Posted on 09/17/2014 1:38:12 AM PDT by markomalley
In recent years, homosexuality has frequently been in the news. An increasingly nationwide effort to make homosexual acts something to celebrate has gained great ground and sowed serious confusion even among those who describe themselves as Christian and Catholic. Hence, it is necessary once again to instruct on this matter and to reassert what Scripture plainly teaches and why the Church cannot affirm what the world demands we affirm.
An essential fact is that the Scriptures are very clear in unambiguously, uncompromisingly declaring homosexual acts as a serious sin and as disordered. “Disordered” here means that they are acts that are not ordered to their proper end or purpose. Sexual acts are, by their very nature, ordered to procreation and to the bonding of the mother and father who will raise the children conceived by their sexual intimacy. These ends or purposes have been intrinsically joined by God, and we are not to separate what what God has joined. In the Old Testament, Scripture describes the sinful and disordered quality of homosexual acts by the use of the word “abomination,” and in the New Testament, St. Paul calls homosexual acts “paraphysin” (contrary to nature).
Attempts by some to reinterpret Scripture to mean something else are fanciful, at best, and use theories that require twisted logic and questionable historical views in an attempt to set aside the very plain meaning of the texts.
Likewise in the wider culture, among those who do not accept Scripture, there has been an increasingly insistent refusal to acknowledge what the design of the human body plainly discloses: that the man is for the woman, and the woman is for the man. The man is not for the man, nor the woman for the woman. This is plainly set forth in the design of our bodies. The outright refusal to see what is plainly visible and literally built into our bodies is not only a sign of intellectual stubbornness and darkness (cf Rom 1:18, 21), but it also leads to significant issues with health, even to deadly diseases.
And we who believe in the definitive nature of scriptural teaching on all aspects of human sexuality are not merely considered out-of-date by many in our culture, but are being increasingly pressured to affirm what we cannot reasonably affirm. Cardinal Francis George recently expressed the current situation in this way:
In recent years, society has brought social and legislative approval to all types of sexual relationships that used to be considered “sinful.” Since the biblical vision of what it means to be human tells us that not every friendship or love can be expressed in sexual relations, the church’s teaching on these issues is now evidence of intolerance for what the civil law upholds and even imposes. What was once a request to live and let live has now become a demand for approval. The “ruling class,” those who shape public opinion in politics, in education, in communications, in entertainment, is using the civil law to impose its own form of morality on everyone. We are told that, even in marriage itself, there is no difference between men and women, although nature and our very bodies clearly evidence that men and women are not interchangeable at will in forming a family. Nevertheless, those who do not conform to the official religion, we are warned, place their citizenship in danger [1].
Whatever pressures many may wish to place on the Church to conform, however they may wish to “shame” us into compliance by labeling us with adjectives such as bigoted, homophobic, or intolerant, we cannot comply with their demands. We must remain faithful to scriptural teaching, to our commitment to natural law, and to Sacred Tradition. We simply cannot affirm things such as fornication and homosexual acts and reject the revelation of the body as it comes from God.
What some call intolerance or “hatred” is, for us who believe, rather, a principled stance wherein we see ourselves as unable to overrule the clear and unambiguous teaching of Holy Scripture. And this teaching exists at every stage of revelation, from the opening pages right through to the final books of Sacred Writ. The Church has no power to override what God has said; we cannot cross out sentences or tear pages from the Scripture. Neither can we simply reverse Sacred Tradition or pretend that the human body, as God has designed it, does not manifest what it clearly does.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church announces this principled stance with eloquence and with an understanding of the difficulties encountered by those with same-sex attraction:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection (CCC 2357-2359).
We can speak no other way. We do not detest those of same sex-attraction, but we as a Church owe them the same truth we have always proclaimed as coming from God, and out of respect we must hold them to the same standards of chastity by which all must live.
There can be no sexual intercourse for any who are not in a valid heterosexual marriage. We cannot give approval for it; we do not have the power to do this, no matter how insistent, forceful, or even punitive the demands that we do so become. This will not change because it cannot change.
Homosexuals are not being singled out in this matter. As we saw in yesterday’s post, fornication (pre-marital sex) is also set forth by scripture and tradition as a very serious mortal sin (cf Eph 5:5- 7; Gal 5:16-21; Rev 21:5-8; Rev. 22:14-16; Mt. 15:19-20; 1 Cor 6:9-20; Col 3:5-6; 1 Thess 4:1-8; 1 Tim 1:8-11; Heb 13:4). It cannot be approved no matter how widespread its acceptance becomes. One standard of sexual norms applies to all people, whatever their orientation.
Sadly those of unalterable same-sex attraction have no recourse to marriage. But all of us bear burdens of one sort or another, and not everyone is able to partake in everything life offers. For the sake of holiness, heroic witness is necessary, and many of those with same-sex attraction do live celibately and give admirable witness to the power of grace.
God must have the final word in this. And so I present to you here some selections from Sacred Scripture that clearly teach against homosexual acts. The witness of Scripture in this regard is very consistent across all the ages of biblical Revelation. From the opening pages of Holy Writ to the final books, homosexual acts, along with fornication and adultery, are unambiguously forbidden and described as gravely sinful. In addition, homosexual acts, because they are contrary to nature and to the revelation of the body and the nature of the sexual act, are often described as acts of depravity or as an “abomination.” Some consider such words unpleasant or hurtful. I understand, but they are the words that Scripture uses. Here is a sample of Scriptural teaching against homosexual acts:
And this is the testimony of Sacred Scripture. To these could be added other passages, along with a long list of quotes from the Fathers and from Sacred Tradition, with Councils and other teaching documents from the earliest days of the Church until today.
To those who like to object that Jesus himself never spoke of homosexual acts, I would give these three responses:
The teaching of the Church regarding the sinfulness of homosexual acts, fornication, and adultery cannot change, attested to as they are in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. The Church can only offer the truth to all the faithful and to all in this world, along with her promise of God’s mercy to those who seek repentance and who now desire to live chastely. To those who refuse, she continues to give warning and to pray both for conversion and for rescue from the deceptions of the world and the evil one.
Cardinal George summarized well both the reason we cannot approve homosexual acts and the solution of celibacy for those of same-sex attraction: The biblical vision of what it means to be human tells us that not every friendship or love can be expressed in sexual relations [2]. Clear and concise. Thank you, Cardinal George.
For more information and support for those who have same-sex attraction, see here: Courage
Not to split hairs too much,
but if you read 1:18, you’ll see that
acceptance of homosexuality in a society
IS
“God’s wrath” as “revealed from heaven”.
Yes, “against the godlessness and unrighteousness”, not in the form of same.
I simple unbidden feeling of attraction, if you do not "entertain" it (or permit it to "entertain" you!) and which you do no cooperate with, even in your mind ---- this is a temptation but it is not a sin.
If you cooperate with the thoughts, even just through fantasy, that is a sin. It is an interior act.
This is not true of all priests, or even most. This was true of a minority. Too many, already -—”one” sodomy-practicing priest is too many -— but a minority. It is not generalizable over the whole category “priests.”
I want to give the good Monsignor the Bishop’s spine!
And not one mention of Leviticus 20, verse 13 in particular.
read it again, it’s there
Thanks! :-)
PMSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and yes Fox, will not be interviewing this Catholic priest any time soon. And no invitations to the White House. I’m sure that’ll break his heart.
How does one condemn a feeling? Does that mean an emotion? (note: loaded question— more to follow :)
I like Mrs. Don-o’s answer. Is this Catholic, Christian, or stock-Christian? (entertaining thought/temptation in the mind being a sin...)
It is plucked straight out of Jewish law, not surprisingly. It’s actually one of my pet peeves against Dennis Prager, who I heard speak once of thinking about sin being not a sin (or a lesser sin.) When Judaism demands control of the actiona, speech, and even the thoughts (after they’ve “popped” into conscious thought.)
Interestingly, we believe the very WILL, which channels the unwanted thoughts, can be changed... which is why I believe the very (supposed) nature of homosexuality can be changed.
Today, Cardinal Dolan posted a weaselly, disingenuous written response to those who criticize his continuing involvment in that disgraceful promotion of sin.
Here are the links for those priests giving Dolan some good advice but thus far unheeded, and a couple links for Dolan's response to his critics.
***************************************************"End the St Patrick’s parade. End the Al Smith Dinner and all other such compromised events. Enough now, back to Church! Wear the purple of Lent and if there is going to be a procession, let it be Eucharistic and penitential for the sins of this age."
---------------------------------------------------
"The auxiliary bishop of Baghdad, Shlemon Warduni, said on Vatican radio: “We have to ask the world: Why are you silent? Why do not you speak out? Do human rights exist, or not? And if they exist, where are they? There are many, many cases that should arouse the conscience of the whole world: Where is Europe? Where is America?” The genocide of Christians, who have been in Iraq since shortly after the Resurrection, does not seem to have priority in the attention of many in our country."
"As this suffering continues, many in the United States are willing to tolerate heresy and moral decadence in a vain attempt to “get along” with others. While Christians must 'love the sinner and hate the sin,' there are an increasing number of people who are intimidated into enabling the sinner to advertise his sin. In 1992, Cardinal O’Connor said that compromising Catholic truth for the sake of political correctness 'was not worth one comma in the Apostles' Creed.'"
---------------------------------------------------
(Fr. Mitch Pacwa gently makes a few comments on the problems with the upcoming 2015 St. Patrick's Day Parade, and, in particular, Cardinal Dolan's participation in it.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cardinal Dolan explains why he is serving as Grand Marshall in the St. Patrick’s Day parade
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Explaining My Decision to Serve as Grand Marshal" - Cardinal Dolan
***************************************************
I have been assured that the new group marching is not promoting an agenda contrary to Church teaching, but simply identifying themselves as “Gay people of Irish ancestry.”
If marching gays are no different from heterosexuals, then why the fuss? Obviously, they must have a plan to project their identity in the parade so as to distinguish themselves from the others. The very fact that they refer to themselves as "activists" should provide a clue.
I can't speak for non-Catholic Christians, but I do know that the very definition of sin in Catholicism involves the will. Things that are unwilled cannot, by definition, be imputed to you as personal sin. Therefore things that you dream, or unbidden thoughts suggesting sin but which you struggle against, or something done by a mentally incapacitated person, cannot be sins, though they be contrary to the Moral Law. On the other hand, even willfully entertaining the thought of illicit sex, or revenge, or murder, or humiliating somebody else, is a sin, because it is cooperation with the corruption of the will. Pleasurably thinking of it is a sin; actually planning it is even a worse sin, even if you don't actually carry it out. Intentionally fantasizing or planning are considered interior acts.
Jesus speaks of these things in the Sermon on the Mount. I hadn't realized that that was also in the Hebrew Scriptures, but that's great. I'm interested. Can you give me a chapter and verse?
Delighted when Jesus turns out to be (no surprise!) a good Jew.
I never ask my RCIA students what their particular orientation might be. But through our detailed study of the Commandments, the Beatitudes, the meaning of the Sacraments, and the Lives of the Saints, every one of them knows what it means to choose conversion of life, and to walk in the way of chastity, before they are joyously received into the life of the Church.
I know it’s a bit late, but in answer to your question for proof-text, I was racking my brain— I know it from a lecture on Jewish philosophers, in this case, Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, Maimonedes, RaMbaM [his Jewish acronym.] But I heard it in seminary 9 years ago. So I knew that wouldn’t satisfy the root of your question (text.)
But, as divine providence guides us, in another FR post I was drawn back to a site hosting lectures on Judaism called simpletoremember.com. One of the lecturers, Lawrence Keleman, has a class on an unrelated topic (the proof of Jewish Oral tradition...) but in the first 13 minutes of it he builds up to and answers the question, from scripture, of where in the Torah we know that Nurture (particularly Divine nurturing through the commandments) can overcome Nature-— Genesis 1:1.... take a listen. As a grammatical guide, when he says “Bereishis” [the first word in the Hebrew Torah] is in construct state, he means that the Bi [prefix for “in”] is connected to reishis... “reishis” [”beginning of_”] in and of itself is the form of the word ree-shone [first] that needs, grammatically, to be adjunct to another word, ie: “beginning of_”time; “beginning of_”days; “beginning of_”our story. To say bireishis.... [bara— He created] leaves out an object of the construct state “beginning of.” Thus rendering it, literally: In the beginning of [missing object] G-d created. I know this is clumsy so see if Rabbi Keleman states it more clearly. He’s also pretty entertaining in a So Cal kind of way...
http://www.simpletoremember.com/media/a/Rational_Approach_Divinity_Oral_Tradition-B/
Thank you, most interesting!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.