Hi everyone,
I am a 23-year-old Catholic -- and I consider myself ideallogically "Liberal" (although I vote Conservative in Canada).
I know that in the Bible and in the Church homosexuality is considered wrong, something I can get my head around, but I can't get my heart to accept it.
I feel like science has proved to us that homosexuality is not a choice. People can't help it, no more than they can help their skin colour. Is it right to be intolerant to these people? I am really struggling with the idea of the Church not being tolerant to homosexual people.
It's nice to know the Catholic Faith does actually have liberal adherents!
It seems like most of the liberals are getting chased away by the right wing, who then wonder why the church isn't appealling to young people anymore.
I should point out that science hasn't proven anything as yet. All the data suggests that hormones and genes have an influence, but the actual strength of this influence nobody really knows yet. That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that genetics and hormones play a larger part in most cases than social factors, and certainly a far larger part than choice!
Thankyou for your opinion McMike. Perhaps I can put things into persective for you. You might like to consider the following facts.
There are 770 verses in the bible that refer to marriage. None refer to homosexuals. Therefore the evidence is that God does not recognise homosexual marriage and by extension homosexuality.
There are, as has been previously pointed out, verses which refer to marriage which are completely ok with polygamy, a practise which we have since abandoned. I'm not sure it's fair to take these writings out of their cultural context. And since homosexuality is a 19th century discovery (Foucault; 1979, History of Sexuality - prior to the advent of psychoanalysis one was defined by acts rather than attraction, thus one would be a sodomite rather than a homosexual) they probably wouldn't contain many references to homosexuality as we now understand it.
On that basis I think it makes more sense to understand these categories in terms of the principles being espoused in the text, rather than just the culturally specific manifestations of those principles which are recorded.
Next, in Rom 1:18 [it says that the] wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
What is this ungodliness and unrighteousness? Lets have a look.....
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
This by the way is only one example of it. Homosexuality is not singled out for condemation by itself.
If memory serves (and it might not do - it's been some time) was this passage not originally a specific condemnation of Greek religious traditions which sometimes involved eroticism?
Again, let us look at another passage....
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
From the following verse, it was obvious that the Corinthian church had many who were part of this list before conversion.
I am going to have to challenge that translation. If the word in 1Co 6:9 had been homosexuals I would accept the argument, however I don't think it was. As I have pointed out, the modern concept of homosexuality has roots in the 19th century, so any exact translation would be difficult, however perhaps the closest Greek word available to St. Paul would have been the term "Paederast" (which was the attraction to androgenous youths who were at the beginning of their adulthood), however this is not the term he used. The actual word used was "Arsenokoitai".
The accurate translation for this has been lost to us, however the word has two constituent parts; "ars" (man) and "koitai" (beds), so we can take a guess. As has already been pointed out between the 15th and the 19th centuries this was translated as a warning against masturbation.
In the Vulgate text you will find the list as follows;
"An nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt"
There are two entries here which are conflated in translation to the term "homosexual", the first "those who have sex with men" is the translation of the word "Arsenokoitai" which I have already pointed out is a dubious translation. The other "those who are not masculine" is a translation of the greek term "malakoi" (or "effeminate"). It should be noted that some linguists (such as Justin Canon, 2005, The Bible Christianity & Homosexuality) think that malakoi was a term which had a much wider usage; covering not only the effeminate, but also temple prostitutes.
The early translations of these two chastisements as being "those who abuse themselves with mankind" would therefore not necessarily be taken as a repudiation of homosexuality so much as a reaffirmation of the value of monogamy and sex as the expression of love between a couple.
I will respond to your statement, We are called to rise above our worldliness in the example Jesus gave us. I beg to disagree, I think we were called to share the Good News first and foremost and I trust the Spirit of God is powerful enough to give healing and wisdom to all of us and would help all of us rise above our worldliness. It is not up to me to be intolerant of homosexuality because I have decided for a gay person that he/she cannot accept wisdom from God. The only thing a Christian can do is to show kindness and the compassion of Christ and more importantly, his offer of reconciliation to every human being.
yea.
