What does Levitus 18:22 Really condemn?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stephendcml
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stephendcml

Guest
So I know some homosexuals. And I don’t understand the Catholic view on homosexuality. Someone told me that Leviticus says “a man shall not lay with another man, it is an abomination”. But when I read Leviticus 18:22 it said “a man shall not lay with another man as with a woman, it is an abomination”. I’ve looked at this plenty of times, and I feel it only condemns anal-sex (I’m sorry for the graphical term, but I’m sure you can handle it). The “as with a woman” part made me think this. Other than that, I believe sex outside of marriage is not right, so therefore if gays can’t get married all sex outside of marriage I believe is not right. But that’s just my opinion. Somebody, please help me. I’m a teen with some questions. I also don’t understand why some people say the Old Testament is outdated, and pick and choose what to keep and what not to keep as if we could choose a preference. I’ve also only been a Catholic since January 10, 2008, so I’m still learning and will continue to learn until the day I die! I also believe that whether you like men or like women, you can be a hoe and you can be abstinent.
 
It means what it says. Men shouldn’t engage in sexual relations with other men, likewise women should not with other women. This is not the way the Creator intended for us to be. Saint Paul restates this by saying that no homosexual can enter the kingdom of God. But thank God that he can deliver these people who are being afflicted by Satan.

As for how Christians in general (not just Catholics, but Protestants and Orthodox) see the Law. It’s like this. The ceremonial and ritualistic Law has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The moral part of the Law, however, we are required to keep.

So it’s ok to eat shellfish and it’s wrong to murder folk.👍
 
stephendcml said:
Can someone please comment?
Click to expand...
Sure, I’ll give this a shot.

We, as humans, are rational beings with particular mental and physical characteristics. The core principle behind Catholic moral teaching is that moral actions are those that conform to our human nature. If we act in a way that doesn’t conform to our human characteristics, then we act immorally.

Now consider the physical characteristics, the “moving parts,” of human sexuality. The physical design of human sex organs is ordered toward heterosexual sex: Only heterosexual sex is procreative, for example, and things “fit together” better in heterosexual intercourse in a way they don’t in homosexual intercourse. (Pardon my decision to dance around the clinical language.)

So now we say:
  1. An action is moral only if it conforms to human nature in all its forms
  2. The physical form of human nature is ordered toward heterosexual sex, not homosexual sex
  3. Therefore, acts of homosexual sex are immoral (since they don’t conform to the physical nature of human sexuality)
Leviticus 18 contains a “positive law” statement from God about actions that are already immoral under the natural law. I suspect that because the latter mirrors the former in this case, we shouldn’t limit Lev 18 to any particular kind of homosexual action… In any event, this is why the Church holds that all homosexual actions are immoral: They violate the natural law, and the natural law exists as part of the nature and order of creation, not because of any particular positive statement from God.

How does that line of thinking strike you?
 
GJx86 said:
Sure, I’ll give this a shot.

We, as humans, are rational beings with particular mental and physical characteristics. The core principle behind Catholic moral teaching is that moral actions are those that conform to our human nature. If we act in a way that doesn’t conform to our human characteristics, then we act immorally.

Now consider the physical characteristics, the “moving parts,” of human sexuality. The physical design of human sex organs is ordered toward heterosexual sex: Only heterosexual sex is procreative, for example, and things “fit together” better in heterosexual intercourse in a way they don’t in homosexual intercourse. (Pardon my decision to dance around the clinical language.)

So now we say:
  1. An action is moral only if it conforms to human nature in all its forms
  2. The physical form of human nature is ordered toward heterosexual sex, not homosexual sex
  3. Therefore, acts of homosexual sex are immoral (since they don’t conform to the physical nature of human sexuality)
Leviticus 18 contains a “positive law” statement from God about actions that are already immoral under the natural law. I suspect that because the latter mirrors the former in this case, we shouldn’t limit Lev 18 to any particular kind of homosexual action… In any event, this is why the Church holds that all homosexual actions are immoral: They violate the natural law, and the natural law exists as part of the nature and order of creation, not because of any particular positive statement from God.

How does that line of thinking strike you?
Click to expand...
The line of thinking does strike me, I always like to hear people’s point of views that get me thinking, and yours did. Natural law I thought by definition was using common sense to determine whether or not something harmed others it had nothing to do with literal nature, but those who are ignorant of the actual definition and view it as the “nature” part IDK. Maybe I’m ignorant. Either way, if we were to go by your sense of “natural law” than we are like animals, who go through multiple sex partners and live in an eat or be eaten world.
we are different from animals. But thats my point of view, but I respect yours. Also, I believe sex isn’t just about the parts, I believe it is a deep connection that should be shared with your husband/wife or comitted partner (maybe one day all gays can get married). But if I was gay in a place where gay marriage isn’t there, I would choose to be celibate because I don’t believe in premaritial sex. Thanks for the comments guys!
 
Crimson_Seraph said:
It means what it says. Men shouldn’t engage in sexual relations with other men, likewise women should not with other women. This is not the way the Creator intended for us to be. Saint Paul restates this by saying that no homosexual can enter the kingdom of God. But thank God that he can deliver these people who are being afflicted by Satan.

As for how Christians in general (not just Catholics, but Protestants and Orthodox) see the Law. It’s like this. The ceremonial and ritualistic Law has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The moral part of the Law, however, we are required to keep.

So it’s ok to eat shellfish and it’s wrong to murder folk.👍
Click to expand...
Saint Paul’s actual translation never said homosexuals can enter the kingdom of God, but the translation of the word he used, I believe Arsenokoites, meant “man who loved to be penetrated” which would rule out the anal sex. Also, thanks so much for saying Jesus fulifilled the ritualistic law, I never thought of that part. That really helps, although it’s not this topic. And I belive “God’s intentions” were to follow the ten commandments, and Jesus’ two most important commandments he gave us.
 
stephendcml said:
The line of thinking does strike me, I always like to hear people’s point of views that get me thinking, and yours did. Natural law I thought by definition was using common sense to determine whether or not something harmed others it had nothing to do with literal nature, but those who are ignorant of the actual definition and view it as the “nature” part IDK.
Click to expand...
For reference, the Catholic Encyclopedia defines the term as “the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us.”
Either way, if we were to go by your sense of “natural law” than we are like animals, who go through multiple sex partners and live in an eat or be eaten world. we are different from animals.
Click to expand...
Certainly, we are different from animals. For one thing, humans are rational, while animals aren’t. For another, humans throughout history have tended toward monogamy, while (as you’ve pointed out) animals have not. That tendency is part of our human nature, and we can discover it just by observing things about how humans relate to the world–and then we can use that discovery to conclude that promiscuity is wrong 🙂

To be clear, I’m using the term “human nature” in the sense of “all the things that make us human,” including our physical characteristics and mental and spiritual tendencies. It’s true that we’re animals in a biological sense, but the totality of our natures is much more than a biological classification.

Hope that helps.
 
GJx86 said:
For reference, the Catholic Encyclopedia defines the term as “the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us.”

Certainly, we are different from animals. For one thing, humans are rational, while animals aren’t. For another, humans throughout history have tended toward monogamy, while (as you’ve pointed out) animals have not. That tendency is part of our human nature, and we can discover it just by observing things about how humans relate to the world–and then we can use that discovery to conclude that promiscuity is wrong 🙂

To be clear, I’m using the term “human nature” in the sense of “all the things that make us human,” including our physical characteristics and mental and spiritual tendencies. It’s true that we’re animals in a biological sense, but the totality of our natures is much more than a biological classification.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...
It does, your great because you state your opinion without using hate to condemn something you don’t agree with, which few people can do. We are all dead to sin, but born again in Christ, so maybe our very animal/physical part is dead, and being reborn in Christ, I believe we are given the power to love endlessly. But as for now I believe that Leviticus condemns same-sex anal sex (on your terms with human nature, that end of the body is an exit, not an opening, do you agree?) But I don’t believe that same-sex romantic relationships are wrong, but I also believe premarital sex isn’t right. I think with the media and other things promoting promiscuity (anal, or any kind of gay or straight sex) should just be banned. But hey, that’s the generation I was born into, and God made me strong enough to handle myself.
 
stephendcml said:
So I know some homosexuals. And I don’t understand the Catholic view on homosexuality. Someone told me that Leviticus says “a man shall not lay with another man, it is an abomination”. But when I read Leviticus 18:22 it said “a man shall not lay with another man as with a woman, it is an abomination”. I’ve looked at this plenty of times, and I feel it only condemns anal-sex (I’m sorry for the graphical term, but I’m sure you can handle it). The “as with a woman” part made me think this.
Click to expand...
So then what kind of sex between homosexuals is acceptable? Just so you know, speaking strictly in terms of heterosexual people here, the Church condemns anal sex, oral sex, and mutual masturbation. A man cannot willingly ejaculate outside a woman’s vagina. So what kind of sex is acceptable between members of the same sex? Are members of the same sex allowed to do things that heterosexual people can’t?

Just so you know, if you are a Catholic, both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are imperative to the faith. It is important, therefore, that we abide by the teachings of the Church. To reject Church teaching on one issue is to declare yourself better equipped to interpret Divine Law than the successors of Peter, whom Christ himself declared the head of His Church on Earth. Furthermore, to reject Church teaching on one issue opens doors to reject other teachings, too.

Most Protestant denominations are founded on the idea that the individual is better at interpreting Scripture than the Magisterium. Because of this, there is no unity among Protestant faiths- only discord. No two individuals read Scripture the same way, but, guided by the Holy Spirit, the Magisterium is able to definitively interpret Sacred Scripture.
 
erigby27 said:
So then what kind of sex between homosexuals is acceptable? Just so you know, speaking strictly in terms of heterosexual people here, the Church condemns anal sex, oral sex, and mutual masturbation. A man cannot willingly ejaculate outside a woman’s vagina. So what kind of sex is acceptable between members of the same sex? Are members of the same sex allowed to do things that heterosexual people can’t?

Just so you know, if you are a Catholic, both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are imperative to the faith. It is important, therefore, that we abide by the teachings of the Church. To reject Church teaching on one issue is to declare yourself better equipped to interpret Divine Law than the successors of Peter, whom Christ himself declared the head of His Church on Earth. Furthermore, to reject Church teaching on one issue opens doors to reject other teachings, too.

Most Protestant denominations are founded on the idea that the individual is better at interpreting Scripture than the Magisterium. Because of this, there is no unity among Protestant faiths- only discord. No two individuals read Scripture the same way, but, guided by the Holy Spirit, the Magisterium is able to definitively interpret Sacred Scripture.
Click to expand...
I am aware of that belief. But I never said that any gay sex was good, I just wonder whether the romantic relationship was wrong, minus the sex. Also, yes, I believe there are things we all share in common and should hold strongly, as one (such as our creed and the sacraments) and even the apostles disagreed with eachother and went on personal faith journeys, as well as together as one. Just like we believe God is 3, but one, I believe faith is personal and community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top