WG, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Dear friends,

It is clear that brother Wild Goose is willing to deny the clear sense of Scripture, in order to rationalize the perverse gay lifestyle. This is extremely frustrating.

What is also frustrating to me, however, is the common misunderstanding of the notion of celibacy as a "gift."

Wild Goose is not the first person I have heard, arguing that because celibacy is a "gift," the Church cannot assume that everybody has the "gift," and therefore that the Church cannot require unmarried people (whether heteros or homos) not to have sex.

This argument is pernicious, and is based on a complete misunderstanding of what the Church means by "gift."

When the Church states that a lifelong, vowed commitment to celibacy is a "gift" (which it is) she by no means exempts the rest of us (i.e. those who have not made this vowed commitment) from the moral law, which is both discernible through reason and revealed in Scripture and Tradition.

Thus, everybody is required to observe chastity according to their state in life (i.e. no sex except with spouse), whether they are given the gift of a permanent vocation to celibacy or not.

Sham "marriages" or "life commitments" between two men or two women cannot change the perverse nature of homosexual acts. God reveals very clearly in the Old and New Testaments that these acts are forbidden, and not only that, but that they are particularly provocative of the wrath of God.

May God show his mercy to all sinners, among whom I am the worst,

LatinTrad

Wild Goose,

You seem intent to turn what is wrong into what is right and what if false into what is true. That is the moral relativism that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) spoke of on Monday (and throughout his career). It what the Church and her Scriptures have addressed throughout the ages.

The collective wisdom and authority of the Church is used to express what has always been believed. The Church constantly re-presents this consistent teaching to each new generation. The wording may change from generation to generation to speak to new moral challenges but the teaching itself does not change.

What is patently obvious is that God created all humans to follow Him and keep His Commandments. When Adam and Eve broke God’s Law sin entered the world. We see right at the beginning of the Bible in Genesis that homosexual activity was already considered evil. Scripture makes no allowances for someone who might develop a tendency towards homosexual activity. Scripture consistently teaches that all sexual activity outside the marriage of one man and one woman is immoral. You cannot state something that is false and then attempt to construct a theology on it.

What’s this 19th century stuff? You need to study history. The tendency of some towards homosexual activity has been known since the fall of Adam and Eve. From the time of Genesis the Sacred Scriptures has always taught that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity (Genesis 19:1-29). What about this is so hard to understand? Do you really believe that God did not allow for homosexual tendencies and bless them in Genesis and the rest of the Bible because he did not know about them? Do you think that He did not know that a Wild Goose would claim two thousand years later that such a tendency was not known until the 19th century? God knows your every thought. If people in Old Testament times knew about the homosexual tendency in some you can rest assured that God also knew about it.

No. As far as ancient Israel is concerned only the marriage of one man to one woman was moral. All other forms of sexual activity were deemed by God to be immoral. God does not call people to be heterosexuals or homosexuals. He calls them to be holy and to live moral lives.

You must remember that sexuality is not something that belongs to an individual. God owns it in each individual and the clear witness of Scripture shows us two purposes for sex: 1) procreation and 2) the building up of husbands and wives in love and respect of one another. Homosexual sexual activity is completely divorced from the marital responsibility of procreation. [It is for this same reason why artificial contraception is wrong.]

The Bible most certainly contemplates homosexual activity. It continually condemns it. It makes no allowances for those who would have a disorder towards homosexuality to thus engage in homosexual sexual activity. All of the marriage statements make it clear that marriage is between one man and one woman and that sexual activity belongs only within marriage.

No.

In Leviticus 18:22 we are taught: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.”

In Leviticus 20:13 we are taught: ” If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.”

God says that these things are wrong. He makes no allowances for anyone to engage in what He teaches is always immoral.

Paul makes no allowances for sinful activities in Corinthians and Romans because such things are immoral. Not immoral for some. Immoral for all.

It is common to refer to the Covenant with the Jews as the “Old Testament Church”. Christ negates nothing from that Covenant. He fulfills it.

Study history. There is nothing new under the sun.

What you have done is to provide a personal interpretation of the Scriptures based upon the outcome you desire. Your personal interpretation is false and any fair analysis of the Scriptures makes this clear.

It applies to all those who knowingly and freely suppress the truth.

Our sin may destroy our ability to relate to God but our sin does not destroy the image of God within us.

In these passages Paul indicts both pagan Hellenism and Judaism for failing to achieve a moral uprightness. This was man’s condition before Jesus Christ came to free him. The footnote in my Bible makes it clear: “Paul's main point is that the wrath of God does not await the end of the world but goes into action at each present moment in humanity's history when misdirected piety serves as a facade for self-interest.

Paul is teaching us that that man is unbalanced and incomplete without Christ. On the topic of homosexuality the façade is a false claim “God made me this way so whatever I do is holy for me”. The self-interest is the desire to turn what is unnatural and immoral into something good and righteous.

Admin

Hi there, well it is not a sin to be homosexual but it is to act upon it. So the deeper question becomes, "is ordainment an acting upon homosexuality?" Let me explain. One Orthodox church says women can not be ordained because the priest represents Christ, the bridegroom, which is married to the church, the people. So if a woman were ordained, then Christ would be represented by a woman and be married to the church, another woman? This would dissolve one of the original ideas of how Christ and the Church are related. Soooooo, a homosexual would not enter into a marriage with a woman, the Church. O.K. I know this sounds weird, but don't dismiss it, really ponder on this and you'll see how true it is!

Can one BE something if one doesn't DO it?

This sounds like someone talking throught their nose.

Joe

Dear J Thur (Joe), well I only know what my parish priest has taught me and apparently it isn't much. If you refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church then you'll see that in 2357 and 2358 and 2359 that homosexuality is not a sin but rather a trial and a call to chastity. If you think I am talking through my nose (whatever that expression means?) then you are saying the the Catholic Church is talking through their nose. Maybe we need to read up on these things and uphold what the Church teaches, if you have your own beliefs then please abstain from Communion.

Umm Benedict's Apprentice

in the above post you said
We do post in Charity here and do our best not to make judgements. You are new and do not have much knowledge as to who Joe Thur is - please do not make a judgement about whether he should or should not Receive Communion - - that is between his priest and himself.

Anhelyna

Joe, I imagine that you refer to those who identify themselves as homosexuals, rather than identifying themselves as people who are struggling in chastity with the temptation of homosexuality. If, in fact, you are referring to those who choose to identify themselves with the sin they(one hopes) struggle against, then I think you are correct. It seems to me that for one to be openly homosexual is to essentially acknowledge that they have identified themselves with a sin, and do not choose to struggle against it.

Gaudior, who feels that there is a distintion between, say, confessing to having told lies, and proudly proclaiming that one is a liar.

Benedict's Apprentice,

I think the distinction you are looking for is the distinction between the homosexual orientation and homosexual acts.

The homosexual orientation is not a sin--it is merely a temptation or a predisposition to certain kinds of sin, and those who are afflicted with it are called to do battle against it.

Homosexual acts, on the other hand, are gravely sinful.

LatinTrad

Wild Goose wrote below: (and of course being a woman I am taking this bait) Thanks, WG, you give one food for thought.

/No longer is a woman a piece of property that is exchanged on something that might be called a 'wedding' day, from her father's property to her husband's.

I certainly hope that you are happy about that, Mary Jo! good night, wg/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For what it is worth - my husband and I have been blessed in the union of marriage for 43 years.

And...

Women WERE once considered property or chattel. As a former history teacher and someone who has studied the Hebrew Scriptures I know this. This is true even now in some cultures. However, this is a disconnected comment from what this topic is all about and, as far as I can see, is pointless in this context. Wild Goose's comments about the phrase the union of marriage. are confusing to say the least and as I stated in my quick response yesterday not a direction I was pointing out..

When I used that phrase, the union of marriage I was referring to Christian marriage as we know it today- not the Old Testament practices in which polygamy was practiced.

And I do believe that sexual relationships outside the context of marriage are not morally right whether that be among heterosexuals or homosexuals and I mean that with compassion and prayer for the people I know ( two extended family members included) who have chosen these lifestyles.

What I see here is an emphasis on 'situational ethics' and 'evolving morality' in contrast to natural moral law. As far as scriptural evidence and the traditional viewpoint goes our administrator has established those quite well so no need to repeat them. They are just there.

But, hey, many of the things which have been written in this post by WG are popular in our culture and among current liberal theologians.

Many, including Christians, in our society have been greatly influenced by the 60's and the so-called mores of the sexual revolution. So sometimes 'freedom within the boundaries of natural moral law' has been exchanged for a sort of license in these matters and this can also apply to thinking. I think the pendulum is now swinging back to a better way and people, especially the children of the 60's parents, are more and more looking for stability and in this the East offers much.

Relying on our conscience in matters is a must, but sometimes our individual consciences can be wrong, misinformed, or lax, and that is why there are written standards to live by, e.g. Ten Commandments, Commandments of Jesus, and Church Laws and guide lines as well as Holy Scripture. And let us not forget the example of Our Savior, His Mother, and also chaste and holy Saints.

Also, not to forget and I love this quote, from Ecclesiastes "There is nothing new under the sun" as Administrator, John, points out.


When I think of our new Holy Father I also think of Kipling's poem: "If you can keep your head when all about you -- are losing theirs and blaming it on you..." This is a loving and gentle man and before some among us start the constant criticisms we all need to give him a chance and a 'listen.' As for those who would deem his thinking to be out of the Middle Ages I might ask...Didn't Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, Dominic Guzman, and Catherine of Sienna live then?

Recently on C.N.N. my favorite newsman, Aaron Brown, who I believe is Jewish, was doing his nightly thing at the end of his program "News Night" where he shows and comments on various morning news articles throughout the country.

He showed the headlines of one paper which read:

New Pope Is Loyal to Church Teachings.

Aaron rolled his eyes and with a smile said,

"Well, I should hope SO!"

So it is.

May God have mercy on us all.

Mary Jo...who is driving 1800 miles N. in a few days so saying good bye for a while.

Gaudior,

You make a good point. Thank you. Like those who are burdened with addictions, an alcoholic who knows he/she is an alcoholic may go sober for ten years without drinking a drop. But since many in addictions know that once a(n) _______ addict; always a(n) _______ addict.

So far, your clarification is the best I have come across.

Joe

My friend, I was referring to the distinction between being and acting. You is who you is.

I am familiar with the CCC. I have several copies in my study.

Talking through one's nose is an Italian saying. It was rhetorical. Not meant to challenge your faith, the faith of the Catholic Church (all of them), or reflect that I am not in communion with the aforementioned Communion of churches.

As for reading up on these things .... well, .... we can begin with all my seminary experiences, conferences on homosexuality, and witness to how such a phenomenon can wreck a church. But lets not go there. If it wasn't for my faith, I would have left long time ago.

I never tried to make my opinion or any comments absolute or override what the Church teaches. I question many things probably due to my philosophy education. After metaphysics, who needs drugs? But that is just me.

Don't confuse questions and dialogue as being a lack of faith or a sign that one has rejected Tradition. I saw many times when silence was expected and many little innocent lives got ruined.

God bless,
Joe Thur

Guten Abend Josef :-)

You've no doubt gone to Romans and read it again.

In this chapter the Apostle says 'they' 11 times; in this chapter the Apostle says 'them' 8 times.

The instance when the word 'we' appears when not refering to the Apostle himself and/or his assistant(s)/disciple(s) is this one:

For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine. vv 11-12

The Apostle is doing what we learned to do school-- comparison/contrast.

He writes to the Church, those with whom mutual encouragement may be bolstered.

He is mutually exclusive when he begins to describe them/they.

As the Apostle was prone to say on many an occasion: God forbid (Romans 6.2 & 15) blessing, wg

LatinTrad,

Some in the Church believe what I paste above.

I have consistently said that the Scrpitures are concerned about idolatry; a portion of that concern relates to sexual acts done within idolatrous practices.

Non-idolatrous sex acts, like those that betrothed youngsters got up to before they were 'officially' 'married' in the Hebrew tradition, and like those of married people today, are not being addressed by the Apostle, nor by the authors of Leviticus or Genesis.

It is not idolatrous for two Christian gay men to have sex. It is not idolatrous for two Christian lesbians to have sex.

You speak of wrath... and in such a way that seems utterly flippant. Can one seriously think, feel or believe that God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ... would be so petty as to act wrathfully toward the millions of homosexuals on this planet? This beggars belief, truly. No, theologians call this an anthropomorphism-- placing onto God a human characteristic.

It is evident that some humans have a dreadful time accepting the fact that, as John/Admin says, 2-3% of the population is homosexual.

Millions are dying of AIDS in Africa and other places in the world... and God is concerned to flash wrath upon homosexuals?

Have I heard you rightly, LatinTrad?


Here's what one verse says about wickedness:

The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth. Psalms 37.21

Sodom AND Gomorrah were wicked, yes. But that wickedness had nothing to do with homosexuality, nothing whatsoever. The Bible cannot be made to say so. Tradition cannot be made to say so. It just is not so. It cannot be the revelation of God; it is much too human.

And I will make one small comment about one small word from one small book in the back of the New Testament-- Jude surely/clearly seems to be the bedrock for subsequent T/tradition regarding same sex acts (not homosexual, but heterosexual) and the injunctions against such. Yet Jude clearly misrepresents what every other reference to Sodom communicates throughout the whole of the Scriptures. Nowhere does Sodom get landed with sexual content, nevermind same sex (heterosexual) content. Nowhere.

However, not one of my sparring partners here has once pointed to even one official church pronouncement from after Jude to the Cardinal's publication in 1986. You have all stated that the Church has always taught this, but you have not given a reference. If the Church has always taught this (even though homosexuality as a word didn't even exist 200 years ago) there should be ample evidence of this.

You could pretend that I am from Missouri and 'Show me.'


hi ByzanTN,

Thanks for your succinct response, it is much appreciated. I can agree to disagree, and I can do so agreeably.

God's blessing to all, wg

hi gaudior and joe,

homosexuality is to addictions what apples are to grapefruit.

... we have no bananas today