It revolves around an interview with Piers Morgan that was broadcast Wednesday night:
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum defended his position on gay marriage Tuesday while speaking to students at Pennsylvania State University, and slammed CNN’s Piers Morgan for questioning him as a “bigot” in a pre-taped interview that aired Wednesday night.
“I had Piers Morgan call me a bigot, because I believe what the Catholic Church teaches with respect to homosexuality,” Santorum said, heatedly. “So now I’m a bigot because I believe what the Bible teaches.”
In the interview, Morgan pressed the former Pennsylvania senator on his moral beliefs about gay rights, an issue he’s repeatedly spoken about on the campaign trail.
Santorum said he subscribes to the Catholic Church’s teachings, which deem homosexuality a sin.
Morgan argued that people have a difficult time coming out because “of the level of bigotry that’s out there against them.”“And I have to say that your views you’ve espoused on this issue are bordering on bigotry, aren’t they?” Morgan asked, adding that society has evolved in how it views homosexuality.
Santorum countered that the Church’s position is founded on more than 2,000 years of history. To adapt those beliefs based on the changing ways of society, he said, would be immoral.
Santorum then lobbed a charge of bigotry back at Morgan.
“Trying to redefine something that is seen as wrong – from the standpoint of a church – and saying a church is bigoted because it holds that opinion that is biblically based, I think that is, in itself, an act of bigotry,” Santorum said.
UPDATE: You can watch part of the exchange below. For those who have wondered: yes, Santorum does say that homosexuality is a sin –which is not an accurate reflection of Catholic teaching.
Some time ago a condition was observed that explains why the liberal position cannot and perhaps never will understand the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, abortion, contraception etc. – “invincible ignorance’.
Like the paroah, they’ve harden thier hearts.
It is very nice to hear Santorum speak up now in defense of the teachings of the Church.
However, let him explain now why he campaigned for Arlen Spector, then a “moderate” Republican, in a primary some years back and helped him defeat a pro-life candidate.
Some voters have long memories. It would be a pleasure to vote against Santorum now, provided his opposition was pro-life. Let Santorum go home and sit with Spector now, somewhere on the sidelines.
“I am a Catholic. As far as possible I go to Mass every day. This is a rosary. As far as possible, I kneel down and tell these beads every day. If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that He has spared me the indignity of being your representative!”
-Hilaire Belloc, in a campaign speech before being elected to Parliament
“Santorum said he subscribes to the Catholic Church’s teachings, which deem homosexuality a sin.”
I cringed when I heard Rick Santorum say that the Catholic Church teaching on homosexuality is that it is a sin. I would have liked to seen Piers Morgan challenge that statement, since he mentioned that he was a Catholic. Like many Catholics, Morgan does not know that the Church teaches that the homosexual orientation is not a sin; homosexual acts are.
Piers Morgan did not call Santorum a bigot. He said that his view was bordering on bigotry. Clearly, Santorum overreacted.
When Piers Morgan asked how he would react if one of his sons were gay. Santorum responded that he would love him unconditionally.
I did not see or read the interview, but I must say that I cringe when Rick Santorum – or any politician for that matter – interprets the “teaching of the church” on anything. If he really said that the church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, then he spoke in error. I also suspect that he – and others – are quite careful in only reflecting on the “teaching of the church” – when it largely fits their purpose. For example, I have rarely heard any of these folks speak to the “teaching of the church” in regard to the preferential option for the poor, or issues related to human work or the environment.
It’s not really the case that Rick Santorum has avoided discussions of Catholic social teaching. In 2005, he published a long book detailing his views on the very issues Deacon Bob mentions, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good. But I don’t think we will hear any talk about the views he expressed there because the media prefer to focus on gays/gay marriage as a PC litmus test for politicians; in fact, homosexuality seems to have replaced abortion as the issue of the moment for them.
I think it’s obvious that Santorum will not be the GOP nominee, and I also think his views on CST are a distortion of our teachings, but I certainly wish they would get more of a hearing. It’s become almost a commonplace to use the adjective “failed” in front of the term “social welfare programs” in political discussions today. We constantly hear that it is unsustainable to continue subsidizing the basic needs of people who seem hopelessly mired in poverty. What we do not hear discussed is any real alternative to “More of the same, but with better funding.” America badly needs a serious discussion of the alternatives, and Catholics of a conservative bent ought to be involved in that discussion.
“Trying to redefine something that is seen as wrong – from the standpoint of a church – and saying a church is bigoted because it holds that opinion that is biblically based, I think that is, in itself, an act of bigotry,” Santorum said.
http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/rcd-fmn1.htm
“In the New-Testament, the Gospel History, or representation of facts, presents us a view correspondent with that, which is furnished by other authentic ancient histories of the state of the world at the commencement of Christianity. The powerful Romans had succeeded, in empire, the polished Greeks; and under both empires, the countries they possessed and governed were full of slaves. Many of these with their masters, were converted to the Christian Faith, and received, together with them into the Christian Church, while it was yet under the ministry of the inspired Apostles. In things purely spiritual, they appear to have enjoyed equal privileges; but their relationship, as masters and slaves, was not dissolved. Their respective duties are strictly enjoined. The masters are not required to emancipate their slaves; but to give them the things that are just and equal, forbearing threatening; and to remember, they also have a master in Heaven. The “servants under the yoke” *[upo zugon Douloi: bond-servants, or slaves. Doulos, is the proper term for slaves; it is here in the plural and rendered more expressive by being connected with yoke—UNDER THE YOKE.] (bond-servants or slaves) mentioned by Paul to Timothy, as having “believing masters,” are not authorized by him to demand of them emancipation, or to employ violent means to obtain it; but are directed to “account their masters worthy of all honour,” and “not to despise them, because they were brethren” in religion; “but the rather to do them service, because they were faithful and beloved partakers of the Christian benefit.” Similar directions are given by him in other places, and by other Apostles. And it gives great weight to the argument, that in this place, Paul follows his directions concerning servants with a charge to Timothy, as an Evangelist, to teach and exhort men to observe this doctrine.
“Had the holding of slaves been a moral evil, it cannot be supposed, that the inspired Apostles, who feared not the faces of men, and were ready to lay down their lives in the cause of their God, would have tolerated it, for a moment, in the Christian Church. If they had done so on a principle of accommodation, in cases where the masters remained heathen, to avoid offences and civil commotion; yet, surely, where both master and servant were Christian, as in the case before us, they would have enforced the law of Christ, and required, that the master should liberate his slave in the first instance. But, instead of this, they let the relationship remain untouched, as being lawful and right, and insist on the relative duties.
“In proving this subject justifiable by Scriptural authority, its morality is also proved; for the Divine Law never sanctions immoral actions.”
The above is from a letter to the governor of South Carolina, written on behalf of the South Carolina Baptist Convention in 1822 by Rev. Dr. Richard Furman. Precious few Christians agree with Furman’s positions today, in spite of the fact that he drew heavily upon Scripture to support them, and had the near unanimous backing of the South Carolina Baptist Convention in making the argument.
Scripture certainly did not change. However, our interpretation and understanding of it changed dramatically over the course of the following 150+ years. Similarly our understanding of Scripture continues to change, and the position advocated by Santorum, a position that has been held, at least in this country, for generations, is slowly changing in response to that greater understanding.
May it ever be so.
If Santorum said homosexuality is a sin then clearly he was mistaken. It is the acts not the inclination that are sinful.
To think the Church’s teaching on immoral acts will evolve is whistling Dixie.
I hadn’t thought of Rick Santorum as a contender, but after seeing the entire interview, I have changed my mind. Yes,he has some explaining to do regarding his support of Arlen Specter, and yes, he should have said homosexual acts are a sin according to the church, not homosexualtiy. Everyone slips and I wouldn’t hang him up over that.
However, after hearing him speak about his faith unashamedly, I was blown away. When, when do you hear of a Catholic politician sticking up for the Church and it’s beliefs? In public? You don’t even hear that sitting in a pew on Sunday! Here he says “homosexuality is a sin” (which, given his intelligence, I am sure was a mistake) and the Catholics start attacking him. I wonder, are we becoming so pc and so afraid of being branded a bigot by the brainwashing media and elites, that we cringe and run at the first slip because we are afraid of being branded a bigot? He was right to turn that around to Piers Morgan. Piers Morgan – a self hating Catholic who quickly adds that he has views that are in opposition to the church just after saying he was Catholic. Make sure you get that out real fast so your media allies and Hollywood buddies keep employing you and inviting you to coctail parties.
My last comment-when I heard him relate the story of his dead infant son, I saw a depth in him I had not noticed before. I was totally impressed.
Everyone take a breath Santorum is going no where.
As usual he is flapping his jaws without any knowledge of what he is talking about.
Better a Catholic (or Evangelical) politician who is struggling to defend Christian teaching and morals than the satanic pack of Catholic politicians who are always smoothly and eagerly burning incense to the gods of ambition.
“Homos*xuality is a sin.” This is an ambiguous statement. It can mean, “A homos*xual orientation is a sin,” which is false; or it can mean, “Homos*xual genital activity is a sin,” which is true. Unless we know in which sense Sen. Santorum meant the word “homose*xuality,” we cannot know whether he was right or wrong. This is the problem in many discussions around homose*xuality: the words do not have a single, precise meaning, which makes it very easy to be misunderstood.
As for Arlen Specter, perhaps someone can come up with more detail. Was it in a primary or a general election that Santorum supported him over a pro-life candidate? Because if it was in a primary it could have been that, just as commenters here are saying — probably correctly — that Santorum can’t win, he might have judged that the other candidate couldn’t win in the general election and the Democrat would have been even worse than Specter. And if it was in a general election, the decision may have been based on the practicalities of the workings of the Senate — a Republican majority leader in control of the flow of legislation would be more favorable to pro-life measures and pro-life judicial nominees that a Democratic one would. Prudence is the most important virtue of the statesman, and a Senator has to consider what the overall impact of an event will be. As counterintuitive as it may seem, it is entirely possible that Sen. Santorum may have judged prudently that the pro-life candidate’s success in the election would not have really helped the pro-life cause, either because he’d have lost to a Democrat, or he’d have given the Democrats — the party of abortion — control of the Senate.
I can’t know Santorum’s heart any more than I can know that of any stranger, but it is abundantly clear that many of the people who share his position do so out of bigotry rather than (or perhaps in addition to) their religious beliefs. Many of the people in the anti-gay movement fight their cause with a zeal and stridency that cannot be accounted for by concerns of sin and doctrine. Many, like Santorum, clearly don’t even know what that doctrine says on the matter.
In addition, they don’t seem to be all that concerned about sin in the non-gay population. Remarrying after divorce (and specifically consumating that second marriage) is also a sin in Catholic teaching. A biggie, in fact. If sin and deep belief in doctrine were really the issues, you would expect to see Santorum and others pushing equally hard for laws and Constitutional amendments to outlaw divorce and remarriage without annulment, to criminalize adultery in all its forms and to force remarried hetero folks to hide their family situation in the military upon pain of discharge.
An inconvenient inconsistency to be sure, but no sweat for Santorum. He can just dismiss me as just another bigot for pointing it out….
You can read about Santorum’s support for Arlen Specter at this link.
A snip:
Dcn. G.
kenneth, the reason for the focus on the gays is that it is a big issue of the day for public policy.
Kenneth, in relation to sin within the doctrine of the Catholic church, I don’t see how you can put divorce and remarriage in the same category as homosexual acts. It seems that you are using that argument to invalidate the church’s authority. It seems you are saying that if they don’t acknowledge sin A, then they have no right to acknowledge sin B. But not all sins are equal and both the church as well as the state acknowledge this. There are venial sins and mortal sins in the church and degrees of sins in the state that require different sentences such as probation or incarceration or even the death penalty.
Marriage after divorce is a sin in the eyes of the church, but it is a sin within a natural context, as it involves a natural act between a man and a women. Can you say the same of homosexual acts?
Isn’t the real issue here the validation of the gay “lifestyle” and doing whatever it takes to beat the church into submission and acceptance the homosexual lifestyle.
Richard J,
Hello again. It amazes me how you twist faith and morals to your liking. God permitted a lot of things yesterday, He even permits things today. He takes the fallacies of us men and turns them into good. We are not capable of good only God is good. He works on our hearts everyday in hopes that we will invite Him into our hearts. Remember we are all liars. If you don’t understand this I can explain it to you.
Please explain in your wisdom how homos3xual acts are a good for society. Please do not tell me these things don’t affect all of us. Our society will decline morally and will lead to further wickedness.
I am worried for you Richard, performing invalid marriages as you do is wrong.
HMS
I would say any person who self-identifies to themselves and others as “Gay” even if they do not engage in homosexual acts is bordering on sinfulness, if not outright sinfulness. Here is why:
A “Sexual Urge” is not truly an “Identity” in any material sense. (See Aristotle) It is not a “Material Characteristic” on par with lets say: Homosapien, Black, Male. To identify oneself as “Homosexual in Orientation” would also mean at any given time people may be “Orientated” to the following urges: “Murderous in Orientation”, “Lazy in Orientation”, “Vengeful in Orientation” and “Jealous in Orientation”. Each of these “Urges” could lead to a sinful “Corresponding Action” just like gay activity. It is inappropriate to assign “Identity” to human “Urges”. In fact, I think its sinful but I would like a ruling on that from the chair. A human male cannot help being a human male. He can help and reject being a “Violent” human male. Regardless of how often the “Urge” comes up. In addition, I think it is safe to say he should not go around saying, “Hello my name is Frank, I am “Violent” in Orientation and you should accept that, in fact I’m going to pass laws to make you accept that”.
So we have to have compassion, yes, but get over your overly compassionate selves and see through the agenda please. Right now in California children are being taught, via mandate about “Gay Historical Figures” and it is because of this faulty acceptance and devious agenda driven reasoning of a “Orientation” as a legitimate concept. HMS I would watch who you believe to be “Cringeworthy.”
Dee well said!
I agree, after you posted it, I went to hulu.com, type in Santorum, and watch most of the show. It honestly never occured to me that Rick S didn’t know his faith. If you watch it all in context, he was CLEARLY trying to avoid, the “what it is a sin.” When pressed to the wall, he then, in lieu of making it “personal” admitted that he was a Catholic and followed Church Teaching. It should have been obvious to any, espeically to Catholics, what his “intention” was. It wasn’t like he had a 10 minute forum to describe the Chruch teaching on homosexuality.
Say what you want about Rick S, but he is STAUNCHLY pro life, is a daily communicant, and has the record in congress to prove that he was more than empty talk.
We as Catholics should be THRILLED we have someone out there in a presidential race defending church teaching. Again, it was obvious that his “2 second to answer” response was a GENERAL response to the fact that the Catholic Teaching does NOT embarce homosexual acts. Had he been asked specifically if or if not he had a problem with homosexuals per say, I’m quite sure it would have been along the same line as his answer if he had a gay son.
Santorium winning is indeed a long shot, despite most Americans being clueless as to how much they need a president of morality far more than they need a “job creater”, as all of our major problems are rooted in immorality. On that note, he is RUNNING mostly on social issues, not sure anyone has ever done that before.
“Homosexual and Catholic” from the “divisive”(?) Voris:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc
@JosephW: I thank you for your concern, but assure you that you need not worry.
My point in posting the reference to Dr. Furman’s exposition is simply to illustrate how, through misinterpreting Scripture to bend it to one’s own beliefs, entire classes of people have suffered. Furman’s support of slavery came only after he inherited slaves from a relative of his wife. Prior to that he was a staunch abolitionist.
We saw similar misuse of Scripture in the branding of Jewish people as “Christ killers”, an epithet that stayed with them for centuries and, according to many historians, contributed to the mindset that led to acceptance of Hitler’s “final solution”.
Eventually these misinterpretations and misuses of Scripture gave way as we learned more about Scripture and about how it came to us. We also learned more about the socio-political environment in which such teachings became popular, and over the years worked to rebuff the underlying misunderstandings behind the “teachings”.
Today we are facing yet another correction as both the current culture comes to understand homosexuality more and as modern scholarship learns more about the culture in which the “clobber passages” were written. Slowly but surely God’s love is overcoming the fear and hatred of the past.
Today if a pastor or church attempted to preach what Furman put forward we would easily recognize it as completely counter to the Gospel, and reject it out of hand. In another generation or two our children or grandchildren will have the same reaction to the ideas expressed by Santorum, and will wonder how God could have allowed such to happen in His name.
Tyler:
You certainly have the right to think and say what you choose. But I was expressing what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality. As
the Deacon wrote in his Update above:
“… yes, Santorum does say that homosexuality is a sin – which is not an accurate reflection of Catholic teaching.”
I rarely cringe, except when Church teaching is misrepresented and especially when that misrepresentation can lead to unjust discrimination and behavior that lacks respect, compassion and sensitivity. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358)
Richard,
The truth will never change, sorry, it’s the truth. No matter how much you think its okay it still won’t change it. Making this issue into a civil one and comparing it to slavery, racism and the like does not change truth.
The facts are coming out. I know you’ll love the source, but no other media will touch it. Why is that? It doesn’t go with the grain?
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/08/11/dr-keith-environment-not-just-genetics-determines-sexual-orientation/
There is no hatred or misinterpretation of scripture here or from the Church. In regards to how scripture was used to hate the Jews, interesting enough scripture is clear that the Jews are not to be blamed for killing Christ. We all take responsibility for that each and every day. When we deny His truth we deny Him.
So back to my question. Please provide clear justification for your reasoning. You asked questions and I answered them. Your idea about everything unclean is now clean was interesting but I don’t see the connection it has to sexual acts. Does this allow anything and everything now?
“Kenneth, in relation to sin within the doctrine of the Catholic church, I don’t see how you can put divorce and remarriage in the same category as homosexual acts. It seems that you are using that argument to invalidate the church’s authority. It seems you are saying that if they don’t acknowledge sin A, then they have no right to acknowledge sin B. But not all sins are equal and both the church as well as the state acknowledge this. There are venial sins and mortal sins in the church and degrees of sins in the state that require different sentences such as probation or incarceration or even the death penalty.
Marriage after divorce is a sin in the eyes of the church, but it is a sin within a natural context, as it involves a natural act between a man and a women. Can you say the same of homosexual acts?
Isn’t the real issue here the validation of the gay “lifestyle” and doing whatever it takes to beat the church into submission and acceptance the homosexual lifestyle.”
At the risk of getting all technical on you, remarriage after divorce, and in particular the consumation of that new marriage, is called adultery. If you’re saying that’s a venial sin, then Canon law has changed considerably since I left the church.
What’s really at play here is one set of people trying to draw a distinction between straight sin as being “little m” mortal sin and gay sin which is “big M” mortal sin. No such distinction exists, at all, in canon law. There may be elements having to do with reproduction compounding one sin vs another, but if mortal sin and the resulting scandal is really something that merits government intrusion, it ought to be so in all cases. To pretend otherwise is hypocrisy.
kenneth, I’d remind you that Sen. Santorum indicated that he (in line with Catholic tradition) does not think that all sins should be crimes under civil law, and specifically that if he had been in Texas, he would have voted against the anti-sodomy law.
Good point naturegesetz. Having now watched most of the show, it’s simply unfair to Santorum to not have his words in their full context.
Again, like him or not, he is one of the biggest secular voices for life and the Catholic Faith that we have out there. I suggest anyone not convinced go to Hulu.com, type in his name, and watch some of the other videos.
It would also be helpful to read the transcript of the last Republican Debate, where he artiulated similar points extremely well.
I wish he could win, but it will probably take a miracle. I think Santorum and Cain would make a great ticket :), either direction for the VP.
One more thing…
It just occured to me that if Santorum actually said what the chuch teaches, that homosexuality (un acted upon), is NOT a sin, it would be the reverse scandal: “Santorium said it’s Ok to be Catholic and Homsexual.” In a literal sense, that is correct, just as what he DID say, in the literal sense, is incorrect. It may well have been a gottcha question by Pierce, knowing the few seconds he had to answer without the verification/disclaimer.
Klaire…
All Santorum had to say, to be accurate, was “Pierce, the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are sinful.” But Santorum, like a lot of Catholics (and far too many non-Catholics), either doesn’t know the distinction, or actually does believe that his Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin. By stating, for whatever reason, “homosexuality is a sin,” he’s helping to perpetuate the popular myth that “the Catholic Church hates fags.” It was a teachable moment, and he missed it.
Dcn. G.
This is the actual teaching of the Church according to the Catechism.
2358″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.
2359 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 2358-2359
Rudy:
Yep, I concur. That’s what the Church teaches about homosexuality.
Regarding Kenneth’s comment, “What’s really at play here is one set of people trying to draw a distinction between straight sin as being “little m” mortal sin and gay sin which is “big M” mortal sin. No such distinction exists, at all, in canon law. ”
You make a good point -both straight sin (as adultery) and gay sin (homosexual acts) are considered mortal sins according to the Catholic church. I don’t disagree with that and I wasn’t saying that adultery was a venial sin. A mortal sin is still a mortal sin whether it has a “little m” or a “big M” and that includes adultery.
You write that “if mortal sin and the resulting scandal is really something that merits government intrusion, it ought to be so in all cases. To pretend otherwise is hypocrisy”. In line with that school of thought and logic, than government has no right to intrude in incest either because that would make government hypocritical. After all, incest is a mortal sin with a “big M” as is adultery with a “big M” and homosexual activity with a “big M”, and whos to say one “big M” is worse than another. Certainly, the church would have no right to intervene either since no such distinct exists in canon law, as you pointed out! They are all mortal sins with a “big M”. It would by hypocritical for the government to do the same.
Actually, JosephW, the comparison to the treatment of racial minorities *is* appropriate, especially when it is understood that the religious teachings of that time helped underpin the prejudice and apartheid that once was common in our nation. The writings of Dr. Furman came at the direction of an entire state convention, in this case the Baptists of South Carolina. His thoughts, his appeal to Scripture, and his certainty were reflected in the minds and hearts of his fellow Baptists of that era.
Likewise the notion of the guilt of the Jewish people, based almost entirely on one small passage in the Gospels, became the foundation of the anti-Semitic teachings of a segment of Christianity. It was part and parcel of the anti-Semitic beliefs of Martin Luther (who is likely a heretic to most Catholics, but is viewed by Protestants as the founder of their branch of Christianity). This continued into the modern era, and influenced broad segments of the church in both Europe and the US, up to and through the WWII era.
While I understand your need to divorce your arguments against homosexuality from past arguments supporting slavery and anti-Semitism, the parallels will not go away. The Bible (and the holy writings of many other faiths) have been folded, spindled and mutilated over the generations to support popular social views.
In each case an increase in the understanding of the historical and cultural framework of the Scriptures, coupled with strong societal struggles (civil rights, if you will), eventually result in society, both secular and Christian, looking back on these Scriptural arguments and realizing that weak, sinful people gave in to fears and prejudices, constructing supportive arguments from tenuous interpretations of disjoint passages of Scripture.
You asked: “Please provide clear justification for your reasoning. You asked questions and I answered them. Your idea about everything unclean is now clean was interesting but I don’t see the connection it has to sexual acts. Does this allow anything and everything now?”
That’s quite a stretch there, JosephW. I would ask you, did society’s eventual acceptance of interracial marriages in the 60s and 70s mean that everything was therefore permissible? It was a common argument among both Christian and secular opponents of interracial marriages that allowing miscegenation would lead to open bestiality, pedophilia, and a wholesale deterioration of society morals. Were these arguments correct?
As I was growing up in western Illinois my best friend was a young fellow from a mixed marriage. His mother was American Baptist, and his father was Catholic. The parents and both children (he had an older sister) were subjected to very unkind taunting at times, mostly from the Protestants in the community who did not understand and therefore distrusted Catholics.
In both cases where different kinds of marriages were presented to society, the couples faced either legal or social challenges, and sometimes both. To many, both marriages were unclean, impure, and should not be allowed to happen. Fast forward to today, when interracial marriages are fully accepted, and inter-faith marriages are hardly noticed.
The sex act at the core of these marriages was once considered improper (in the case of interfaith marriages) or an abomination (in the case of interracial marriages). Scripture was used in both cases to support those viewpoints, and they had broad acceptance for many, many years. Now those views are considered part of an unfortunate past in which people either chose not to understand the Scripture in its entirety or were ignorant of the true Gospel. Today we point to the words of Paul in his letters regarding how there is no Jew or Gentile, no slave or free person in the Kingdom.
Scripture must be understood in its historical and social context, for the words were not spoken into a vacuum. The writers of Scripture were people of their time passing on a message to people who were as much a part of their culture as we are of ours. Updating the language of Scripture to more modern words without first understanding the culture and times in which those words were written does a disservice to both the writer of the words and the reader, for it is certain that the recipients of Paul’s letters understood his illustrations and allusions because they were part and parcel of that culture.
To be intelligent readers of Scripture, we must not try to shoehorn the words of the Bible into today’s society without first grasping an understanding of the society of that era. Only then, armed with that understanding, can we properly interpret and apply the teachings of the Bible to today’s situations. If we fail to do this we end up falling into the same ditch that caught Martin Luther, John Calvin, Charles Coughlin, John Hagee, Bob Jones, Pat Robertson, and a host of other Christian ministers who have passed on what they thought was clear teaching from Scripture but was really malicious confusion.
Dee, incest might not be the best example for you to use there, as government has been rather inconsistent with laws governing incest for many, many years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest
—
In the United States, every state and the District of Columbia have some form of codified incest prohibition.[31] However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989[31], Ohio only targets parental figures[31], and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.[31] Massachusetts issues a penalty of up to 20 years’ imprisonment for those engaging in sexual activities with relatives closer than first cousins[31] and Hawaii up to 5 years in jail for “sexual penetration” with certain blood relatives and in-laws.[31]
In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and in some states, first cousins, although Rhode Island allows uncles to marry their nieces if they are part of a community, such as orthodox Jews, for whom such marriages are permitted. Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations including stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.[32]
—
If government treated homosexuality the same way it treated incest, we would indeed have a patchwork quilt of legal definitions to understand.
@HMS
You completely avoided my points. (It would be nice for you to address my “Opinions” as you say) In regards to Church Doctrine, I certainly see the wisdom and obey. However, I think the church itself has made more nuanced points to your summary of that doctrine.
For example, the CDF in the 1992 document entitled, “Some Considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of h0m0sxual persons”, in which I believe Cardinal Ratzinger was prefect at the time says:
Quote: ‘Sexual orientation’ DOES NOT constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination,” said the document. “There are areas in which it is NOT UNJUST discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.” End Quote
By using secular language that tries to denote “Sxual Orientation” as equivalent to race or ethnic background you are avoiding the reality that the church also considers h0m0sxuality itself to be quote, “Gravely…that’s GRAVELY Disordered”.
I will say it again, if I went around identifying myself as “Violent, Jealous, Hedonistic or Vengeful in my Orientation” firm, comfortable and accepting in that Orientation. Indeed, willing to identify with others in those orientations who take them as a mere conditional and acceptable realities to their lives, but just “Non-Practicing”. I’m not sure Mother Church would approve. I think she would rather me say, I struggle and fight against my vices”. I don’t think any of us should self-identify with our vices ever and I also think we ought to give people a lot of leeway when they openly struggle against theirs.
Finally as I have said before, applying a material reality via a taxonomic label to what is fundamentally a non-material reality but rather an “Urge, Feeling, or Thought” is an intentionally deceptive ploy that is not only ontologically wrong but is its intention for doing so, is currently being exploited for political and social purposes. Indeed, Urges, Feelings and Thoughts ARE NOT the same as “Material Descriptions” like race and gender…apparently the CDF agrees with me.
Deacon am I wrong here? If I am I will submit.
@Tyler, at the risk of stirring up more than might be applicable to this thread, I would ask you if religious belief is better classified as a “urge, feeling or thought” or a “material description”? My gut tells me that it is more properly grouped with the former, but I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts.
And to our host, if this is taking discussion a bit astray from the topic at hand, please let me know and I’ll drop this particular foray into metaphysics.
@Richard,
1. I’m sure you would agree there are different categories and methods of analyzing thought, reason, ethics and logic in philosophy.
2. The idea that human beings have discerned through purely logical premises as well as observable ones (Telelogical) that the universe and everything in it indeed may be the outcome of an intelligent mind or creator would be in no way the same kind of categorical thinking as the the urge to stimulate one’s genitals. You try to label this type of reasoning as “Religious Belief”, I call it “Logical”.
Furthermore when the words “Religious Belief” flash into my mind, I see there a carefully constructed secular media cliche with a host of implications not the least of which is “Irrationality”. I’m sure St. Thomas of Aquinas would differ with that amongst many others.
3. Good News! however Richard, some University types have recently done a sociological study on how self-identified Secular Intelligent People are really stooges of the main stream media. The “Peer-Reviewed” University Paper is entitled, “A “Prejudice” for the Thinking Classes: Media Exposure Political Sophistication and the Anti-Christian Fundamentalist” Read it here http://www.religionomics.com/archives/archive/11/a-prejudice-for-the-thinking-classes-media-exposure
3. So anyways, our “Urges”, as you know Richard, are not only different than thoughts about creation but even more pressing they must be governed by moral values and duties, in other words “Ethics”. Secularists try to use “Scientific Materialism/Naturalism” & “Moral Relativism” as their Ethical Frameworks to do this…(Nevermind they are at complete odds with each other). I think the fact that they hold on so dearly to these two unworkable value systems shows (And I have more respect for Scientific Materialism) how desperate people are to try and avoid God.
Don’t you think Richard?
@Tyler, your statement “You try to label this type of reasoning as “Religious Belief”, I call it “Logical”.” is very telling. You are not using the academically accepted definitions of these words but substituting your own, allowing you to manipulate the argument to the benefit of your argument instead of your opponents. The reason we have academically accepted definitions is to keep intellectual debate fair and free from manipulations like yours.
Although, perhaps “intellectual debate” is too high praise for the ridiculous emotional displays going on here and elsewhere in the debate. I suspect it is not the scripture but homophobe’s own discomfort with homosexuality that is the true core of their position. Show me the most virulent homophobe, and I’ll show you the most closeted homosexual.
@Tyler
1) Agreed.
2) It is unfortunate that you choose to encapsulate the entirety of an interpersonal relationship that encompasses love, mutual care, child rearing, and communal support as simply “stimulating the genitals”. One hope that your own relationship with your partner (assuming you have one) is more meaningful than that.
It is perhaps this notion, that somehow same-sex oriented individuals are focused solely on the sex act, while different-sex oriented individuals have more holistic relationships, that most confuses me. It is a difference without evidence, a straw man that can be both supported and undermined by anecdotal evidence. To use such as a foundation for your argument brings to mind the notion that you may not fully understand the depths of human relationships.
3) Ultimately, Tyler, your worldview, your ethics, your core beliefs, are a series of choices that you have made, positions that you have chosen to cultivate over the years. You have chosen to believe that a creator had a hand in forming the universe and the individuals therein, and that this creator has given us in writing (the Bible) and in the living organism of the church the ability to not only understand his desires for our behavior but also a mechanism for understanding, in a communal and individual sense, our place in his order. All of this is ultimately a choice that you (and many others like you) have made.
Within our system of governance, Tyler, there must be both a commonly agreed system of ethics/mores as well as a large degree of freedom for individual action. In the past the majority held that certain decisions were not in the interest of society as a whole (freeing slaves, interracial marriages, equality of the races before the law, religious freedom, equality of the genders before the law). Some partisans on both sides of these issues claimed support for their positions from their religious traditions, holding out that these positions were “Truth” for all humankind. I am reminded of Judge Leon Bazile’s words in deciding against the Lovings in the case Virginia brought against them. He said:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
This is an appeal to “Truth”, to an overarching ethic that must, in the mind of the one taking it, apply to all of humankind. It is held as the “one True way” in how we, the subjects of the Almighty, are to behave.
The thing is, Tyler, this grasp for “Truth” failed, as so often happens, because we as humans not only chose to learn more about our fellow humans but also chose to learn more about the culture of the Bible, the foundational texts underlying modern translations, and the manner in which those texts came to us. But more importantly it failed because a growing number among us chose to interpret Scripture in the same manner as the original audience of those texts did: in the context of the current culture in which we live. Thus we now accept interracial marriages as having an equal validity to same-race marriages, and nobody would refer to them as simple “genital stimulation”.
Throughout history, Tyler, human beings have sought to hold on to what they considered to be God, only to find out that God was calling them to move, grow, and experience him in a fuller sense. This is the concept behind becoming “more perfect” in the Lord, focusing on the words of Jesus when he was asked what were the greatest of the commandments.
Matthew 22:36-40 “Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
A simple message, Tyler. Yet so difficult to live out, for it demands that we leave comfortable and reassuring notions behind, abandoning that which we believe to be “Truth” in favor of the truth expressed here, in these few words.
Yes, Tyler, there are so many, so very many who choose to avoid God by relying on the rules of humans, rules set based on flawed and incomplete understandings of God, of Scripture, and of our own history. Yet such is the nature of humankind, is it not? Choosing our own will over the perfect will of God? Choosing what we think is right in the eyes of God instead of what he would have us do?
Harsh were the words written to the church in Ephesus, as recorded in Revelation 2.
“To the angela of the church in Ephesus write:
These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands: I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.
Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
What do you suppose is the “first love” that this church had lost, Tyler? I believe it to be the love expressed in the passage from Matthew; the love of God and of their neighbor. The Ephesian church knew doctrine and tested their teachers, but they had lost their love, and because of this they were at risk of being taken down by God, of being removed from their place.
Thus is the choice faced today by Christians, Tyler. It is good to test the prophets, or in this case the secularists, and the philosophy they offer. It is good to be wary of following wrong belief or wrong doctrine. But in our desire to “think right” and “believe right” we must not forget that the Lord puts a premium on “acting right”, and sometimes those acts go against the very beliefs we have chosen to build. And having built these on the sand of our human prejudices and fears, they will come tumbling down in the light of the love of God.
@Elizabeth #38: Generalities and stereotypes have been used to push down people for hundreds of years in this nation. Whether it be the persecution of Quakers and Catholics in the colonies, the violent oppression of persons of color as slaves and, later, under Jim Crow laws, the treatment of women as property, the treatment of Native Americans, the treatment of homosexuals, and more recently the treatment of Muslims, Pagans, and atheists, it is all based on stereotypical thinking and generalizations.
Yes, there have been outspoken opponents of GLBT rights who were later discovered to have been homosexual themselves, and in deep denial of that fact. Their number seems to grow weekly with continued revelations of behavior and actions that run contrary to spoken positions (which makes me wonder if God isn’t firmly involved in rooting out hypocrites as promised in the Bible). But perhaps it is a bit of a stretch to cast everyone who opposes marriage equality or GLBT rights as a closeted gay.
Such generalizations remind me of arguments claiming that every homosexual is a closeted pedophile, and honestly I hope we move beyond those unfortunate characterizations. The sooner we do the better it will be for all concerned.
Elizabeth:
Don’t know about your homophobe comment but you may be right in a lot of cases.
But, it seems to me that we see so many people on the Internet taking a position (often an opinion) and then using all sorts of arguments to validate it. (I am tempted to do that myself.)
It is seen most prominently in religion and politics, two areas that we used to be told to avoid in polite conversation.
Bloggers (not this one) do it a lot. They have a particular position and then link to other like-minded websites in the hope that it will make the opinion more reasonable or true – to them, perhaps, but not to me. For the most part, comments from the readers reinforce the positions of the bloggers. I don’t find it very “intellectually humble” (a term that must have been drilled into me by the nuns who taught me in college). So often, it leads often to vitriol accompanied by name-calling, put-downs, etc., etc., and so forth.
It hardly contributes to “clarifying” our ideas. I picked up that concept from Peter Maurin, co-founder of the Catholic Worker with Dorothy Day. He advocated and promoted “round table discussions for the clarification of thought.” That is what I like to do when I participate in a blog.
Wow! All I can say is that lines is being drawn in the sand and the wheat is being separated from the chaff. Those who accept the churches teaching in entirety appear to be few in number indeed. Most Catholics, sad to say, are cafeteria Catholics and choose what they want to believe. If some beliefs contrary to church doctrine, they bring out the big books where they can quote scripture with their spin on it. If not their spin, they seek out like-minded individuals who have already done the work for them. They peruse the internet where they google keywords espousing their beliefs in order to find the “aha, cothcha comments” that will give credence to their beliefs. They will stop at nothing to find what they need in order to validate their moral, or I should say, immoral beliefs. They will find sources from like minded individuals who say “oh no, the bible didn’t really mean that and that is in the past anyway so it’s outdated”, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. You have to have a PhD to decipher and counteract what they say because the spin makes you dizzy and you get caught up trying to defend your traditional beliefs. Forget that Jesus said to \be like little children… “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (Mark 10:14-15) Nah, don’t believe that, that’s old school, written in the time before our grand universities gave out doctorate degrees. Stupid, uneducated apostles wrote those words, what did they know! It takes a 21st century modern theologian to interpret that! Satan spins lies like a hurricane, confusing people so that they know longer know which way is up. Oh, how he is alive, and he’s everywhere, even in the church!
Rick Santorum accepts the doctrine of the church as is, as do I. But our numbers are dwindling. Pope Benedict admitted that the Church will become smaller and smaller but more fervent in the devotion of those who will remain faithful. I see that happening and I see it on this board. The extent that people will go to in order to prove that homosexuality is a perfectly normal and natural lifestyle. This betrayal of nature. On the side of those who are trying to make the case for morality, there is the constant prefacing of “how we are a compassionate church and how the church teaches us to love the sinner, not the sin” ad nauseum. Yes, we know that! We believe that! How many times do we have to say that? But it’s repeated over and over and over again so that we can defend ourselves against those who call us bigots, homophobes and hypocrites. We are attacked us for simply adhering to traditionally Catholic values. Good has become evil and evil good and woe to those who dare say that homosexuality activity is wrong. Getting back to Rick Santorum; he is a very brave man to defend the church’s teachings publicly. Very brave and devout. He will surely be hated!
PS. Had a couple of typos in the above comment. Please disregard. My fingers type faster than my thoughts!
@Richard
1. In regards, to the “Stimulating the Genitals” remark. I would appeal to C.S Lewis’s very well put together analysis on the “The 4 Loves” which breaks down the word “Love” as it was properly conceived by the Greeks. The array of love’s you mention do not require the recognition of somebody’s “H0m0s3xualiness”. Homosexuality is directly related to what “Stimulates the Genitals”. The Greek term is “Venus”. Eros, (Closely Related to Venus but not the same) Philia, Storge, and Agape are forms of love that do not require “H0m0s3xuality” to be identified in any way. Keep in mind I am not the one trying to march forth a precedent that we must categorized people in the public square and in law by their “S3xual Predilections”. Secular Leftists are doing that. Anyways, “I” do not have to engage in or recognize a purely “Sexual Act” to perform the kinds of love that enable “Mutual Care or Community Support” that you describe. Sexuality is completely untied from these concepts. Therefore it is ludicrous for “LGBT people” to say that the government needs to “Bless” their right to love who they want.
2. The purpose of s3xuality is for Procreation, everything else is incidental. H0m0sexuality cannot do this. To deny children a “Mother” or a “Father”, to deny a boy the ability to identify with a male father figure because two women want to live together to me is a terrible violation of that boy’s rights and dignity and incredibly self-absorbed by those women.
3. I reject your crude secular term “Partner”. My “Partner” is my “Wife” and I find it offensive that I need to conform to some new way to identify her in Secular society, therefore I will NOT conform to it and when it is thrust upon me in public settings I will always and everywhere set the record straight as to who that woman they are referring to actually is vs what they want me to identify her as.
4. Richard, indeed I have “Chosen” but to imply that it is merely a “Choice”, implies there is no “Reason” or “Truth” behind it. It is merely a “Choice” sounds suspiciously like..there is no such thing as “Truth”.
5. To your points about “Religious Interpretations of Truth”. This is why I am a Catholic Convert. If there is not an “Authentic Interpreter “of the Bible then all is “Relativism”. In the Christian tradition, the apostles have the “Authority” given to them by their founder, Jesus. “Authority” = “Author’s Rights”. I am unaware of anything in Catholic doctrine that has denied women/men of any race could not Marry. Yes I believe Protestant interpretations of Christianity and the Bible, may in fact, be wrong. Shock! Why? They do not have the Authority to interpret the Bible. God Bless them but they don’t so they would be wrong.
6. You seem to imply that “Secularism” is “The Better Way”. Pluralism is actually the better way. (Read James Baker’s The End of Secularism) “Secularism” is evolving into its own Pseudo-Religious Atheistic doctrines and organizations. The idea that “Atheists and Agnostics” given the historical evidence of their ideas manifested in political and organized societies are any more “Truth-Telling, Moral or Ethical” is ridiculous…and YES, you are seeing it coming now…and I will go there because the following is a historical fact. The atrocities of purely Secular-Atheistic regimes from Stalin, Mao and Pol-Pot are at a level unfathomable and efficient in their attack on the dignity of human beings compared to societies who have embraced a more overt religious ethic and specifically a Christian one. I reject the implication that “Secularism” is more moral or more ethical than Christian Value systems in any way. The opposite appears to be true.
7. So you are saying that the secret to Christianity is that God is telling us “All is Creeping Relativism”, and there are no immutable truths and you quote Jesus as an example. There is nothing “Concrete” is that correct Richard? God does not like order? So the Ten Commandments are NOT immutable? The “Uncaused Cause is really Caused?” Interesting…I bet other more learned theologians would disagree with that. Coincidentally it does tow the line with the current liberal secular ethical suggestions. (Moral Relativism)
8. I rely on the teaching Magisterium of the church to help interpret the word of God. This is what was promised by Jesus. Inserting “A Doubt” is just a tactic. Do you ever “Doubt” your perpetual “Doubt-ism”? Questioning Authority is always, at all times, and in all places “The Greatest Good” above all else? Really? Where does THAT specific “Dogma” come from exactly Richard? Chesterton seemed to have a pretty good idea, let us quote him from his fine book “A Man who was Thursday”:
Quote: “There is a vast philosophic movement, consisting of an outer and an inner ring. You might even call the outer ring the laity and the inner ring the priesthood. I prefer to call the outer ring the innocent section, the inner ring the supremely guilty section. The outer ring–the main mass of their supporters–are merely anarchists; that is, men who believe that rules and formulas have destroyed human happiness. They believe that all the evil results of human crime are the results of the system that has called it crime. They do not believe that the crime creates the punishment. They believe that the punishment has created the crime. They believe that if a man seduced seven women he would naturally walk away as blameless as the flowers of spring. They believe that if a man picked a pocket he would naturally feel exquisitely good. These I call the innocent section.” Naturally, therefore, these people talk about ‘a happy time coming’; ‘the paradise of the future’; ‘mankind freed from the bondage of vice and the bondage of virtue,’ and so on. And so also the men of the inner circle speak–the sacred priesthood. They also speak to applauding crowds of the happiness of the future, and of mankind freed at last. But in their mouths”–and the policeman lowered his voice–“in their mouths these happy phrases have a horrible meaning. They are under no illusions; they are too intellectual to think that man upon this earth can ever be quite free of original sin and the struggle. And they mean death. When they say that mankind shall be free at last, they mean that mankind shall commit suicide. When they talk of a paradise without right or wrong, they mean the grave” End Quote
9. I agree mostly with your last couple of paragraphs but they seem to imply a working life framework summed up as “Keep your Eye on God and remember the rest of the world you interact with…Relativism is best”. We have been embracing secular relativism for I don’t know 100 years…society is breaking down. This is blatantly obvious if you read the news. It’s not that I am cautious of a militant secular ethic..right now in light of what I see, I openly reject it altogether. Especially as it moves from a common pluralistic ethic to its current morphing of into militant quasi-atheistic value system. Indeed, to identify oneself as “Secularist” is in and of itself, ridiculous notation and proves my point.
In Summary: No to identifying, categorizing, recognizing peoples s3xual predilections into the public square.
@Elizabeth,
1. Do you deny that cultural elites will often use the word “Religious Beliefs” with an implied negative connotation? Did you read Bill Keller’s secular inquisition line of questions to Republican Candidates?
2. It is not me that has “Changed the Meanings”.
3. I do not have homosexual inclinations. I have other inclinations I would describe as “Sinful” and I in no way, “Identify with them” or ask others to “Accept” them…rather I reject them and confess them as they pummel the crap out of me nonetheless.
Richard,
You still have not answered my question.
On your suggestion that those against interracial marriage parallels those who are against same sex marriage is unfortunate. The Catholic Church took the side of the interracial couple in VA. You know this, so please tell the whole truth when you make a statement that paints everyone with one swipe. Racism is directed as hate of colored people and not equating them as fellow human beings. Hate of a person does not equate to the hate of an immoral act. The Church teaches us to love the individual as Jesus taught us, He didn’t tell us to accept and love immoral acts contrary to morality.
You can quote any person you want who has said something harmful or used scripture to justify their bad thinking ,but don’t label this as if it’s the development of society and eventually our bigot minds will change. God changes us if we cooperate and I pray every night that He keeps me humble and obedient to His will.
Now back to the subject. There is a lot of gender and sexual confusion today. I was listening to a Michael Jackson song last night and just thought how sad it was for him. He was very talented but a very confused individual who didn’t know or understand who he was. Case in point, there’s a movement in CA and other countries to teach children that there are no differences between a male and female, essentially we can be whatever we want to be. No pink, no blue, no gender. We are one and the same. This is beyond belief and goes to show what wickedness and warped thinking can do to society and people.
Now we know that s3xual relations between a man and a woman is and can be good, because the ultimate love that can come from that union is life. What good can come out of a “union” between the same sex?
Hey folks — how about using some blog comment discipline ?
Can you please keep your comments restricted to three main points and a maximum of 150 words ?
Tyler, Richard Johnson, and Dee — you are the biggest offenders here. I want to believe that you three have some important things to say but I really don’t know because your posts are tedious, redundant and boring.
Tyler, it seems that my words have caused offense to you. Rather than pursue what is clearly becoming a discussion destined to deteriorate into namecalling, I’ll simply wish you, your wife and family all the best of the coming weekend. God’s blessings on you all.
If I lived in Pennsylvania I would vote for Santorum. But as a politician, or anyone else for that matter…we must be very clear in the Church’s view on homosexuality…it is not a sin to be homosexual but to act out sexually is the sin……..there is a big difference there!
JosephW, please re-read my words. Some of the arguments made against GLBT people do indeed parallel arguments made against interracial marriage. That does not necessarily imply that the same religious groups made those arguments. I am well aware of the Catholic position in the Loving case, and how it contrasts with arguments made by other groups of that day.
That does not change the fact that the arguments share much in their structure and justification. Essentially it boils down to:
1. God acted in such a way as to teach us X.
2. Because of that X is “True”, now and forever.
3. Any change, even if made by God, must be rejected as it conflicts with the recorded “Truth” as…
3a: …recorded in Scripture and/or
3b: …as taught by the Church.
Immutable truth seldom exists, as demonstrated by how we view Furman’s arguments from Scripture in the light of 21st century understanding. With interracial marriage, sex between the races was viewed as an immoral act, a violation of the direct will of God who separated the races at Babel, according to this line of thinking.
You plead relativism, yet use relativism in judging Furman and his ilk, thus convicting yourself of the crime you see in my reasoning. When you ask “what good can come from the union of two of the same sex, you ask *exactly* the same question asked by those opposed to race mixing…what good could come from the sexual union of a white and a black.
Say folks! I agree with Fiergenholt here. You need too say it in less than 150 words — and maybe (like I try to do) avoid posting more that once on a specific stream. If you want to take issue and decide to get into a wordy argument with someone, get their e-mail and go “off-blog”!
BTW: Richard Johnson — I think you have already admitted you are a clergy-person but it is rather obvious you are not Roman Catholic. Care to clarify our confusion ?
Richard
I doubt that it will come to that. However I have heard these arguments many times before and since msm and culture at large adopts them I find them quite irritating and specious.
Dean
I think your walking a fine line by identifying your whole person with something the church calls a grave disorder. It’s not a sin to have same sex attraction compulsions but I wouldn’t ascribe identity to them either
@Deacon Norb #51
I am not a denominationally-ordained minister, nor do I have seminary training. I served as a congregational-ordained minister in the past, and for a number of years I filled pulpit in several churches in the area (mostly Baptist but an occasional Presbyterian and Independent church).
Today I am a member of our local Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship, where I occasionally lead services and officiate at rites of passage (weddings, funerals, child dedications, etc.).
And I apologize for the length of my responses here. I was not aware of the limit on length. The topics are complex and do not necessarily lend themselves to short bursts of discussion. But, I shall try to shorten my posts.
If it is any consolation, some of the congregations where I preached made similar comments regarding my sermons. :-). Fortunately nobody ever fell asleep and slipped off a windowsill during those longer messages.
CNN calling a Catholic like Santorum a bigot is a laugh as are those who do not think Santorum clearly knows Church teaching on homosexuality. If the gay lobby would accept that the correct lifestyle for those with same sex attraction is a celebate lifestyle, then the technical arguments made here are correct about Santorum. But CNN and all others are not arguing for celbacy, but to make the behaviour choice normal with is the real issue and point Santorum is making. Those who are trying to equate the color of ones skin with behavior choice civil rights arguments have no basis of fact to hang their hat on. Hard to decide not to be black, but one can decide to not engage in gravely disordered conduct.
Richard,
Truth exists but people like Furman and you turn it into what you feel is right and make it to what you want to believe. The Catholic Church is truth and has taught the truth since Jesus declared it.
The Church will never change the truth for you or anyone else.
The Church was right to support the couple in the case and it is right in all morality.
I gave blood today and one of the questions posed to me is if I had sex with another male. I would not be able to give blood if the answer was yes. So, what is the fruit and good that comes out of a same sex relationship?
pierce needs to leave the dude alone, he stated his position on the gay agenda and how he feels. Now hes gonna make it a emotional thing by saying what if your son told you he way gay, i use to like cnn, but i dont like how they are pushing the homosexual agenda…should they have rights…yes…but your not gonna make me change my idea of it being a sin…becuz it is…just like fornicating is….