Question About Homosexuality

[N/A Gone]

With the current Anglican/Catholic news I have been having a discussion with a Liberal Anglo-Catholic friend of mine. One of the issues of separation we came on was full acceptance of LGBT people. That gay and lesbian monogamous relationships are not sinful.

Here is more of what he wrote in defense of this idea.
[quote]
And most scholars are not so sure what the Pauline corpus says about homosexuality.
For instance Paul only supposedly mentions it three times:
Romans 1: Paul calls it para-phusin (contrary to nature), however later in romans 11, Paul says that God acted para-phusin. So is God sinful then? Also, Paul uses para-phusin to talk about a man with long hair. So should we allow long haired priests?
The context of Romans 1 is idolatry and the fact that no one can judge one another. If anything Romans 1 would just be against idolatrous homosexual sex.
The other two passages are 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy: the word under scrutiny here is ἀρσενοκοῖται which is a word that Paul created in 55 AD. There is no history of the word before that and therefore it is very difficult to argue that we know exactly what Paul is talking about. Most scholars think that it is referring to some sort of same-sex child molestation, or temple prostitution. Or perhaps orgies of some kind. The word appears in a list of vices that seem to reflect general concerns of Hellenistic Jews about the deplorable state of Greek society. Other scholars argue that it most likely refers to some kind of economic exploitation, like rape or sex by economic coercion, prostitution, or pimping...
Anyway, when one actually reads the greek and hebrew in context, there is not much scriptural mention of homosexuality, and surely no prohibition of monogamous homosexual relationships.
In the old testament when it is mentioned it is only called a toevah (abomination), but that word simply means that it makes a person ritually unclean. When paul mentions it in romans the worst he says is that it is para-phusin (contrary to nature). He doesn't use the words he normally uses for sin (amartia, anomia, adikia, asebia).[/quote]

[quote]I am saying that Paul did not know about monogamous homosexual relationships or the scientific category of homosexuality. My argument is that ἀρσενοκοῖται doesn't mean homosexuality.Jude 7 doesn't say anything about homosexuality. "Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."
Sodom and gomorrah isn't about homosexuality either. It's about men who tried to rape the servants of the lord.
"I do not understand a "natural" argument for homosexuality. We know men and women are by design put together to produce children. That is the natural law. We know by design we should not have sex with animals because it is unnatural. We know that homosexuality does not create a family or produce children and is unnatural. Why would this not be considered a sin? "
You are presupposing that the only point of sex is procreation.
Why does it feel good to have anal sex? Isn't that natural? Why are people born gay? Isn't that natural? You have obviously not paid attention to any gay person, nor any scientific findings about gay people.
This is my point, the official Roman Catholic stance is based on what seems to be misunderstandings of scripture and tradition and a misunderstanding of current scientific and psychological findings. Also a misunderstanding of what a gay and lesbian person actually is.[/quote]

The exegesis is interesting here. What say you?

[OraProMe]

Leaving theological argument aside, it is a historical fact that "homosexuality" in Greek society is what we'd now term pederasty and child abuse. Arabs had a similar affection for the beauty of young, often pre-pubescent, boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece

Edited October 20, 2009 by OraProMe

[N/A Gone]

You need to give me something other than wikipedia.

And the argument could be made that they mean taking advantage of young boys, not two adults. Which would mean Paul and others are speaking against the sexual abuse of young men, not the consensual adult homosexuality.

[N/A Gone]

More...
[quote]
I have tons of gay friends who tried for years to fight their homosexuality because their faith is so important to them. They went through "Ex-gay" ministries for five years and wore rubber bands and snapped their wrists when they would be attracted to a guy. But now they are out and are serving God in different ministries in the church. They are living holy gay lives. Some of them are in committed relationships they are open to life, to the social procreation of adoption. They strive to honor God with their unitive relationship.

Tell me what about a monogamous homosexual relationship is sinful? how is that a perversion of sex? narrate it for me. Are you basing it on obscure passages in scripture? or obscure passages from the church fathers?
You cannot see it because you presuppose that the only reason for sex is procreation. The reason for sex is to discover God's grace in each other and each other's body. Yes children are important, but there are plenty of children. There are so many children that many of them live in orphanages or on the street or are killed, aborted, or left in dumpsters. Being open to life is important for sex, but homosexuals are open to life.
Not everything has to have such a utilitarian purpose. You are doing a great disservice to humanity and to sex by reducing it to Man+ Woman = Baby...
yes, they create a baby, but they also discover each other and themselves, they are drawn closer to god. They are sanctified through sex.
Man +Man & Woman +Woman = a way into God and a committed God honoring relationship that is willing to adopt or have surrogate children.
Your theology of sex is largely deficient. [/quote]

[StColette]

Rev, do you know which verse they are saying has para phusin in it in Romans 11? I'm looking through my Greek lexicon and there are several that use para but I can't find one that uses para phusin.

think I found the verse

Romans 11:24 uses para phusin


From my understanding, Romans 11:24 isn't saying that God is acting contrary to nature. Romans 11:24 is talking about the Israelites and the Gentiles. It's speaking about how naturally the Jews belong to the Lord, and the Gentiles do not naturally belong to the Lord but have been given the opportunity to be "grafted" into belonging to the Lord.

[N/A Gone]

NVM you found it.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Revprodeji

[N/A Gone]

wow, awesome. I ask a question and someone thought they should come give me -1 remarks on both of my posts. Thanks. Awesome that you did not add anything of value and just thought about devaluing instead.

I AM ASKING NOT ARGUING

[StColette]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='20 October 2009 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1256084906' post='1988716']
wow, awesome. I ask a question and someone thought they should come give me -1 remarks on both of my posts. Thanks. Awesome that you did not add anything of value and just thought about devaluing instead.

I AM ASKING NOT ARGUING
[/quote]

Fixed

[CatherineM]

I couldn't figure that out either. I fixed it for you. It's silly to give someone a negative for quoting someone else and asking for our opinions on the quote.

[N/A Gone]

Yea. I am a faithful Catholic asking a question. Strange that someone (I assume two people) would do that. I could actually buy into his arguments, other then the Church in the CCC says it is wrong. So I would have a serious separation. Thus my assumption is to trust the Church. Does she speak about Homosexuality anywhere else? How would someone answer these objections?

[StColette]

I know I keep adding stuff but... lol I thought this commentary on Rm 11:24 was interesting

Contrary to nature — For according to nature, we graft the fruitful branch into the wild stock; but here the wild branch is grafted into the fruitful stock. (Wesley's Commentary)

Verse 24. The olive tree, which is wild by nature] Which is kata fusin, naturally, wild and barren; for that the wild olive bore no fruit is sufficiently evident from the testimony of the authors who have written on the subject; hence the proverb, akarpoterov agrippou? more unfruitful than the wild olive. lakwnev gar agrian elaian agippon kalousi? for the Lacedemonians term the wild olive agrippon. See SUIDAS. And hence HESYCHIUS interprets agrielaiov, the wild olive, (the word used here by St. Paul,) by akarpov, unfruitful: and the reason given in DIOGen. Proverb. Cent. ii. n. 63, is futon gar estin o agrippov akarpon? for the wild olive is an unfruitful tree. On this account the apostle very properly says: Thou wert cut, ek thv kata fusin agrielaiou, out of that olive which is uncultivated, because it is barren: the kata fusin does not refer here to its being naturally barren; but to its being commonly or customarily permitted to remain so. And that this is the import of the phrase here is evident from the next clause of the verse.

[b]And wert grafted contrary to nature] para fusin, contrary to all custom; for a scion taken from a barren or useless tree is scarcely ever known to be grafted into a good stock; but here the Gentiles, a fruitless and sinful race, are grafted on the ancient patriarchal stock.[/b] Now, if it was possible to effect such a change in the state and disposition of the Gentiles, who were aqeoi en tw kosmw, Eph. ii. 12, without God, ATHEISTS, in the world; how much more possible is it, speaking after the manner of men, to bring about a similar change in the Jews, who acknowledge the one, only, and true God, and receive the law and the prophets as a revelation from him. This seems to be the drift of the apostle's argument.

(Adam Clarke's Commentary)

God overruled their unbelief for making the Gentiles partakers of gospel privileges.

The gospel is the greatest riches of every place where it is. As therefore the righteous rejection of the unbelieving Jews, was the occasion of so large a multitude of the Gentiles being reconciled to God, and at peace with him; the future receiving of the Jews into the church would be such a change, as would resemble a general resurrection of the dead in sin to a life of righteousness. Abraham was as the root of the church. The Jews continued branches of this tree till, as a nation,

they rejected the Messiah; after that, their relation to Abraham and to God was, as it were, cut off. The Gentiles were grafted into this tree in their room; being admitted into the church of God. Multitudes were made heirs of Abraham's faith, holiness and blessedness. It is the natural state of every one of us, to be wild by nature. Conversion is as the grafting in of wild branches into the good olive. The wild olive was often ingrafted into the fruitful one when it began to decay, and this

not only brought forth fruit, but caused the decaying olive to revive and flourish. The Gentiles, of free grace, had been grafted in to share advantages. They ought therefore to beware of self-confidence, and every kind of pride or ambition; lest, having only a dead faith, and an empty profession, they should turn from God, and forfeit their privileges. If we stand at all, it is by faith; we are guilty and helpless in ourselves, and are to be humble, watchful, afraid of self-deception, or of

being overcome by temptation. Not only are we at first justified by faith, but kept to the end in that justified state by faith only; yet, by a faith which is not alone, but which worketh by love to God and man. (Ro 11:22-32)

(Matthew Henry's Commentary)

[N/A Gone]

Interesting. I looked at a commentary I trust also (I have the anchor one).

How do we apply that to this issue?

[N/A Gone]

(Catherine when did you become a scholar..awesome!!!)

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='20 October 2009 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1256086052' post='1988724']
(Catherine when did you become a scholar..awesome!!!)
[/quote]
They did that because I was bored. They were attempting to keep me busy so I wouldn't start acting out.

[CatherineM]

I liked what John Paul had to say about the subject:

[quote]Vatican January 25, 1999 (LSN), Last Thursday, John Paul II addressed officials and lawyers from the Tribunal of the Roman Rota on the occasion of the opening of the judical year. He took the opportunity to speak about the incongruity of homosexuality. After noting that the only appropriate form of conjugal union comes within marriage, the pope said, "one sees the incongruity of pretending to give conjugal dimensions to the union between persons of the same sex."

"Such union is to be opposed," he continued, "above all because of the objective impossibility of being fruitful in the transmission of life, according to the plan inscribed by God in the very structure of the human being." John Paul also noted that among persons of the same sex "there is an absence of those interpersonal complementary dimensions which the Creator willed, both on the physical and biological level, as well as in the eminently psychological plan, between man and woman."

To those who would appeal to human freedom to justify homosexuality the pope said, "To think of liberty as a moral permissiveness or the ability to infringe the law, is to twist its true nature." "Liberty, in fact, consists in the ability of the human being to acknowledge he is responsible in other words, that as an individual he can choose to do the will of God as expressed in the law, bringing himself ever closer to be the image of his creator.[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='20 October 2009 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1256080970' post='1988669']
With the current Anglican/Catholic news I have been having a discussion with a Liberal Anglo-Catholic friend of mine. One of the issues of separation we came on was full acceptance of LGBT people. That gay and lesbian monogamous relationships are not sinful.

Here is more of what he wrote in defense of this idea.




The exegesis is interesting here. What say you?
[/quote]
I would not dignify such propagandistic tripe with the term "exegesis."

[quote]24 Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 [b]For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.[/b] 28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient. 29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers, 30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. 32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.[/quote](Romans 1:24-36)

Romans 1 makes it quite clear that the issue is specifically unnatural lust of both men for men and women for women, and the committing of homosexual acts.
There is nothing there (or in the other passages) about temple prostitution, economic exploitation, child abuse, etc., etc.
Nor is this passage solely about idolatry, as a number of other sins are mentioned: envy, murder, contention, fornication, etc.

Nowhere is any exception made for "monogamous relationships."

It's also unlikely, as is also claimed, that people in biblical times were unaware of of "loving" homosexual "relationships." The same sexual sins existed in biblical times as exist now, and have existed through history. What was wrong and sinful then is wrong and sinful now: homosexual sins, fornication, adultery, etc. And using the justification that homosexual sodomy is "pleasurable" is nonsense - more of the old "if it feels good, do it" croutons. Fornication and adultery may be pleasurable, but they are condemned as sinful in the Bible also.

These pro-gay "interpretations" are present-day inventions made with the specific purpose of trying to justify homosexual behavior. Seems they will try to find every sort of way to twist the text to claim that the Bible does not say what it clearly says regarding this sin.

You should also note that the Church has [i]always[/i] interpreted these passages as being against homosexuality, from the early Fathers onward, and has always taught that homosexual activity is a grievous sin.
It would be the height of absurdity to think that the Church has consistently misinterpreted these passages of Scripture, and has been wrong in her teaching on this matter for two millenia, until finally, in the 21st century, people finally got it right. Such interpretations were not made until a couple decades ago, when the push for acceptance of homosexuality began.

These "interpretations" are not even convincing from an unbiased stand-point, but are desperate attempts to twist the text to be politically-correct and justify perverted behavior.
Moral truth is not politically-correct, and does not "change with the times."

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='20 October 2009 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1256082897' post='1988694']

And the argument could be made that they mean taking advantage of young boys, not two adults. Which would mean Paul and others are speaking against the sexual abuse of young men, not the consensual adult homosexuality.
[/quote]

I am not disagreeing with your anglo-Catholic friend

[OraProMe]

I'm not going to mention what the Church teaches because I know as well as you do what the Catechism says, but:

[quote name='Socrates' date='20 October 2009 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1256088695' post='1988742']
It's also unlikely, as is also claimed, that people in biblical times were unaware of of "loving" homosexual "relationships." [/quote]

What makes you say that? How many loving and monogamous homosexual relationships do you think there were 2000 years (and further back in the OT) ago? Infact you said yourself that the bible doesn't mention monogomous homosexuals. That could be because the author made no distinction or, looking at all texts from the period, because the author didn't know about them.

Edited October 21, 2009 by OraProMe

[philothea]

AFAIK, homosexuality was considered no big deal in either Rome or Greece until Christianity became the dominant religion. (Okay, there was some social stigma based on a person's, ah, "position" in the relationship, but it was an issue of status rather than morals.)

Since early Christians wiped out societal acceptance of all homosexual behavior -- and no one denies this -- clearly they believed it was wrong. While we might not have a lot of corroborating translations of certain specific words in New Testament letters, there is no reason to think that Christianity has ever historically accepted homosexual relations.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='philothea' date='20 October 2009 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1256100651' post='1988869']
Since early Christians wiped out societal acceptance of all homosexual behavior -- and no one denies this -- clearly they believed it was wrong. While we might not have a lot of corroborating translations of certain specific words in New Testament letters, there is no reason to think that Christianity has ever historically accepted homosexual relations.
[/quote]
That's a good point. I was explaining to my apologetics class that the church doesn't make formal pronouncements on issues until there is a disagreement or some kind of heresy. When studying the history of an issue, we often have to look at the actions of the church rather than the documents.