Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: homosexuality and sin
Message-ID: <337@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 21-Nov-83 23:29:49 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.337
Posted: Mon Nov 21 23:29:49 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Nov-83 02:21:06 EST
References: <3723@duke.UUCP> <6159@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 37

I think that David Hawley has expressed, fairly succinctly, the sum of
the Roman Catholic Church's arguments against proscribed sexual
behavior, which would include, but not be limited to, homosexuality,
masturbation, extra-marital sex, remarriage after divorce, and
contraception.  If you accept the Church's metaphor--mixing marriage,
the individual, Christ and His Church--then everything falls neatly into
place; a set of Thomist axioms describing the physics of souls and
salvation.

A problem arises when you try to apply this rigid theory to human beings
and their daily situations.  Immediately, the brittle beauty of its
logic begins to clash with human reality, to the point that to many
believers the law (lower case) becomes sadly irrelevant.  It is for this
reason that most Catholic couples in the U.S. practice contraception
despite the official teaching of the Church, and, in fact, are supported
by their confessors.  Likewise, the Party Line against masturbation is
considerably toned down these days, simply because a more strident
approach would appear ridiculous.  Of course, homosexuality is still an
acceptable whipping boy, simply because the majority of the Congregation
of the Faith has not measured the teaching against this reality.

I am not saying that public opinion does (or should) drive dogma.
Rather, I am saying that many people have grappled with official
teaching, and have resolved the issue with their conscience.  What does
one do with the argument that David Hawley presents, if you cannot
accept his premises?  What about a Protestant who agrees, in general,
but does not accept the inclusion of contraception and divorce?  What
about the homosexual who perseveres in both his membership in the Church
and his lifestyle?  Who sets up these axioms, and who will judge?

I tend to shy away from "X is a sin because..." arguments for precisely
these reasons.  They are exercises in human reason and human
justification.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca