I love weekday morning Mass at my church. It is personal, loving, and closer to what I think the Masses must have been like for the early Christians.
Only people who really need to come to Mass come to 8am; and we greet one another like old pals walking into the neighborhood bar. We know we are home, and we are all accepted and welcome. Our priests sing a cappella, and petitions are called out from the crowd. Sometimes that day’s altar server comes from the crowd, too.
We know we are all sinners, and that we are helping each other.
I know that all sorts of sins are represented at our Masses. There are past (and maybe current) adulterers, divorced and remarried couples, men and women with same sex attraction who are probably acting upon it, loquacious institutions of gossip, those who have had (or are currently having) sexual relations outside of marriage, users of artificial contraceptives, liars, and much more
Many of those sins, past and present, are sitting right in my seat.
I know that we are all trying to march toward heaven. With God’s grace, hopefully we will make it, but only because Jesus will carry our sins for us and lighten our loads. Still, we keep marching.
I thought about this when it was announced that a group which identifies itself as “gay” will be marching in the New York City St. Patrick’s Day parade. Here, it seems to me, is a group of people who are choosing to march under the banner of one feature of their personhood. It‘s as if left-handers, or twins, or people with cleft chins, or blue-eyed people all marched under their one atypical attribute.
For my generation, it seems odd and really quite silly. Most “gay” people I know don’t march in Pride parades, or publicly “come out,” or seek to get married. They just live their lives quietly. Some live alone. Some live with a person they love. But they all understand that their sexuality is only one part of what makes them a full person, and that there are many other parts of themselves which link them with every other human being on the planet.
They are all sinners, just like me. No more, no less.
I am not proud to be a sinner. But I am very thankful to be part of a Church in which all sinners are welcome. We all know what sin is, and our Church will always proclaim those truths, thank God. But our job is to love, and to help each other on the march toward Heaven.
98 thoughts on “The Sinner Marching Next to Me”
A very good video on the subject.
http://everlastinghills.org/movie/
Thank you for your posts in support, Marc.
Wonderful article Cynthia. This is very encouraging.
Thank you.
We must continue to stand up for the eternal truths of our faith with love and mercy.
Amen!
This is a false comparison. Being in the parade is not like sitting next to another sinner at Mass in a church dedicated to a saint and with Heaven as your goal; it is like sitting next to another sinner on a bus from San Francisco to Las Vegas, and the bus is driven by an archbishop who can apparently think of nothing better to do with his time.
Pingback: Islamist Kidnap Young Girls for Sex Slavery - BigPulpit.com
Humans can engage in “disordered” sex in the same way they can engage in “disordered” eating (eating and vomiting; eating gluttonously, etc.). It is does not fulfill the purpose for which it was
intended.
I would like to tweak this a bit to reflect a relativity; the way looking into a full length mirror reflects
the personal form / person much different than one that reflects from the chest up. Taking another sense, say hearing, it can be shown that two people listening to the same composition come away with equal but opposite reactions. One hundred years ago the Victorian’s who attended the opening performances of Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring, were so appalled by the score, he was run off the stage and out of Paris because the music suggested, sex. Today it evokes no such scandal and is seen
for the fine innovation in atonal style it debuted. Take eating, as you so adequately exampled. For almost one out of four persons on earth your (assumed) diet of eating flesh is as repulsive and
sinful to others as you would be of ie: gluttony or binging. Your diet is considered disordered. In Genesis, God laid out a diet that did not include flesh. Some religions, older than Christianity still adhere to the concept and consider out diet “disordered” Whose to say ? Who are we to judge ?
In this inconceivable universe, there are and most likely will be found, civilizations that have evolved beyond our limited understanding of intimacy, that sex is more than just a baby making process, that flour can only be used in more ways than to bake bread. I have no problem with people living in the age they find themselves but bridle at the thought that our blip of history as homo sapiens has some convinced that all the wonders and purpose of these bodies our souls inhabit has been revealed.
Very interesting…when you speak of being with sinners, I would agree that we all sin, but we do not all subscribe to the same definitions of sin. There are Roman Catholic sinners and other sinners. I would never consider a person who follows their conscience and uses contraception a sinner, I would not consider gay person in a committed relationship a sinner, I would not consider a person who doesn’t tithe a sinner. In another vein, I would consider one who does not give to the poor, who does not provide shelter to the homeless, who does not actively comfort the afflicted, disabled, widowed, who does not comfort those in prisons, nursing homes and institutions a big simmer. It was for the latter group that Jesus came…not for 99 righteous….
Gays are part of the parade and in other parades because they need to demonstrate a solidarity withh people who disenfranchise them who consider them “innate;y disordered” who deny them their civil rights. They march for the same reason as do wounded warriors, Vietnam vets, etc. No one discriminates against ble eyed people, those with a cleft in their chin….etc. They are not the forgotten children of God.
Hi Phil,
I am a Roman Catholic and I happily follow the teachings of my Church, not only because I believe it is the one, true Church based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ, but because, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught, it combines faith with reason. All of the teachings make sense.
Same sex attraction is naturally disordered because you can’t have procreative sex with a member of your same gender. The purpose of sex is to make babies, just as the purpose of eating is to nourish your body. Humans can engage in “disordered” sex in the same way they can engage in “disordered” eating (eating and vomiting; eating gluttonously, etc.). It is does not fulfill the purpose for which it was intended.
You can disagree, and I respect that. But that is what I believe is true.
Thanks for writing.
Cindy
Same sex attraction is naturally disordered because you can’t have procreative sex with a member of your same gender. The purpose of sex is to make babies, just as the purpose of eating is to nourish your body.
A statement like this is hate speech. It serves no purpose but to incite a strong reaction (and rightfully so) from same sex couples seeking to make the ultimate commitment to one another. Those who talk like this don’t know the harm they are doing or know and don’t care.
Bill,
Give some facts to follow up your argument. You are merely calling me and my argument names. I don’t hate anyone. I am merely noting what the process of sexual intercourse was designed to do.
Your worldview, which is based largely on what you have been told by the Catholic Church, is that we are supposed to function according to some sort of “design” by a deity. Sex is “designed” for procreation and that is the only reason it has been made so enjoyable. In reality, we humans do not have to use things in a manner and a purpose for which they have been “designed”. We are perfectly free to engage in sex merely for the enjoyment of it and can override what you see as its design through contraception or homosexual acts. As terrible as this may seem to you, it is a reality that you cannot accept because you have been totally brainwashed to think that we must act according to a divine will when that is not the case at all. When you try to tell people who practice contraception or homosexuality that their behavior is disordered and not serving its intended purpose, you are way out of line and what you say to them can be construed as hate speech and discrimination. You are exercising anti-social behavior and someone must stop or discourage you from continuing this behavior. And it is not just you but all misguided moralists.
Bill,
Though I love the teachings of the Catholic Church, and believe them to be true, I have also used my reason to come to the same conclusion about these truths.
Perhaps you ought to write in to another website which does not cause you so much irritation.
Have a good evening.
I hope that what I said resonates with you at some level. Catholic attitudes toward homosexuality are in serious need of a major modification. The rest of the world gets it.
I hope none of it does. All your arguments are plain absurd and I would hate to think that someone as reasonable as Cynthia should somehow resonate with such absurdities.
No it doesn’t. Never has. Never will.
It is the world that needs some serious transformation – from following the lie to finally walk towards the truth.
On the contrary, the rest of the world does not get it. And that is the sad fact. That is why the world need people like Cynthia who stand up for the truth.
That is why the world need people like Cynthia who stand up for the truth.
Your truth. To stand up for WHAT YOU THINK IS THE TRUTH. Your truth is the truth to you because it is what the Catholic Church says is the truth. All of your arguments are made on that premise. All of your arguments are made in a way that does not conflict with what the Catholic Church says is true. You are stuck believing that the Catholic Church is always right. That is a dysfunctional worldview.
No my dear. Either there is objective truth or everything is just a matter of the flavour of the month.
If I were an atheist and perceive you to be what you would be precisely if there is indeed no God, i.e. nothing more than a higher version of the Ebola Virus, why, if I perceive that to be truth and I have the might and power, I will have you exterminated and that would just be all okay.
The absurdity of your position is one moment you are arguing from the atheistic position of variable truths and the next thing you are indignant and call foul because someone else has claimed a diferent view to your own.
Whether you like it or not, you are living the utter stupidity of your world view and you are too dumb to see it.
This has just come down to you calling me dumb and stupid and me calling you a quack. I don’t like being dragged down to your level.
Delusional as usual to think that you are in some elevated level. Considering that you lie too much (to yourself and to people here) that puts you in the bottom level.
I have shown the stupidity of your post. If you can substantiate your statement that I am a quack, well then by all means present them here. Sure though that I don’t need to hold my breath for that.
You have not shown the stupidity of my post. You have shown what a quack you are.
Oh yes, I have. Plenty of times. You have even acknowledged them with your initial horror.
In the meantime, I am still waiting for you to explain why you think I am a quack. Must say Peking Duck is quite delicious 🙂
Tragic? It isn’t always or necessarily, and it wouldn’t be if we as a culture weren’t so intent on punishing girls for keeping their children.
This is why doctors can’t allow themselves to be influenced by people like you. First, if they know that a girl is sexually active, they should advise the use of condoms or prescribe contraceptives regardless of anyone’s religious beliefs. Second, if a girl has sex and wants to avoid pregnancy by taking a morning after pill, no one’s religious beliefs should affect that decision. And third, if she gets pregnant and chooses to have an abortion, no one’s religious beliefs should affect that decision either.
Now, if you want to discuss how a girl can be raised in a loving family and taught the importance of being responsible and not having premarital sex or about the potential health effects of oral contraceptives, that is worthy of consideration. But I sympathize with doctors who have to deal with religious beliefs of parents that put them at conflict with what they know they should do as health professionals.
Indeed, we don’t because we have free will. But nonetheless, it shows that we are using it for something other than what it was designed to do. That is why it is DISORDERED.
And no one is stopping you. But the question is NOT whether you can or can’t, but whether it is right or wrong.
But as we discussed in another thread, if there is no God, then indeed there is no right wrong. So someone could really use your body and experiment on it while you are fully conscious (sans anaesthetic) and that would be all par for the course, because there is after all no right or wrong.
Hardly, considering you are the hypocrite atheist who when it suits you will invoke a morality that is not supported by your world view. Suppose a man took a liking to you and proceeded to sodomize you. Because he is much stronger than you, he can. Well, you really can’t complain can you. I mean after all, he is merely using a part of your body according to how he wants to use it.
Firstly, IT IS disordered. That much we know is true. Even those who practice sodomy know that it is disordered but they have succeded on rationalizing it so they continue with it.
Our telling them that it is so, serves the purpose of perhaps jarring the thin veener of certainty about the evil that they are doing in the hope that they will change course and follow the truth.
Anti-social behaviour? You should see the vile behaviour of homosexuals who abuse, spit, and do violence to those who are peaceably making a stand for the natural family. The homosexual mob are bullies.
When they run out of arguments (as they must do because their arguments are all irrational – just like yours), they will turn to calling you a bigot. They do this to detract from the fact that they no longer have rational arguments to support their disordered lifestyle.
Yet another stupid comment.
If I were to say that paedophilia is disordered, would that be hate speech because it would incite strong reactions from paedophiles.
Or how about abortion? If I said that abortion is heinous,would that be hate speech because it would cause a strong reaction against those who advocate for and those who have killed their own children?
Quite the contrary. Those who talk like this DO KNOW the good they are doing. They know that as uncomfortable as the truth may be, they have to speak the Truth because anything else will be an obeisance to the father of lies. People who speak like this know what is true and HAVE THE COURAGE to speak the truth even though they know THAT THEY WILL BE BULLIED INTO SILENCE BY THE GAY LOBBY.
If I were to say that paedophilia is disordered, would that be hate speech because it would incite strong reactions from paedophiles
They are not protected by anti discrimination laws the way homosexuals are. If you kill a pedophile, you are not tried for a hate crime. If you kill a homosexual, you are. Language insulting to pedophiles is not hate speech. Insulting homosexuals is hate speech.
Language insulting to homosexuals? Who determines what is insulting? Since when has truth been insulting?
Truth is only insulting if you are mired in lies. If you are following the father of lies.
So No, to say that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered is not insulting and merely a statement of truth. But you have no interest in the truth because the father of lies has got you precisely where he wants you. And at the moment, you are remaining there of your own free will.
There is no “father of lies”. That character was made up by people spinning their own lies and calling those who don’t buy their lies liars.
Like I said, he’s really got you firmly roped in.
If anyone could be called “the Father of Lies” it is Jesus for teaching about heaven and hell, eternal life, his return, etc. Those are lies.
Let me get this straight, you are saying that Jesus is the devil?
Because my dear, that is essentially what you just said except that as usual you are too dumb to connect the dots.
And illustrates further who far into the father of lies’s domain you have wandered.
Yep, you are deep into his pit.
They know that as uncomfortable as the truth may be, they have to speak the Truth because anything else will be an obeisance to the father of lies.
This is your dysfunctional worldview out of control. THE FATHER OF LIES? Saying homosexuality is not disordered is obeisance to THE FATHER OF LIES? Grow up.
Hey what are you upset about? Are you not an atheist? Why would you even believe in the father of lies. You really are pathetic. You can’t even make up your mind what you believe.
And yes, to say that homosexuality is not disordered is obeisance to the FATHER OF LIES. That is what he wants you to believe and you are going along just fine. He’s got you well and truly where it hurts.
See my comment about there not being any “father of lies”. The lie is that such a being exists.
And that is exactly what he wants you to believe and what he wants you to say. I reckon he’s patting you in the back right now for being such an obedient mouthpiece. Keep talking.
You are using an imaginary being (the Father of Lies) to try to scare me into believing the lies that you believe from the Bible.
Scare you? Why would it scare you. You don’t even believe in the devil. Which just shows how successful he has been with you.
What you refer to as the “GAY LOBBY” is just the rest of the world not saddled with your dysfunctional worldview. The normal people.
Now you are completely delusional (though I doubt whether there was a time that you were not).
Let me be blunt here. since when has sodomy been normal? Do you really think that such an act (just imagine the excretory functions of the last part in the digestive process and what sodomites do with it). Do you really think that is normal? Would you be pleased if that were done to you? Would that be just A-Okay, blissfully, normal?
Do you know how depraved practicing homosexuals are? If not,I suggest you read Strained Relations: Challenge of Homosexuality.
And yes, the Gay Lobby are bullies. BIG TIME BULLIES. They play out perfectly the dictates of atheism. As I said before, in the sick world of atheism that is normal.
The only dysfunctional world view is yours. In fact, you know it is dysfunctional. You were completely revolted by it until you realized it was your world view. But rather than admit that it is revolting, you decided to embrace it even more. As I said before, you are like a man who is naturally revolted by the idea of eating poo, but then proceeded to eat it anyway.
Believing atheism is like eating poo. Got it. Really mature.
Bill,
Let’s use another analogy (although I agree with everything MarcAlcan has said.).
Let’s say a person has always been heavy from childhood (genetics plus bad eating habits formed by Mom/Dad or whatever) and continues to grow more and more obese. That obesity is “normal” for that person, but it is intrinsically disordered. We all can agree that morbid obesity causes a wide variety of health problems and early death.
A few years back (and I think it still might exist), there was a movement in the U.S. that basically said that being heavy (not just a little, but a lot) was fine and “we are proud to be fat” and that in fact, obese persons were discriminated against in job hiring. Furthermore, the airlines were wrong to require them to buy two seats, and fashion designers needed to make larger clothes, etc. I am paraphrasing here, but you get the idea. This group basically wanted everyone to agree that being obese was OK, and while everyone agreed that obese people should not be discriminated against, most people thought, “Wait—-this is really not facing the truth of the matter. Being obese is NOT ok. It will kill you. And if we really care, we will be honest and we will say NO, it is not good to be obese. You should lose weight.” Of course, that is a hard thing to say.
People with same sex attraction make up between 3-5% of the population according to a wide range of studies. Of course, that is self-reporting and that varies from place to place. But it is agree that the highest number may be around 7% . Nearly 50% of our population is obese, with over 30% morbidly so. Yet I think we can all agree that being morbidly obese is “disordered” in the sense that it is not natural. It does not mean that obese people are evil or bad or sinful. It’s just not natural to live that way.
(And I deeply apologize to anyone with a weight problem out there who I may have offended. I know it’s a hard battle that I have fought myself.)
I’m sure you and your ilk see that as a perfectly appropriate analogy. It isn’t.
No intelligent comeback to Cynthia’s very intelligent and clear post?
I said to you before that I don’t think you’re stupid but that your atheism is making you stupid.
But I have had a re-think because this may be a case of the chicken and the egg.
Is it that atheism is stupid so it’s adherents become stupid by osmosis?
Or is it that atheists are stupid and thus adhere to a stupid system?
If you ask me, the atheists are the ones who are smart enough to recognize myths about gods for what they are, myths.
You are totally hilarious. You were revolted when you saw atheism and all its consequences in full display and you call yourself smart for believing that excrement is good? You are a total sick wacko.
You’re like someone who stepped into the gas chambers of Auschwitz, and seeing all the bones and smelling the stench of rotting bodies, was totally revolted and revolted to the point of puking; then concludes that Hitler got it right.
Like I said, the father of lies has got you firmly in his grip.
Think what you want. I know I am right and you are wrong. No doubt in my mind. You’re an obnoxious religious fanatic and I am tired of arguing with you and putting up with your rudeness. Find someone else to torment.
You KNOW you are right? But hey, if atheism is true, you have no way of KNOWING anything at all. LOL.
I can’t torment you. How do you torment a mere soup of chemical reactions? That’s all you are according to your world view.
The only “obnoxious religious fanatic” I have seen on every post I’ve just looked at is the one who comes on a Catholic board (and not just this one) and starts ridiculing the Catholic faithful. Over and over and over…. What’s the deal, Bill S.? From here, it looks like a pitiful cry for help.
Instead of spending hours a day trying to drag others into your atheistic pit of despair, you should find a chapel and fall on your knees before the Blessed Sacrament and ask Him to intercede for you with the Father for the gift of faith.
He took on your sins through His precious (type AB, the Universal Recipient*) blood, which He shed for you. Let it wash over you and wash away your bitterness.
*See the Comparative Study of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin, and the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
Deo gratias!
Pam,
My comments might not be suitable for you to read. There are those who debate what I say and I value their feedback. Don’t read my comments if they are going to upset you.
Amen.
And while morbid obesity has no moral implications (except where this is a case of gluttony or sloth), active homosexuality has.
Hmmm, it took you this long to be sufficiently indignant about that analogy?
By the way, it is like eating poo. And you had no problem with that analogy the few times I posted it before because even you were revolted by the portrayal of your own world view. Yes Bill, you were revolted. Poo is quite a mild term to describe atheism.
If gods are imaginary, atheism is true. Gods are imaginary. Not a single one of them real.
gods are imaginary, GOD isn’t. And even YOU KNOW THAT. You just like wallowing in the poo that is atheism that is why you are unable to connect the dots. Which makes you a very sad case indeed.
It is interesting to read about “you”. It is all about what “you” consider to be a sin or not. God seems out of the equation. Yet, it is God who defines what sin is; so, leaving Him out of the equation is crazy! Homosexuality is a clear disorder biologically speaking. Denying the obvious is something that people of the 20th and 21st century are very prone to do. But, even without going there, it is absurd for any human being to define himself/herself by a sexual orientation…It is terribly reductionist. As for Jesus, He did come for the sinners, all sinners, which included the “self-righteous”. The problem is that the “self-righteous” rejected Jesus. The “other” sinners accepted Jesus, meaning they RECOGNIZED their sins and REPENTED FROM THEM. If they had pridefully PARADED their sins about, they would have automatically turned into the “self-righteous”: those who think they are doing the right thing when they are actually sinning.
“Homosexuality is a clear disorder biologically speaking.” The American Psychological Assn., the American Psychiatric Assn and the American Medical Association have declassified homosexuality as a biological disorder. Jesus, if it was as an issue for him, never spoke about gays. The phobia about homosexuality if found in the NT in the Pauline letters. Paul was a Jew and trained as a Pharisee and not fond of woman…He pulls his beliefs about homosexuality from Leviticus which nobody except ultra-orthodox Jews follow. Please cite contemporary sources that validate your assertion that homosexuality is a biological disorder. Remember P Franicis, “Who am I to judge?” :A clear disorder biologically speaking is a judgement that he is not making…
It is important to read Scripture in the context of Jesus teaching 1st century Jews and how those Jews were hearing the message, Always remember that a biblical text without a context is a simple pretext for having it mean what we want it to mean. Jesus and his message were for the poor.
Phil
You take Pope Francis’ words out of context. He made that statement after a reporter asked him whether a man with same sex attraction who feels called to the priesthood could be a priest in reference to the “gay lobby.” That is when he replied, “whom am I to judge?” So he was speaking about a man with same sex attraction maintaining the vow of celibacy and being a good priest. He was NOT speaking about homosexual activity.
Your are right about this particular context..the point I want to make is that homosexuality is not a disordered biological condition and the POPE knows this because most priests are gay and if this was truly a disorder they would not be in the priesthood…as much as anyone who does not meet criteria of psychological or biological health is not admitted to ordination.
“The notion that many Catholic priests are quietly gay is not new. In the 2000 book “The Changing Face of the Priesthood,” Rev. Donald B. Cozzens suggested that the priesthood was increasingly becoming a gay profession. Cozzens estimated that as much as 58 percent of priests were gay, and that percentages were even higher for younger priests. His numbers matched previous estimates by sociologists who put the numbers of gay priests between 10 and 60 percent.
Father Gary Meier, a gay, St. Louis-based Catholic clergymen, says there’s a wide range of statistics out there on gay priests, but jokes that in his experience, “30 percent are gay, 30 percent are straight, and 30 percent are in denial.” US News & World, September 26, 2013
And they are not celibate either: “Celibacy in Crisis,” by A.W. Richard Sipe.. Richard Sipe was a monk of 18 years and a priest for 11, most noted therapist for priests and researcher
“Sipe writes in his new book, “I estimate that at any one time 50 percent of priests are practicing celibacy”. He makes these shocking estimates: “Thirty percent of priests are involved in heterosexual relationships, associations, experimentation or patterns of behavior. Fifteen percent of priests are involved with homosexual relationships…Six percent of priests involve themselves with minors.”
If it’s disordered condition and so sinful, I ask why is it the norm for the priesthood and accepted as so quite silently. I think the Pope was alluding to more than the “gay lobby” which another topic and vast underworld. Gays are among us, love and remember Jesus said nothing about these brothers and sisters of ours…not a disorder just a human evolutionary variation and all of God’s creation is good.
Phil
You use anecdotal and very questionable statements to support your claim.
I don’t doubt that priests are sinners as is Pope Francis, by his own admission. But that doesn’t make sin any less a sin.
Bravo!
Too right!
Richard Sipe also believes that hundreds of Popes were murdered.
If I recall correctly Cozzens actually said 30 to 50 percent, and it depends on where you are. This happened because gays gained control in some seminaries and turned away faithful Catholics who tried to become priests. And what major crisis affected the church after so many priests started being gay?
Fred….Sipe, Cozzens, Doyle (canon layer) are among the most widely respected researchers on abuse, celibacy and the clergy…no one refuted their findings.
I am not sure which crises you refer to: pedophilia, ephebophilia, lack of celebacy, abuse of indigenous natives in Canada, trhe Magdeken laundries in Ireland, abuse of people of First Nations? If you refer to pedophila, read the psychiatric research….Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however” (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143),and suffer from adolescent development sexually and preyed on the innocent using power.Seminaries segregated young men from women,,,hence arrested development. Please get you facts straight.
Richard Sipe was quoted (in part) as saying that “several hundred popes have been murdered.”[ Several hundred is not three…here is a PARTIAL list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_murdered_popes
Majority of the cases of abuse (around 85%) is ephebophilia. So it is obviously a homosexual problem.
Read the website again, Dzialo!! It’s SEVERAL popes, NOT”hundreds”…What is wrong with you???
We need to remember too that majority of the sexual abuse crisis in the Church is homosexual in nature.
Dial it back a notch, fredx2. On the website link, it was speculated, with some evidence for some, that SEVERAL popes were murdered, NOT hundreds. I mean seriously, dude!! You have GOT to pay more attention to what you post!
Being gay is not a sin. It is the practice that is a sin. A homosexual priest is supposed to be celibate as is a heterosexual priest.
We all know what the orthodox position has been…what’s your point?
Because after Vatican II the winds of dissent swept through the Church. The seminaries became corrupt and you have rectors and bishops who were homosexuals. So because of this “lavender Maffia”, they were able to perpetuate this depravity in the Church.
This is why one of the first steps taken by Pope Benedict was to bar homosexuals from the seminary.
While I get what you think you’re saying Phil, but you would do well to remember that Our Saviour was, and is, the great I Am of Holy Writ, so all He said then, He says now; while we may no longer be liable for the ceremonies, rites, and rituals of the Mosaic Law (as Gentiles, we weren’t anyway) for righteousness, obeying Almighty God hasn’t suddenly become optional in Christ.What was clearly delineated as sin under the Law is still sin under Christ; THAT has not changed except for Our Saviour’s Blood being the price paid for said sins, and His Resurrection being the power to free us from same.
Fine, just where does Jesus ever speak of homosexuality,,,either as a sin or not? He did say: Matt 19:12
“For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others–and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Eunuchs have many Greek translational inferences, one is homosexuality. Notice Jesus said “The one who CAN accept this should accept it.” Does this sound like sin or disorder?
Phil
Being a homosexual or having same sex attraction has never been a sin per se. It is homosexual behavior. Similarly being a heterosexual is not a sin, but sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin.
Phil, you are beating a dead horse here. The Church has always taught that sex outside of marriage is sinful and homosexual sexual activity is not natural.
I agree tat the church considers homosexual activity a sin, I am aware that the church has taught this for a long time…my contention is that what the church teaches just may be at odds with Jesus’ words…Everyone knows the Church’s position and it’s quite clear. I am unsure that everyone clearly understands Jesus’ words spoken to the Jewish people. You see a biblical text out of context is a pretext for making it say what you want … Jesus never said homosexual activity was a sin, did he? The horse may be dead, but Lazarus did arise from the dead.
Phil, where does Jesus speak of the wrongfulness of Pedophilia? Because he doesn’t speak of it, does that make it OK?. You see the silliness of your line of argumentation
“If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Matt 18:6 Could Jesus have been any clearer…..
Phil,
Jesus also refers to Sodom and Gomorrah and we know what that was about, too.
Yes, Cynthia, Jesus did refer to Sodom and Gomorrah, but the biblical account in Genesis has nothing to do with homosexuality. Let me explain. A text without a context is a pretext to have it say anything we want it to say.
Lot was violating the custom of Sodom…by entertaining unknown guests within the city walls at night without obtaining the permission of the elders of the city. When the men of Sodom gathered around to demand that the strangers be brought out to them, “that they might know them,” they meant no more than to “know” who they were, and the city was consequently destroyed not for sexual immorality, but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers.The men of Sodom wanted to interrogate Lot’s guests to see if they were spies. The sin of gang rape was also in view, not homosexuality. In a broader sense, the men of Sodom were inhospitable to Lot’s guests. If “to know” the angels means merely to interrogate them, then there is no attempted rape, only an attempted interrogation. If, on the other hand, the men meant to have sexual relations with the visitors (the traditional view) and are guilty of attempted rape.
So you see, the sin of inhospitality was the cause for the destruction of S &G. This is the same as saying masturbation is a sin and proven through the story of Onan…Onan’s sin was not masturbation but a refusal to be obedient to the laws of levitrate marriage. One had to marry and impregnate the wife of one’s deceased brother. Rather than impregnate the wife of his dead brother to continue the blood line, he spilled his seed on the ground. The sin was a refusal to be obedient to God.
Again, it is important to note that a text without a context is a pretext for having the text say what we want…..the early Hebrews would not have read either the story of Lot or the Onan the way some would interpret them today. The stories were written for nomadic camel herders who desperately needed rules to enhance their cultural survival.
Sorry I disagree with your relatively new and politically correct interpretation Phil. For thousands of years, Sodom and Gomorrah has referred to homosexual activity. Hence the word “sodomy” which comes from Sodom.
And for thousands of years, people inferred from Genesis that the world was created in 6 days and that the world was 6,000 years old, and that an absence of historical and archeological evidence the Israelites were slaves of Eqypt and that Moses parted the red sea so that Israelites could come to the promised land despite the fact that we know Israel and Eqypt share a common and extensive land border. Biblical scholarship continues to discover differing meaning in the Bible over time based upon more documents, archeological digs in Coptic areas, Eqyptology. For centuries people believed that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny …just isn’t so. For thousands of years, based upon biblical interpretation, the RCC believe that the sun revolved around the earth..also ain’t so. Context is so important….
Indeed, context is important. It just so happens that your context was wrong. Cynthia was right.
Precisely.
Wrong. The Sin of Sodom was homosexuality. It was destroyed because of that sin.
Even before the men attempted to rape the angels sent by God,, God had already determined that He was going to destroy Sodom. So even before the inhospitality of the men were actualized, the destruction of Sodom was already writ. The men sent by God went to Sodom only to fetch Lot and his family.
So what sin was crying out to God that He decided to destroy it? Well voila, the moment they arrived it was clear. They wanted to molest the men.
They were not being inhospitable. They were not driving away the men. In fact, they are being more than hospitable. They were intent on initiating these men to their perversion.
With your supposed great Biblical knowledge, surely you know that “to know” in Biblical terms is to have sexual intercourse?
You will not find one hint of that in Genesis.
Men gang raping men is homosexuality. I am reminded of a scene in the Kite Runner when the rapist tried to rationalize his rape/sodomy of Hazzan.
But since it wasn’t then it is not a case of inhospitability. In fact, if you really know the Bible as you claim, you would also know that lot offered his daughters but they refused. They wanted the men. They wanted to offer the angels a different “kind” of “hospitality”.
My goodness, you really are terribly clueless about the Bible aren’t you. Onan was not masturbating, he was contracepting – he was wasting his seed.
That’s withdrawal, not masturbation. Furthermore, Onan was not punished for refusal of the levirate marriage. The punishment for this is already set out in the law – slapping the man with slippers – public humiliation. So when God struck Onan dead it was not for this. The text is clear that God punished him for what he DID and not what he DID NOT DO.
All sins are a refusal to obey God. The question is what type of disobedience is it?
No it is not clear. If Jesus meant paedophilia, he would have said so.
This text CAN refer to paedophilia but it also refers to any situation where a child is led astray. This could include teaching them wrong morals (as happens when they are exposed to homosexuality – when children are raised by homosexuals) and thus causing them to sin.
Good point, Fred. Jesus never spoke about abortion either. But abortion is still murder.
You are worse when you are trying to twist the Gospel.
Eunuch is Eunuch – one who cannot have sex because they have been castrated or perhaps impotent. It does not refer to homosexuals.
As Jesus said, there are Eunuchs who are so because of the Gospel – i.e. men who have given up sex for the sake of the Gospel. This precisely the point of celibate priesthood. If you can accept the celibate life, then do. If you can’t then don’t be a priest.
No one is being forced to be celibate. It’s a choice.
As for Jesus not talking about homosexuals, it was because it was an accepted fact that it is a sin.
If there is question, it would have arisen as in the case of divorce.
The APA , etc. have declassified because of politically correctness. Many doctors who subscribe to it being a disorder have been picketed by Gay groups. About 30 years ago, these same organizations voted on whether it was a learned behavior or inherent. The vote was very close with the inherent being the winner.
The same reasoning applies to the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and a number of other Christian sects, even those with overtly gay bishops? You are stretching….especially with SCOTUS yesterday refusing to take up the several appeals of lower courts which have overturned state attempts to ban gay marriage. Not legal in 30 states and will be soon legal in 50….Given the facts that most Catholics support gay marriage, I doubt that many Catholics believe it’s a disorder…check the surveys they are all consistent.
But whether it is a disorder or not is not up for the vote.
A sin is a sin a disorder is a disorder even if 99.9% of the population said otherwise.
All that would mean is that the disorder has become entrenched.
Phil
Please note that the overwhelming majority of medical doctors are not members of either the AMA or the APA. This is a political interest group which truly has very little to do with the nuts and bolts of everyday medical care. (Please see another article on this site by a physician who writes here as well. )
Well, let’s them simply stick eith RCC data; http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/03/22/survey-catholics/
Phil,
You have the patience of Job.
Bill S.
Yes, the I/Me/Myself am God on display there.
Then Hitler must be a perfectly moral man for following his conscience.
I would consider one who does not give to the poor, who does not provide shelter to the homeless, who does not actively comfort the afflicted, disabled, widowed, who does not comfort those in prisons, nursing homes and institutions a big sinner.
I don’t do any of that and I would not listen to anyone who told me I was a “big sinner”. In reality, sin is just a philosophical concept. We all do good and bad things every day. The good things don’t make us saints and the bad things don’t make us sinners. Good and bad, grace and sin, right and wrong, etc. are just concepts we rely on to get us all through life. There is no ledger with assets and debts, profits and losses, etc. when it comes to how we are to be judged. It is all in the eye of the perceiver.
No Phil, there is only the sinner. What is moral does not change with the wind.
If this were the case, then Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao and Stalin are all very moral.
In fact ISIS would be the height of morality by your definition.
Thank you for these wonderful words. But…..get ready…for you have mentioned one of the issues that engenders 1000 comments minimum. And it has all been said before so no reply is needed. Have a full of wonder weekend. Guy McClung, San Antonio
Very beautifully written.