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

[Lucretius]

Honestly, I don’t see a problem for those with same-sex attraction to have a relationship with another like the one St. Joseph and the Blessed Mother had, unless it is too much of an occasion of sin for them.

Of course, this is just my non-authorities opinion.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[catholic1seeks]

So I guess that when St. Paul refers to murderers, he didn’t mean that “every single act of murder is in and of itself immoral” either, right?

Where do you get that from?

Romans 1 does not even refer to “homosexuals.”

 

[polki]

tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/12-quotes-against-sodomy-that-every-catholic-should-know.html

As you can see from the link, many Catholics who were given the honor of sainthood consider sodomy to be the greatest vice. Homosexual acts go completely against nature, which is God Himself. They are a slap in the face to God who made both male and female in order that we can populate the earth for generation after generation. Homosexuality is the opposite of God’s natural law of procreation. Homosexual “pride” is being proud of slapping God in the face and the ultimate self absorption.

 

[Lucretius]

Yes, I did read the post that you responded to. I also think that Jesus made pretty adequate statements about marriage as well:

“He answered, Have you never read, how he who created them, when they first came to be, created them male and female; and how he said, A man, therefore, will leave his father and mother and will cling to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? And so they are no longer two, they are one flesh; what God, then, has joined, let not man put asunder.”

-Matthew 19: 4-6

These statements were as scandalous in His time as they are in ours. Remember, Jesus condemns both the practical and common polygamy and divorce of His time.

In other words, the lack of respect for the “sanctity of Marriage” is not something peculiar to our time, although it has reached new levels of perversion

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Eddie_Mac]

The Catholic Church is not obsessed with the issue. The Catholic Church is obsessed with the truth and teaching about God’s mercy for those who repent. The Church is against ALL sin, not just homosexual sin. The Church is all about salvation. The world is all about normalizing sin, and satan and his minions are all about taking souls to hell.

 

[catholic1seeks]

As you can see from the link, many Catholics who were given the honor of sainthood consider sodomy to be the greatest vice. Homosexual acts go completely against nature, which is God Himself. They are a slap in the face to God who made both male and female in order that we can populate the earth for generation after generation. Homosexuality is the opposite of God’s natural law of procreation. Homosexual “pride” is being proud of slapping God in the face and the ultimate self absorption.

A slap in the face to the God who made some of his creatures with an orientation or “inclination” or “condition,” or whatever Churchly-correct term one wishes to use, to the same sex.

 

[Lucretius]

Where do you get that from?

Romans 1 does not even refer to “homosexuals.”

You seem to argue that St. Paul condemns homosexuality per accidens, that is, not homosexuality as it is in itself (per se), but rather homosexuality as it happened (per accidens means “by happening”) was understood and practiced in his time.

What I pointed out is that if we take that logic, we could say that St. Paul condemns murder per accidens, due to the fact that murders used very painful methods which often lead to a short death in St. Paul’s time. But because murderers kill today so much more efficiently and cleanly and painlessly today, St. Paul’s condemnation of murder wouldn’t apply to today.

The problem with the argument above is that St. Paul condemns murder, not because of how it was done in his time, but because that it in itself is wrong: the taking of innocent life is wrong, and the taking of innocent life is what murder is per se.

In the same way, St. Paul does condemn homosexual behavior as it is in itself:

…giving up natural intercourse with women, were burnt up with desire for each other; men practicing vileness with their fellow men.

He isn’t condemning prostitution that just happened to be homosexual here (he does that elsewhere); he is condemning homosexual behavior, which includes both “committed relationships” and prostitution. St. Paul is condemning “men practicing vileness with their fellow men” which is what homosexual behaviors are in themselves (per se).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[catholic1seeks]

The Catholic Church is not obsessed with the issue. The Catholic Church is obsessed with the truth and teaching about God’s mercy for those who repent. The Church is against ALL sin, not just homosexual sin. The Church is all about salvation. The world is all about normalizing sin, and satan and his minions are all about taking souls to hell.

I would say there are in fact notable signs in the USA that suggest otherwise,
And I’ve named examples

 

[catholic1seeks]

You seem to argue that St. Paul condemns homosexuality per accidens, that is, not homosexuality as it is in itself (per se), but rather homosexuality as it was understood and practiced in his time.

What I pointed out is that if we take that logic, we could say that St. Paul condemns murder per accidens, due to the fact that murders used very painful methods which often lead to a short death in St. Paul’s time. But because murderers kill today so much more efficiently and cleanly and painlessly today, St. Paul’s condemnation of murder wouldn’t apply to today.

The problem is that St. Paul does condemn homosexual behavior as they are in themselves:

He isn’t condemning prostitution that just happened to be homosexual here (he does that elsewhere); he is condemning homosexual behavior, which includes both “committed relationships” and prostitution.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

This does not follow because murder is murder. But not all homosexual acts are the same. It is our modern church notion of natural moral law that we have layered on to Paul’s words to conclude he means all gay sex is wrong. But not all gay sex is the same.

 

[ctb95]

This does not follow because murder is murder. But not all homosexual acts are the same. It is our modern church notion of natural moral law that we have layered on to Paul’s words to conclude he means all gay sex is wrong. But not all gay sex is the same.

Not all murder is the same either.

 

[MSSheBear]

:slapfight: Yikes, so called same sex marriage is here and part of the reason we have lost the battle is the poor or absent teaching on the purpose of marriage and sex and why we don’t use contraception. It appears to me a lot of Catholics don’t get it and I mean in the sense that they believe they can do their own thing and ignore what the Church teaches.

So perhaps we need to convince Catholics that there is a reason for being opposed to same sex marriage and that marriage is more than just a friendship pact rather than just opposing certain laws.

:slapfight: I agree with the OP that maybe we should be emphasizing other things too such as human trafficking and abortion. But that would upset another section Catholics.:blackeye:

I love the smilies.

 

[Lucretius]

This does not follow because murder is murder. But not all homosexual acts are the same. It is our modern church notion of natural moral law that we have layered on to Paul’s words to conclude he means all gay sex is wrong. But not all gay sex is the same.

So you are condemning murderous acts because of whatthey are? St. Paul and I are just condemning homosexual acts because of what they are.

“Not all gay sex is the same” sounds very relativistic. Couldn’t I just use the vague “not all murder is the same” too? Just what are “homosexual acts” per se?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

Not all murder is the same either.

Ahhh. Beat me to it!

The funny thing is that “not all ___ is the same” is exactly the same language the Sophists that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle fought against. I’m very close to saying that the contemporary relativism is just the modern version of sophism.

I don’t think the OP is a sophist. I think he is a tender-hearted person who is trying to defend what he believes is the happiness for other people, which is very admirable.

To borrow a paraphrase of G. K. Chesterton, the OP “has a large, generous, and courageous heart, but one in the wrong place”

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[catholic1seeks]

So you are condemning murderous acts because of whatthey are? St. Paul and I are just condemning homosexual acts because of what they are.

“Not all gay sex is the same” sounds very relativistic. Couldn’t I just use the vague “not all murder is the same” too? Just what are “homosexual acts” per se?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

You say that is what Paul is doing.
I say we have good reason to think he is not condemning all gay acts “intrinsically”

 

[ctb95]

You say that is what Paul is doing.
I say we have good reason to think he is not condemning all gay acts “intrinsically”

So which gay acts does he condemn and which ones are acceptable?

 

[polki]

A slap in the face to the God who made some of his creatures with an orientation or “inclination” or “condition,” or whatever Churchly-correct term one wishes to use, to the same sex.

All of God’s people, including homosexuals, are capable of, and called to, live holy lives. It is our free will. God gave all of us crosses to bear in this life. We are to take up these crosses and live according to God’s laws (including His own laws of nature).

 

[ctb95]

All of God’s people, including homosexuals, are capable of, and called to, live holy lives. It is our free will. God gave all of us crosses to bear in this life. We are to take up these crosses and live according to God’s laws (including His own laws of nature).

 

[Corki]

Look at your profile picture.

So much for the Church needing to be for the Church needing to be for rather than against,
a Church of yes rather than a Church of
No.

If you look at my profile picture **together with **my signature picture and read what my signature says, you will see that both represent the “yes” and not the “no”.

 

[Lucretius]

You say that is what Paul is doing.
I say we have good reason to think he is not condemning all gay acts “intrinsically”

I’m too new to common Greek, so I removed it, however I am familiar with Latin:

“masculi in masculos” = “males against males”

“Masculos” is in the accusative, so “in” can also be translated “males into males.”

Or, to simplify, St. Paul is condemning “males against/into males,” which would be sodomy, or “homosexual behaviors” as I’ve been calling it.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

You say that is what Paul is doing.
I say we have good reason to think he is not condemning all gay acts “intrinsically”

masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes"
Source: newadvent.org/bible/rom001.htm

Now, Father Knox translates this as:

…men practicing vileness with their fellow men.

“operantes” is a participle in the accusative, describing “turpitudinem,” and means something like "operate, work, labor, toil, practice, etc.

“turpitudinem” is an noun in the accusative singular, and means “unsightliness, repulsiveness, foulness, deformity, baseness, shamefulness, disgrace, dishonor, infamy, turpitude,” or my favorite, “fellowship in vile practices”

“masculi” is an adjective in the nominative plural, which means “male.”

“masculos” is an adjective in the accusative plural, which means “male.”

If I were to translate this, I would personally go with “males practicing repulsiveness against males,” but one can also translate as “males practicing repulsiveness towards males” or even “males practicing repulsiveness into males.”

I’m not exactly sure where Fr. Knox gets “with” from, but it might have something to do with the Greek, or he might be taking a cue from “operantes,” and tried to make it seem more that the males were working together in wickedness, as “against” implies that one man is “practicing vileness” against the other male, which excuses the culpability of the other male, yet this is denied by the participle.

Regardless, since “in” is a preposition describing an accusative word (“masculos”), the word is commonly translated into “into,” with “into” implying entrance, like “I entered into the room.” If the term was used with the adverb “versus” I would be more comfortable with “towards,” but that’s not the case.

In other words, St. Jerome is conveying penetrating actions, which indicates that the text is condemning sodomy.

Of course, the traditional understanding of the passage was uncontroversial for around 1900 years, until recently. These new understandings also just happens to overlap with an increasing acceptance of sodomy in our culture. Imagine that.

Christi pax,

Lucretius