:3-4, that those like Boswell and Helminiak are the future, referenced as the false teachers. In your post you speak of “ improbable and fanciful interpretation of biblical verses” as if their scholarly efforts had not followed any acceptable guidelines for biblical interpretation. Then you offer up links that refute Boswell and Helminiak as if your concerns did not apply to the authors to which you linked this thread. So, find above, quotes that I hope lay out another perspective regarding what I consider traditional Christian thought. At the very least, Boswell and Helminiak bot follow more precisely the best of exegesis. Note that this conversation could easily move towards St. Thomas Aquinas.

I’d like to see a discourse utilizing Early Church Fathers take on homosexuality. My limited library does not allow me the ability to research their thoughts. So, please direct me towards their teaching.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
At the very least, Boswell and Helminiak bot follow more precisely the best of exegesis. …

I’d like to see a discourse utilizing Early Church Fathers take on homosexuality. My limited library does not allow me the ability to research their thoughts. So, please direct me towards their teaching.

You must not have read or simply skipped the articulation of Neuhaus, Olliff & Hodges in the posted links, nullifying the interpretation of Boswell and Helminiak.

As far as ECF take on homosexuality, you don’t have to go far. This very site provides the ECF Teachings on Homosexuality. No need for me to cut/paste; just click on the link.

The Didache
Justin Martyr
Clement of Alexandria
Novatian
Cyprian of Carthage
Arnobius
Eusebius of Caesarea
Basil the Great
John Chrysostom
Augustine
The Apostolic Constitutions

 

[Dear_God]

You must not have read or simply skipped the articulation of Neuhaus, Olliff & Hodges in the posted links, nullifying the interpretation of Boswell and Helminiak.

As far as ECF take on homosexuality, you don’t have to go far. This very site provides the ECF Teachings on Homosexuality. No need for me to cut/paste; just click on the link.

The Didache
Justin Martyr
Clement of Alexandria
Novatian
Cyprian of Carthage
Arnobius
Eusebius of Caesarea
Basil the Great
John Chrysostom
Augustine
The Apostolic Constitutions

Thanks, InSearchOfGrace, your link is one that I’ve already read. Do you not find it odd that what the Catholic Church uses to support condemnation of homosexuality, what the early Church Fathers wrote about was not homosexuality but temple sex(fornication) and pederasty? How does this equate to being homosexuality?

Please pass on more of the early Church Fathers that you believe condemns homosexuality. I’ll post a past posting of mine to another forum that reflects my take on your link.

 

[Dear_God]

(Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]). Where in the KJV, biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6&version=KJV, 1 Corinthians 6: 9,10;
“9Know 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,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”, this reference, Didache 2:2 seems to parallel 6:9,10. What the Didache was thought to represent and what it has come to represent is not something I am prepared to comment on at this time as I am formulating a concept of what meaning the Didache has to offer to us today.

Didache 2:2 immediately addresses Voila’s condemnation to homosexuality. And, on the side, it also addresses abortion. This is an issue today but it also is in relation to the issue of abuse towards children which seems to be the issue of 2:2, pederasty. The rest of 2:2 relates to what I’ve already said in this forum about the catalogue of vices not being a list of sins, singularly, but a list that represents what are man’s moral issues. Not moralistic nor pietistic but how man thinks in regards to relationships. 2:2 represents a condemnation of pederasty not, homosexuality.

The second reference for proof of the condemnation of homosexuality comes from, First Apology 27 [A.D. 151] where the bulk of this reference is although, about prostitution it is also about children and the abuse of children by adults. One comment regarding “sodomy” is rather obscure and I intend on doing a thorough research of this when the books come to me. The obscurity comes from children “mutilated for the purpose of sodomy.”

The Exhortation to the Greeks 2 [A.D. 190] again, used as proof of the Early Church to condemn homosexuality is about the effeminate; classified as “the secret mysteries of the Athenians; these Orpheus records and, representative of first, lesbianism and secondly, pederasty as with Hercules and his debauchery.
Under this same heading, “Clement of Alexandria,” it pederasty is again sited from “The Instructor 6, ca. A.D. 193” speaking of the 'shame,” “wickedness,” of “adultery” and “pederasty” and, “the like.” Again, I need to research what “the like” means.
The next example, also from The Instructor 6, ca. A.D. 193, starts with sodomy and proceeds to clarify what the “wrong” was about. How interestingly this description resembles my post on modern sodomites which, by the way, identifies the real sin of Sodom. But here, it verifies my post. So far, I can thank Voila for directing me to these ancient of Christian texts.

The next example comes from Tertullian, Modesty 4 [A.D. 220, and his concern is with the laws of nature. A short reference to [human] “bodies” and “sexes.” I suppose that, by “sexes” Tertullian is speaking about heterosexuality and homosexuality. Again, more research to understand what Tertullian is speaking about. But, the Church uses this short excerpt from Modesty 4 to condemn homosexuality.

The next example is about the Novatian and speaks to the symbolism of certain foods. Within this short excerpt, out of nowhere, is interjected the phrase “and grave manners are approved in men” and, “and effeminate manners are disapproved” because [question], “because they are trifling, and fickle, and faithless.” It goes on to address swine as “dirty, and and delighting in garbage.” Is this, as we see in a modern, scientific futuristic existence, what Early Christians had no understanding about the science regarding eating such foods as swine? Lastly, this example rebukes “men deformed into women." Again, it begs the question, is what the concern about, eunuchs?

Under the heading, “Cyprian of Carthage,” “Letters 1:8 A.D. 253” speaks to “abominations.” “Men are emasculated” in the beginning of this example and yet goes on to say, “He grows into praise by virtue of his crime.” One must wonder what is being said here when one, men are emasculated and two, it is the man’s crime. One is it is done to him and the other is that it is his crime. Go figure. Needs further research. And yet, the inference of this example is again along the lines of pederasty if not more to the point about idolatry; “Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion."

Yet another heading, “Arnobius,” the example seems to be about again, pederasty. And the resultant fit of rage is the mutilating of himself (Acdestis); what does this represent, genital modification?

 

[Dear_God]

Under the heading, “Eusebius of Caesarea,” many things are briefly brought up. Found within “Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]” is talk about “marriage,” “unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men,” all of which is associated with Lev. 18:24–25. Reading what the Jerome Biblical Commentary says regarding 24-25, speaks in regards to idolatry and the defilement of Israel. In other words, Israel was to remain holy and sacred, distinct and separate. Israel’s adulterated tendencies were controlled by laws, hence the reference to “unlawful marriage.” This does not mean that Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 does not nor is of no importance regarding male-male genital penetration. This is to be clarified at a later date. Suffice it to say that homogenital acts were not a sin when understood in light of closely being tied to Israel’s nationalism.

“Basil the Great” on “Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]” speaks of “unseemliness with males.” Now, again the definition or understanding of a word, this time, “unseemliness” defines what is being said in 217:62.
unseemliness
n : a lack of consideration for others [ant: seemliness]
This then, consideration for others, would relate to how men respect another man’s role as a man in their society. This opens up a whole, an another discussion regarding pedophilia, what was acceptable or what was concurrent in their society. The “unseemliness of males” is associated with “adulterers.”
Under this same heading, young monks are counceled to avoid other young males (“The Renunciation of the World [A.D. 373]”.)

The next heading, “John Chrysostom” again speaks to pederasty and in the context of “Homilies on Titus 5 [A.D. 390]” also brings up, “boys, whom they called their paedica.”
And again, “Homilies on Matthew 3:3 [A.D. 391]” speaks to young boys.

"All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26–27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males;” “Homilies on Romans 4 [A.D. 391].” I suspect that the real concern by Paul here lies with the injustice associated with the treatment of Gentiles by the Jews; speaking of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. Taking this reference literally is without validation when the rest of this writing may shed more light on what Paul meant. Certainly, 1:26,27 critically understood does not condemn homosexuality.
“[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men” (ibid.).”
Again, what intercourse is this writing speaking about? Women can only have intercourse with males. What is the meaning of “intercourse” here?
And then, further insight claims to be against nature, this intercourse of women. And yet, what the writer is concerned about is that this intercourse was not made lawful but is not lawless but is contrary to nature. This opens up the Church to decide what is the law of nature.

Augustine, in “Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]” about acts against nature may be taken out of context from the rest of Confessions. The emphasis Augustine focuses on is either homosexuality or modern Sodomites.

I chose the Catholic Answers site to address issues of condemning homosexuality because Catholics call homosexuality a disorder and it was validating such a condemnation using ancient texts. Since Voila only referred me to the Didache and other ancient writings of the Early Church era without specific references of condemnation of homosexuality, I used Catholic Answers to parallel what Voila chastised me for failing to legitimate my stance on the Bible and homosexuality. Without any first hand reading of the Didache and other early writings, I will conclude for the moment that even the Early Church Fathers did not speak of homosexuality but they did speak of pedeastry.

 

[John21652]

I would have to say that this is circular reasoning. The Church establishes what is given discourse regarding Christ hence, Catholic tradition or Christian thought. Since the Church says so, it must be true, right? But given such discourse, the Church has changed or has been wrong in the past. History bears this out or, should I say, Christian thought or, tradition.

Well, well, well, look who’s reared his head in yet another attempt at denigrating the Catholic Church. I thought you would have learnt your lesson the last time DeeGee. No doubt you are all prepared to smother us under rheams of your sola scriptura conclusions. Spare us, oh Dee Gee.

Alas, this time it seems to be the case that you need a few lessons in logic, as well as Church history, and the underpinnings of Catholic morality. You called Elizabeth502’s reasoning ‘circular’. Do you know what circular reasoning is DeeGee? It is where the conclusion is contained in the premise, or maybe in both premises. In Elizabeth502’s case, she used one phrase and one statement that can be considered a premise. Her phrase was “Catholic teaching”. A phrase does not make a premise, DeeGee. her possible premise was about “biblical underpinnings” of catholic teaching. The thing is, DeeGee, Elizabeth502 did not give the how, why, when or where of what makes up “Catholic teaching”. Until you can demonstrate that her phrase is a premise and which contains the conclusion, you can’t state that the reasoning is circular. You see, Catholic teaching also contains teaching based on conclusions that are not strictly Catholic. You, wrongly, assumed that what the Catholic Church teaches is strictly Catholic.

Let me enlarge on that a bit more. The teachings of Judaism and Islam are the same on many points of theology. With respect to your pet subject, homosexuality, the teachings of the three major religions are the same. Thus, Elizabeth502’s statement regarding 'Catholic teaching" on this subject are not strictly Catholic. Your statement that her reasoning is circular is false. Catholic teaching on this topic also include the teachings of the Ancient Greeks and Romans. Go read Aquinas if you require further enlightenment.

That implicit part of Elizabeth502’s phrase which you conveniently ignored when you labelled her as guilty of circular reasoning is the Natural Law. It underpins Catholic teaching, is woven through its moral traditions, particularly on matters pertaining to sexual ethics. The other point you conveniently ignored is that the Natural Law is not just a Catholic ‘thing’. It also underpins the major religions I have already referred to and it was the foundation of the Athenian schools of Philosophy and Rhetoric. Step forward a few centuries and we find a true Roman champion of the Natural Law in Cicero, who, echoing Plato cneturies earlier, stated that right law was in accordance with nature. You’ll find that woven through the Catechism too, DeeGee.

If you persist with your sola scriptura approach to denigrating Catholicism, you’ll be left sitting like the proverbial shag on a rock. Unless you can demonstrate that the Natural Law reasoning on homosexuality are wrong, you haven’t a leg to stand on. Be careful, because, as one observer stated, the Natural Law has a habit of burying its undertakers. I already have the shovel in my hand…

And while you are at it, stop making those bland and silly assertions that the Catholic Church has changed its mind and been wrong about such matters in the past. Only dills would accept such nonsense without demanding you prove it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I chose the Catholic Answers site to address issues of condemning homosexuality because Catholics call homosexuality a disorder and it was validating such a condemnation using ancient texts.

Wrong. (As John just mentioned. ) Wrong on 2 counts:

On Count One:

(1) That Catholicism is Sola Scriptura (uses ancient texts alone to differentiate ordered from disordered behavior). I know that you are Sola Scriptura, but Catholicism is not.

Catholicism derives its moral theology, as John correctly stated, from natural law as a basis, combined with the entirety of scripture, combined with the study of ancient Mediterranean cultures (including accurate history – hmmm ), combined with Sacred Tradition as handed down from the Fathers and Doctors of the Church (Patristics, Saints, most of whom were also mystics) - all within a structured theology that has coherence and is stable.

Also, Catholic scripture study is neither eisegetical – seeking ‘proof-texts’ for an arbitrary position without reference to an objective context – nor does it piece together individual verses in some kind of fanciful quilt apart from their textual relevance. Honest scripture study does not proceed this way. Scripture is not only an anthropological record, a historical “window,” the understanding of a dynamic relationship with an eternal Creator, and inspired word, it is also literature. The most violent thing one can do to literature is to remove it from its textual setting, deny its shape and unity, rearrange and re-collect verses from books authored & edited in different eras, and flip erratically back and forth in a strained attempt to “prove” that a verse from one era denies the truth of a verse from another era.

While obviously the books of the Bible had many human authors and were recorded over a very wide period, there is an essential moral unity to them, based on:

(a) the fact that they are inspired word, in that God “spoke” through its human authors and that God cannot contradict Himself;

(b) the Jewish influences on the evangelists, on Paul, on the Apostles, connecting all the conceptual threads of Jewish Law, as pronounced and illustrated in Hebrew Scriptures (OT), with their understanding, direct and derived, of Jesus the Jew. Comprehensive scripture study reveals thematic and literary unity between OT and NT, not opposition. Therefore, as a literary principle, using isolated verses/phrases from one biblical era to “disprove” or challenge an essential tenet of Mosaic Law (a Law which Jesus embraced, elucidated, and explicated) is flawed as a literary-critical technique, period.

I am broadly and deeply versed in Protestant Biblical scholarship. While I refuse to derail the thread (not fair to the OP), and get off into the kinds of sidebar discussions you engaged in previously when you were on this forum, I will say that none of the Protestant scholars I am well acquainted with use your approach. Like the similarly respected Jewish and Catholic scripture scholars I have read, they respect the text(s) and proceed from what is textually apparent and cohesive, versus an agenda to deconstruct.

On Count Two:

I believe you choose Catholic Answers for your platform because there is no need for you to visit non-Catholic discussion forums, as many members of the latter will already be persuaded that morality is individual, that private interpretation of scripture is a legitimate source of personal morality (including if that interpreter has zero training in any kind of textual study, let alone biblical), and that no institution has any greater moral authority than any individual. Otherwise, why would you be here? The last time you were here, you attempted the same goal: To discredit the moral theology of the Roman Church on human sexuality. You will not succeed here, because that theology is what the Church and her members understand as a unifed doctrine of moral absolutes, and thus unchanging.

You have no requirement to prove yourself (or your beliefs) to the audience of this forum. As an autonomous individual you clearly have every human right, every right under the constitution of this country, and legitimacy under the forum rules here, to state your case why for you, homosexual activity is not immoral, not sinful, etc. That’s true for all non-Catholics who visit this forum. But to assume that such a non-Catholic opinion applies to Catholics is a contradiction in terms. That’s because your basic premises have nothing in common with how Catholic moral theology is determined, including but not limited to your approach to scripture, which is highly non-exegetical, even from a Protestant perspective.

If you are not Catholic, and if you are convinced that homosexual activity is not scripturally condemned, I would think that you would not need to convince thousands of users and lurkers on this forum of your personal convictions. But if you are trying to “evangelize” Catholics on this forum who are struggling against their perceived same-sex attractions, that they should separate themselves from their Church’s teaching, based on your idiosyncratic approach to scripture, then your purpose would actually be in conflict with the Forum rules which forbid evangelization away from the Faith. You vigorously proselytized previously, and it appears that you are doing so again. That is not what the OP asked for. (The thread is about him, not you, me, etc. )