Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: I AM DISGUSTED! Message-ID: Date: 13 May 91 06:33:42 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Lines: 89 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Re: Thomas Blake In article , tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes, in response to Brian Kane: >>...which brings me to my main point...how do we know that the laws against >>homosexuality aren't "Bad Laws"? >Matthew 19:10-12 > > 10 His disciples said to him, "If this is how it is between a man and >his wife, it is better not to marry." > 11 Jesus answered, "This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only >to those who God has given it. 12 For there are different reasons why >men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others because >men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the >Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so." >(TEV) > >What is the "conventional" way of interpretting this passage? I've >often heard the argument made that "Jesus never spoke against >homosexuality!". Well, that doesn't mean he's in favor of it either now >does it. Hi, Tom! From the perspective of the Catholic Church (i.e. the only one that I'm really familiar with), Jesus was not "in favor" of homosexuality. This view is not based on direct quotation because, as you've mentioned, there AREN'T any Gospel passages referring to homosexuality. Rather, it is noted that Jesus supports the Old Testament idea of monogamous, heterosexual, marital intercourse being the only good sexual acts. One must be careful, however: Jesus also strictly forbade the condemnation of one human by another. Namely, one cannot scoff at homosexuals and scream epithets of fire and brimstone at them and still pretend to be a follower of Christ. The condition of homosexuality is a perplexing one; the Catholic response to it is, simply put, that any Catholic inclined to homosexuality must, in order to remain a Catholic in good standing, acquiesce to a life of celibacy. Beyond the Church, Rome says only that homosexuality is unnatural, and if one surrenders to homosexual desires, one sins in much the same way that any other lustful human sins by indulging in extramarital sexual acts. In short, Catholics believe homosexuality to be a type of naturally occurring psychological malady; one cannot be blamed for being born homosexual any more than one can be blamed for being born without legs. In response to the occurrence of this malady, one is, as in all other cases of severe naturally-occurring trials, to persevere as best one can. When one "falls", and indulges homosexual urges, it is indeed a sin, in the eyes of the Church... but by no means an unforgivable one. Like any sin of weakness, God calls us to repent, resolve not to repeat the offense, and try again to live in His light. (Side note: in modern american english, the phrase "forgivable" is sometimes used to mean "excusable"; this is NOT the usage that I am using, nor does the Church use the word in that way. To be excusable is to be "not wrong". The Church insists that homosexual acts ARE wrong, but also insists that these sins are as capable of being forgiven by God as any other, given a repentant heart.) >But back a few months ago, when the homosexuality issue was a hot topic >on this board I came across the above passage. I didn't bring it up >then. (Call me a coward.) The third reason Jesus lists apparantly has >been interpreted as referring to the celibacy of the priesthood. What >do the first two refer to? And what does the closing instruction refer >to? (I would guess this is usually interpreted as "Accept the celibacy >of the priesthood if your can.") The passage in question, along with selected writings of St. Paul, are indeed taken by Catholics as support for a celibate Catholic priesthood. (One should note that there are many other arguments in favor of celibate Catholic clergy... a small reminder not to base one's whole argiment on Scripture quotation.) When reading the "reasons" cited in your passage above, I take the first two as a defense of celibacy (in general) against the (somewhat) common Jewish belief that marriage was desirable in humans, to the point of being almost mandatory (ref: "Be fruitful, and multiply."). Jesus pointed out that it was not sinful to remain unmarried, nor was it offensive to God. I doubt that Jesus had any sort of clergy in mind when He said this, but it remains a strong basis for accepting celibacy of priests as a non-sinful condition. Just a few opinions of mine; I hope this helps! Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu