I guess Pope Benedict XVI may have to go against his humble nature and utilize the hammer of righteousness.

Dan L

Wild Goose,

Thanks for your post.

No, we cannot agree on this. If scientists someday find a genetic cause that predisposes certain people to murder, murder will still be immoral. If scientists someday find a genetic cause that predisposes certain people to homosexual sexual activity, homosexual sexual activity will still be immoral. The cause of the tendency towards a particular immoral activity doesn’t matter. Activities that God said are immoral will always remain immoral.

If someday scientists to find a genetic cause that shows that the tendency towards homosexuality is a disorder one is born with, that scientific evidence would not invalidate God’s Commandments. It could, however, be useful in helping people with such disorders to live chaste lives.

You really need to refrain from insisting that the tendency towards homosexual sexual activity is a scientific fact. There is no evidence to support such a claim and you are unknowingly bearing false witness.

Is there a point here?

There is nowhere in the Bible where God says that homosexual sexual activity is good. The Scriptures are consistently clear that all sexual activity outside of natural marriage (between one man and one woman) is immoral. You simply cannot overturn thousands of years of consistent teaching and replace it with your own preference. To do so is to follow Eve in accepting the temptation from Satan to ignore God’s Commandments and to become your own judge of what is good and what is evil.

God saw His work and pronounced it good. Nowhere did He say that man’s rebellion against him is good. God’s creation is good but everything that His creation does is not automatically good.

Study the Scriptures. Study history. The good cardinal is not saying anything new. From Genesis forward God has taught us that certain things are immoral. The cardinal is simply re-stating the obvious to a generation that ignores God’s rules and chooses for itself what is right and what is wrong.

There is no circular argument whatsoever. Cardinal Ratzinger very aptly summarizes what God taught us from Genesis to Revelation and that which His Church has always believed. The tendency towards homosexuality itself is not immoral. This tendency towards homosexuality, however, is a disorder. Things that are disordered are not normal (i.e, a tendency towards alcoholism is disordered and not normal). Even though such a disorder is not sinful in itself it should never be seen as either neutral or good (not a disorder). Since such disordered tendencies can lead people to commit moral evils those people should, with the help of the Church, strive at all times to avoid every situation which would tempt them to do what is immoral.

You are misquoting (purposely?). Let’s review what the Church has always taught and which Cardinal Ratzinger summarizes:

1. The homosexual condition is a disorder.

2. Disorders (inclinations or tendencies) are not sinful.

3. Because disorders can lead one to commit sin (an intrinsic moral evil), they should not be seen as either neutral or good.

God’s creation is good. Everything that He has created is good

What man does with God’s creation is oftentimes not good. When man chooses to do what God has commanded him not to do, man does evil.

Admin

With respect to your thinking about certain texts with reference to homosexuality, I cannot disagree more strongly.

In every case the Scriptures are addressing heterosexual people who do what is not natural for heterosexuals.

The Scriptures do not and cannot know anything about homosexuality. The human race has not known about homosexuality for more than a couple of centuries.

What you and the Scriptures (and Church Tradition) are concerned about are sexual acts carried out by heterosexuals, heterosexuals who naturally should only have sex with a (married) opposite-sex partner, not anyone else and surely not anyone of the same sex. To do otherwise is, as the Bible clearly says, unnatural.

Same sex acts committed by heterosexuals in places of idolatrous religious practice (Corinth and Rome) or due to agricultural ritualism (Canaanite, possibly Ammonite or Moabite)... do not equal what you and I both know to be homosexuality in the 21st century.

As I said several posts ago, the Bible assumes that humans are (what we would now call) heterosexual; the man's exclamation at the presentation of the woman in Gen 2.23 is ample evidence of this: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh..." Surely you will not say otherwise.

The language, culture, society, biology and psychology of the Bible and it's many historical epochs do not conceptualise what we would call homosexuality. Homosexuality does not exist in the Bible. Homosexuality cannot be confused with what the Bible describes in some detail in some (4-5) places: idolatrous same-sex acts committed by humans who are naturally attracted to the opposite sex.

Ratzinger assumed (1986) that the Bible knows as much about homosexuality as he did. It doesn't. There is hope that Ratzinger, His Holiness Benedict XVI will learn more... as bishop of Rome, vicar of Christ, successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, primate of Italy, patriarch of the West, archbishop and metropolitan of the Roman Province, sovereign of Vatican City and Servant of the Servants of God.

This will remain my fervent prayer. God bless, wg

p.s. Jude is contra every other reference to Sodom (and/or Gomorrah) in the whole of the Bible-- there are nearly 50-- five of which are in the Holy Gospels (9 in the NT); The Apostle even quotes Isaiah 1-- Romans 9.27-30-- but does not (seem to?) recognise any sexual content. 2% -- that's what Jude is. The cart is before the horse, wouldn't you say.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Gaudior, who thinks this is the "best" twist on what the Bible says since the Prots started in with "non-alcoholic wine" being served at Cana...

Yes, I understand that you have your own interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. You have made yourself – and not the collective wisdom and authority of the Church since the time of creation - the ultimate arbiter of what is moral and immoral.

No. In every case the Scriptures are addressing all of God’s people. He teaches them that all sexual activity outside natural marriage is immoral.

The Scriptures are God’s Word. In it He gives us Commandments to live by. The human race has known about homosexuality since Genesis, when man rebelled against God and chose to do what God has said is immoral. The idea that we have known about homosexuality for only a couple of centuries is silly.

The Church and her Scriptures does not make a distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals who commit immoral acts. Certain activities are immoral no matter who commits them. Abuse with alcohol is wrong whether one has a tendency towards alcoholism or not. Murder, stealing and adultery will still be wrong even if scientists someday discover that there is a genetic tendency towards those evils. But like homosexuality, there is no scientific evidence to suggest there is a genetic / physical cause.

Sure they do. Wrong is wrong. Immoral is always immoral. Always and everywhere.

Is there a point here? God created men and women in His Image. He created them as humans and taught them not to eat of the Tree. They disobeyed Him and ate of the Tree. With their fall there came into the world all kind of evil. Homosexual sexual activity is just one example of evil.

Sure it does. It condemns all sexual activity outside natural marriage (which is between one man and one woman). It does not matter whether those committing happen to be heterosexuals or homosexuals. Immoral activities are always immoral.

You have it backwards. Homosexual tendencies can never be used to justify homosexual activities. Same-sex acts are idolatrous whether committed by homosexuals or heterosexuals. The Holy Scriptures make no distinctions here.

How arrogant! Are you saying that you are smarter than the God who gave us the Bible through His Church? Are you saying that all of God’s teachings can be nullified simply because a Wild Goose chooses not to accept them?

Your statement makes no sense. The Holy Scriptures are consistent in condemning homosexual sexual activity. They do not give a pass for those who might have an intrinsic disorder towards committing these sins. Jude is not in opposition to Romans, Isaiah, Genesis or anything else in the Bible.

In Isaiah 1:9, 10 we see: “Unless the LORD of hosts had left us a scanty remnant, we had become as Sodom, we should be like Gomorrah. Hear the word of the LORD, princes of Sodom! Listen to the instruction of our God, people of Gomorrah!” Sodom and Gomorrah are references to Genesis 19. In Genesis 19 the Lord teaches us that homosexual activity is immoral. The Lord makes no distinction as to whether these men had heterosexual or homosexual tendencies. He simply teaches us that no matter what our tendency this activity is immoral.

When I first read the topic question - I thought about responding with these comments but have been giving it some further thought and prayer. I have and here is the dilemma I see:

First of all, I sure don't want to offend anyone here and especially not other Christians and not specifically those in the Episcopal fold. So in all due respect:

When Bishop Robinson was ordained a bishop in the Episcopal fold a question did wear on my mind and I think it does apply here as well.

As we know Bishop Gene Robinson is a gay, divorced man who is living with a male homosexual partner. Obviously they are not married and I do not think they should be allowed to marry, but that is besides my point.

My point is that this relationship seems to be accepted (perhaps even condoned by many especially in the Episcopal church) and did not prevent Robinson's ordination.

However, if Bishop Robinson were living openly with another woman in a heterosexual relationship would this not be an obstacle to his ordination within that church or any Christian church?

In both of these examples the couples involved would be engaging in sexual relationships outside the union of marriage.

I sure don't think it is okay for clergy who are gay to take male sexual partners any more than I think it is okay for clergy to live with women outside of marriage. Being gay and celibate is another matter which has been well discussed here already.

My nickel,

Blessings,

Mary Jo

Wow! I didn't know that it was a cardinal who was responsible for the Fall.

I believe it was St. Paul who gave us a pretty good list of 'such and such' that is intrinsically evil.

"The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1:18-32)

What part of this do you not understand?

Joe

PS: Unfortunately, I never heard a sermon preached on this passage.

... is not what was published by the CDF in 1986. It even stops to clarify interpretations that were given to a 1975 publication of the same organ of the Church.

It is patently obvious that from the time of creation all humans were assumed to be heterosexual, John/Admin, nothing else. Since the Bible assumes that all humans are heterosexual, it is an illogical possibility that any other option should be addressed.

If homosexuality cannot be conceptualised from creation until the 19th century (200 years ago), how can Scripture and Tradition speak to it? I cannot. Something has to exist, in the mindset of those who lived and witnessed the power of the Lord over Israel, before it can be addressed.

As far as ancient Israel is concerned, there are only heterosexuals, who have been called, even charged, to raise up a nation for the LORD God. This is clear from the editor's/compiler's note in Genesis 2.24 - Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. There is no room in a nation-building people who have left Egypt on the way to the Promised Land, where the Promised son's descendants will become as numerous as the sand on the shore: Genesis 22.17 - I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore... for those who are not in the baby-making business.

The Hebrew Bible doesn't contemplate homosexuality, it cannot, it does not. There is no pro-marriage statement in the Hebrew Bible that can be said to be one side of a two-sided coin-- i.e., no statement that is pro-marriage can be said to be anti-homosexuality.

Homosexuality is not even a figment of the Hebrew imagination. That is precisely why the ancients of days, the judges and the prophets can speak so forcefully about not taking up any bad habits of Israel's neighbours... where same sex coupling was done to ensure good crops, etc. That is what Leviticus is addressing. The flip side of the coin in Leviticus is this, precisely: "Your heathen neighbours do all these things-- they are unholy-- do not even think about doing them."

The Apostle is saying virtually the same thing in virtually the same tone in Corinthians and Romans, i.e., "The pagan Romans do all these unholy things (our holy fathers warned us about these in Leviticus)-- don't even think about doing these things! No subject in the LORD's Realm does these."

The Church came into being on the Day of Pentecost; it was not established at the time of creation. St John pictures the logos in the beginning, but the Bride of Christ was not prepared until after the Cross and the Empty Tomb, the Death and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In good faith I assume that Eastern Catholics, or the scholars among them, do know how to separate eisegesis from exegesis, yes.

To take late 19th, 20th and 21st century understandings of homosexuality and insert them into the Bible, either the New Testament or the Hebrew Scriptures is eisegesis.

I have not claimed to be John/Admin. What I have done is to faithfully exegete the Scriptures, not eisegete them. I certainly hope we are clear on that, please God. wg

What part of that applies to baptised and confirmed Christians; what part of that applies Jews?

Every bit of it applies to those outside the covenant, either the one made through Abraham and his descendants or the one made through the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I suggest, Joe, that you read it through, very carefully and very slowly, without any 21st century blinders on.

The Apostle is speaking of everything that is pagan or heathen, unbelieving or non-believing. he does not have Christians or Jews in mind whatsoever.

Read it. It is clear. As clear as a bell. Honestly. blessing, wg

Hello Mary Jo,

Your prayers are truly appreciated; many thanks for pausing to reflect before posting.

The straightforward answer is this, and it is this for every denomination of the Christian Church (Separated Brethren, as some would remind us) that I know of: Yes!

If a single/divorced bishop were in a heterosexual relationship without the benefit of marriage, s/he would not be fit to serve as bishop. It is that clear.

The one exception that I can think of where this would not apply, for two reasons-- 1. they don't have bishops and 2. they are the most liberal of all monotheistic faith groups in America/N America-- is the Unitarian Universalists... but I still think it would be seriously frowned upon by some in their ranks.

If a bishop-elect was found to be living in such a relationship, they should not be elevated to bishop. Their status as a parish priest would come into question as well.

We have a standard for married people in the church. There is no Biblical standard, nor is there a Traditional standard, for homosexuals.

Why should the Church be surprised that faithful homosexual Christians are asking for a standard to be raised? one that takes their God-given sexuality seriously? one that takes their relationships seriously?

If celibacy is a gift, as the Church in Her wisdom has promulgated (since some time after 1051, under the pontificate of Pope Leo IX), can the Church justly expect that 30,000,000 of Her worldwide members, baptised and confirmed members, automatically have the gift, or that these pretend as if they should have the gift?

The clear answer to that question surely seems to be, "No...."

Since there is no 'marriage' provision in Mother Church, or most all other Churches, faithful servants of Our Lord, who serve parishes (or bishoprics?!?), have no other option but to cohabitate.

[Perhaps we should get this out on the table as well, since Mary Jo has pointed us in this direction: the word translated 'married' in the Bible means 'cohabitating.' What used to be called 'common law' marriage is what the inhabitants of Biblical culture practised, for all intents and purposes.

A legal (civil, societally recognised) ceremony, blessed in church is a very modern thing. Only those who had wealth to protect (and spend!) had what we might call a big 'wedding.']

The Church is best placed to set a standard, one that is just and fair, based upon Biblical principles, if the Church should choose to be courageous.

Christ Jesus has drawn us close to the Father (he has reconciled us to God, through his Death and Resurrection), but documents such as the one published by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1986 serve only to push homosexuals, those already in Mother Church, further away from the Church, but not necessarily further away from Christ Himself (the Church is the Bride of Christ; and Christ said I and the Father are one) nor His Father, the LORD God. blessing to all, wg

Wild Goose wrote:


[Perhaps we should get this out on the table as well, since Mary Jo has pointed us in this direction: the word translated 'married' in the Bible means 'cohabitating.' What used to be called 'common law' marriage is what the inhabitants of Biblical culture practised, for all intents and purposes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just so it is clear...it was not my intention to point the thread in the direction Wild Goose mentions above, nor do I agree with his arguments regarding this subject, nor do I acknowledge the implication.

Sincerely in Christ,

Mary Jo

I seem not to have made myself clear, again.

There is no homosexuality in Genesis, just as there is no sexuality in the story of the Levite's concubine in Judges 19.

In Genesis 19 there is intended murder. In Judges 19 there is murder. Murder is usually thought to be 'wicked.'

[Jude is the only place in the whole of the Bible (1 of 48 references!) that places any sexual inference onto the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The canonical history of Jude is quite interesting, to say the least. Catholics will know this...]

Perhaps a rape counselor is amongst us, or perhaps one can be found... to give us some insight to these passages. Good night God's own, wg

The union of marriage is a modern thing. Not that many centuries ago, it was only the nobility or aristocracy who got 'married' or had weddings. Everybody else lived together with the benefit of the community's blessing... as did most of those who inhabited the Biblical world.

Biblical people cohabited; that situation is called 'marriage' in the Bible.

Since industrialisation and the emergence of the so-called '1st world' we have had more and more people getting married/having weddings.

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

WG,

I beg to differ. Since the Council of Trent, the Latin Church has required every parish to maintain church registries of baptisms, marriages, and funerals. These records were not meant just for the wealthy. They included every soul in the parish.

I have done extensive research into my family tree and have relied much on these parish registries. I have record of many of my ancestors, who were poor folks (many of them illiterate farmers) living in Bavaria, getting married. This was long before industrialization. This was mid-sixteenth century.

Since industrialization, civil marriage laws have been enacted in order to prevent inter-racial marriages. The marriage license as well as the tradition of parental permission to marry their daughter was to prevent such marriages. I have copies of marriage certificates asking questions of the sort.

But your statement above is incorrect. More and more divorces, not marriages/weddings, have been on the rise.

Joe

WG Chase,

As if Christians or Jews can't be heathen-like? So you are saying that Chrisians and Jews are exempt from moral ramifications if they do anything listed in Romans 1?

Joe