Jesus, the Vatican, and gay marriage rights

[CaliLobo]

This is a great week to ask… although you and I can imagine Benedict, and maybe Francis, saying that civil marriage rights should not be extended to gays, can you imagine Jesus preaching on the streets of Jerusalem that gays have to suffer and not have equal civil rights?

 

[Elizabeth502]

It is inconceivable, according to all reputed scripture scholars of all faiths, that Jesus the Jew would have (1) approved of homosexual behavior and (2) considered such a “marriage” to be any kind of a “right,” or that if his earthly ministry were occurring in the 21st century instead of the 1st, he would have had radically different views than the religious tradition which He honored and repeatedly affirmed without ambiguity.

With regard to the implication that supposedly Jesus had nothing to say on the subject: Of course he didn’t. The Gospels were News, as in something different. It was kerygma. What was continued by Jesus (Torah, which included prohibitions against homosexuality) was not News. What was News (worthy of being recorded, worthy of both oral and written tradition) was what was unusual and unique about the message, not what was stable and unchanged. In fact, had Jesus approved of homosexuality, it would not for one moment have been overlooked. That would have been considered so radical that (a) it would have banner headlines all over every gospel, and (b) most likely Jesus would have been thoroughly rejected even by his original staunch followers. Thus, there would have been no Jesus history to continue, no lasting kerygma, and no Christian message which proceeded directly from the Jewish message.

The written word was the recording of the oral tradition, handed down by being repeated. Any radical new sexuality code would not have been an oversight in terms of the recording of that.

It is thoroughly ahistorical to imagine that Jesus approved of homosexuality (and yet that revolutionary statement never made it into the NT, even though the radical-enough discussion of Gentile circumcision did). It conflicts with the history, anthropology, and culture of the time. Anyone who manipulates the text to arrive at that “conclusion” is being disingenuous, or eisegetical for personal or political reasons. (Or, it is a matter of ignorance of the tools of analysis.) It would be one of those three possibilities. There are rogue “scholars” who have manipulated both Hebrew and Christian scriptures, cobbling together an unconvincingly and awkward patchwork of rationalization for “approved” or merely unaddressed homosexual behavior, but no true Christian or Jewish academic takes such polemics seriously.

One of the ways Jesus’ and his followers distinguished themselves from the practices of pagans, and from the excesses of Roman and Greek culture, was in fact to forbid homosexual behavior.

Any other understanding is an invented and distorted version of Jesus, fabricated by those with a political agenda and not with an understanding of the process of analyzing texts of the ancient Mediterranean.

 

[Gavroche]

This is a great week to ask… although you and I can imagine Benedict, and maybe Francis, saying that civil marriage rights should not be extended to gays, can you imagine Jesus preaching on the streets of Jerusalem that gays have to suffer and not have equal civil rights?

Yes I can imagine Jesus treating gays with compassion but being steadfast in God’s plan for marriage existing between a man and a woman. Just as I can see Jesus having compassion for the prostitute while not condoning prostitution. Just because a state says you have a right in the eyes of the state, that doesn’t mean you have the same right in the eyes of God.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes I can imagine Jesus treating gays with compassion but being steadfast in God’s plan for marriage existing between a man and a woman. Just as I can see Jesus having compassion for the prostitute while not condoning prostitution. Just because a state says you have a right in the eyes of the state, that doesn’t mean you have the same right in the eyes of God.

Absolutely. Compassion, not permission. 180 degree difference.

 

[CaliLobo]

Elizabeth502:

Absolutely. Compassion, not permission. 180 degree difference.

And how is denying civil rights compassionate?

 

[Christy_Beth]

And how is denying civil rights compassionate?

What’s so great about insisting on homosexual “marriage”? That shouldn’t be a right. It would mean the end of all morality in this country. If it were allowed, the next group in line would also be yelling for rights. Would pedophiles be next? Would it mean that they would be allowed to “love” children the way they do?

Of course, this is just my individual thought here. But I don’t see where going against God’s law should be a right. If you want that right, then move somewhere where it’s allowed.

 

[CaliLobo]

What’s so great about insisting on homosexual “marriage”? That shouldn’t be a right. It would mean the end of all morality in this country. If it were allowed, the next group in line would also be yelling for rights. Would pedophiles be next? Would it mean that they would be allowed to “love” children the way they do?

Of course, this is just my individual thought here. But I don’t see where going against God’s law should be a right. If you want that right, then move somewhere where it’s allowed.

Equality? Human rights? Love for neighbor? How does denying civil rights fit in with the definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13?

Your slippery slope argument is weak because there is a compelling secular interest in protecting children. In fact, denying civil rights to gays hurts the welfare of the children that are raised by gays, as it becomes a more uphill battle to recognize their parental and custody rights.

 

[Francie3]

While Jesus always has compassion for each person,
just as Jesus rejected what was wrong in the temptations by satan in the wilderness, so also must He in all things. Remember that he said “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

It is the Word of God we must follow.
Scripture never speaks of marriage in terms of man and man, or woman and woman, but only woman and man:

You can find it in Genesis chapter 2 verse 24

and in Matthew chapter 19 verse 3

Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ Matthew 19, 1-4

Homosexuality Old Testament

Jude 1:7
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and pursued homosexual activities, serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire.
*
Homosexuality, New Testament*

Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And 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 recompense of their error which was meet.”

Sadly, much as there is compassion, we can’t change the law of God.

"For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of. “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics”

I have a grandson who decided he is/is gay. He has a partner.
I love him and pray for him. Obviously then, the issue is also personal.

Jesus, the Vatican, cannot and will not go against the law of God as revealed in Scripture, but the Church requires and counsels compassion.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/homosexuality/always-our-children.cfm

dignityusa.org/ratzinger

 

[CaliLobo]

While Jesus always has compassion for each person,
just as Jesus rejected what was wrong in the temptations by satan in the wilderness, so also must He in all things. Remember that he said “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

It is the Word of God we must follow.
Scripture never speaks of marriage in terms of man and man, or woman and woman, but only woman and man:

That’s the thing. Jesus, in Scripture, only mentions what choices to make in one’s personal life, but nothing politically, legally, or socially. The only thing Scripture says about what to do politically is related to taxes: “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”.

Therefore, if the Church wants to change people’s behavior so badly, shouldn’t it preach the Gospel (which Jesus did do) instead of attempting to legislate morality (which Jesus did not do)?

 

[Gavroche]

And how is denying civil rights compassionate?

Can you please tell me what you seem to think a right is? The civil authority has no authority to create rights that conflict with the laws of God. The state may say you have a civil right to abort your child, but you have no such right with God, and the state may say you have a civil right to marry someone of the same sex, but you have no such right with God. What compassion is there when the sentiments are intertwined with lies? The truth is compassionate, not telling people what they want to here!

 

[CaliLobo]

Can you please tell me what you seem to think a right is? The civil authority has no authority to create rights that conflict with the laws of God. The state may say you have a civil right to abort your child, but you have no such right with God, and the state may say you have a civil right to marry someone of the same sex, but you have no such right with God. What compassion is there when the sentiments are intertwined with lies? The truth is compassionate, not telling people what they want to here!

We have no rights with God… for Christians, Jesus died for us so we owe him everything. Christianity is about surrendering oneself, including one’s rights, to God. We are to live in accordance to His will, not our will, so therefore our rights are irrelevant, since it may be God’s plan that we die tomorrow.

So Christianity is the wrong place to look to define human rights. The UN would be a good start instead.

Why doesn’t civil authority have authority to do what is in conflict with the laws of God? Civil authority is secular (for good reason).

 

[Pilgrim_333]

Marriage has nothing to do with civil authority. It is a sacrament ordained and blessed by the Lord God for the establishment of the family, the core of any healthy society. Every culture in humanity has understood this from the beginning of time until now. And we call ourselves enlightened? Even societies that allowed for a certain amount of homosexual activity would have laughed at the thought of two men or two women being joined in matrimony. The Torah is explicit in its banning of homosexual activity, it is unkosher, unclean in the extreme. The Word made flesh, The Son would have contradicted neither The Father nor The Holy Spirit who spoke the Law and The Prophets.

Of course He would and does love all and has compassion for all mankind but calling evil good is never an act of love.

 

[Viki63]

Marriage has nothing to do with civil authority. It is a sacrament ordained and blessed by the Lord God for the establishment of the family, the core of any healthy society. Every culture in humanity has understood this from the beginning of time until now. And we call ourselves enlightened? Even societies that allowed for a certain amount of homosexual activity would have laughed at the thought of two men or two women being joined in matrimony. The Torah is explicit in its banning of homosexual activity, it is unkosher, unclean in the extreme. The Word made flesh, The Son would have contradicted neither The Father nor The Holy Spirit who spoke the Law and The Prophets.

Of course He would and does love all and has compassion for all mankind but calling evil good is never an act of love.

I agree with this, except that marriage, as well as being a sacrament, is an institution under the control of the government, which is why we have to get a license to marry. It was instituted to protect the children which may result from the union, and also to protect the right of the woman not to be cast aside without consideration. Gay “marriage” is not relevant, as children do not result.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

And how is denying civil rights compassionate?

Who defines what a civil right is? Just because a state defines something as a right, it doesn’t make it just or moral. Look at abortion. It is a right as well, but hardly moral. Same goes for gay rights and a number of other ideas floating around at the moment.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I agree with this, except that marriage, as well as being a sacrament, is an institution under the control of the government, which is why we have to get a license to marry. It was instituted to protect the children which may result from the union, and also to protect the right of the woman not to be cast aside without consideration. Gay “marriage” is not relevant, as children do not result.

This is a relatively recent thing. The political system prevalent today is perhaps not the best way to govern a community, in my opinion.

 

[Francie3]

That’s the thing. Jesus, in Scripture, only mentions what choices to make in one’s personal life, but nothing politically, legally, or socially. The only thing Scripture says about what to do politically is related to taxes: “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”.

Therefore, if the Church wants to change people’s behavior so badly, shouldn’t it preach the Gospel (which Jesus did do) instead of attempting to legislate morality (which Jesus did not do)?

**
God is the creator. Morality is based on His law, His commandments**, so the question does not apply. It’s a false distinction.

I understand this is upsetting to homosexuals and those who support homosexuality and they will have difficult accepting anything contrary to their wishes, especially if they are in pain for themselves and for others about the issue.

God didn’t create sexual organs and differences for same sex activity, but for opposite sex activity, for the procreation of human beings, and if it contains some pleasure, frankly who’d bother with sex even for procreation if it didn’t have something attractive, the idea without emotion or feeling would be distasteful for many.

That it is used aside from this purpose is gratification, divorced from God’s purpose.

I am truly sorry for the predicament of those who prefer or choose same-sex.

 

[CaliLobo]

Viki63:

I agree with this, except that marriage, as well as being a sacrament, is an institution under the control of the government, which is why we have to get a license to marry. It was instituted to protect the children which may result from the union, and also to protect the right of the woman not to be cast aside without consideration. Gay “marriage” is not relevant, as children do not result.

This is a relatively recent thing. The political system prevalent today is perhaps not the best way to govern a community, in my opinion.

So is it a government thing, or solely a Church thing? if you concede that government control of marriage is a recent thing, why not have the government get back out of marriage? Why does the Catholic Church continue to insist that the government limit marriage to a man and a woman, if government is messed up and marriage is solely a Church thing?

Francie3:

God is the creator. Morality is based on His law, His commandments, so the question does not apply. It’s a false distinction.

It is a distinction because Jesus never preached legislating morality, and the Catholic Church has been at its historical worst when it has tried to get involved politically. Jesus intended that His followers change human behavior by preaching his Word instead–the Great Commission, the last command Jesus gave on this earth.

Even if this government starts passing laws that are the opposite of Biblical teaching, and declaring open season on Christians, why does that matter to the Church? Why is the morality of a secular government relevant to the Church’s primary mission, to preach the Gospel?

Do you really think Jesus is glorified in the way that Catholics and Protestants spread hatred, and make gays unwelcome in the church, by advocating denying civil rights to gays? This is a major reason why so many leave Catholicism–it is out of touch with a modern world that desires to have, and is equipped to have, gays and straights coexist equally.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

This is a great week to ask… although you and I can imagine Benedict, and maybe Francis, saying that civil marriage rights should not be extended to gays, can you imagine Jesus preaching on the streets of Jerusalem that gays have to suffer and not have equal civil rights?

Honestly, no. I can’t imagine that.

 

[latingirl]

Equality? Human rights? Love for neighbor? How does denying civil rights fit in with the definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13?

Your slippery slope argument is weak because there is a compelling secular interest in protecting children. In fact, denying civil rights to gays hurts the welfare of the children that are raised by gays, as it becomes a more uphill battle to recognize their parental and custody rights.

Marriage is NOT a civil right. It is a religious sacrament. It is an institution of religion, always has been and always will be because God himself instituted it at creation. You keep trying to separate marriage from it’s religious context which is like trying to separate a bar-mitzvah from a religious context.

 

[Robyn_p]

The Scriptures don’t record Jesus saying anything about a lot of things, about murder or rape or incest for example. That hardly means anything. Like John says, “there are many other things which Jesus did and said, were all of them to be written, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:23)

As far as Jesus standing on a street corner in Jerusalem and condemning peoples actions, read Matthew 23, that’s exactly what he’s doing. And before anyone says, “Well those were Pharisees, religious leaders, he was condemning their harsh and unreasonable teachings,” Jesus makes clear that’s not what he’s doing in the very beginning of the chapter, ‘’’‘the scribes and the pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe all they teach, but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice."(Mt 23:1)

Jesus wasn’t mushy like everyone wants to make it seem when it comes to sin, he was very tough. “If your hand causes you to sin, CUT IT OFF, it is better for you to be maimed than have your whole body fall into hell” (Mt 5:30) Whoooeee! I’ve never heard a homily near as intense as that one sentence. He took sin very seriously, and so does the Church he founded.

People often make a false dichotomy between Jesus and the Church, but Jesus himself said to the apostles, “If they hear you, they hear me, if they reject you, they reject me. If they reject me, they reject the one who sent me.”(LK 10:16) Jesus identifies himself with His Church, He gives her authority to speak for him. There never has and never will be a conflict between the two.