Why is the US Catholic church so obsessed with the gay issue?

[estesbob]

The earliest reference that I know of in the Judeo-Christian tradition to homosexuality is in Leviticus which most scholars believe reached its final form sometime between the 6th century BC and the 4th century BC.

The 4000 years dates back to Abraham.Homosexual behavior has been condemned for the entire span.

 

[estesbob]

The earliest reference that I know of in the Judeo-Christian tradition to homosexuality is in Leviticus which most scholars believe reached its final form sometime between the 6th century BC and the 4th century BC.

You are forgetting Soddom and Gomorah. Of course current “scholars” claim that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah have nothing to do with homosexuality rather it was that the people were inhospitable to strangers . Another new and improved interpretation that was unheard of until our current culture started trying to justify homosexuality as being normal

 

[Thorolfr]

You are forgetting Soddom and Gomorah. Of course current “scholars” claim that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah have nothing to do with homosexuality rather it was that the people were inhospitable to strangers . Another new and improved interpretation that was unheard of until our current culture started trying to justify homosexuality as being normal

That the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah is mostly about in-hospitality and other sins comes from Scripture and is not a new interpretation:

Ezekiel 16: 1-2, 48-50: The word of the Lord came to me: 2 Mortal, make known to Jerusalem her abominations…48 As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw fit.

And if you object that Ezekiel 16:50 mentions “abominable things,” Ezekiel 16:21-22 makes clear that this is referring to sacrificing their children to other gods: 21 You slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering to them. 22 And in all your abominations and your whorings you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, flailing about in your blood.

Also, in Luke 10:1-2, 10-12: After this the Lord * appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go 2 He said to them, ….10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town.

Neither in Ezekiel or in Luke is homosexuality mentioned as the main sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.*

 

[Vico]

That the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah is mostly about in-hospitality and other sins comes from Scripture and is not a new interpretation:

Ezekiel 16: 1-2, 48-50: The word of the Lord came to me: 2 Mortal, make known to Jerusalem her abominations…48 As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw fit.

And if you object that Ezekiel 16:50 mentions “abominable things,” Ezekiel 16:21-22 makes clear that this is referring to sacrificing their children to other gods: 21 You slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering to them. 22 And in all your abominations and your whorings you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, flailing about in your blood.

Also, in Luke 10:1-2, 10-12: After this the Lord * appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go 2 He said to them, ….10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town*.

Neither in Ezekiel or in Luke is homosexuality mentioned as the main sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Re: sexual immorality (ἐκπορνεύσασαι) and perversion (ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας – literally having departed to strange or different flesh.

Genesis 19 speaks plainly of the sin.
Ezekiel 16 retains the word abomination.
Jude 7 attests to sexual perversion as the central sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…ghlight=sodomy

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
6. Providing a basic plan for understanding this entire discussion of homosexuality is the theology of creation we find in Genesis. God, in his infinite wisdom and love, brings into existence all of reality as a reflection of his goodness. He fashions mankind, male and female, in his own image and likeness. Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their cooperation with him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of the self to the other.

In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its “spousal significance” but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.

Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.
In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…ersons_en.html

 

[estesbob]

That the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah is mostly about in-hospitality and other sins comes from Scripture and is not a new interpretation:

Ezekiel 16: 1-2, 48-50: The word of the Lord came to me: 2 Mortal, make known to Jerusalem her abominations…48 As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw fit.

And if you object that Ezekiel 16:50 mentions “abominable things,” Ezekiel 16:21-22 makes clear that this is referring to sacrificing their children to other gods: 21 You slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering to them. 22 And in all your abominations and your whorings you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, flailing about in your blood.

Also, in Luke 10:1-2, 10-12: After this the Lord * appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go 2 He said to them, ….10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town*.

Neither in Ezekiel or in Luke is homosexuality mentioned as the main sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Funny how it took 4000 years for “scholars” to determine everyone else who went before them were wrong.Again in presupposes a very inept god-a god who hides the truth from his people for thousands of years

 

[Thorolfr]

Funny how it took 4000 years for “scholars” to determine everyone else who went before them were wrong.Again in presupposes a very inept god-a god who hides the truth from his people for thousands of years

Ezekiel was born about 622 BC, so that passage about Sodom in the Book of Ezekiel has been around at least since the 7th century BC. It was only later in the Christian period and even after the time of Luke that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was reinterpreted to be mostly about homosexuality.

 

[estesbob]

Ezekiel was born about 622 BC, so that passage about Sodom in the Book of Ezekiel has been around at least since the 7th century BC. It was only later in the Christian period and even after the time of Luke that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was reinterpreted to be mostly about homosexuality.

So your claim is that the new improved interpretations is overturning 2000 years of teachings, not 4000 . Wrhy did god allow this error to persist? When did the ECLA determine the Christianity and Judaism had always been wrong about homosexuality ? What led them make this decision?

 

[Bradski]

Homosexual behavior has been condemned for the entire span.

Nonsense.

 

[Rau]

So your claim is that the new improved interpretations is overturning 2000 years of teachings, not 4000 . Wrhy did god allow this error to persist? When did the ECLA determine the Christianity and Judaism had always been wrong about homosexuality ? What led them make this decision?

ELCA didn’t decide that. They have positions on the issue spanning the spectrum from equivalent to that of Catholicism through to earnest endorsement of SSM. Their ministers may individually decide whether it is right or not to officiate at a SSM. A position for everyone!

 

[Contarini]

You are forgetting Soddom and Gomorah. Of course current “scholars” claim that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah have nothing to do with homosexuality rather it was that the people were inhospitable to strangers . Another new and improved interpretation that was unheard of until our current culture started trying to justify homosexuality as being normal

Ezekiel is not new.

And new or old, it should be obvious that people who rape strangers as a way of welcoming them to town are very wicked people, and that one can’t derive anything much from God’s condemnation of such actions that is relevant to the question of consensual, committed same-sex relations.

For that, we have to look at the positive teaching on marriage. That’s why I can’t accept the “pro-gay” position. Well, that and the authority of the Church–but why I don’t struggle with Church teaching on this as I do on women’s ordination.

Edwin

 

[Murmurs]

The 4000 years dates back to Abraham.Homosexual behavior has been condemned for the entire span.

facepalm Of course, Abraham! thanks

You are forgetting Soddom and Gomorah. Of course current “scholars” claim that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah have nothing to do with homosexuality rather it was that the people were inhospitable to strangers . Another new and improved interpretation that was unheard of until our current culture started trying to justify homosexuality as being normal

Rape in the ancient world was an act of dominance (it still is, frankly; it has little to do with sex at all) - a victorious army might well use rape against its defeated opponents, for instance. Even without Ezekiel making it pretty clear that by the time Genesis was written down (not all that long after Ezekiel, actually), God was even in contemporary understanding, punishing Sodom for desire to defile guests in an act of dominance. (Sex of itself didn’t come into it; they weren’t all that interested in Lot’s daughters, after all, although all the same I can’t imagine he got many Father’s Day cards after that incident). ‘Homosexual’ or its cognates is not used in Genesis (it wasn’t a concept in our understanding until the 19th century anyway).

There’s also an argument (which I don’t give a tremendous amount of credence to, but it’s not entirely implausible), that the Sodomites’ (I mean the city’s citizens’) desire to “know” the angels refers to knowing in the sense of understanding - they were strange men in the city - for all the local people knew, they could be spies. “Know” might mean interrogation not rape. (Either way, they were clearly inhospitable).

We don’t even need Ezekiel to help us. Isaiah 1:10-17 makes clear what the sin of Sodom was:

Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom! Listen to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah! 11 What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt-offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. 12 When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; 13 bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation— I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.14 Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. 15 When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes; cease to do evil, 17 learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.

The sins of Sodom were greed, rebellion against God, empty religious ritual, and failure to champion the oppressed.

So why did God let his people live in error for thousands of years?What insight do we have that makes us smarter than all who went before us.

We’re not smarter (in lots of ways the world now works, we give at least the appearance of being considerably dumber!) than previous generations. It’s not a “new” idea that the true Sodomites are those who don’t treat their guests very well (because this is what is very clear even in the Old Testament!). We’ve not been living in error, just allowed a prohibition found in the middle of a cultural code of dietary and sacrificial laws to influence our reading of all the other texts, and it has been the work of the last 80 years or however long to prize the two apart. We don’t go to Leviticus for moral guidance: we go to find out how to conduct sacrifices and make ourselves ritually clean. What we translate often as “abomination” also refers to pork or sex during menstruation, so it’s arguably difficult to gauge on what level to put homosexual activity (and given we also find in the Mosaic law the death penalty for disobeying your parents, one has to ask if it’s all quite so consistent).

 

[estesbob]

facepalm Of course, Abraham! thanks

Rape in the ancient world was an act of dominance (it still is, frankly; it has little to do with sex at all) - a victorious army might well use rape against its defeated opponents, for instance. Even without Ezekiel making it pretty clear that by the time Genesis was written down (not all that long after Ezekiel, actually), God was even in contemporary understanding, punishing Sodom for desire to defile guests in an act of dominance. (Sex of itself didn’t come into it; they weren’t all that interested in Lot’s daughters, after all, although all the same I can’t imagine he got many Father’s Day cards after that incident). ‘Homosexual’ or its cognates is not used in Genesis (it wasn’t a concept in our understanding until the 19th century anyway).

There’s also an argument (which I don’t give a tremendous amount of credence to, but it’s not entirely implausible), that the Sodomites’ (I mean the city’s citizens’) desire to “know” the angels refers to knowing in the sense of understanding - they were strange men in the city - for all the local people knew, they could be spies. “Know” might mean interrogation not rape. (Either way, they were clearly inhospitable).

We don’t even need Ezekiel to help us. Isaiah 1:10-17 makes clear what the sin of Sodom was:

Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom! Listen to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah! 11 What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt-offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. 12 When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; 13 bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation— I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.14 Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. 15 When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes; cease to do evil, 17 learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.

The sins of Sodom were greed, rebellion against God, empty religious ritual, and failure to champion the oppressed.

We’re not smarter (in lots of ways the world now works, we give at least the appearance of being considerably dumber!) than previous generations. It’s not a “new” idea that the true Sodomites are those who don’t treat their guests very well (because this is what is very clear even in the Old Testament!). We’ve not been living in error, just allowed a prohibition found in the middle of a cultural code of dietary and sacrificial laws to influence our reading of all the other texts, and it has been the work of the last 80 years or however long to prize the two apart. We don’t go to Leviticus for moral guidance: we go to find out how to conduct sacrifices and make ourselves ritually clean. What we translate often as “abomination” also refers to pork or sex during menstruation, so it’s arguably difficult to gauge on what level to put homosexual activity (and given we also find in the Mosaic law the death penalty for disobeying your parents, one has to ask if it’s all quite so consistent).

I was hoping we could get through this dread without the silliness of comparing homosexual behavior to eating shellfish . As Catholics we don’t have to parse scripture verses try to determine the truth. God has provided it through his Church , the one founded by his son and the one headed by Pope Francis. the Church has always condemned homosexual behavior as grievous sin . Always. As a Catholic I a not sure how you have decided that we can pick and choose what teachings of Church we can pitch out because they’re inconvenient to follow in our current culture but either there are absolute truths or there are not. Either there is a God or there is not. And if there are absolute truths and if there is a God, both of which I believe, these truths would not change because of current culture says so.And no god I would worship would leave each succeeding generation to figure this truth out on their own or depend upon new “scholars” to point out how naïve we have been in and how sad it is that the Church just wasn’t smart enough to figure this out .

 

[estesbob]

Ezekiel is not new.

And new or old, it should be obvious that people who rape strangers as a way of welcoming them to town are very wicked people, and that one can’t derive anything much from God’s condemnation of such actions that is relevant to the question of consensual, committed same-sex relations.

For that, we have to look at the positive teaching on marriage. That’s why I can’t accept the “pro-gay” position. Well, that and the authority of the Church–but why I don’t struggle with Church teaching on this as I do on women’s ordination.

Edwin

I struggle with the churches teachings concerning the prohibition of barrier forms of contraception . In fact during my life there have been many times my Faith has been tenuous at best . But the church is always been my Rock and I have the steadfast belief that I don’t have to understand why they teach what they teach , I just have to follow it. And I’m greatly helped by reading the lives of the Saints and seeing how they handle their personal struggles . And one theme I see you again again is the necessity of humility . Something else I often struggle with

 

[Murmurs]

I was hoping we could get through this dread without the silliness of comparing homosexual behavior to eating shellfish . As Catholics we don’t have to parse scripture verses try to determine the truth. God has provided it through his Church , the one founded by his son and the one headed by Pope Francis. the Church has always condemned homosexual behavior as grievous sin . Always. As a Catholic I a not sure how you have decided that we can pick and choose what teachings of Church we can pitch out because they’re inconvenient to follow in our current culture but either there are absolute truths or there are not. Either there is a God or there is not. And if there are absolute truths and if there is a God, both of which I believe, these truths would not change because of current culture says so.And no god I would worship would leave each succeeding generation to figure this truth out on their own or depend upon new “scholars” to point out how naïve we have been in and how sad it is that the Church just wasn’t smart enough to figure this out .

I wasn’t (deliberately) being silly, and I certainly wouldn’t advocate picking and choosing BUT we have been given reason as one of the many wonderful gifts we as human beings have, and it seems a shame (not to mention offensive) not to use it when appropriate. I do not think that we should avoid shellfish for as long as we teach that homosexual activity is wrong too. I’m sorry if you thought that was my point (I clearly wasn’t very, well, clear, which is my problem not yours).

The point I was really interested in is that it is at least as plausible to state that the real sins of Sodom and Gomorah were related to hospitality (what we might broadly characterise as sins against charity, I suppose), rather than homosexual acts (though in the case of Sodom there is clear evidence that this was on their minds, I will agree).

What if you notice I certainly didn’t say was that the Church was wrong to teach that homosexual acts are gravely sinful; like you, (and despite being a gay woman), I feel this is very much above my pay grade and am content (struggle though it is) to follow what the Church teaches (and, as you say, has always taught).

What I do not believe is a slavish obedience to the Church that doesn’t come from thought about what its teaching means, and without entertaining (for hypothetical or academic purposes, at least), ideas other than those propounded as doctrine.

What I also think we should question is whether or not the teaching on homosexual behaviour is one of the most important things we should take from the Church (or the Bible). (I know, you’ll say it’s all important, and I agree, but please indulge me!). This, to return to the thread topic, is the point - the Church gives the (possibly erroneous, I’m not sure) impression of being obssessed with homosexuality, and how it relates to modern society (eg the recent SCOTUS ruling, Irish referendum, etc).

The Bible, and the Church, is a cultural and literary construct - a human construct - however much I and you believe it also to be Divinely inspired in origin, and we should treat it as being both those things. I follow what the Church teaches, but I do question if it necessarily gets it right in seemingly arbitrary decisions about what is merely cultural leftovers (pork, sex in menstruation, implications supporting slavery, polygamy, etc), and what is universal and for all time. I trust it does, of course (nobody who does otherwise could in all conscience remain a Catholic I think(, but that does not mean we shouldn’t ask the question sometimes. There is a huge room for doubt on the edges of infallibility.

God bless,

Murmurs x

 

[InNomineDomini]

My question is, what is this emphasis on this issue meant to achieve?

You’d have to ask individual producers of programs that question. But one result is education. Catholics are incredibly ignorant on this issue, especially from the position of apologetics. Since the issue is so common in today’s culture, are you surprised that apologetics organizations seek to strengthen Catholics, so that they can be salt and light in a dark world?

 

[Contarini]

Rape in the ancient world was an act of dominance (it still is, frankly; it has little to do with sex at all)

I know that’s a common claim these days, and I get that one purpose is to avoid the horrific idea that rape victims are somehow “guilty” for having been raped, but I think it’s just clearly not true. By definition rape is an act of sexual violence. The only way you can say “it has little to do with sex at all” is if you start out with a definition of “sex” as a loving, consensual act.

In other words, I think that phrase is an example of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. And I think it obscures how intertwined male sexuality is, historically, with violence and domination.

Edwin

 

[john_ennis]

You’d have to ask individual producers of programs that question. But one result is education. Catholics are incredibly ignorant on this issue, especially from the position of apologetics. Since the issue is so common in today’s culture, are you surprised that apologetics organizations seek to strengthen Catholics, so that they can be salt and light in a dark world?

This is such an important point. It’s not as if Catholics are all firmly settled about the Church’s teaching on sexuality. We are confused enough about the matter. Every time we ignore a small truth which is part of the beautiful integrity of the overall truth about the issue, we are farther from understanding it. So, when the world says something bizarre, there’s a need to make clear to Catholics how and why it is at odds with the truth.

When the world says that day is night, why respond? The world hasn’t actually changed day to night.

But there must be a response, when many confused and sincere people are likely to the accept that day really *is *night.

 

[edwest2]

This is such an important point. It’s not as if Catholics are all firmly settled about the Church’s teaching on sexuality. We are confused enough about the matter. Every time we ignore a small truth which is part of the beautiful integrity of the overall truth about the issue, we are farther from understanding it. So, when the world says something bizarre, there’s a need to make clear to Catholics how and why it is at odds with the truth.

When the world says that day is night, why respond? The world hasn’t actually changed day to night.

But there must be a response, when many confused and sincere people are likely to the accept that day really *is *night.

People doubt the Church but are too trusting of men. Sex has been divorced from love for too many. Consent means anything goes. Our bodies are under our control. Does anyone deny this?

There must always be a response. Answers are available.

Best,
Ed

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The Bible, and the Church, is a cultural and literary construct - a human construct - however much I and you believe it also to be Divinely inspired in origin, and we should treat it as being both those things. I follow what the Church teaches, but I do question if it necessarily gets it right in seemingly arbitrary decisions about what is merely cultural leftovers (pork, sex in menstruation, implications supporting slavery, polygamy, etc), and what is universal and for all time. I trust it does, of course (nobody who does otherwise could in all conscience remain a Catholic I think(, but that does not mean we shouldn’t ask the question sometimes. There is a huge room for doubt on the edges of infallibility.

God bless,

Murmurs x

The Catholic Church claims to be an instrument of God that can** infallibly discern objective truth;** truth that is independent of the church’s opinion or wishes. If the church says something is true, and then changes its mind and says it was wrong, then the church logically cannot be infallible.

 

[Lucretius]

The point I was really interested in is that it is at least as plausible to state that the real sins of Sodom and Gomorah were related to hospitality (what we might broadly characterise as sins against charity, I suppose), rather than homosexual acts (though in the case of Sodom there is clear evidence that this was on their minds, I will agree).

I never care for this sort of theorizing because it denies traditional interpretation of Scripture. Sometimes it’s necessary, especially when that interpretation turns out to not be traditional (an interpretation that actually appeared in the Medieval times, for example). But for issues like the major sin of Sodom, 3000 years of tradition (the pre-Christian Jews understand the sin of Sodom to be sodomy as well), a tradition that stretches straight back to the lifetime of the writer, indicates that the major sin was sodomy. I don’t see any reason to deny this interpretation (especially since it is also the most reasonable as well). It is true that hospitality was one of their sins, but that is deprived from their sexual sins: the Sodomites were inhospitable because they tried to sodomize their guests!

What if you notice I certainly didn’t say was that the Church was wrong to teach that homosexual acts are gravely sinful; like you, (and despite being a gay woman), I feel this is very much above my pay grade and am content (struggle though it is) to follow what the Church teaches (and, as you say, has always taught).

You have a very strong faith

What I do not believe is a slavish obedience to the Church that doesn’t come from thought about what its teaching means, and without entertaining (for hypothetical or academic purposes, at least), ideas other than those propounded as doctrine.

Well, when one don’t understand something, it is better just to go with the teachings of the Faith. “Faith seeking understanding.” To learn the reasons why the Church teaches what She does is great, but it isn’t necessary for one to be saved.

What I also think we should question is whether or not the teaching on homosexual behaviour is one of the most important things we should take from the Church (or the Bible). (I know, you’ll say it’s all important, and I agree, but please indulge me!). This, to return to the thread topic, is the point - the Church gives the (possibly erroneous, I’m not sure) impression of being obssessed with homosexuality, and how it relates to modern society (eg the recent SCOTUS ruling, Irish referendum, etc).

She, the Church in America, probably gives this impression because it is true. But it’s not limited to the Church in America. People in America in general are obsessed with the controversy surrounding homosexuality. In other words, we Catholics in America are obsessed about these things (homosexuality, abortion, etc.) because we are Americans, not because we are Catholics The Church in Africa or China, for example, is not obsessed about these issues, probably because they have their own issues to be obsessed about

The Bible, and the Church, is a cultural and literary construct - a human construct - however much I and you believe it also to be Divinely inspired in origin, and we should treat it as being both those things.

The Church, as the body of Christ, is both Divine and Human. Christ founded the Church, and Christ was a Man, therefore a Man founded the Church There are people who deny that the Church is Divine, and there are those who deny that the Church is Human.

I follow what the Church teaches, but I do question if it necessarily gets it right in seemingly arbitrary decisions about what is merely cultural leftovers (pork, sex in menstruation, implications supporting slavery, polygamy, etc), and what is universal and for all time.

This is why Christ gave the Apostles, protected from error by the Spirit of Truth, the power to “bind and loose.” This is also the reason the Holy Father a says that a “celebate priesthood” and be debated, but that a “woman priesthood” is not.

I trust it does, of course (nobody who does otherwise could in all conscience remain a Catholic I think(, but that does not mean we shouldn’t ask the question sometimes. There is a huge room for doubt on the edges of infallibility.

I’m not really understanding what you mean by the “edges of infallibility?”

Christi pax,

Lucretius