The New Star Trek - Discovery

Inside the lines below is a review of the new Star Trek Discovery program which I began after watching Episode 5...  I'll comment more below...
==============================================

As many of you may know, I'm a Trekkie - so yes, I paid for CBS All Access in order to watch it. After this week I'm likely to do as many others on the CBS Facebook page said they are doing - and cancel my subscription.

SPOILER ALERT

In this week's show, Episode 5, one scene drops the "F-bomb" not once, but twice. Did you ever think you'd hear blatent profanity on a Star Trek television show?  It was completely unnecessary. Star Trek television shows have always been a bit on the controversial side - but also have always been something the whole family can watch.

Then, at the very end of the show we're confronted with an openly homosexual conversation with two of the actors brushing their teeth together and expressing their concerns and relationship, and while they didn't show anything sexual - they didn't have to. Then in watching the "After Trek" show, the writers stated that we'll be "seeing a lot more of this relationship." Why? Again, completely unnecessary.

Clearly, the homosexual agenda is rampant at CBS.
===============================================

Well, even though I threatened not to, I continued through the "first half of Season One."  The show is taking a break until January (2018). While the homosexual agenda was not as rampant in the weeks following, it was not totally absent either. I'm sure some of my critics at this point are thinking me a "homophobe" which is not a very accurate term. The word literally means "man fear" or "fear of man," as the homo prefix means "man" and "phobe" or "phobia" means a "fear" - typically an "irrational fear." I also found it a bit interesting that while doing an online dictionary search for these words in order to document the epistemology, when looking up "homosapien" the epistemology is listed as "homo = man, sapien = wise" however the epistemology is not listed for "homosexual" or "homophobe" or "homophobic," I wonder why? Homosexual literally means "man-sexual" and while this could be considered accurate for male on male sexual acts or desires, it would have nothing to do with female on female sexual acts or desires. But I digress... let me just state that I have no "fear" of "man" - I am a man, both in the sense of specie (mankind) and in the sense of being male. I do not fear myself or others like me. By the same token, I do not "fear" the less than 4 percent of society whom have chosen to act upon homosexual desires - which God sees as an abomination and condemns those who willfully participate in homosexual acts (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:10-11). I will not get into the "born that way" argument at this time, as I believe it is ultimately irrelevant. There is no sin until one acts. It is not "sinful" to have homosexual desires, but it IS sinful to act upon those desires.

While Star Trek Discovery did get "better" as Season 1 progressed, from a Christian perspective, I cannot recommend the series. What "Hollywood" needs to realize is that while we, Christians, are not "afraid" of homosexuality, nor do we deny that there is a homosexual community (less than 4% of the population), what we DON'T want is to have that agenda forced upon us especially so disproportionately by a very vocal minority.

The above being said, Star Trek, in all of its variations, often got (and now gets) into social and social-economic controversies which can stir a healthy discussion of said topics. I am in favor of such a healthy discussion and invite it here and now, so long as we can remain civil and refrain from violence (verbally or otherwise). To that end, I believe Gene Roddenberry would approve too.


Image source:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ST_DSC.svg

Marriage Fecundity?

Recently we've discussed the supposed "Freedom to Marry" arguments.  In a separate discussion, my family took this a bit further and one posited "Why stop at homosexuals?  Why not include polysexuals (and more)?  Where does one draw the line and who gets to use the red crayon?  Here's essentially that same argument posed by Fr. Scalia:

“Marriage Equality”? August 5, 2013 by encourageandteach By: Fr. Paul Scalia In the public debate about same-sex marriage, we often hear the phrase “Marriage Equality.” Like the “Love is love” mantra, this one is brilliant propaganda. A powerful one-two punch, it contains the perfect ingredients to silence the opposition: the traditional institution of marriage and the quintessential American ideal of equality. Hey, who does not like marriage? And what American would ever disagree with equality? Put them together and you have a potent slogan. Indeed, this phrase suffers only one weakness: People do not really mean it. equality-question-draft2We know that people do not really mean “Marriage Equality,” or its companion “Freedom to Marry,” because they intend them only for a select group – namely, homosexuals. If people really did mean equality and freedom, then they would clamor for an end to any and all restrictions on marriage. After all, if these are so important, why limit them to one group, or even two? And yet…no one is rushing to free adolescents from the draconian, iniquitous laws banning them from wedded bliss. No one is clamoring to permit incestuous marriage (well, not yet). No one is rallying and protesting in favor of legalizing polygamy (okay, almost no one). So, as much as people parrot these pat phrases, they do not take them to their logical conclusion. Of course, “Marriage Equality Except for Polygamists” is not as catchy. And “Freedom (sort of) to Marry” makes a bad bumper sticker. The reason people cannot take such freedom and equality to their logical conclusion is because marriage is inherently exclusive. The whole concept of marriage involves entering a binding relationship with some particular someone who is not some other particular someone. Further, laws tend to do things like distinguish, define, and – yes – even discriminate. If we have any marriage laws at all, they will say something like, “This is a marriage and that is not.” (Which is why the more honest participants in the debate call for an end to marriage altogether.) The purpose of laws is to draw lines and limits for public order and the common good. In the end, everyone draws the line somewhere – perhaps at same-sex marriage, perhaps at polygamy, perhaps at incest. People simply resent the Catholic Church for drawing the line earlier than they want it. So what phrase would serve as a good rejoinder? “Marriage Complementarity” would be a good response, bringing out what the current debate overlooks. Problem is, it only gets at a part of the truth. “Marriage Permanence” would be interesting because it would move the debate to a neglected issue of our culture’s decay. “Marriage Exclusivity” again only summarizes one aspect. “Marriage Fecundity” would perhaps be the most fun – pushing the argument back to a prior and fundamental issue. But none of these works for the simple reason that you cannot reason with sloganeering of any kind. There is no neat response once people have emptied “marriage” of its intrinsic meaning. Moreover, the entire truth about anything cannot fit on a bumper sticker or be captured in a sound byte. In the end, “Marriage Equality” is intended for a very select group of people. Far from an egalitarian push to extend the beauty of marriage to all, it is just a tool for a very particular kind of social engineering. http://encourageandteach.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/marriage-equality/

Thank you Father.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

Be Prepared

 

 

We are to be ready for those times that we will be in a position to defend the Truth.  Here is an exchange I recently had online.  His words in italics, mine in bold as well as interspersed within his response.  It all started when my friend posted  the picture you see at the top of this leaflet with the caption:  “Homosexuality is unnatural?  Not according to nature.”   I commented that the underlying premise was false.  That is, just because you see a certain behavior in nature doesn’t mean that the behavior is morally ok to engage in.  For example we find that sometimes lions kill rival's lioncubs.  He answers back this way…

Oh[ Nathan]! Loving another consenting adult who happens to be of the same sex is not morally wrong. What IS though is rape, murder, pedophilia, incest, child porn, human trafficking and other very criminal stuff, punishable by law. Homosexuality is NOT punishable by law. It is natural. So saying that it is morally wrong is promoting homophobic slurs and prejudice. It incites criminal activity against another person who is minding his own business, living his life in a most normal way... loving another person... body and mind, as long as it is with consent.

A 60-year-old man dating a 20-year-old woman... is it morally wrong? NO. Do I find it repulsive? Yes to some extent. Does it mean they shouldn't have the same rights as any other "normal" couple to get married, have/adopt children and have the exact same rights and privileges as any other married couple.  ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!

This should also be applied to any same-sex couple wanting to marry and have/adopt children. No one should lose their jobs for their sexual orientation. No one should be banned from living anywhere for that either. No one should be discriminated for it in any way as long as it is with consenting adults.

Here’s my underlined answer interspersed within his original post.  His words in italics:

Oh [Nathan]! Loving another consenting adult who happens to be of the same sex is not morally wrong.

Loving another is never wrong whether he is of the same sex as you ro not.  But the behavior between two lovers of the same sex is always wrong and you simply saying the contrary doesn’t make it true.

What IS [morally wrong] though is rape, murder, pedophilia, incest, child porn, human trafficking and other very criminal stuff, punishable by law. Homosexuality is NOT punishable by law. It is natural.

Whether some things are lawful does not determine what is moral. For example, is it morally ok to have extra marital affairs? Adultery is not punishable by law so by your standard it is morally ok. The laws of man can be moral laws but only when they are in line with natural law.

So saying that it is morally wrong is promoting homophobic slurs and prejudice. It incites criminal activity against another person who is minding his own business, living his life in a most normal way... loving another person... body and mind, as long as it is with consent.

Just because I don’t agree with the lifestyle and me saying so does not mean that I’m inciting criminal activity. One cannot logically go from me disagreeing with something to automatically mean that I’m inciting criminal activity. If that were the case then the government could prosecute me for disagreeing with anyone else on any given issue.  That means that even defense attorneys could be prosecuted for inciting criminal activity because they are defending those who acted against the law. There is no logic in your statement, one does not follow the other.

If there is nothing wrong as long as it is with consent then what is wrong with a father and daughter being intimate with each other? Even if they are of legal age and both consent, is it still morally ok? By your standard it would be.

A 60-year-old man dating a 20-year-old woman... is it morally wrong? NO. Do I find it repulsive? Yes to some extent. Does it mean they shouldn't have the same rights as any other "normal" couple to get married, have/adopt children and have the exact same rights and privileges as any other married couple. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!

Why are you bringing up all these different things? We were talking about the false premise that because you see a certain behavior in nature then it must be morally ok. And now you bring up the subject of marriage? For the record, I agree with the point you made in the above paragraph.

This should also be applied to any same-sex couple wanting to marry and have/adopt children. No one should lose their jobs for their sexual orientation. No one should be banned from living anywhere for that either. No one should be discriminated for it in any way as long as it is with consenting adults.

I agree that no one should be unjustly discriminated against. Why are you talking about marriage anyway? The subject was that just because you see a certain behavior in the animal world doesn't mean that it is ok to do.

To come back to my original point.   Just because you see a certain behavior in the animal world does NOT mean that the behavior is morally acceptable.

 God Bless
Nathan

Who Am I To Judge?

I was presented with this statement:

When Pope Francis was asked what he thought about gay priests, he replied-

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

So- Who am I to judge.

Well, in context, that is NOT what the Pope said.  He was responding to the alleged "gay lobby" at the Vatican, to which he said:

  

There is so much being written about the gay lobby. I haven’t met anyone in the Vatican yet who has “gay” written on their identity cards. There is a distinction between being gay, being this way inclined and lobbying. Lobbies are not good. If a gay person is in eager search of God, who am I to judge them? The Catholic Church teaches that gay people should not be discriminated against; they should be made to feel welcome. Being gay is not the problem, lobbying is the problem and this goes for any type of lobby, business lobbies, political lobbies and Masonic lobbies. 

So, that is a bit different than speaking about gay priests - he's only speaking about gay people and that we should not discriminate against them, make them feel welcome.  If a "gay person" is seeking the Lord, he/she is not actively participating in homosexuality.  The Church does not condemn people for their tendencies - in fact, the Church does not condemn people at all!  The Church condemns SIN.  If someone actively and knowingly participates in the SIN, then they condemn themselves.

Others report that there has been a change in the Church's view toward homosexuality, and that is simply not true!  Pope Francis said we must not discriminate against homosexuals, he did not say we must or that we even could accept the ACT of homosexuality.   There is a difference between the homosexual and homosexuality;  one is a person, the other is a sin.  The Church has not and will not accept the sin, but we welcome sinners of ALL kinds to come to repentance.

A participant on CDF offered these thoughts:

I would say that you had a pretty good instinct if you knew something was wrong with the article you read.  Both the Washington Post and the Huffington Post, as well as many broadcast media outlets, frequently misquote the pope or take his words out of the context in which it was said.  Once he is misquoted, the factual errors just get repeated because they take the media giants' word for it and don't research them at all.

Fr. Jonathan Morris, reports frequently for Fox News.  Here is a good bit of his article on the subject:

[quote] But, unfortunately, if you were reading the headlines from some media outlets, you would have learned just one thing. As the Huffington Post put it: "Breakthrough: Pope OK with Gays."
This is the worst coverage of a religious story I have seen to date.
Let's begin with the fact that the pope has always been "OK" with homosexuals.  In fact, by the demands of his own religion he is required to be much more than just "OK."  The Christian faith teaches that every person is endowed by God with an inviolable dignity and therefore deserves our unconditional respect and love.
A section of an Associated Press report also got the story very wrong.  Summarizing the pope's comments on homosexuals in the priesthood, the AP reported: "Francis was much more conciliatory [than Pope Benedict], saying gay clergymen should be forgiven and their sins forgotten."
Pope Francis didn't say that, and the report is wrong on so many levels.
First of all, it suggests that being gay itself, is a sin. What Pope Francis really said, in response to a reporter's question about homosexual priests who are living a celibate life was this: "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" 
Pope Francis simply and compassionately reiterated Biblical teaching. The Bible and the Catholic Church have never taught that it is a "sin" to be homosexual.  They teach it is a sin to have homosexual sex because it goes against the laws of God's nature, specifically his plan for human sexuality.
When Pope Francis says "who am I to judge" he is saying—and I think we need to hear more of this from religious leaders—that active homosexuals deserve the same kindness, love, and mercy that all of us sinners would hope to receive from God and from others.
We don't make judgments about anyone's personal worth—God has already done that when he created us out of love.
I would hope next time Pope Francis offers to meet with the press, they would take to heart his message about fearless service and report to their readers what he actually said, rather than what they wish they had heard. [unquote]
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/29/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-gays-and-no-it-not-new/#ixzz2aTkiY0EM
[Bold and large type added for emphasis]

Pope Francis was taken out of context yet again.  He said that gay people deserved the same kindness, love, and mercy as any other sinner would hope to receive from God and us, Christians.  He didn't change Church teaching on the subject, nor did he say it was okay to engage in the homosexual lifestyle.  The media at large is almost 100% anti-Catholic and loves to put "spin" on just about anything the pope says or does.  They are right nearly 0% of the time when reporting on anything having to do with the Catholic Church, especially on Catholic teaching.

Another pretty good article is here: http://www.catholicvote.org/did-pope-francis-say-homosexual-behavior-is-ok/
and here [Jimmy Akin is pretty straight forward]:  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-what-pope-francis-said-about-gays/
Here's a Church Document on the "Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" from 1986 if you would like to read it: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

Catholic Position on Homosexuality

Recently Nathan blogged on this topic, more directly on Homosexuality and Marriage, and a few years ago I also blogged more generally expressing the Catholic position on this subject, citing my sources fairly thoroughly from (Catholic) primary sources.  You can see both of those articles (along with this one) if you use the following link:  http://cathapol.blogspot.com/search/label/homosexual

I bring the topic up again, especially as it relates to Nathan's article because I was asked by someone offline regarding the hardlined approach by the Catholic Church on the matter of "marriage" since it is becoming, more and more, accepted by society.  He asked if the Catholic Church is not giving itself a "black eye" over this by not accepting it.  My response was (and remains) the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which is marriage is Church terminology!  Now, if "society" wants to "approve" something like "civil unions" so that homosexual couples can have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, well, sobeit, but we do not need to relinquish our approximately 6000 years of defining what "marriage" means.  

God's Law strictly forbids participation in homosexual acts.  This does not mean that people who have homosexual thoughts or even desires are "homosexuals."  The terminology of "homosexual" implies actual participation in the illicit act(s).  For example, one who is a married heterosexual is one who participates in "the marriage act" with their spouse.  On the other hand, an unmarried heterosexual is one who participates in "the marriage act" with someone who is not (or not yet) their spouse.  An unmarried heterosexual, in the view of God's Law would be a fornicator and/or an adulterer.  The there is the third possibility, the celibate.  A celibate person, regardless of their thoughts, desires or tendencies is one who does not act upon these things.   A Catholic priest, for example, if he faithfully adheres to his vow before God is not "sexual" at all, he's celibate.

The problem we have is when the lines are blurred, definitions skewed and people are left with fuzzy, "feel-good" definitions (those that may make them feel better about themselves or others).  The redefining of words like "gay" (which used to primarily mean "happy" or "joyous") and avoiding more precise or accurate terminology, like "homosexuality," is part of what has brought us to the confused state many are in today.  

We need to stand firm in our convictions and our faith.  Some have tried to argue that the Bible is only against homosexuality in the Old Testament and that the New Testament is a more "loving" approach, but is that true?  Let's look at a few passages from the New Testament, shall we?

Romans 1:26-27 - "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting." 
1 Corinthians 6:9 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders."
1 Timothy 1:10 - "and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,"

Jesus specifically upholds the traditional view of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony:

Matthew 19:4-6 - "4“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

It is undeniable that the New Testament is just as opposed to homosexual acts as the Old Testament is.

Now, to get a bit more controversial, I wish to express my own opinions - and would entertain comments and/or criticisms of them.

Let's face it, sexual "desire" is the bottom line here.  One may have "desire" for either hetero or homosexual acts - but there really is not sin until they act and/or seriously entertain such acts.  Ones sexual preference is just that, a preference.  Now I'm not saying that a male might get to a point of being very "turned off" by considering a heterosexual relationship - but that does not make acting upon homosexual desires "right."

I also believe that many Christians struggle with such desires, but maintain either a celibate or heterosexual lifestyle.  These Christians balance their faith with their desires and, again in my humble opinion, they gain grace in succeeding at keeping such desires within God's clearly expressed Law.  Those who succumb to the temptations have indeed sinned, and sinned gravely against God, and if they remain unrepentant and/or lack true contrition for their sin, then they are separated from God's grace.

There can be no such thing as a Christian homosexual, for again, to be "homosexual" implies actual participation in a sinful lifestyle.  Now one could be a Christian celibate with homosexual thoughts/desires.  Once one crosses the line into acting upon these thoughts/desires, they have abandoned God's Law. 

Can one who has been married for years but has been suppressing homosexual thoughts/desires all that time and even prior to taking the vow of Holy Matrimony remain married?  Well, not only can they, but yes - they ARE married still!  What they need to do is be honest with their spouse about these feelings, but also remain true to their vows.  Remember that your body truly is not your own, but belongs to your spouse - and you should continue to honor their needs and desires.  1 Corinthians 7:4 makes this quite clear:

The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. (NIV)

Now, as I said, I am expressing my own opinions here, but I believe they are well-founded in Church teaching and Scripture.  That being said, I repeat, I would be happy to entertain respectful comments and challenges to what I have posted.

I found it interesting that even some homosexuals have rejected the concept of "Gay Marriage" as "unnatural."  See article.

Quoted from the National Catholic Bioethics Center:  

On this point, we agree with same sex marriage advocate Professor John Corvino: 'The fact is that there are plenty of genetically influenced traits that are nevertheless undesirable. Alcoholism may have a genetic basis, but it doesn't follow that alcoholics ought to drink excessively. Some people may have a genetic predisposition to violence, but they have no more right to attack their neighbors than anyone else. Persons with such tendencies cannot say 'God made me this way' as an excuse for acting on their dispositions.'"  http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1128 

From CourageRC.net:

While those who promote the normalization of SSA (same sex attraction) may argue in public that people are ‘born that way,’ there is no scientific evidence to support the view that SSA is genetically or biologically predetermined. The few studies which have been mis-reported in the media as offering support for such predetermination either have been discredited or were not supported in subsequent, higher quality research. Even the American Psychological Association has publicly declared that “there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation...Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”  http://couragerc.net/Informed_Consent/Phil_FandG_Excepts.pdf

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴² They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.  

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."¹⁴³

IN BRIEF

2392 "Love is the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being" (FC 11).

2393 By creating the human being man and woman, God gives personal dignity equally to the one and the other. Each of them, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.

2394 Christ is the model of chastity. Every baptized person is called to lead a chaste life, each according to his particular state of life.

2395 Chastity means the integration of sexuality within the person. It includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

2397 The covenant which spouses have freely entered into entails faithful love. It imposes on them the obligation to keep their marriage indissoluble.

2398 Fecundity is a good, a gift and an end of marriage. By giving life, spouses participate in God's fatherhood.

Footnotes:

141 Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.

142 CDF, Persona humana 8.

143 FC 11.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

May God bless and guide you.

Homosexual Unions are not Marriages

Why should society sanction marriage at all?  Isn’t it the couple’s business and nobody else’s?

In fact, it is in society’s interest to recognize marriage, and that is why societies all over the world, throughout history, have done so.  The reason why is obvious:  In order to survive and prosper, societies need new members.

They constantly lose members – whether through illness, accident,  crime or simply old age.  One way or another, at some point, every single member of a society will die, and if these deaths are not offset by births, then the society will die.

Marriage, by its very nature, is the institution that brings new human beings into the world and raises them to be productive members of society.  If a society wants to survive and prosper, then, it is in its interest to recognize and help marriage in a special way.

Where marriage and families are threatened, society is threatened, and where marriage and families are strong, society is strong.

Society should not treat homosexual unions as marriages because they are not marriages.  Such unions are incapable, by their very nature, of producing children.  The parties do not complement each other the way that a man and a woman do.  A homosexual union is a fundamentally different thing than a marriage.  It isn’t a question of whether society should allow homosexual marriage.  It can’t.  No one can.

[…]

Since before recorded history, men and women have united to care for each other and to bring up children.  That happens in every culture, no matter where in the world.  In fact, a culture would die without those unions of men and women.  Marriage is thus a human universal, an institution that is built into human nature and that manifests itself in all societies.

But procreation is not the only issue.  Men and women are different in ways that go beyond reproduction.  Both physically and psychologically, they complement and complete each other in a manner that two people of the same sex do not.  These differences play an important role in raising children.  By setting examples of true fatherhood and motherhood, a husband and wife provide the kind of environment that helps children grow and develop properly.

You see, society is not denying marriage to homosexuals.  Instead, homosexual activists are asking society to redefine marriage so that the term applies to things that are not, in fact, marriages.

Even apart from procreation and raising children – as in the case of marriages which do not result in children due to infertility – the physical and psychological differences between men and women enable them to unite and thrive in a way two people of the same sex cannot.

[…]

When a country bases its policies on false premises, society suffers.  It does not matter what the policy is.  If its army misjudges the enemy’s position, it may suffer a crushing defeat.  If its economic policy is out of touch with reality, hard times will result.  And if a state becomes delusional about the nature of men and women, disaster is bound to follow.

This would be a further blow to marriage – beyond those it has already suffered from easy divorce, out-of-wedlock births, abortion, and contraception.

Any children being brought up by homosexual “parents” would also be harmed.  Whether the children were acquired by adoption, surrogacy, or

through a previous, heterosexual union, they would be raised with a false view of human sexuality and a defective set of moral values, as well as being denied the example of proper fatherhood and motherhood.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would lead to even further distortions of marriage.  If two people of the same sex can be married then there is no logical reason why other unions are not possible as well.  Polygamous unions with multiple spouses, of any combination of sexes, could follow.  Adult-child unions would be up for discussion.

There is the related question of nonsexual unions:  elderly friends, college roommates, etc.  If two people of the same sex can marry to obtain the legal benefits of marriage, then on what grounds would these people be denied them?

Applying the term “marriage” to unions other than those of a man and a woman ends up robbing marriage of meaning.  The logical end point of marriage redefinition would have to be recognizing unions of infinitely variable combinations of persons as marriages – otherwise you would be discriminating against some combinations.  When that happens, marriage – having become whatever you want it to be – has lost all meaning.

 

Taken from the booklet: 
Catholic Answers, Why Homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages, 27 pp., 2012

[Which can be bought for a dollar at www.catholic.com/voteyourfaith]

Homosexuality and Apologetics

The Subjects of Homosexuality and Apologetics
Scott Windsor
May 7, 2007

Is the topic of homosexuality one we can or should talk about in an apologetics forum? First off, let me state that we should not discuss individual homosexuals – as that becomes a personal argument and as ad hominem, really would have no place in an apologetics forum. However, we can discuss homosexuality itself, as that is a moral issue which plagues society and is a topic we, as apologists, are asked about more than seldomly. We must be able to provide the Church's stance on moral issues, so yes – it is an acceptable topic for an apologetics forum.

So, what is the moral stance of the Church on this? Let's start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (hereafter CCC):

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The CCC does not come right out and condemn the homosexual acts thus far, but lets look further:

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

In paragraph 2396 homosexual practices and fornication are equated and are considered not only "sins" but "sins gravely contrary to chastity," let us continue:

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

It doesn't mention homosexuality here – but we must consider that ANY act of sexual intercourse between unmarried persons is fornication as well. Let's look to another source:

fornication: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other (source)

Looking further at the CCC:

1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."

In paragraph 1852 of the CCC the warning against those who participate in such acts is quite explicit – "those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God." Again, I would reiterate, it is not up to us, as the apologists, to judge individual persons – but if we are asked, we should point to these references and allow the person asking to be convicted themselves by the voice of the Church on these matters.

Continuing, paragraph 1755 contrasts a "morally good" act with those which would be considered a "moral evil." 1755 also points out that this is an "object of the choice." 1853 emphasizes what sort of acts "defile a man." Then in 2517 we see another example of things which "defiles a man."

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man." But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

2517 The heart is the seat of moral personality: "Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication. . . . " (Matt 15:19-20). The struggle against carnal covetousness entails purifying the heart and practicing temperance:
Remain simple and innocent, and you will be like little children who do not know the evil that destroys man's life.

Matthew 15:19 For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. 20 These are the things that defile a man. (DRB).

So, things man (including woman) chooses to do can defile him. Let's continue with more Scripture:

1 Cor. 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Tim. 1: 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

Lev. 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Lev. 20:13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Romans 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

I believe it is crystal clear, homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. It is a grave sin and separates man from salvation. Thus, if we truly "love our neighbor" as we should, then we do not sugar-coat the clear teaching of God on this matter. If they are participating in this immoral act, they need to stop – if they want to save their souls. They will stand before God and have to answer for their deeds and their choices. Our duty as apologists is to represent the clear word of the Lord and our Church on this matter when we are asked about it. As 1 Peter 3:15 says, we are always to be ready to give an answer. If this question comes up, we must answer it and must not give answers which may lead to complacency of the sinner – making us then complicit in their sin! Our answer(s) must be firm and straight-forward from Church teaching and from Scripture.

Homosexuality is a sin, period, however, this does not mean that we "hate the sinner." On the contrary – it should be our goal to, with the love of Christ, explain the Church teaching and help guide them and their thoughts back to Christ.
Feel free to leave a comment here in the blog, or join us in the Locutus Message Board for more discussion.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<