A Catholics View On Homosexuality

They aren't being treated differently. Gay men and women can marry just like straight men and women. There is no disparity here.

So does biology and common sense. People don't choose their sexual orientation, they choose what they do with it.

 

This over-rehersed argument is flawed from the start. The Old Testament law isn't all or nothing so that we no longer follow the Ten Commandments just because we eat shellfish and wear blended fabrics. The Levitical law is broken up into 3 categories:

1. Ceremonial law
2. Civil Law
3. Moral law

The first category finds its fulfillment in the complete, final, and eternal sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The second category were social laws given specifically to the Jews at the time and were never meant to be applied to all societies everywhere. The third category will never be obsolete. Wrong is still wrong today as it ever has been, and no amount of time can turn wrong into right.

God is not clammish to oppose homosexuality then and change his mind today. Just because we no longer stone homosexuals does not mean that God is now ok with it. It's still an abomination and an obscene perversion of the natural order. Certainly Romans 1 and the book of Jude continue to condemn homosexual behavior in the New Covenant. This has not changed simply because menstrating women are no longer ceremonially unclean. That's ridiculous.

 

I totally agree. And Jesus has summed the OT's moral laws we're supposed to follow up to this very day in Matthew 22:37-40. I'll happily quote it again:

„He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' /38/ This is the greatest and first commandment. /39/ And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' /40/ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Nowhere does Jesus mention homosexuality. So we don't know whether he was a roaring homophobe or whether – as above quote might suggest to some – he was quite accepting of homosexuals. At any rate he didn't seem to think the matter highly important.

We do know that Paul does not find friendly words for homosexual behavior in Romans. The very same apostle does not find many friendly words for women and tells us in 1. Cor.14:33-36 that „women should keep silent in the churches.“ Yet, when I watched the service the Pope attended in Freiburg the other day, I did not hear him utter any protests when a woman stepped up to the microphone. He seemed to be quite happy with that. And contrary to the Apostle Paul's instructions (I Cor. 11) these women were not even covering their hair!

Seemingly it is not that easy to decide how to interpret the bible. I trust you and me both try hard, but we reach different conclusions here and there.

 

Oops! You made a classic mistake. Opposing homosexual behavior does not make one a "raging homophobe". That's one. Two, not everything Jesus taught was recorded in the gospels. The apostles taught what they learned from Jesus himself who said, "for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife."

So if you don't agree with the message, start attacking the messenger. You clearly aren't a Christian and cannot speak authoritatively on Christian issues to be lecturing us on what the Bible says about Christianity. It's a win win for you isn't it? Either the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, or it does, but the contributing author is a bigot, so who cares what he says? This is indeed a weak argument.

That's why we have a Church to interpret the Bible. The Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth." (1Tim 3:15) It's the chosen vessel of revelation and a tradition by which we can correctly interpret the holy scriptures. I'm not a liberal Protestant trying to find ways to pervert the Bible in the same way that liberals try to pervert the Constitution. I'm a Catholic and a beneficiary of the full deposit of truth vouchsafed to me by 2000 years of Church fathers who have spoken on this and many subjects with greater wisdom than I could ever hope to have.

 

The bible also says its a sin to wear clothes made out of more than two type of materials.

Leviticus 19:19

The end

 

Hey genius, do you even know what the "Law" is and what it was for?

God, you probably dont even know what im talking about..

 

The Bible is equally clear on punishing stubborn and rebellious children with death.

 

It's certainly milder than convicting homosexuals to death but it's still homophobic, If similar remarks had been made about those cherished intimate moments you share with your wife, you'd probably feel insulted, and rightly so. It would be heterophobic.

When Jesus quoted Gen 2:24 he didn't do that in the context of discussing His preferred sexual orientations but in a discussion about divorce.
That none of the Evangelists recorded Jesus saying anything at all about Homosexuality leaves us pretty much in the dark about His opinion on it. And the only apostle who's recorded saying anything about homosexuality never met Jesus in the flesh, so I would suppose he was pretty much in the dark about Jesus' opinion on it, too.
Jesus' silence on the issue indicates to some that He probably considered it as an ethical adiaphoron and unimportant for His soteriology. You obviously don't share this view.

*Sigh* It is sad to behold how common it is among Christians to accuse other Christians of not being a Christian whenever they are in disagreement.

However, reread: I didn't attack any messenger, nor did I call Paul a bigot. Even (just like you automatically did) a lot of people will regard some of his views as bigoted these days, he was simply a child of his patriarchal times.

I observed the simple fact that you seem to randomly take Paul's opinion for an essential doctrine when he in passing he mentions homosexual acts in a derogatory way, while you obviously don't take him absolutely serious anymore when He gives lengthy instructions on women's behaviour in church and how when and why they have to veil their hair.
Where I come from you'd be hard pressed to find a Catholic Priest who scolds women for not covering their hair in church these days. And hardly any women do any more.

Thus I must come to the conclusion that there are bits where the Catholic church does view some of Paul's words as the result of him being a child of his time, too, rather than viewing every single word of his letters as a 1:1 inspiration by Jesus that must be followed under any circumstances.

As a Catholic you are of course entitled to hold such views. And if you find reassurance in the Catholic Churches authoritarian structures that safe you from having to think for yourself, so be it.

But just as you have displayed behaviour and attitudes on various issues here in this forum that are not in accordance with the Vatican's views, you may note that there are Catholic lays and theologians (you know: these guys that are employed by the Church to study the bible, church history etc. and to help the Church form its views) who disagree with the Vatican in others.
Those of them that disagree with the Catholic Churches policies on celibacy like to quote from the very same chapter of Timothy: „ A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife … „ (1. Tim 3:2)

Even the Catholic Church is not devoid of internal discussion.

 

My relationship with my wife is not on the par with the deviancy of homosexuality.

Actually Paul very much encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus. Jesus is eternally incarnated and there's no other way to meet Him. Then Paul spent a lengthy time with the apostles, being taught what they learned from Jesus. Paul identifies himself repeatedly as an apostle of Jesus Christ, a credential that only belongs to those directly commissioned by Christ himself. It's hardly seeming to accept the Pauline teachings that you like and then when you don't like them to say, "well, he never actually was with Jesus anyway." You can't have it both ways.

If Jesus was silent on the issue, that doesn't help your case. That's something you simply refuse to understand.

You aren't a Christian.

Yes you did attack the messenger and yes you did intimate that he was a bigot. Paul's culture was a culture of strong sexual ethic which has protected their society for many centuries.

You keep comparing apples to oranges. Whether or not women cover their hair or wear makeup does not turn wrong into right nor an abominable act into an acceptable behavior. Customary rules cannot be compared to moral laws.

The Catholic Church condemns homosexuality as "intrinsically disordered" and Church fathers have spoken out against homosexuality and pederasty for 2000 years. Moral laws don't conform to contemporary trends. They are eternal.

You forget that you're talking to somebody who disagrees with most Catholics on capital punishment. So come again?

Celibacy came about when the Church had grown enough to where some members could forgo marriage. Jesus was celibate and prophesied that one day men would make themselves eunuchs for the sake of heaven's kingdom. Paul was celebate and extolled the advantages thereof. You can hardly make the case that priesthood celibacy was a change without precident.

 

I'm sorry to tell you, that this last post of yours is another indicator that you are either lacking the intellectual capability or the intellectual honesty to uphold a coherent discussion.

That's certainly what you like to think. My relationship with my husband is very much on a par with the relationship my best friend has with her girlfriend. They're both long lasting, loving and caring relationships full of tenderness.

That's why I wrote "in the flesh". If you think the most pressing issue in this encounter was a lengthy discussion about anal sex and cunnlingus that's your problem.

As already proven you have the same problem: you accept some teachings of Paul as divinely inspired while you reject others as merely "customary". You have not yet fully explained your criteria to decide which is which though.

What you don't understand is that it helps your case even less.

Luckily for me Christ is the judge of that, not you.

I gave you a neutral description of what he said. If you perceive that as attacking the messenger that's your problem.
Paul's culture with its strong sexual ethics has also caused much suffering for many centuries.

You still have not explained to me how you divide between the apples and the oranges. Why is a dismissive side remark something that you turn into a moral law while a lengthy paragraph in which Paul gives elaborate theological arguments on why he thinks women should veil when praying is merely customary? Is it possible that you do that because one is still in accordance with your very own prejudices while the other for some reason or the other isn't? Are you a victim of your own cultural norms that you mistake for God's will?

As a sola-scriptura-Protestant I can't argue with that. You've got to sort it out amongst yourselves. I'll give you a hint: If the Catholic Church ever retracts its teachings on homosexuality it would not be the first teaching they retract and are now sorry about.

I don't need to come again, because that was exactly my point: You don't agree with most Catholics including the Pope on capital punishment. Others don't agree with a lot of Catholics including the Pope on how to view homosexual behaviour. Yet you're all Catholics.

Ehem, Jesus didn't foretell anything in that part, he described a then current state of affairs. (Present tense). Without wanting to open a completely new subject it is interesting to see you referring to the same text some theologians see as a proof that Jesus accepted homosexuality. Personally I think that's extremely far fetched, but judge for yourself:

"12 Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry[a] for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
(Matthew 19:12-14)

 

perhaps post what the vatican represents

then you do comprehend that the opinions of the pope evolve over time?

with knowledge from the world, of course?

heck, i believe it was galileo that they had to apologize publically for.

and we all know, darwin WON!

but the funniest part is to read on this subject (homosexual behavior), they lean on nature for the answers....... (giggle giggle)