Grace & Peace!
That is one point of view…Catholics and all Christians should realize that the Catechism…in stating what it states about Homosexuality as seen here…references #141
and when you visit where these thoughts come from…
Sodom and Gomorrah are the references form the Bible that are used…so Catholics would say you are wrong…
You are now insinuating that a footnote dogmatically explicates and/or points to a singular correct scriptural interpretation
simply because the footnote is there.
Okay. We can play that game, Coptic. If a footnote is narrowly dogmatically definitive, how much more the text of the catechism itself? Let’s apply such a narrow and dogmatic framework to the passage you quoted from the catechism.
We see a few things from the bit of the catechism you posted:
1–Homosexuality refers to relations (presumably sexual) between people who are sexually attracted to other people of the same sex. I.e., homosexuality is homosexual sex between homosexual people.
2–Homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity. We are given to understand that homosexuality as defined in point 1 is gravely depraved: sexual relations between people who are sexually attracted to other people of the same sex are acts of grave depravity.
3–We must conclude from the definition and context given that for a homosexual act to be a homosexual act of grave depravity, it must be committed by two homosexual people who, by the definition given, at least have the capacity to find each other sexually attractive even if they may not (in specific instances and for whatever reason) be attracted to each other.
3a–It is impossible, therefore, for a heterosexual person to commit homosexual acts. While some heterosexuals do engage or have engaged in same-sex sexual activity (on account of prostitution, porn work, “experimentation,” perpetrating or falling victim to sexual violence such as hazing, etc.), that activity, by definition, cannot be considered a homosexual act if it is engaged in by one or more heterosexuals. I.e., it is impossible for a homosexual man and a heterosexual man to engage in a homosexual act together.
A–We must assume, then, that the men of Sodom (young and old) found the strangers/angels in their midst sexually attractive (or were capable of finding them so) and were thus homosexual since we have assumed,
a priori and on the basis of a footnote , that the story is about homosexual acts committed by homosexual persons. While there is no evidence for this assumption (the Genesis text would indicate that some violent sexual act was being committed, and we know that attraction need not be involved when one person rapes or sexually abuses or humiliates another person regardless of the sex of the victim and the sex of the perpetrator), if this assumption is
not made, then we are* not* talking about homosexuality according to our strict reading of the catechism’s definition of what homosexuality is.
B–We must also assume that the strangers in Sodom found all the men of Sodom (young and old) sexually attractive (or were capable of finding them so) and were also homosexual. There is no evidence for this assumption. But it must be made in order to satisfy the catechism’s criteria of what constitutes homosexuality and thus what constitutes a homosexual act (see 1, 2 and 3 above).
Now, Coptic, this exegesis of the catechism and its relation to Genesis 19 is absurd. But it certainly doesn’t go against the *letter
of the catechism when it comes to it’s definition of homosexuality and homosexual acts. Likewise, interpreting the mere presence of a footnote to be indicative of a dogmatic definition of a single “correct” interpretation of a passage of scripture is absurd, even if it agrees with the letter *of the catechism, though not with reason.
You damage the credibility of the catechism, the credibility of scripture and the credibility of the faith when you insist on reading dogmatic definitions into things where such definitions are lacking or even inappropriate and which may prove a skandalon to other believers, those weak in faith, or those curious about the faith. Similarly, you do
no one a favor when you insist on the singular orthodoxy of a narrowly constructed reading when it is clear that other readings (such as that of Ezekiel mentioned earlier in this thread) are at least as authoritative and traditional as those you wish to promote.
The issue here is not which interpretation of scripture is
a priori and dogmatically “right” or “wrong” on the basis of a footnote–the issue is: how do we interpret the scripture in a way that authentically takes into consideration and is faithful to: the intentions of scripture; the guidance of tradition; the needs of our community in our time (i.e. we must ask not only what is scripture saying, but to whom–you wouldn’t tell a starving person that “man shall not live by bread alone” and then send him on his way); and the objectively definitive revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
Having addressed these issues, the next important question we should then ask is *not *whether the interpretation is right or wrong, but: “How does it impinge upon my prayer, which is or ought to be my life?” If the interpretation leads to the spread of the Gospel, the building up of the Church of Christ and the equipping of the saints for ministry, then great! We’re on the right track! If not…then we need to try again.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
