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

[Thorolfr]

We really are not talking about beliefs. Slavery was a “way of life” from the dawn of time to today.

We are talking about whether Christians and before them Jews believed that owning slaves was something they were allowed to do. That is a belief. Leviticus specifically says that it is permissible to own slaves. It doesn’t matter if it was a way of life or not. The people surrounding Israel also worshiped idols and ate pork. That was also a “way of life” that God forbade the Israelites to participate in. So why didn’t God in the Old Testament forbid the Israelites from owning slaves? Why didn’t the early Church forbid Christians from owning slaves? It forbade lots of other things for its members that were a part of the pagan “way of life”. And it doesn’t matter how nicely they treated their slaves. These slaves were still considered to be property that could be given to children as an inheritance just like an ox or a donkey or a house or any other kind of property.

 

[edwest2]

We are talking about whether Christians and before them Jews believed that owning slaves was something they were allowed to do. That is a belief. Leviticus specifically says that it is permissible to own slaves. It doesn’t matter if it was a way of life or not. The people surrounding Israel also worshiped idols and ate pork. That was also a “way of life” that God forbade the Israelites to participate in. So why didn’t God in the Old Testament forbid the Israelites from owning slaves? Why didn’t the early Church forbid Christians from owning slaves? It forbade lots of other things for its members that were a part of the pagan “way of life”. And it doesn’t matter how nicely they treated their slaves. These slaves were still considered to be property that could be given to children as an inheritance just like an ox or a donkey or a house or any other kind of property.

What does this have to do with the “gay issue”? ‘This invalidates that’ is not an argument. Not for this topic.

Ed

 

[john_ennis]

We are talking about whether Christians and before them Jews believed that owning slaves was something they were allowed to do. That is a belief. Leviticus specifically says that it is permissible to own slaves. It doesn’t matter if it was a way of life or not. The people surrounding Israel also worshiped idols and ate pork. That was also a “way of life” that God forbade the Israelites to participate in. So why didn’t God in the Old Testament forbid the Israelites from owning slaves? Why didn’t the early Church forbid Christians from owning slaves? It forbade lots of other things for its members that were a part of the pagan “way of life”. And it doesn’t matter how nicely they treated their slaves. These slaves were still considered to be property that could be given to children as an inheritance just like an ox or a donkey or a house or any other kind of property.

It’s accurate to sum up your point as,

Saying that something’s wrong because the Church or the Old Testament always said so, isn’t a good argument, because the Church and OT once tolerated slavery…

And since slavery is seen differently now, perhaps homosexual activity can be seen differently now.
…yes?

 

[MarkInOregon]

Jesus never said a single thing about slavery as far as I know. But slavery is mentioned in other books in the New Testament and there is no doubt from these books that some Christians owned slaves:

Colossians 3:22: Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord

Ephesians 6:5-6: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.

1 Timothy 6:1-2: Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church;[a] rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved.

Titus 2:9-10: Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, 10 not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

1 Peter 2:18-21: 18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. 19 For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.

As this last passage from Peter says, some have been called by God to be slaves.

Is Peter saying that they were called to be slaves or called to bear unjust suffering just as Christ did?

I don’t think the verses you cite make it clear that Christians owned slaves but rather tell Christians who find themselves as slaves how they are to act. Now the verses below that you omitted would be the ones that indicate, at least to me, that some Christians did indeed own slaves:

Col. 4:1 Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, realizing that you too have a Master in hearven.

Ephesians 6:9 Masters, act in the same way toward them, and stop bullying, knowing that both they and you have a Master in heaven and that with him there is no partiality.

Philemon 1: 14-17 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that the good you do might not be forced but voluntary. Perhaps this is why he was away from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer a slave but more than a slave, a brother, beloved especially of me, but ever more so to you, as a man and in the Lord.

One must ask why does Paul tell slaves to be obedient? Would acting otherwise bring discredit to Christians–make them seem no different than anyone else? To be leading lives that are not transformed? Would an attitude of joy and patient suffering be more likely to attract and possibly change the hearts of their masters–or would defiant resistance and poor work? What is the most creditable way for the Christian to act? What will make them an “ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior”? Not sure that I could follow Paul’s advice though, but then I think slavery as practiced today may be different than slavery as practiced in Paul’s day.

One must ask if a Master is to treat slaves fairly and justly realizing that they too (the slave owner) have a Master in heaven, and that if one is to treat them as a brother–can they really own them? It would seem that it is clearly incongruous for a Christian to own a brother in Christ–it seems that this has to transform the master-slave relationship for Christians–ultimately making it impossible for a Christian to own slaves.

I think this has been our problem on most of the moral issues we battle with today. It seems to me that the vast majority of those claiming to be Christian–don’t lead lives transformed by the Gospel (and I count myself chief among them)–we don’t appear to live any differently or more than nominally differently than the rest of secular society. If we ourselves are not greatly transformed–how can we transform society? If we aren’t living joyful and happy lives amidst our sufferings and trials, if we don’t treat our employee’s fairly, if we sell defective products and must be sued to correct the defect, if we ignore the poor around us–then why would anyone listen to us --when our lives don’t appear to exemplify the Gospel? Our preaching is hollow if we are not happily living the Gospel.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Thorolfr]

It’s accurate to sum up your point as,

Saying that something’s wrong because the Church or the Old Testament always said so, isn’t a good argument, because the Church and OT once tolerated slavery…

And since slavery is seen differently now, perhaps homosexual activity can be seen differently now.
…yes?

That is my point, although slavery wasn’t just “tolerated” in the Old Testament. It wasn’t a practice that was ignored. At least in the Pentateuch, there is no hint of disapproval at all and it explicitly says (Leviticus 25:44-46), “you may acquire male and female slaves” and “You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property”. That’s a little bit more than mere “tolerance” of something that might have been considered somewhat morally questionable.

 

[Thorolfr]

I don’t think the verses you cite make it clear that Christians owned slaves but rather tell Christians who find themselves as slaves how they are to act.

But 1 Timothy 6:1-2 says: Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church;[a] rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved.

“Believing masters” obviously means Christian masters.

 

[MarkInOregon]

But 1 Timothy 6:1-2 says: Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church;[a] rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved.

“Believing masters” obviously means Christian masters.

Got me there–missed that. My apologies.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[john_ennis]

It seems that either the Church and the Old Testament were wrong about slavery, and thus could be wrong about homosexuality, or

The morality of those issues has changed (their status as being sinful or not), or

The slavery described in the OT is not as we, in the 21st century with our recent history as our lens, characterize it. In fact, the slavery of that time and place was not what we today mean when we say “slavery.” (Notwithstanding the details you describe about it.)

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

We are talking about whether Christians and before them Jews believed that owning slaves was something they were allowed to do. That is a belief. Leviticus specifically says that it is permissible to own slaves. It doesn’t matter if it was a way of life or not. The people surrounding Israel also worshiped idols and ate pork. That was also a “way of life” that God forbade the Israelites to participate in. So why didn’t God in the Old Testament forbid the Israelites from owning slaves? Why didn’t the early Church forbid Christians from owning slaves? It forbade lots of other things for its members that were a part of the pagan “way of life”. And it doesn’t matter how nicely they treated their slaves. These slaves were still considered to be property that could be given to children as an inheritance just like an ox or a donkey or a house or any other kind of property.

The Jews were slaves of the Egyptians and the Babylonians. The Romans made slaves of Christians and Jews and just about anyone else. The Jews made slaves of people they conquered…and yes Christians had slaves. In the first century it is estimated that one third of the world’s population lived in slavery.

Why didn’t God forbid the Israelites to own slaves? Good question. I would ask why did God permit the Israelites to become slaves. But in any case what went on between God and the Israelites has no bearing on our Christian relationship with God.

Why didn’t the early Church forbid Christians from owning slaves?

Because in the eyes of the early Church there was nothing wrong with owning slaves as long as they were treated properly. The early Church was the first to condemn the harsh treatment of slaves. Probably because many Christians were in slavery and were not treated very well.

 

[Rau]

It seems that either the Church and the Old Testament were wrong about slavery, and thus could be wrong about homosexuality, or

The morality of those issues has changed (their status as being sinful or not), or

The slavery described in the OT is not as we, in the 21st century with our recent history as our lens, characterize it. In fact, the slavery of that time and place was not what we today mean when we say “slavery.” (Notwithstanding the details you describe about it.)

No doubt there is some truth in your last point. But further, what was the situation in the OT is taken at a point in time where God is drawing a people to himself. If is not surprising that God did not instantly require all the new norms to be promulgated and adopted at one time.

 

[Thorolfr]

It seems that either the Church and the Old Testament were wrong about slavery, and thus could be wrong about homosexuality, or

The morality of those issues has changed (their status as being sinful or not), or

The slavery described in the OT is not as we, in the 21st century with our recent history as our lens, characterize it. In fact, the slavery of that time and place was not what we today mean when we say “slavery.” (Notwithstanding the details you describe about it.)

I don’t think that slavery then was a whole lot better than it was more recently. For example, the new book by Kyle Harper, Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425 (Cambridge University Press, 2011) which goes well into the Christian period has a lot of quotes from early Church Fathers on slavery such as John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (349-407). In one of his sermons, he criticized members of his flock for not bringing their slaves to church. The owners, he said, should be the stewards of their slaves’ souls. In the late Roman world, certain kinds of labor were considered dishonorable, and Chrysostom said that it was permissible for Christian priests to own a few slaves in order that they should not have to do any shameful labor themselves. Whipping of slaves was common and John Chrysostom warned masters that they should not tear through the tunic when they beat their slaves and he criticized masters if their slaves’ bodies showed marks of their cruelty at the public baths. So whipping or beating slaves was common even by Christian slave owners.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It seems that either the Church and the Old Testament were wrong about slavery, and thus could be wrong about homosexuality, or

The morality of those issues has changed (their status as being sinful or not), or

The slavery described in the OT is not as we, in the 21st century with our recent history as our lens, characterize it. In fact, the slavery of that time and place was not what we today mean when we say “slavery.” (Notwithstanding the details you describe about it.)

From the International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Currently there is no clear understanding of the meaning of ‘slavery’ in modern international law. While generally it is accepted that the authoritative definition of slavery is provided by Article 1 of the Slavery Convention 1926, in recent times slavery has been understood in such a wide variety of ways that effectively it is a meaningless term.

 

[Thorolfr]

No doubt there is some truth in your last point. But further, what was the situation in the OT is taken at a point in time where God is drawing a people to himself. If is not surprising that God did not instantly require all the new norms to be promulgated and adopted at one time.

In the Old Testament, God frequently reminds the Israelites that He brought them out of slavery in Egypt to the promised land, so you would think that convincing them that slavery is wrong would not have been that difficult.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I don’t think that slavery then was a whole lot better than it was more recently. For example, the new book by Kyle Harper, Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425 (Cambridge University Press, 2011) which goes well into the Christian period has a lot of quotes from early Church Fathers on slavery such as John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (349-407). In one of his sermons, he criticized members of his flock for not bringing their slaves to church. The owners, he said, should be the stewards of their slaves’ souls. In the late Roman world, certain kinds of labor were considered dishonorable, and Chrysostom said that it was permissible for Christian priests to own a few slaves in order that they should not have to do any shameful labor themselves. Whipping of slaves was common and John Chrysostom warned masters that they should not tear through the tunic when they beat their slaves and he criticized masters if their slaves’ bodies showed marks of their cruelty at the public baths. So whipping or beating slaves was common even by Christian slave owners.

Yes it was cruel and terrible.

In the 1700’s the Protestant Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts owned the Codrington Plantation, in Barbados, containing several hundred slaves; all slaves in the plantation were branded on their chests, using the traditional red hot iron, with the word Society, to signify their ownership by the Christian organization

 

[Rau]

In the Old Testament, God frequently reminds the Israelites that He brought them out of slavery in Egypt to the promised land, so you would think that convincing them that slavery is wrong would not have been that difficult.

So God got his strategy for revelation wrong? Remember, God took sides during that period.

 

[edwest2]

Yes it was cruel and terrible.

In the 1700’s the Protestant Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts owned the Codrington Plantation, in Barbados, containing several hundred slaves; all slaves in the plantation were branded on their chests, using the traditional red hot iron, with the word Society, to signify their ownership by the Christian organization

Respectfully, way off topic. Another thread specifically about this would be more appropriate.

Ed

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Respectfully, way off topic. Another thread specifically about this would be more appropriate.

Ed

I didn’t start this…

 

[Thorolfr]

Respectfully, way off topic. Another thread specifically about this would be more appropriate.

Ed

We should start a new thread on this topic, although it started as a tangent from the topic of this thread.

 

[Midwest88]

Before my conversion, when I didn’t have a problem with gay “marriage” per se, I did have a problem with LGBT, because 1) publically, they act like immature children, and 2) they never appeal to rationality, but rather to strong emotions.** A big problem with gay “marriage” advocates is that their arguments are easily reduced to absurdity, if they actually make an argument.** Just read the illogical and nonsensical Majority Opinion on the recent decision!

A big problem with gay “marriage” advocates is the advocates themselves.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

worldofdtcmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/word-up-g-high-rez.jpg

 

[CatholicSheila]

Very few people in our culture would argue that adultery is justifiable. Although they might do it, they will try and hide it. As a result, there is no need really to rationally bring it up, just as there is no need for Catholic Answers to have to focus on defending “thou shall not steal.” No one disagrees that its wrong (except for many in the Media apparently), and no one goes around in “Adulterer Pride” movements. LGBT (which is not representatives of homosexuals, but a certain group of homosexuals with a certain viewpoint on it), on the other hand, proudly (literally. They do use the term “Pride” to describe their parades) wear their sin. Even fornicators won’t go around and march in parades. Regarding fornication, priests in youth groups do often deal with this issue “too much” as well.

When’s the last time a fornicator or adulterer wanted their behaviors taught to 6 year olds

You two must live in a very different culture to me. In my culture, these things are accepted as normal and are taught to 6 year olds.

6 year olds are taught that there is nothing wrong with mum and dad not been married, or mum and dad been divorced, or mum and dad marrying again after divorce.

Fornication and adultery covered.

I’m very surprised to hear someone say that things are different in the US.