Today's gospel reading...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Petertherock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Petertherock

Guest
This was today’s Gospel reading at Mass today. Of course it deals with marriage and divorce but something caught my eye. The part I put in bold. Wouldn’t that speak about the homosexual marriage issue? If people truly are “born homosexuals” then as Jesus said some cannot marry because they were born so. What do you all think? This would answer the thing that homosexual activists say about Jesus not denouncing homosexuals in the new testament

Mt 19:3-12

Some Pharisees approached Jesus, and tested him, saying,
“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”
He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning
the Creator 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, man must not separate.”
They said to him, “Then why did Moses command
that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss her?”
He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts
Moses allowed you to divorce your wives,
but from the beginning it was not so.
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife
(unless the marriage is unlawful)
and marries another commits adultery.”
His disciples said to him,
“If that is the case of a man with his wife,
it is better not to marry.”
He answered, “Not all can accept this word,
but only those to whom that is granted.
**Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so;
some, because they were made so by others;
some, because they have renounced marriage
for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven.
Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” **
 
Interesting you bring this up. I was at daily Mass today and the Priest’s homily was centered on the Sacrament of marriage and how it’s between 1 man and 1 woman. He made points about the so-called “gay” marriage thing and how it is not only unscriptural but also a rebellion against The One, Holy Church rooted in and built on The Word of God.
I love our Priest. He does not mince words.
 
Sounds like a great priest! The priest at Mass today just talked about divorce. Divorce is an important subject but I am glad there are priests that are actively advocating against gay marriage.
 
My priest today talked about how people used to think emotions, etc. came from the heart because they didn’t have the medical understanding about the brain. IIRC, he also said they even believed that the soul was located in the heart. This was important because Eve was created from Adam’s rib. The rib could be thought of as the armour of the heart. When the rib was taken, Adam’s heart would have been left vulnerable. However, together with Eve he would be whole again.

Of course he explained it much more eloquently than I just did but it does help you to see the beauty in marriage. If anyone can find exegesis on this subject please post any links you can find.
 
40.png
Petertherock:
**(1) Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; **
**(2) some, because they were made so by others; **
**(3) some, because they have renounced marriage **
**for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. **
**Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." **
I have said for years that the interpretation you give to that verse is the correct one. The interp attributed to the verse by the New Testament Committee – natal defect in the reproductive system – is illogical.

Christ is giving a list of examples of people God expects to exercise restraint over their sexual aspect: (2) are the imprisoned and soldiers away from home to fight wars; (3) would be Essenes, some groups of which took a vow of celibacy.

If Category (1) refers to people with serious natal defects in their reproductive systems, so that *they can’t engage in sex, *then they aren’t good examples of folks whom God expects to exercise restraint, for the simple reason that no restraint is needed to control non-functional sex organs.

Saying that this sort of person is a good example of successful sexual self-control – “If HE can do it, YOU CAN TOO!” – is like saying during Lent that “the corpse lying on the ground over there is a good example of one who exercises control over his appetite because – look! – he’s not eating.”

That kind of argument is JUST PLAIN STUPID – Christ wouldn’t have made the argument.

But what would Category (1) refer to? Who is “incapable of marriage because they were born so” yet must still exercise self-restraint??? Simple: Profoundly-homosexual-feeling homosexuals. Why must they exercise self-restraint?

God’s laws.

Christ is merely taking for granted that vis-a-vis homosexual activity, homosexuals have a responsibility to “keep their pants on.”
 
I agree with Bible Reader 100% but what about where it says “Not all can accept this word.” Is he talking that some people (homosexuals) are so convinced their way of life is “normal” they can’t accept God’s word because they are convinced they are doing nothing wrong?
 
40.png
Petertherock:
I agree with Bible Reader 100% but what about where it says “Not all can accept this word.” Is he talking that some people (homosexuals) are so convinced their way of life is “normal” they can’t accept God’s word because they are convinced they are doing nothing wrong?
God isn’t giving permission. He is saying, “Not all can refrain from sexual sin.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top