Using Old Testament for moral norms

[TheAdvocate]

Why is it that we reject certain teachings such as stoning people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (in Numbers 15), the death penalty for cursing your parents (Lev. 20), excommunication for having sex during a woman’s menstrual period (Lev. 20), but when we try to uphold teachings against homosexuality, we quickly cite such Old Testament texts as authoratative, saying, “see, here’s the biblical truth”, even though we repudiate laws that are only a few sentences away. (And by the way, in each of these passages, we have God commanding such killings. I just don’t get that, and it causes me to doubt my faith sometimes).

Same thing for arguments against contraception or masturbation. We quote the story of Onan in the Old Testament. I mean, to what extent do we have to follow Old Testament laws if we are just going to cherry pick which ones we use. When it comes to passages that are less savory, then we say “cultural context” or something. But when it jives with our Catholic beliefs, we say, “the word of the Lord.”

Moreover, why is it that we have to abide by the 10 Commandments, given in the Old Testament, but not so many other laws that are there (and thank God we don’t!)?

I am not being flip here—I am really searching for the truth here. I posted the same question in the scripture section since it covers both the bible and morality.

I would really appreciate your responses, or any direction for additional reading. Thanks!

 

[bingbang]

Why is it that we reject certain teachings such as stoning people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (in Numbers 15), the death penalty for cursing your parents (Lev. 20), excommunication for having sex during a woman’s menstrual period (Lev. 20), but when we try to uphold teachings against homosexuality, we quickly cite such Old Testament texts as authoratative, saying, “see, here’s the biblical truth”, even though we repudiate laws that are only a few sentences away. (And by the way, in each of these passages, we have God commanding such killings. I just don’t get that, and it causes me to doubt my faith sometimes).

Same thing for arguments against contraception or masturbation. We quote the story of Onan in the Old Testament. I mean, to what extent do we have to follow Old Testament laws if we are just going to cherry pick which ones we use. When it comes to passages that are less savory, then we say “cultural context” or something. But when it jives with our Catholic beliefs, we say, “the word of the Lord.”

Moreover, why is it that we have to abide by the 10 Commandments, given in the Old Testament, but not so many other laws that are there (and thank God we don’t!)?

I am not being flip here—I am really searching for the truth here. I posted the same question in the scripture section since it covers both the bible and morality.

I would really appreciate your responses, or any direction for additional reading. Thanks!

Paul mentions homosexuality a couple different times in lists of sins. So there is some NT evidence against homosexuality as well. But to be honest I think that things get cherry picked because a lot of the laws in the OT are completely ridiculous. We just couldn’t follow those laws today…legally or morally.

As for Onan, it seems that God is more upset at Onan’s disobedience than the actual act of spilling the seed. To be honest I think that the reason we use the OT to justify some beliefs is because there isn’t much else to go on. The church says certain things are wrong so people try to find Biblical evidence to support it…even if the evidence isn’t great.

The thing is that the church can declare something that isn’t based on the Bible. So really these Biblical justifications are quite pointless. The church believes all sorts of things that aren’t supported by the Bible. So, if there is any part of the Bible that supports a Catholic teaching, even if it isn’t a great one, it will probably get used to help prove the point. But, in reality, the biggest evidence that the church has for being right is the assertion that the holy spirit guides the church.

 

[DCNBILL]

Additional reading

Reason Informed by Faith by Richard M. Gula

Morality the Catholic View by Servais Pinckaers

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Christian Faith contains doctrines and disciplines. The doctrines are teachings on matters of faith and morals. The disciplines include Canon Law, diocesan regulations, rules for religious orders, liturgical norms, and decisions of prudential judgment. The disciplines are changeable; they are not teachings.

The Old Testament has teachings on faith and morals, as well as a type of discipline used by the Jews in ancient times: ceremonial precepts, rules for animal sacrifice, dietary laws, etc. These disciplines have been dispensed by Christ; they are replaced by the disciplines of the Church.

But the Old Testament teachings on faith and morals remain true and in force.

The prescription of the death penalty for certain sins is a discipline, not a teaching. The death penalty remains moral in some cases; it is not intrinsically evil. But the particular choices of which sins or crimes should be given the death penalty, as stated in the Old Testament, is a type of discipline. But all the Old Testament disciplines were dispensed by Christ (Council of Florence, 4 February 1442, Session 11) and so are no longer in force.

God prescribed a harsher set of penalties in Old Testament times because humanity at that time, prior to Divine Revelation, did not understand that all immoral acts offend the one true God.

So in order to establish the worship of the one true God, who is Goodness itself, and in order to incorporate a true and full morality into the lives of the Israelites and ultimately into the whole world, the penalties for doing evil had to be more severe than would be required in another set of circumstances. And all this was necessarily to prepare the Israelites, so that the Messiah, who would offer salvation to all persons, could be born among a people who worshipped the one true God in truth and justice. For the salvation of all, some harsher penalties were necessary, in order to prepare the way for the Messiah among a people who (like all peoples) were sinful and resistent to change. Once the Messiah, Jesus Christ, arrived and taught us, and once he died for our salvation, the harsher penalties of the Old Testament law were no longer necessary.

 

[nohornets33]

But all the Old Testament disciplines were dispensed by Christ (Council of Florence, 4 February 1442, Session 11) and so are no longer in force.

For Biblical proof of this, look to the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus never says that the former law was wrong. He says, “Let whoever among you who is without sin cast the first stone.” When all those who were about to stone her had left, Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you.” Old Testament prophecies prove that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law, and therefore he changes our way of thinking about how we should interpret the law. Also, according to Jesus in the gospel of Mark, Moses wrote the people a commandment allowing divorce “because of the hardness of your hearts,” meaning that not all of his disciplines were necessarily God-inspired in the first place.

 

[Ron_Conte]

For Biblical proof of this, look to the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus never says that the former law was wrong. He says, “Let whoever among you who is without sin cast the first stone.” When all those who were about to stone her had left, Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you.” Old Testament prophecies prove that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law, and therefore he changes our way of thinking about how we should interpret the law. Also, according to Jesus in the gospel of Mark, Moses wrote the people a commandment allowing divorce “because of the hardness of your hearts,” meaning that not all of his disciplines were necessarily God-inspired in the first place.

Lamentabili Sane condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.”

All of the OT is inspired by God. The teachings of the moral law in the OT were inspired by God. The disciplines in the OT were inspired by God. The change in discipline when Christ arrived, or the fact that certain OT disciplines were necessary because of the sinfulness of humanity, does not imply that anything in either Testament is not inspired by God.

Pope Leo XIII: “But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.”
(PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, n. 20).