Pope Reminds Faithful that there’s only one Real Marriage
Pope Benedict, while not explicitly referring to the recent decision to overturn the California ban on Gay marriage, went out of his way to remind his faithful that there’s only one good way to make a family. So Stephen and Roger can love each other, be faithful to one another and bring up children together as much as they like, they will still be in a sinful non-relationship as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. Other people living in sin?
- John McCain (remarried divorcee)
- Nicholas Sarkozy (remarried divorcee)
- Kofi Annan (remarried divorcee)
- Rudolph Giuliani (serial divorcee)
- My parents (married at city hall)
and a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery loooooooooooooooooooong etc.
In other shocking news, the Catholic Church also continues to affirm its teaching that those who don’t attend weekly Mass are living in mortal sin.
What’s your point, Claudia? The Church doesn’t have a right (even a responsibility) to assert its views on morality?
In other shocking news, the Catholic Church also continues to affirm its teaching that those who don’t attend weekly Mass are living in mortal sin.
Well, only if they’ve committed some nasty sins since their last confession….
C. Stanley, you do not disappoint, I knew you’d be quick on this one.
The Catholic Church is certainly entitled to assert it’s sense of morality, and I’m entitled to think it’s ridiculous.
But for equalities sake:
- Maintaining Kosher diet is silly and the idea that an all-powerful god would care about what you mix your scrambled eggs with sillier still.
- If you think a woman showing her arms, or her hair or her face is sexually suggestive, as many Muslims do, you have serious sexual issues that you should attend to.
- Scientology is hilariously funny, in it’s entirety.
- Hare Krishnas are, by and large, insane.
- So called "atheist satanists" are idiotic to extremes generally considered inviable for normal existence.
This has been your equal opportunity offensive comment.
And I in turn am entitled to think it’s ridiculous of you to care about or pass judgment on the religious beliefs and practices that don’t affect you. I also think it goes to the blowback phenomenon that Tully mentioned in the other thread; if the argument is that there’s no legitimate reason to oppose gay unions on a secular basis, then stick to that- but when you start talking about your opinions on the religious beliefs, it comes across like you wish you could go farther and legislate complete acceptance of the morality of gay unions (even if you aren’t overtly saying that because of course that’s not possible.)
Tully: not going to Mass is itself a ‘pretty nasty sin’ in the eyes of the Church.
What Christine said. If you’re not Catholic, what do you care what the Catholic Church thinks of your marriage, birth control practices, or whatever?
"What Christine said. If you’re not Catholic, what do you care what the Catholic Church thinks of your marriage, birth control practices, or whatever?"
Because many are laughably inconsistent when applying the bible in politics or social discussions. Come on, if they insist on trying to influence my world I am going to keep attacking them whenever they deserve it. They can get off the soap box if they are upset that meanies like Claudia stick their noses in their business.
Sorry, Christine. My mind confused itself between communion and confession. Of course you’re supposed to attend Mass every Sunday and on the designated holy days–and voluntarily failing to do so when it’s physically possible to do so is a sin, requiring confession and penance. First Precept. My bad.
It’s not necessarily a mortal sin, but that’s a side discussion about intent, etc. .
Fair enough, utsu. Just remember, you’re trying to influence their world just like they’re trying to influence yours, so you are conceding tha tthey have a legitimate right to speak out on their opinions on these issues.
I should note on the above (both post and comment) that I really don’t care what you believe or do as long as you don’t force me to follow in those footsteps based on your religious belief. Well, I actually DO care about women being treated as inferior beings, but I recognize that while I don’t respect the belief, I can’t stop it either.
My point was that no one blinks at all when Christians talks about how sinful being in a gay relationship is, but they don’t realize that millions upon millions of other people are considered equally sinful, it’s just that it doesn’t get talked about. Imagine the outcry if the Catholic church spent time talking about how sinful divorcee marriages were, that they were sinful and wrong. Imagine that prominent Catholic groups were trying to get divorce outlawed.
Just once I’d like for the millions of Americans who have divorced and remarried, or married outside the church to wake up one day and see this. To feel inside what it is to hear a world figure tell his billion followers that YOUR relationship is sinful, that it’s unnatural and wrong.
That’s a fair point, Claudia. In defense of my Church, however, I would suggest that it’s actually pretty consistent on the "sin is sin" issue (leaving aside some theological arguments on whether its annulment practices are too lenient). If some big pro-divorce ruling had taken place, I suspect then you would have seen the Pope making a comment in public about the sanctity of life-long marriage.
Most evangelical fundamentalist denominations are much better targets for your point. The passages they cite to condemn homosexuality are usually immediately adjacent to passages prohibiting the eating of "unclean" foods, shaving one’s beard, and making ritual sacrifices of meat.
But see, that’s what I don’t get. In fact, almost everyone cites the same passage initially, and only grudgingly goes to later places in the Bible when pressed on pork, or shellfish. Why does the homosexuality sin carry over and the shellfish one NOT carry over? Why is poygamy considered wrong when it was downright commonplace througout the Bible?
And though I know that "a sin is a sin" you must admit that certain sins are strangely emphasized much more than other sins. Homosexual relationships are as sinful as divorcee relationships, but generally speaking I don’t hear much about them. I don’t know what the Catholic church is like in the US, but in Spain traditionally though both the man and the woman had to be virgins at marriage, A LOT more importance was placed on the virginity of the female, it being much worse for a female to have failed to reach marriage a virgin, while men were given a slight slap on the wrist (assuming they confessed) and the attitude was "boys will be boys".
I should note that I actually do agree with you on evangelical Christianity. Even if I don’t believe a word of it, I do think Catholicism offers a much more sophisticated level of philosophy than Christian fundamentalists.
But see, that’s what I don’t get.
But I think Pat’s point is that as Catholics, we don’t get that either. The Catholic teaching is much different, and comes form a holistic understanding of Biblical teaching, starting with God creating them man and woman- that sort of thing, but it gets a lot deeper than that too. We don’t have a belief about homosexuality based on cherry picked OT verses like that.
"Fair enough, utsu. Just remember, you’re trying to influence their world just like they’re trying to influence yours, so you are conceding tha tthey have a legitimate right to speak out on their opinions on these issues."
Yes, because that is a tenet of freedom which is not up to me to lay limitations on. I am just saying that their nonchalant and unconvincing flailing with the bible causes trouble for me AND themselves.
It should be up to as small units as possible to decide whether they want to offer gays a christian marriage on top of the secular effects and jurisdictional changes in a relationship. States should keep out of it. Civil unions should be a human right for gays - if some christian denominations extend church marriages as well then that should be seen as icing on the cake, and a friendly hand offered.
Why is polygamy considered wrong when it was downright commonplace througout the Bible?
The short answer is that the Church considers the NT to supersede the OT when it comes the establishment of doctrine, and the NT most definitely favors the two-person marriage. The long answer? I’ll let someone so inclined write that multi-volume set.
Christine’s right about my general point. I can’t tell you why or how the fundamentalists lambaste homosexuality without doing the same about eating pork. The Church doesn’t generally go out of its way to attack homosexuality per se, though it does speak strongly on defending the traditional (2,000+ years now) definition of marriage. It teaches that homosexual acts are sinful, but most of the Church tries to take more of a "hate the sin, love the sinner approach" (not ideal from some folks’ point of view, but not in the same league with the fundamentalists). And that position is based on the idea that pursuing sexual pleasure purely for personal gratification is a selfish act, whether done outside of marriage, with another person of the same sex, or alone in your room. Pursuing carnal pleasures for purposes other than procreation by anybody is officially considered sinful by the Church. And before you ask, I don’t actually know the Church’s position on post-menopausal married couples having sex…
As for why some sins are focused on more than others (and your example of virgin boys and virgin girls is a fine one, though I note that Catholic teenage girls even in the strictest Catholic countries like Spain and Italy managed to find loopholes in the strictures even before Bill Clinton gave a new name to one of the favorites), that’s a matter of culture, not religion. The religious teaching is the same. It’s cultural factors which influence which sins are considered "worse." Sometimes church officials participate in upholding those cultural factors, but that’s mostly because the priests and bishops themselves are products of that culture.
Claudia wrote:
But see, that’s what I don’t get. In fact, almost everyone cites the same passage initially, and only grudgingly goes to later places in the Bible when pressed on pork, or shellfish. Why does the homosexuality sin carry over and the shellfish one NOT carry over? Why is poygamy considered wrong when it was downright commonplace througout the Bible?
Both Claudia and PatHMV seem to have a huge misunderstanding on the difference between the Old and the New Testament.
I’ll clear this up right now: The reason why both Catholics and Christian fundamentalists ignore the passages about eating pork and shellfish and wearing garments of two different fabrics, etc, is because we are not Orthodox Jews!! The New Testament explicitly allowed the eating of the former "unclean" foods, and many other laws, like circumcision, were eliminated as well.
Homosexual relations (at least between men; women are never explicitly mentioned, so they might have a loophole) are condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.
Incidentally, I happen to think gay marriage should be legal, but I oppose it from a religious standpoint, and would leave my Church if they started blessing off on them. Everyone should have freedom of choice, including polygamists. I find it incredible that the radical left fights so hard for marriage rights for gays but won’t lift a finger for the rights of polygamists.
Nicely put John. Though I don’t agree with gay marriage, I really don’t think it is any of my business to tell people whom to love and live with. However, I absolutely would not belong to a church that marries or blesses homosexual unions and professes to be Christian. Because it conflicts with the New Testament strictures against it.
I agree with Christine and Pat about one thing, though. It’s unfair to call Catholics hypocrites who fail to follow scripture. The Catholics are actually much more consistent than many socially conservative evangelical denominations, or or many socially liberal protestant bodies. I have a problem with social conservatives who condemn abortion as murder, but see nothing wrong with executing killers, or the liberal so-called ‘main line’ protestants like the Episcopalians and ELCA who accept abortion as a personal but condemn capital punishment. I have to say the Roman Catholics have been much more honest about trying to live according to the New Testament than most of the other Christian denominations.
Personally, I could accept a state government deciding to get out of the marriage business completely, and simply provide civil unions for any couple that wants it, heterosexual or homosexual; leave marriage as a religious sacrament. The denominations who choose to forbid homosexual marriage will be free to do so, and those who want to bless it may do so. Having said this, I have my doubts about the wisdom of arguing to change our basic understanding of what marriage is. Your opinion may vary, etc.
I see the boundary of this issue as being one of financial fairness. In the absence of a state-recognized relationship, gay couples are at risk in terms of obtaining health benefits, having wills adjudicated fairly, etc. It’s appropriate that they should be treated fairly in this regard.
The problem is the retarded way we deal with health care benefits, etc., in this country. But if that were rectified the issue would continue to fester because many gays feel that their relationships need to be legitimized by the government. Simply being free to live as they please, even with no financial negatives, is not enough and never will be.
However, a homosexual union is simply not equivalent to a male/female marriage, whether you’re looking at it socially, biologically, or biblically.
If you think it is, ask a woman if her role in her marriage is the same as that of a man in a homosexual couple.
Biblically it’s clear that homosexuality is considered a sin. But it’s not one that the Bible spent a lot of time worrying about. Nor should we, beyond ensuring economic fairness.
"However, a homosexual union is simply not equivalent to a male/female marriage, whether you?re looking at it socially, biologically, or biblically."
Poor choice of words, IMO. It’s equal, just not identical.
"If you think it is, ask a woman if her role in her marriage is the same as that of a man in a homosexual couple."
Yuck. I hate gender roles and would never treat this line of inquiry seriously.
"In the absence of a state-recognized relationship, gay couples are at risk in terms of obtaining health benefits, having wills adjudicated fairly, etc. It?s appropriate that they should be treated fairly in this regard."
Of course, but I also think that it should be up to the churches and congregations to extend the church stuff as well. Christians don’t have the right to steer their religion in such broad, national turns.
"Biblically it’s clear that homosexuality is considered a sin. "
How do you choose which parts of the Old Testament you apply and which ones you reject?
John, I would argue that Catholics, though possibly more consistent than others, aren’t particularly consistent either. The NEW Testament mentions women in terms that CLEARLY place them under men, and yet Catholics don’t seem to be lining up to tell Hillary Clinton that she doesn’t "know her place". Maybe Catholics cherry-pick LESS, but they still cherry-pick, and the whole argument that "well we simply understand the context better now" or "Story X is meant symbolically, not literally" seem rather hollow arguments. The Catholic Church has managed to justify radically different forms of living using the very same Bible throughout the centuries. Much the same way homosexuality has been justified as wrong because "god made men and women to be complementary" once race-mixing was seen as wrong because "god made us all different colors". Personally, I’m fairly certain that in 100 years homosexuality will be accepted by the Church and the same justification will be used "Well, a careful reading of the Bible shows us that it is love and faith that counts, not so much the gender". Again, actions are much more important to me than anything else, as long as gays get equal treatment under the law, I’m fine with your religion saying whatever it likes (well, no I’m not, if you think they should be stoned, but it’s none of my business as long as you don’t actually stone them lol).
As to polygamy, you’re absolutely right that it’s an inconsistency, to a degree. I think the problem in polygamy is that consent is rather unclear sometimes and that it’s so often associated with female submission (all you have to do is look to see how many communities have women with many husbands). Personally, I don’t think it should be illegal, and I don’t even think it’s wrong, when practiced between fully consenting and equal adults, but it does seem to trend towards exploitation so often (see the FLDS) that I think that the resistance to it is reasonable. Never mind the fact that no biological impulse forces you to only be attracted to MANY women, whilst homosexuals aren’t attracted to the opposite sex and it’s not something they can change. Still though, while I don’t see that encouraging polygamy as a choice (and it is, unlike homosexuality, a choice) is a good thing, prohibiting it seems wrong as well.
Pursuing carnal pleasures for purposes other than procreation by anybody is officially considered sinful by the Church. And before you ask, I don’t actually know the Church’s position on post-menopausal married couples having sex…
Hmm. I definitely don’t want to get into a Catholic on Catholic row here, but that’s not exactly correct, Pat, though it’s a VERY common misunderstanding. I think if you delve a bit deeper into it you’ll clear up the misunderstanding part which also answers your question about post-menopausal married couples, plus a related one that you didn’t mention- younger infertile married couples.
Basically you are right that we’re advised not to separate the procreative aspect from the pleasure aspect (not to pursue pleasure separately from sex having a procreative role.) But it’s not in each sex act that that comes in to play, and it’s also more attitudinal than results oriented. IOW, one shouldn’t deliberately engage in sexual activities with an intent to NOT get pregnant during the act. (That’s like a misuse of God’s gift of our sexuality- it’s like saying, I’ll take the pleasure part, thanks, but no on this ‘creation of new life thing’, that’s not for me.) It isn’t necessary though to have the intention TO GET pregnant- so that even in cases or at times when pregnancy is biologically not possible (short of a miraculous intervention), the sexual act is not illicit. And there’s no prohibition against pleasure, it’s just that the function of the pleasure shouldn’t be selfish and it is mainly to enrich the bond in the couple’s relationship- which circles back to the procreative function because the closeness provides for the best loving and stable environment for raising children.
You’ve probably heard it stated this way, "a couple should be open to lovingly accepting children from God" (that may not be verbatim, but it’s part of the Catholic wedding celebration.) So if on the whole, the couple isn’t trying to prevent God from giving them children then the sexual union is as we believe God intended it. Natural family planning, then is considered a licit method of spacing the timing of children because it works with the biological factors that God himself gave us. But at the same time, the couple is open to the fact that God could have other plans, so that there’s an acceptance of a pregnancy even if it happens at an inconvenient time.
Those who don’t get the teaching in it’s entirety tend to look at it much too legalistically- as though each time a couple’s having sex there can’t be an orgasm without exchange of semen from the man to the woman. It’s not like that- again, it’s about whether the couple has an attitude open to the idea that sex CAN be procreative if God intends it to be.In addition, we’re taught that the loving acceptance of children also extends to OTHER people’s children- people can fulfill that mission by volunteering at schools, fostering children, babysitting for other families, caring for their grandchildren, working with children’s charities, etc. So that’s another thing that comes into play with infertile or post-menopausal couples, the extension of the mission to the community.
Much the same way homosexuality has been justified as wrong because "god made men and women to be complementary" once race-mixing was seen as wrong because "god made us all different colors". Personally, I’m fairly certain that in 100 years homosexuality will be accepted by the Church and the same justification will be used "Well, a careful reading of the Bible shows us that it is love and faith that counts, not so much the gender".
Claudia, that’s just not correct and the reason you can’t see that is that you only have a very shallow understanding of the theology. You mention that we believe God made men and women complementary to each other, which is very true, but it’s just the jumping off point, not the entirety of the teaching. The best I can explain it (based on the fact that the teaching itself is very deep and extensive- Pope John Paul II gave over 100 talks on the theology of the body during his weekly addresses over a 5 year period; plus, it’s been a while since I’ve read it and I don’t want to misrepresent details that I might have forgotten) is that sexuality IS intimately connected with procreation, by design from God, and a general inclination to separate that and block the procreative function is sinful because like all sin that involves man’s arrogance toward God (that we think we know better than He does what is for our own good.)
A homosexual relationship CAN’T be procreative and so it is no different than a heterosexual one using artificial birth control or even more so, sterilization. Those aren’t, and never will be, relationships that are considered sacred marriages by the Catholic Church.
As far as the Church not telling Hillary Clinton to get back to baking cookies, first off it’s more than a little bit annoying to get clubbed over the head for being TOO backward and then clubbed over the head for being inconsistent if YOU think that the Scriptures would support a more backward interpretation of gender roles.
And then there’s the ‘I believe the Church will eventually come to understand it like this’ part. How generous of you to hold out hope that we’ll eventually come to our senses and have the profound understanding that you have. And again, any club is good enough to beat the Church with, I guess, because on the one hand she’s criticized for not changing quickly enough to keep up with modern thinking, but on the other hand the fact that the Church does slowly modify teachings seems to give you the thought that ‘eventually they’ll come to understand it like this.’
I’m sorry but all of this obviously strikes a nerve, because I just can’t understand why you have all of these opinions without researching the REAL theology, not what you think the theology is or what evangelical theology teaches. You say you don’t get how or why the Church ‘cherry picks’, yet your opinion that it accepts or rejects certain things without a logical reasoning is based on your own ignorance; before accusing the Church of doing this, shouldn’t you actually read what theologians have written about the topics to see if there IS any rationale that makes sense?
If you’re truly not interested, that’s fine, your choice. But isn’t it embarrassing to comment on things, to voice strong negative opinions about them, and then have to admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about? And of course, the reason it matters to me is that you influence other people with your words- being dismissive and pronouncing the teachings of the Church as illogical might lead other people to similarly conclude that without even exploring it further.
A.A.B.- John explained that pretty well- basically we don’t hold to the ‘laws’ that applied to the ancient Jews because we believe that was God’s law for them, not for all time. Christ’s sacrifice for us means that it’s not necessarily to follow a legalistic means of pursuing holiness (there’s discussion about that in the NT- that Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, and that circumcision isn’t necessary, etc.)
Christine, let me be clear, though I find the inconsistency maddening, I also am extremely grateful for it. Blessed (ejem) inconsistency as far as I’m concerned. Not just in Christianity, also in Judaism.
We’ve had this debate several times in the past, so I don’t suppose we’re going to agree this time around, but my main issue isn’t actually one particular point or another in the theology (I would have no chance against you in such a debate in any event). My entire point is that Catholics, while calling themselves such, have had RADICALLY different lifestyles and ideas throughout the centuries, all the while being sure that certain bits of their theology were absolutely 100% clear and unchangeable. But history shows that they ARE changeable. I don’t really see how you can insist that homosexuality will never be accepted when I think that if we traveled 500 years into the past and asked a priest if the Bible could even justify women being equal to men he’d almost certainly laugh in our faces.
You’re right that I don’t know large amounts of theology, but I do know some basic history, and it seems fairly obvious that there are plenty of so-called "clear" "obvious" or "eternal" ideas that later turned out to be a tad bit more flexible than pretty much everyone imagined.
Incidentally, since you brought up infertile couples, I have a question related to that I was wondering about. If I’ve understood the argument correctly (if not please do correct me) enjoying sex or having sex without the specific intention of conception is OK, as long as the couple doesn’t try to artificially prevent conception and they do not divorce the concept of lovemaking from the concept of childmaking. But in the case of a sterile couple sex is ALWAYS separate from conception, so you can only have sex for pleasure, since it’s obvious you have no possibility of having a child. Since sex totally separated from the possibility of conception is unacceptable, I still don’t see why sterile couples are different from gay couples, as neither has the slightest chance of getting pregnant (though that will eventually change, I suspect, due to biotechnology).
But in the case of a sterile couple sex is ALWAYS separate from conception, so you can only have sex for pleasure, since it’s obvious you have no possibility of having a child.
No, because the sterility itself is in some way part of God’s design- either it’s a biological fact that He could reverse at any time He wishes (I happen to be in a circumstance where I’ve assumed that is always possible- having tried and failed to conceive over a number of years, and consider that as a couple we’re biologically infertile for reasons that doctors haven’t been able to determine- yet I did in fact then conceive shortly after we adopted my son and then miscarried.) So there’s still that ‘openness’, even in an infertile couple, knowing that God is the one who decides whether or not the infertility is permanent.
With homosexuality, it can’t and won’t ever change. Subtle difference, I guess, if you aren’t looking at it through the lens of accepting that God did create us as two separate genders.
On the feminism stuff, I guess I don’t think you’re representing the history that accurately either, because the Church hasn’t been a voice for oppression of females (as Pat points out- a lot of that overlapped with prominence of Catholic/Christian belief but the origins of the anti-feminist part were more cultural- for instance, females had to be virgins for clarity in lineage.) In many ways, the Church has been pretty pro-feminism for its time in all ages (and without a doubt, Christ was)- except that modern feminism has embraced the sexual revolution and espouses a rejection of gender roles so it feels that the Church hasn’t changed with the times today.
So why the hell would god create people Gay? What kind of messed up joke is it for you to be born with desires that are by definition sinful and unable to feel attraction for the "correct" gender? Why would a good god "punish" someone to that much suffering? "God has a different plan for you" seems like a really poor way of justifying the fact that your path is, by definition, much harder than the path of anyone else from birth (though of course that could also be said for people born without arms or legs, but though incredibly cruel, it doesn’t actually make you more likely to sin in the Catholic sense).
I should note that I’m not going to entertain the notion that all homosexuals are simply "choosing" to be gay because of "vice". There seems to be some abundant evidence that most, if not all, gays have absolutely no choice in the matter. If we can’t agree on that then just strike the question above, since we’d be unable to actually have a conversation on the matter, since assuming people "choose to be gay" essentially negates the existence of gays, turning the matter into heterosexuals and heterosexuals that have sex with people of their own gender.
I think Christine and Pat covered Catholic theological doctrine on sex nicely between them, and you can understand why I stayed out of that. I would just note that even in an infertile couple, "natural" sex is part of God’s design for joy in holy matrimony, and as there is no intent on the part of the couple to avoid pregnancy as a result of such sexual relations, there is no sin. Since I don’t necessarily agree with all the theological interpretation, I’ll drop that there other than to note that it is quite internally consistent and logical, having been honed for centuries by the sharpest logicians in the Church.
Homosexual relations (at least between men; women are never explicitly mentioned, so they might have a loophole) are condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.
And yet they are mentioned not at all in the Gospels, and the Paulite NT references are somewhat vague and few. Most "Biblical" condemnation of homosexuality falls back to the harsher parts of the OT, such as Leviticus. I for one have zero desire to live under Levitican law, and I’m pretty sure I speak for a majority of America in that.
C Stanley,
Isn’t abstaining from gay sex in order to get to heaven just as legalistic as abstaining from pork and shellfish in order to get to heaven?
Also, I don’t see any mention of a ban on homoseual acts in the New Testament. It’s quite clearly an Old Testament thing. I’d say either Jesus did away with the Old law, or he didn’t. And if he did only away with part of it, there should be a clear criterion to know which old laws still apply. Otherwise it gets completely subjective. Basically, right wing Christians have an emotional bias against homosexuality. And they bring up Old Testament quotes to justify that, although they believe Jesus did away with the law.
So why the hell would god create people Gay? What kind of messed up joke is it for you to be born with desires that are by definition sinful and unable to feel attraction for the "correct" gender? Why would a good god "punish" someone to that much suffering?
How is that any different than God creating some people without arms and legs, or with painful deformities, blindness, etc? I’m sure as a nonbeliever, the response to that would be "a loving God in my mind couldn’t do that" but that’s not how believers see it. So if a believer accepts that God has reasons for these that we don’t understand- as well as some that we can understand, because suffering does have meaning-then there’s no logical disconnect in assuming that He created us to have various kinds of ‘crosses to bear’.
Isn’t abstaining from gay sex in order to get to heaven just as legalistic as abstaining from pork and shellfish in order to get to heaven?
No. I’m not sure how to explain that, but I don’t see sexual morality in a legalistic way at all. That’s why I went into the theology of the body a bit- to explain that that’s a basic understanding of how we feel we’re called to order our lives according to what we believe God’s intent is for us, and to accept His gift of sexuality in the manner in which we believe He intends it. That’s nothing like the dietary laws of the OT- which were intended to purify and make sacrifice to God because there was no other way to approach Him due to our sinful nature.
And actually, AAB, you hit on a basic misunderstanding there- I think most people don’t realize that at least on Catholic theology, sexual morality isn’t like those OT laws at all. It really is about the gift of sexuality and our attempt to understand it- because we sort of believe that what is commonly understood as an enjoyment of sexual pleasure today is a lot like recieving a priceless work of art as a gift and when the giver is looking the other way the recipient destroys the artwork and uses the frame for a cheap print that he/she happens to like.
I just want to say wow Tully weighs in on a religious matter.
"natural" sex is part of God’s design for joy in holy matrimony"
No on a separate matter, I’ve asked this before on several blogs but I get no clear answer. To what purpose does any civil government sanction any marriage. What the greater societal good they’re trying to encourage (I assume its not healthcare benefits for one of the couple or death benefits). Is is procreation? Is it family? Is it economic stability? Certainly its not "fairness" because that seems to buy into the traditional view of "what a marriage is" and then declare that’s not fair? Help me out here?
Tully wrote: And yet they [homosexual relations] are mentioned not at all in the Gospels, and the Paulite NT references are somewhat vague and few.
A. A. B. wrote: Also, I don’t see any mention of a ban on homoseual acts in the New Testament.
Someone needs to go back to Bible school. The references might be few, but they are there , and they are not vague. Paul’s letter in Romans 1:27 is pretty darn explicit:
the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
True, Christ himself never spoke about homosexuality, but there are a lot of subjects he didn’t talk about directly. Racism is one; does that mean racism is OK then? Also, keep in mind that Paul was directly chosen by Christ to spread his message.
Now having said all that, it certainly wasn’t the most important topic in the New Testament, so it should be kept in perspective.
To Chris, good point. I addressed this very issue on my web site here, making a case why it might be a good idea to get government out of the marriage business altogether. That would eliminate the gay marriage debate pretty quick.
John, the preceding verse (Romans 1:26) makes clear that God gave up the Romans to these behaviors as a punishment for their other sins, namely paganism and idolatry–"Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections". So there’s a bit of question-begging there that does indeed make that singular most-explicit reference vague in any direct application. (Also something to remember when the inevitable arguments of "choice" verus "born that way" come up.) Then there’s Paul’s laundry list of "deadly" sins (as versus "dishonourable affections") that immediately follows–such as envy, boasting, whispering, etc. As you note, John, it really does make one begin to long for a sense of proportion and context. Paul saw the "dishonourable" behavior as a symptom of Roman corruption and errancy, not a cause, and as a punishment in itself, while the other sins listed later were "worthy of death."
That was Paul’s take, anyway. Chosen by Jesus hisself? Well, that’s what Paul claimed, though Jesus had been gone for a while at the time, and one can’t really argue questions of faith such as that, can one? But I beg to be excused from arguing about Paul’s conversion, and his status as a Jesus surrogate in the Church. Sue me, I’m a heretical free-thinker.
Jesus did not speak to racism? Beg to differ. The Jews were a race unto themselves, and Christ said he was there to bring his message to the Jews, but Christ preached to and healed and helped those of other races as well. Did we miss the Samaritan, the Canaanite woman, the Syrophoenician child? Christ’s instructions to his apostles to spread the baptism to "all the nations" at a time when nation and race were much the same thing? I’d say that both word and example are clear there.
I repeat–you will find no mention of homosexuality in the Gospels. Nor do I have any more desire to live under Paulite law as expressed through a single passage in Romans than I do to live under Levitican law. What was that bit again in the Gospels, about rendering unto Ceaser? That should apply to Romans, right? ;-) Heck, I coveted just the other day, and lusted in my heart, and I whispered last week, and I sure don’t want to be put to death for it.
In short, Biblical morality plays are not the basis for American civil law, and differing interpretations of condemnations in the Bible are not a legal basis for making American civl law. Romans 1:26 is indeed vague as a singularly clear-cut condemnation of homosexuality per se when read in context, and it’s the most explicit reference of the few in the NT.
To what purpose does any civil government sanction any marriage. What the greater societal good they’re trying to encourage
Societal stability and the civilizing of children–but those are not totally interdependent functions. It’s also bound up with the preservation of property and bloodline, which also goes back to stability. We are very competitive animals–marriage regulates the competition. The competition for sex is one of the most destructive forces known to the human race, whether it results in reproduction or not. While other forms also work, the two-parent family has been the most stable basis for raising and civilizing children while simultaneously keeping adults from the worst and most destructive unbridled sexual competition, and research indicates that the gender mix of the parents is not a factor. It’s the stability of the family itself.
While I agree with John that there are good reasons to get government out of marriage, I don’t believe it’s possible to get government entirely out of the marriage business. At minimum, court enforcement of marital contract is required. For example, John says "If people want all the legal protections of marriage, they can just draw up a legal contract and wills to reflect that."
That would be fine (I’ll repeat, I think that consenting adults should be free to make their own private arrangements) except that over the centuries society has determined that its own interests require certain marital rights be a part of that contract. In today’s world, the effect of the marital contract extends in law to affect and obligate others not party to the contract. To go "private" we would have to address that. Private contract simply does not cover all that–for example, how do we treat spousal benefits provided by the public under legal mandate, such as SS? How do we re-write law of inheritance?
And going just from spousal contract to the question of children, there is ALWAYS a societal interest in the treatment of minor children, and minor children ALWAYS have a rightful legal interest in their parents, and NO capacity to contract. The state must enforce their rights for them in some fashion. So taking marriage "private" is simple in concept, but extremely involved in practice, especially where children are involved.