Leviticus 18 & 20

[Neithan]

I posted this question in the moral theology forum but the thread got derailed pretty quickly so I’m reposting it here since it’s more of a Scriptural inquiry.

The Catholic Answers article on
Homosexuality states the following:

*But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13). …]

To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial* requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

If Lev. 18:22 condemning Homosexuality still stands as authoritative moral teaching in the Catholic Church–what about just a few verses earlier “You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is unclean from menstruation (Lev. 18:19).” If the former is seen as eternal moral law, isn’t the latter?

Likewise if 20:13 is used to condemn this sin, what about 20:18: “If a man lies in sexual intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period, both of them shall be cut off from their people, because they have laid bare the flowing fountain of her blood.”

Leviticus 18 & 20 also condemn other grave sexual sins such as incest and bestiality. It strikes me as odd that sex during menstruation is written in the very same context, and seems to suggest that it is a serious, mortal, sin.

As far as I know, the Catholic Church does not teach that sex during menstruation is a mortal sin; but if she cites these verses as authoritative moral law, and moral requirements are eternally binding, then shouldn’t the entirety of Leviticus 18 & 20 be followed by Christians? How can we reason that two verses only (Lev. 18:19 & 20:18) out of these whole chapters are ceremonial while all the others surrounding it are moral? This is a troubling question because a major argument used by those in favour of homosexual tolerance note the use of these passages to prove that the Church has a ‘pick and choose’ attitude, by condemning an act (homosexuality) with one verse while tolerating another (intercourse during menstruation) in the very next.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that the Church Fathers and Medieval Church writers seem to comment on the sinfulness of marital relations during the wife’s period, including St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa.

How does the Church distinguish moral postulates in the OT from ceremonial, and what is the reasoning underlying the removal of intercourse during menstruation as a mortal sin when it is clearly listed in the context of grave immorality, among chapters which are commonly cited as authoritative moral law?

Any help much appreciated!

 

[DeFide]

I think the source of your problems comes from not recognizing where the authority lies. Bible passages cannot be authoritative since they must be interpreted and taught a certain way. You need a living thinking person who is that final authority, otherwise various people are “picking and choosing” what they want to believe ad nauseum. The authority is the Catholic Church founded by Christ. She is kept from difinitively teaching error in matters of faith and morals by the gift of the Holy Spirit. You’re problem is only a problem if you believe in the Sola Scriptura heresy.

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html

Further, although I don’t know exactly what he wrote on this topic, Thomas Aquinas is not infallible and was never even a Pope.

Lastly, the Catholic Answers tract also cites New Testament verses that condemn homosexual activity, I believe.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Here’s my :twocents: …
Jewish law distinguishes between ritually clean and ritually unclean people but Christianity makes no such distinction. Lev 18:19 (and Lev 20:18) refers to sexual activity between a man and a ritually unclean woman. Since Christianity does not distinguish between ritually clean and ritually unclean women this precept does not appy to Christians. Homosexual activity, on the other hand, is not a matter of ritual uncleanness but of intrinsically sinful behavior, a concept that Christianity also recognizes.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

DeFide:

I think the source of your problems comes from not recognizing where the authority lies. Bible passages cannot be authoritative since they must be interpreted and taught a certain way. You need a living thinking person who is that final authority, otherwise various people are “picking and choosing” what they want to believe ad nauseum. The authority is the Catholic Church founded by Christ.

Hello,
I don’t mean to get this thread sidetracked like your other’s have been, but I think that Pope Leo XIII would disagree with your statement about Scripture not being authoratative in and of itself. I’m sure you mean well, but dont throw “Scripture” out when you throw “Sola Scriptura” out!!!

Let’s see, from his Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus”

Par. 13 Here the student is taught how to prove the integrity and authority of the Bible, how to investigate and ascertain its true sense, and how to meet and refute objections

Par. 16 For although it is right and proper that students in academies and schools should be chiefly exercised in acquiring a scientific knowledge of dogma, by means of reasoning from the Articles of Faith to their consequences, according to the rules of approved and sound philosophy—nevertheless the judicious and instructed theologian will by no means pass by that method of doctrinal demonstration which draws its proof from the authority of the Bible; "for (Theology) does not receive her first principles from any other science, but immediately from God by revelation.

He also quotes the Council of Trent, Session 3 on Holy Scripture:

Par. 20 And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author."

That’s really an awesome Encyclical. A Reformed buddy of mine even said it was silly, what anti-Catholics say against Catholics, that they “undermine the Bible.” The Catholic Church crowns the Bible, not trumps it!!

I know you probably meant well, and I assume the best out of you, but I think you can see that you shouldn’t say that Scripture is by itself not-authoratative. It’s author is God, how can it be anything but authoratativ? In need of an authoratative interpretor, yes, but that doesn’t make it non-authoratative.

-Rob

 

[Neithan]

Todd Easton:

Lev 18:19 (and Lev 20:18) refers to sexual activity between a man and a ritually unclean woman. Since Christianity does not distinguish between ritually clean and ritually unclean women this precept does not appy to Christians. Homosexual activity, on the other hand, is not a matter of ritual uncleanness but of intrinsically sinful behavior, a concept that Christianity also recognizes.

If these chapters deal only with ritual clean/uncleanliness, then why does the Church cite them as authoritative moral teaching? Again, the problem as I see it is: how can only two verses out of these whole chapters be ceremonial, while the rest is entirely moral law?

DeFide:

I think the source of your problems comes from not recognizing where the authority lies. Bible passages cannot be authoritative since they must be interpreted and taught a certain way. You need a living thinking person who is that final authority, otherwise various people are “picking and choosing” what they want to believe ad nauseum. The authority is the Catholic Church founded by Christ. She is kept from difinitively teaching error in matters of faith and morals by the gift of the Holy Spirit. You’re problem is only a problem if you believe in the Sola Scriptura heresy.

I understand that the Magisterium is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, however, I’m asking for the underlying *reasoning *used in interpreting these two chapters as wholly moral in character with only two verses ceremonial (Lev. 18:19 and 20:18).

Furthermore, the tradition of the Church up until post-Reformation times seems to teach the sinfulness of intercourse during menstruation as well. This
article concerning this topic is written by a homosexual Catholic, and while I disagree with his motivation (tolerance) he does raise some interesting points.
Church Fathers (Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine and St. John Chrysostom) point out the sinfulness of intercourse during menstruation, and Medieval thinkers commonly agreed that it was mortal sin. He gives a timeline of how this doctrine was reversed as the acceptance of natural contraception (culminating in the *Humane Vitae *Encyclical) was developed. The author also notes how the New Testament does nowhere state that it is not a sin, and the safe assumption would be that it still is (since it is a moral command).

My main concern is that these two chapters of Leviticus clearly deal with moral imperatives, and–even though the Church is the rightful interpreter of Scripture–I’m wondering how it is justified to remove two verses and mark them as ceremonial instead. If there is no true authority in Scripture itself (which I’m sure you aren’t saying) then any argument manipulating it (including the link above) is perfectly valid.

 

[MilesJesu]

I was not aware that the Church teaches that sexual relations between a man and a woman during her menstrual period was considered unsinful. You stated:

Furthermore, the tradition of the Church up until post-Reformation times seems to teach the sinfulness of intercourse during menstruation as well. This article concerning this topic is written by a homosexual Catholic, and while I disagree with his motivation (tolerance) he does raise some interesting points. Church Fathers (Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine and St. John Chrysostom) point out the sinfulness of intercourse during menstruation, and Medieval thinkers commonly agreed that it was mortal sin.

When and where and by whom was it changed? Forgive me ignorance, but I am not aware that anything has changed.

Peace,

MilesJesu

 

[Reformed_Rob]

More on the topic,

Like Todd was saying above, there’s some distinctions to be made. Romans 1:26,27 is one passage in the NT that condemns homosexuality.

I’m not sure what Aquinas said about the topic and the sinfulness of sex at that time of the month, but perhaps a strictly 10 commandment perspective will help.

CCC 2174 -2176
**2174 **Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."104 Because it is the “first day,” the day of Christ’s Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the “eighth day” following the sabbath,105 it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ’s Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord’s Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:

**2175 **Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man’s eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107

Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord’s Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.108 2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

---

Note, there has been a change as pertains to the Mosaic Law, in that many of the penalties do not still stand, but it is still a Christian duty to set aside one day of rest and worship God specially on that day.

Also, the CCC explicitly refers to the Sabbath “principle” as pertaining to the Natural Law - “Inscribed by nature on the human heart.” So don’t let theonomists get by thinking that the Catholic Church did away with something pertaining to the 10 commandments.

That may not go far in explaining the topic at hand, but I think that way of seeing things is helpful.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Maybe in the frustration, you’ve been unwittingly led astray. Remember Ockham’s Razor “The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.” Or something like that.

Since the Church can’t “change what is or is not mortal sin” (Can it???) then if something is a mortal sin, it is a mortal sin. Now, the lack of one’s personal knowledge that such a thing is actually a sin and the person’s deliberate consent to that act (which are both required in the person for a sinful act to be a mortal sin) would in certain cases make sinful acts be only venial sins, rather than mortal sins. I bring up those 2, because obviously, we’re dealing with grave matter here.

But, with Ockham’s Razor, perhaps we can say, unless you have evidence to the contrary, that Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18 describe sins to be avoided. And still do describe sins to be avoided today.

That seems very likely, look at other sins that are discussed in context. ** Adultery, incest, idolatry, murder, rape, cursing parents, spiritism**, those are all things that make the wrath of God come down upon the sons of disobedience. Maybe certain lawmakers and “church” leaders are being inconsistent in their ethical teachings, but that doesn’t mean the Catholic church is.

Consider that. At least consider it.

 

[DeFide]

Reformed Rob:

Hello,
I don’t mean to get this thread sidetracked like your other’s have been, but I think that Pope Leo XIII would disagree with your statement about Scripture not being authoratative in and of itself. I’m sure you mean well, but dont throw “Scripture” out when you throw “Sola Scriptura” out!!!

Let’s see, from his Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus”

Par. 13 Here the student is taught how to prove the integrity and authority of the Bible, how to investigate and ascertain its true sense, and how to meet and refute objections

Par. 16 For although it is right and proper that students in academies and schools should be chiefly exercised in acquiring a scientific knowledge of dogma, by means of reasoning from the Articles of Faith to their consequences, according to the rules of approved and sound philosophy—nevertheless the judicious and instructed theologian will by no means pass by that method of doctrinal demonstration which draws its proof from the authority of the Bible; "for (Theology) does not receive her first principles from any other science, but immediately from God by revelation.

He also quotes the Council of Trent, Session 3 on Holy Scripture:

Par. 20 And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author."

That’s really an awesome Encyclical. A Reformed buddy of mine even said it was silly, what anti-Catholics say against Catholics, that they “undermine the Bible.” The Catholic Church crowns the Bible, not trumps it!!

I know you probably meant well, and I assume the best out of you, but I think you can see that you shouldn’t say that Scripture is by itself not-authoratative. It’s author is God, how can it be anything but authoratativ? In need of an authoratative interpretor, yes, but that doesn’t make it non-authoratative.

-Rob

In context, the Bible is only authoritative when it is interpreted and taught. Squiggles on a page can never be authoritative unless you believe in idolatry.

 

[DeFide]

Neithan:

If these chapters deal only with ritual clean/uncleanliness, then why does the Church cite them as authoritative moral teaching? Again, the problem as I see it is: how can only two verses out of these whole chapters be ceremonial, while the rest is entirely moral law?

I understand that the Magisterium is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, however, I’m asking for the underlying *reasoning *used in interpreting these two chapters as wholly moral in character with only two verses ceremonial (Lev. 18:19 and 20:18).

Furthermore, the tradition of the Church up until post-Reformation times seems to teach the sinfulness of intercourse during menstruation as well. This
article concerning this topic is written by a homosexual Catholic, and while I disagree with his motivation (tolerance) he does raise some interesting points.
Church Fathers (Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine and St. John Chrysostom) point out the sinfulness of intercourse during menstruation, and Medieval thinkers commonly agreed that it was mortal sin. He gives a timeline of how this doctrine was reversed as the acceptance of natural contraception (culminating in the *Humane Vitae *Encyclical) was developed. The author also notes how the New Testament does nowhere state that it is not a sin, and the safe assumption would be that it still is (since it is a moral command).

My main concern is that these two chapters of Leviticus clearly deal with moral imperatives, and–even though the Church is the rightful interpreter of Scripture–I’m wondering how it is justified to remove two verses and mark them as ceremonial instead. If there is no true authority in Scripture itself (which I’m sure you aren’t saying) then any argument manipulating it (including the link above) is perfectly valid.

It is not correct to assume that because the Bible is silent on an issue that it must be sinful. According to St. Paul’s notion of Chrisitian liberty, the reverse is actually true.

Further, there is not infallible teaching on sexual relations during menstruation, and there never has been.

You can see my reply to ReformedBob about treating Scripture like an idol. All teaching comes from persons, not shapes on a page.

As far as the reasoning, we are free to speculate. While one behavior is intrinsically evil, the other just made one ritually unclean, but was not instrinsically evil.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Neithan:

If these chapters deal only with ritual clean/uncleanliness, then why does the Church cite them as authoritative moral teaching? Again, the problem as I see it is: how can only two verses out of these whole chapters be ceremonial, while the rest is entirely moral law?

Here’s some more of my :twocents: …
I don’t know if I can make myself clearer…but here goes. I did not say that these chapters deal only with ritual clean/uncleaness. I said that only Lev 18:19 is concerned about ritual cleanness, as indicated by the phrase, “while she is in her menstrual uncleanness.” The topic of chapter 18 of Leviticus, (except for verse 21 which concerns immolating children to Molech,) is the sanctity of sex and contains prohibitions against certain sexual behaviors, behaviors which either make a person ritually unclean (as in the case of Lev 18:19) or which are intrinsically sinful (as in the case of the rest of Lev 18). The prohibition found in Lev 18:19 against sexual activity with a woman who is ritually unclean because of her menstrual discharge is based on the Jewish laws regarding ritual uncleanliness associated with bodily discharges described in Lev 15, specifically verse 19. The prohibition in Lev 18:19 does not apply to Christians because Christianity does not distinguish between clean and unclean persons. The rest of chapter 18 of Leviticus is not based on laws concerning ritual uncleanliness but is concerned with behaviors that are intrinsically sinful, behaviors which the Church accordingly condemns: incest, adultery, homosexual activities, and beastiality. Chapter 20 of Leviticus describes the penalties for the various prohibited behaviors.

Of course, this is just my opinion and I leave the final say to the chair of Peter and the bishops in union with that chair who speak for God on earth.

 

[Neithan]

MilesJesu:

When and where and by whom was it changed? Forgive me ignorance, but I am not aware that anything has changed.

The doctrine of the Church today does not condemn marital relations during menstruation as either a mortal or venial sin. The website which I link to has a timeline of how this came about. I can’t validate that information but it does have an impressive list of historical references.
Reformed Rob:

I’m not sure what Aquinas said about the topic and the sinfulness of sex at that time of the month, but perhaps a strictly 10 commandment perspective will help.

Actually as I understood it, the Church sums up the moral code in the Decalogue, and the Decalogue alone. When I see articles such as Catholic Answers, quoting these “extra-decalogue” passages of OT Scripture as authoritative moral law it confuses me, especially seeing that it has Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
It would seem logical that either these chapters describe eternal moral laws (along with the central Decalogue in Lev. 19) or they do not, and are strictly ceremonial. Apparently Church Tradition up until the 17th or 18th century agreed with the former conclusion.

But, with Ockham’s Razor, perhaps we can say, unless you have evidence to the contrary, that Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18 describe sins to be avoided. And still do describe sins to be avoided today.

Exactly what I’m driving at, Rob… there doesn’t seem to be any reasonable basis to remove these two sole verses from a group of chapters (with the Decalogue in Lev. 19) that clearly demonstrate moral laws. Moral postulates of Mosaic Law according to the established teaching of the Church are upheld in Christianity.

DeFide:

It is not correct to assume that because the Bible is silent on an issue that it must be sinful. According to St. Paul’s notion of Chrisitian liberty, the reverse is actually true.

Not to play Devil’s Advocate, but the article linked above notes:

The New Testament does not explicitly repeat the prohibition. The Apostolic Council of Jerusalem laid down various rules for gentile converts [Acts 15]. They are told to abstain from* “porneia”* (a term which originally meant consorting with prostitutes, but which most commentators believe came to mean sexual indiscipline in general), “strangled meat, and *from blood”**. *The last most plausibly means from ingesting blood, but it might just mean maintaining all the prohibitions of the Mosaic Law concerning blood. This would then including abstaining from menstrual sex.

In addition, just as condemnation of other unnamed sexual sins such as masturbation is implicit in the New Testament, the exact same reasoning could apply even more so to sexual sins which are quite explicitly condemned in the Old Testament moral law.

DeFide:

Further, there is not infallible teaching on sexual relations during menstruation, and there never has been.

True, but I’m curious why it seems justified that the Traditional view of the Church has been reversed on this matter (intercourse during menstruation), when Scripture would logically imply that it is (and remains forever) a sin.

You can see my reply to ReformedBob about treating Scripture like an idol. All teaching comes from persons, not shapes on a page.

Right, but Tradition and the Magisterium can never contradict Scripture… which is sort of what I see happening here in removing Lev. 18:19 and 20:18 from the obvious moral context in which it is written.
Todd Easton:

I don’t know if I can make myself clearer…

I understand what you’re saying, that only these two verses (Lev. 18:19 & 20:18) deal with ceremonial, ritual unclean/cleanliness. Which is exactly the problem I’m raising. It just doesn’t make sense.

Neithan:

Again, the problem as I see it is: how can only two verses out of these whole chapters be ceremonial, while the rest is entirely moral law?

Todd Easton:

Of course, this is just my opinion and I leave the final say to the chair of Peter and the bishops in union with that chair who speak for God on earth.

Absolutely; I would love to read official church documents regarding this matter, but I can’t find any on the internet.

 

[DeFide]

Neithan,

The Catholic Answers tract quotes from the Old Testament need not be construed as “proof” of the immorality of homosexual behavior, but rather it demonstrates a continuity that extends to the fulfilment of the law in the New Testament:

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

This draws some definite boundaries on Christian liberty alluded to earlier with authoritative Church teaching.

Remember it’s on your interpretation of Scripture, not Scripture that you’re making your assessment of sexual relations during mensturation and whether it is a lasting or temporary law, whether it is intrisically evil or a matter of obedience to legitimate authority for a teaching purpose, etc. Just because other items are in close page proximitity does not therefore indicate that they are of equal consideration. Notice in the NT quote in green above that swindling or slandering (depending on the severity) is a long cry from idolatry. Agreed?

 

[Neithan]

DeFide:

Remember it’s on your interpretation of Scripture, not Scripture that you’re making your assessment of sexual relations during mensturation and whether it is a lasting or temporary law, whether it is intrisically evil or a matter of obedience to legitimate authority for a teaching purpose, etc. Just because other items are in close page proximitity does not therefore indicate that they are of equal consideration. Notice in the NT quote in green above that swindling or slandering (depending on the severity) is a long cry from idolatry. Agreed?

So you’re saying that because:
A.) Homosexuality is mentioned explicitly in the New Testament; and

B.) Sins with varying degrees of severity are listed in close proximity; therefore

C.) It is safe to assume that verses in the OT listing ceremonial (temporary) laws can be written among otherwise entirely moral (eternal) law chapters?

I would disagree that this follows because:
1.) Other sins such as masturbation are not explicitly mentioned in *either *Testament, yet are understood to be implicit. Intercourse during menstruation could easily be understood as implicit in the New Testament where sexual immorality is mentioned (in addition to the Acts 15 verse regarding blood noted above).
2.) Paul lists sins together with other sins, and never throws in a harmless act in among them, which would only serve to confuse the reader. If continuity is sought, it makes much more sense that even though intercourse during menstruation is not as severe a sin as adultery, incest, bestiality or homosexuality… it is still a sin nonetheless.
3.) Church Tradition up until recent centuries viewed intercourse during menstruation as sinful.

If Lev. 18 and 20 are used as examples of authoritative moral law I still don’t understand how the modern Church discerns that two verses alone are ceremonial only.

Lev. 19 clearly mixes moral (the Decalogue) with ceremonial precepts… but that is much more easy to recognize (trimming the edges of one’s beard–v. 27–is clearly not on par with thievery–v. 11). There are several verses dealing with each.

 

[DeFide]

Neithan:

So you’re saying that because:
A.) Homosexuality is mentioned explicitly in the New Testament; and

B.) Sins with varying degrees of severity are listed in close proximity; therefore

C.) It is safe to assume that verses in the OT listing ceremonial (temporary) laws can be written among otherwise entirely moral (eternal) law chapters?

I would disagree that this follows because:
1.) Other sins such as masturbation are not explicitly mentioned in *either *Testament, yet are understood to be implicit. Intercourse during menstruation could easily be understood as implicit in the New Testament where sexual immorality is mentioned (in addition to the Acts 15 verse regarding blood noted above).
2.) Paul lists sins together with other sins, and never throws in a harmless act in among them, which would only serve to confuse the reader. If continuity is sought, it makes much more sense that even though intercourse during menstruation is not as severe a sin as adultery, incest, bestiality or homosexuality… it is still a sin nonetheless.
3.) Church Tradition up until recent centuries viewed intercourse during menstruation as sinful.

If Lev. 18 and 20 are used as examples of authoritative moral law I still don’t understand how the modern Church discerns that two verses alone are ceremonial only.

Lev. 19 clearly mixes moral (the Decalogue) with ceremonial precepts… but that is much more easy to recognize (trimming the edges of one’s beard–v. 27–is clearly not on par with thievery–v. 11). There are several verses dealing with each.

Masturbation is not comparable as the Church has authoritatively taught that it is wrong.

You have not produced any proof that the Church officially taught that sex during mensturation is sinful as a belief that all Catholics must hold, and not just a view of certain theologians.

The rest of your “views” on what is on par with what are nothing more than opinions.

 

[Neithan]

DeFide:

Masturbation is not comparable as the Church has authoritatively taught that it is wrong.

I’m comparing it with regard to New Testament reference. Masturbation is not explicitly mentioned and *is *sinful. Intercourse during menstruation is also not explicitly mentioned but is not sinful. Since one argument to discredit the comparison to homosexuality is that the latter is mentioned in the New Testament explicitly, I’m simply illustrating with the comparison to masturbation that not every sexual sin is in the NT explicitly.

You have not produced any proof that the Church officially taught that sex during mensturation is sinful as a belief that all Catholics must hold, and not just a view of certain theologians.

I’m not trying to produce proof that I’m not sure exists. I’m just noting the fact that many reputable theologians in Church Tradition–Sts. Augustine and Aquinas included–saw this as sinful! It lends further credence to my confusion as to whether Lev. 18 & 20 are wholly moral (eternal) precepts and how the Church has come to decide that only two verses (18:19 and 20:18) are ceremonial (temporary).

• The rest of your “views” on what is on par with what are nothing more than opinions.*

Huh? Why is views in quotations? I’m saying that when Paul lists sins, they may differ in degree, but not in character (they are all moral transgressions). So if continuity between NT and OT is sought with lists of sins then it makes sense to interpret Lev. 18 & 20 as lists of sins which differ in degree (mortal and venial) but *not *in character (only two ceremonial commands amongst otherwise entirely moral chapters seems like a confusing interpretation).

All I’m asking is: in light of the fact that Lev. 18 & 20 are seen as morally authoritative (as the Catholic Answers tract on homosexuality demonstrates) yet the Magisterium does not rule that intercourse during menstruation is sinful; what is the rationale used in interpreting Lev. 18:19 and 20:18?

If anyone knows on any official Church documents concerning this matter I would greatly appreciate it if you could point me to them!

Thanks!

 

[DeFide]

Neithan, I already addressed this. You’re going around in circles.

 

[Neithan]

I guess I’m just not getting it.

Could you break it down for me in one final summation; and explain it like I’m 12 years old? :banghead:

Maybe it’s my Protestant roots; but I can’t just accept “Because the Church says so.” I need to know what the underlying rationale for interpreting Scripture is. The Magisterium is collectively infallible, and that is a matter of faith in the Holy Spirit; but they are also individual human beings and I’m interested in their reasoning, especially given (as far as I know) that no official dogma on this particular case has yet been defined.

 

[DeFide]

Neithan:

I guess I’m just not getting it.

Could you break it down for me in one final summation; and explain it like I’m 12 years old? :banghead:

.

Read Lev 15. Sex during menses is also listed among merely ceremonial laws.

Read Lev 19. Temporary laws for obedience are listed with lasting moral laws.

Your basic premise of interpretation is not a hard and fast rule like you’re assuming, and you need an outside authority. Personally, I don’t agree with your view, but if I was told otherwise by the Church, that settles it.

If you really think the practice is intrinsically evil, but the church just isn’t saying so yet for some reason, then by all means avoid it.

 

[Neithan]

DeFide:

Your basic premise of interpretation is not a hard and fast rule like you’re assuming, and you need an outside authority.

I suppose that’s my main problem. “Because the Bible says so” isn’t really meaningful on its own either.

If you really think the practice is intrinsically evil, but the church just isn’t saying so yet for some reason, then by all means avoid it.

I would lean in the direction of the Augustinian view that it is a venial sin; but that’s just to be on the safe side, considering its context in Scripture and the varying view of Tradition. I’m not really concerned about intercourse during menstruation per se, only because it happens to present a confusing case of moral vs. ceremonial law in the Old Testament.

I think this case is probably considered too trivial for the Church to ever explicitly define dogmatically in its own right, but when it is used repeatedly by the homosexual lobby to defend their own push to redefine the moral interpretation of Scripture… it might be wise to clear up these sorts of loose ends.

Thanks again