Qui Locutus - Formerly The CathApol Blog - a Catholic Apologetics Blog
Defending the Faith and keeping Catholics Catholic!
Scott Windsor, MEd. - aka: CathApol
Bishop Georg Bätzing - a leader among Catholic bishops in Germany is making comments in direct opposition to Catholic teaching on the matter of sexual relationships.
The teaching of the Catholic Church is pretty clear, sexual relationships are reserved to married, male and female - period. Having sex before marriage is called fornication, and it is a condemned sin - always has been and always will be - regardless of what bishops in Germany may want to "teach."
Likewise, homosexual acts are outright condemned in both Scripture and Church teaching as "an abomination to the Lord." Yet, Bishop Georg Bätzing is saying:
“no one” adhered to the Church’s teaching that sexuality should only
be practiced within marriage, saying: “That’s true. And we have to
somewhat change the Catechism on this matter. Sexuality is a gift from
God. And not a sin.”
Asked if same-sex relationships
were permissible, the German prelate replied: “Yes, it’s OK if it’s done
in fidelity and responsibility. It doesn’t affect the relationship with
God.”
No, Bishop Bätzing, no matter how you justify or rationalize - sex outside of marriage is a sin. Just because a majority of society partakes in sex outside of marriage does not make it "right." God has ALWAYS condemned extra-marital sex and just because there is a movement afoot to try and change Catholic teaching on this matter cannot change the entire history of God's Word and the Church! It is a sin which can be forgiven, but not overlooked.
Bishop of Chur, Switzerland, is facing up to three years in prison for defending family values. A homosexual group called the Pink Cross is alleging Bishop Huonder is inciting violence against homosexuals because Leviticus calls for the death penalty for those caught in homosexual acts.
Quoting The Stream article:
The bishop responded to the protests with a statement stressing that
he was not endorsing violence against homosexual people. “During the
lecture I quoted several uncomfortable passages from the Old Testament
to do with marriage, sexuality and family,” he said. “I want to clarify
that I would in no way wish to diminish homosexual people.”
The head of Pink Cross rejected the response: “There is no
question in this case of what he was talking about — there was no
misunderstanding. We don’t need charity or mercy from the Church at all;
we don’t accept his apology.”
No matter what the US Supreme Court has decided "legally" - the "nature" of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony has not changed. Holy Matrimony, in order to be "holy" MUST be between a man and a woman and can NEVER be a "same sex union." Why? Because God Himself has declared that homosexuality is an abomination in His eyes. We cannot call something He considers abominable "holy."
One problem I have with "us" (not the US) is that "we" had allowed for "our" terminology to be used and linked into the "legal" system. Now, 100, 200 or more years ago we would never have thought ANY court would "legalize" homosexual unions, much less the Supreme Court of the United States of America! But, this has happened - like it or not, it is here - and likely to stay. Back to my point, the use of "marriage" in the "legal" system should never have happened in the United States. "Marriage" has been and continues to be primarily under the authority of churches - the "state" merely provides a "license." The actual "ceremony" most often (even still) happens in a religious environment. Yes, especially in more recent times, a "Justice of the Peace" marriage has become more popular with our less and less religiously accepting society. Therein lies the rub, that which USED to be primarily a "church" function has been usurped by "civil" authorities to becoming a purely "civil" proceeding. I'm actually OK with that, if "they" want a "civil union" with all the rights a "married" couple has, fine - but let's not call it "marriage," and we STILL won't call it "Holy Matrimony" for the reason(s) stated earlier.
Scott Hahn also posted a meme to Facebook, which I will share as well. We need to keep in mind, as far as "WE" are concerned, nothing has changed! "THEY" may have more "legal" rights now, and fine - let "them" - but what "WE" should do is refrain from calling it "marriage" and especially not "Holy Matrimony."
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 26, 2015 (ChurchMilitant.com)
- The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have publicly come out
against the Supreme Court's decision today ruling that same-sex
"marriage" is a constitutional right, calling the decision a "tragic
error" that will "harm the common good and most vulnerable among us."
Written by USCCB president Abp. Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville,
Kentucky, the statement makes no concessions and condemns the decision
from start to finish, arguing that the definition of marriage will
always be rooted in Catholic truth and the teachings of Our Lord Jesus
Christ no matter what five unelected justices tell us to think.
Statement below:
Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare
at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage
remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle
the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges
does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is
rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today
the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the
government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a
marriage.
The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is
inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this
meaning is a critical dimension of the "integral ecology" that Pope
Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across
the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most
vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support
every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her
married mother and father in a stable home.
Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the
beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As
Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to
act according to this truth.
I encourage Catholics to move forward with faith, hope, and love: faith
in the unchanging truth about marriage, rooted in the immutable nature
of the human person and confirmed by divine revelation; hope that these
truths will once again prevail in our society, not only by their logic,
but by their great beauty and manifest service to the common good; and
love for all our neighbors, even those who hate us or would punish us
for our faith and moral convictions.
Lastly, I call upon all people of good will to join us in proclaiming
the goodness, truth, and beauty of marriage as rightly understood for
millennia, and I ask all in positions of power and authority to respect
the God-given freedom to seek, live by, and bear witness to the truth.
Below is a letter someone named "John" wrote me back in 2013, and I lost track of the letter. I believe it deserves a response still - I hope "John" is still out there and sees this.
(Feb. 13, 2013) Scott,
Thank you for your time. I have been trying to resolve an issue I have with my Church
the Catholic Church for some time now unsuccessfully. I have made the observation that the
Church has come to accept the existence of the “homosexual person”. This I believe to be an
error the Church must correct.
I have communicated with a number of people in the Church over the past eight years
and have been unsuccessful resolving this issue. I do not judge anyone we all have the gift of
freewill and will all be judged by the Lord for our lives. However the Church does not have
freewill but has an obligation to the Lord to be consistent with the faith of our fathers and the
traditions of the Church.
I believe that human sexuality is a very complicated issue that I am ill equipped to discuss
with any level of competence. My issue is much simpler “Church 101” if you will. Sexuality of any
kind is only involved due to the nature of the change in Church teaching. The heart of this issue is
the Church’s handling of temptation.
Here is what leads me to believe that the Church has accepted the existence of the
“homosexual person”.
This section of the Catechism 2357 I believe defines “homosexuality”:
“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive
… sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”
I leave out the words “or predominant” as that just makes the group size smaller and
clarifies the definition. This statement says that there is a group of people who “experience an
exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. If this group has an “exclusive …
sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” they are incapable of being attracted to people
of the opposite sex.
2359 says “Homosexual persons are called to chastity” I do not see how this is not an
acceptance of the “homosexual person” who is fundamentally different than the “heterosexual
person”. I reject this idea.
In the daily readings recently I noted that 1 Corinthians 6:9 says:
"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing
homosexuals"
I use a Catholic translation and checked the Vatican site this quote is from the Vatican
site.
The implication being that there are “non-practicing homosexuals”. “fornicators nor
idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes” are not qualified as “practicing”. I do not believe
that Paul was familiar with the concept of the “homosexual person”. I do not believe it right
and just for the Church to change the Evangelists thoughts to correspond with its current
teaching.
2357 says “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained” as far as I can tell this
is the only justification for the Churches acceptance of the “homosexual person”. To accept
something that is “unexplained” can only be done as an act of faith. As a Catholic I am
required to accept much on faith and I do. For me to accept “homosexuality” as an article
of faith it would need to be consistent with the faith of my fathers, Church history and tradition,
and in this case natural law. Since “homosexuality” is consistent with none of these I reject it as
a false premise.
Let me say I believe that psychology does wonderful things for many people. I also
believe that psychology is a soft science. Some in psychology say that God is a delusion. I
believe it is wrong to look at this with the rubric of psychology. I believe the correct lens is
morality. I believe God is not provable by design I believe God wants us to come to Him
through faith. A provable God and faith are not possible. If God is not provable then it is
reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no God. My belief is rooted in faith and
the faith of my fathers as well as the Church. If one concludes there is no God then why is
one person’s morality better than an others and who is to say “same-sex behavior” wrong.
Since I believe in God I believe God determines morality. At my father’s funeral the Priest
said “If there is no God then life is a cruel joke”. I believe this to be true.
In communicating with a fair number of people in the Church over eight years.
Generally they fall in two camps. Those who believe as I do that the Church has changed its
teaching and accepts the existence of the “homosexual person” and those who don’t. Those who
believe that the Church has changed its teaching for the most part think that it should. A small
subset think that the Church should accept “same sex behavior” presumably in “marriage”. Most
say the Church has not changed its teaching.
I have been looking for the rational explanation for the Church’s action unsuccessfully.
All I have found are “self-identification”, “same-sex behavior”, “group think”, “political
correctness” and “false compassion” none of which is substantial enough to change Church
teaching in my view.
It is also clear to me that the normalization of this behavior in the secular world is well
underway. I believe that with Adam and Eve the Lord created the most basic unit of society the
family. I believe that same sex “marriage” is a direct assault on the institution. I believe that the
Churches acceptance of the “homosexual person” ties its hands while fighting this evil.
We all face innumerable immoral temptations in our lives and of course the Church has an
obligation to update its teaching as new things are learned. “Same sex behavior” is just sinful
behavior and the Church is cruel if it continues to tell people who engage in “same sex behavior”
that they are fundamentally different. It is my belief that this is the only immoral temptation the
Church tells practitioners that they are fundamentally different than others.
One of the Bishops who was kind enough to respond wrote “you may find it helpful to
review an earlier section of the Catechism, from #355 to #421 on creation, human dignity, the fall
and redemption. May the Holy Spirit continue to guide you in your quest for Truth. ”. When I
asked if 387 and 2357-2359 are contradictory he did not respond.
I believe that the Church is making it harder for the lost sheep to find its way home with
this error. 387 says “Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin
clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness”.
I believe that 2357-2359 feeds this temptation. Everyone tries to rationalize their behavior. I know
that I do. I know of no other sinful behavior that the Church hands out a tool to rationalize the
sinful behavior. If we lived in a vacuum I would be silly pursuing this but we do not. I believe the Lord
has purpose for his Church in the real world. I believe that action or lack of action by the Church
has consequence. I believe if the Church had stood up 50 years ago and properly said that the
“homosexual person” does not exist the reality of same-sex “marriage” in the secular world would
not be accepted today. I believe it is never too late to correct an error the Lord is forgiving.
I do not believe this to be a complicated issue but an important issue. The Church has
come to accept the existence of the “homosexual person” to teach something new is a change
of teaching. I believe this a profound change of teaching. I believe the Church does not disavow
the existence of the “homosexual person”
As a member of the Church I feel an obligation to the Lord to point out an error by the
Church if I see one. I also feel the Church has an obligation to the Lord to either correct the
error or explain my error to me the Church has done neither to date.
I believe that acceptance of the existence of the “homosexual person” is an evil pervasive
in the world today. I believe that next to spreading the Gospel in the world standing against and
exposing evil in the world is the Church’s highest obligation to the Lord.
If you can give a rational explanation as to why my observation is an unreasonable one
that would be helpful to me.
Thank you again for your time.
God bless
John
Dear John, First off, my apologies for not responding sooner. I copied your letter to the blog and then got sidetracked. Poor excuse for a serious and I believe a sincere question.
Let me start out by saying, I share some of your concern with the casual use of terminology, I too believe it can (and likely does) confuse many out there. "Homosexual" defines the "sexuality" of a person, it implies that such a person is active sexually and follows the "sexual preference" of those of the same sex (hereafter SSA or "Same Sex Attraction"). Just because someone has SSA does not make them a homosexual! A homosexual is one who ACTS upon the SSA. Likewise, a person with Opposite Sex Attraction (hereafter OSA) does not automatically equate to that person "being" heterosexual. There are people who have SSA and OSA who choose to be "celibate," celibacy is their chosen lifestyle and more accurately describes their sexuality.
The above being said, the Catholic Church is "accepting" of SSA individuals whether they are active or not. The Church must "accept" these sheep into the fold, if they come. Now, for one who is active in SSA or even OSA in a pre-marital situation, is in a state of mortal sin. They are not permitted to any of the Sacraments, save Penance (Confession/Reconciliation). There are many "in" the Catholic Church who are "accepted" as Catholics - yet are in a state of mortal sin, which separates them from the Grace of God, and ultimately from salvation. The Catholic Church then must be "accepting" of SSA individuals, and those who have been active in that lifestyle need to seek reconciliation with God's Grace through the means God put in place for such - they need to get themselves to the confessional and make an honest confession and a sincere act of contrition. If the Catholic Church were not "accepting" of such individuals - the door to the confessional would be shut to them and they would be cut off from the means of reconciliation.
ANYONE who is sexually active outside the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is partaking in the sin of fornication and/or adultery. Since same sex marriage is impossible in the Catholic Church, any homosexual is in the state of mortal sin - just the same as one who is OSA and in a sexually active relationship outside of marriage. The Catholic Church does not accept the sin of fornication or adultery, but does accept the sinner and invites them to reconciliation. The old adage, "love the sinner, hate the sin" rings true here for both SSA and OSA persons who have sinned in this regard.
The bottom line here is, I share your concern with the relaxed use of language. Words mean things, but when officials in the Church (and elsewhere) use "homosexual" to describe anyone with SSA, whether active or not, it confuses matters - and persons. The Church needs to be "accepting" of the persons - while at the same time be not accepting of the sin.
I hope this helps. If you have more questions, feel free to post in the comments section here.
Or so goes the report fromThe Guardian. Did the Church really backtrack? No, she did not! Come on folks! This "synod" is a pastoral gathering - it is not a dogmatic or doctrinal council. There would be no new doctrine coming from this synod - it was a gathering of bishops discussing how to best be pastors for a variety of situations. As many Catholics have voiced, myself included, the "interim relatio report" was a bit premature. Synods such as this are works in progress and there will be discussion and disagreement. Even according the The Guardian article, Pope Francis said:
Personally I would have been very worried and saddened if there hadn’t
been these … animated discussions … if everyone had agreed with one
another or had kept silent in a false and acquiescent peace.
So Pope Francis EXPECTED there would be "animated discussions." In fact, there were - but whomever put out the preliminary report did not report any such animations! So was Pope Francis "the loser" as The Guardian reports? No, not at all!
Pope Francis arrives for the last day of the synod. Photograph: Franco Origlia/Getty Images
The Guardian essentially reports that the synod spoke of two issues, homosexuality and the matter of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving Holy Communion. Um, according to what I've been hearing, those were MINOR topics of discussion with the PRIMARY concern being toward FAMILIES and especially those which have been displaced by war and terrorism. The bishops are seeking a pastoral and humanitarian way of reaching THOSE families. Those who are saying the two topics were primary discussions are either misinformed or being deliberately dishonest in their reporting to try and further an agenda.
One of the things I did hear discussed on EWTN Radio today was the fact that the Church is not changing her stance on homosexual "marriage," this cannot happen. Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord and the Church cannot "accept" such in "marriage" - as that would be putting her blessing on an abomination! The subject of cohabitation came up too - which fundamentally is JUST AS WRONG as homosexuality! Both situations are sexual relationships outside the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
Should Catholics be caring and compassionate to those who have homosexual tendencies? Certainly! Being caring and compassionate does not mean we "give in" to those who want to change morality.
One priest offers some "advice" to Pope Francis, here is an excerpt:
I have heard the words of my Holy Father and taken them to heart. I sincerely want to be that kind of priest.
However, I can only do this if the timeless truths of the Catholic
faith are firmly defined and defended. The dogmas, doctrines and
disciplines of the Catholic faith are the tools of my trade. They
provide the rules for engagement, the playbook for the game, the map for
the journey and the content for the mercy and compassion I wish to
display. The historic teachings of the Catholic faith, founded on the
teachings of Christ the Lord, revealed by divine inspiration and
developed through the magisterium of the Catholic Church provide the
method for my mercy, the content for my compassion and the only saving
truths I have to share.
This is teamwork Holy Father. I can only do the job you want me to do
if you do the job you have been called to do. With the greatest respect
and love, please don’t feel that it is your job to tinker with the
timeless truths. If my job is to be the compassionate pastor for those
in the pew and beyond, then your job is to be the primary definer and
defender of the faith. I can’t do my job if you don’t do yours. (Full article here).
Well, I just read through the document myself and while there are some good points, there are some points which are cause for concern. I wish to review it more thoroughly before adding more of my own comments. In the mean time, I am considering what others have to say as well. Feel free to add comments to this posting and suggestions of other articles.
As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I have a friend who has asked me about my position on homosexuality in specific situations going on in society today. He is asking for a "Catholic" response, and I said I would oblige. I've also invited co-bloggers, cathmom5 and Nathan to add to this article and I have posted the same or similar questions to a group of Catholic friends and will include some of their comments too. For the most part, the responses have been written without pre-reading what others have to say. This article/blog has become truly a group project, and I invite those reading along to add their comments as well in the combox section.
First question: On Dec. 20, 2013 Uganda passed a law criminalizing homosexuality.
Persons found guilty of homosexuality could be sentenced to life in
prison (which previously it was a death sentence, they dropped that
provision before passing the law). Is it right for a country to make it
a criminal offense (with a life sentence) for someone's choice in
sexuality?
Scott's response: Well, first off does a country have the "right" to set its own laws? Yes. Now, when those laws may impinge upon the human rights of their citizens, is it our responsibility to speak out? I would say yes to that too. So, to directly answer the first question, I do not believe it is "right" for a country to criminalize homosexuality. At the same time, I reiterate my (already known) position - that homosexual acts are "wrong" and considered an abomination to our Lord. In my opinion such morality should not be subjected to civil law, it is covered in divine law. For those who do not share our Judeo-Christian belief system is it "right" to force our morality upon them? I would say "No." CathMom5's response: No, I do not believe it is "right" for a country to make homosexuality a criminal offense; but I agree that we cannot control the legislature or laws of other countries. In light of the Christian tradition, every person is made in the image of God and deserves to be treated with respect. While I believe that the homosexual act is against God's law also, I don't believe that someone should spend the rest of their life in jail (let alone lose their life) for it. We, America, Christians, etc., have no business in foreign laws; however, we should speak out when human rights and human dignity are violated. We cannot force them to change their laws but we can speak out against such laws that strip humans of their dignity.
Nathan’s answer to
the first question: Although countries have a right to make their own laws, as any sovereign
country has, I personally disagree with these Uganda laws and as a country
built on freedom I agree on its population to lobby their government to change
those particular laws.
In case you didn’t know, the Catholic Church actively
lobbied the Uganda government against instituting these laws ever since they
declared its intentions about this proposed law. A Wikileaks headline tells us that a U.S.
diplomatic cable dated December 15, 2009, reveals that the U.S. Embassy to the
Vatican lobbied the Catholic church to oppose the proposed Ugandan
Anti-Homosexuality Bill. According to
the cable:
Embassy
Vatican has actively lobbied Holy See officials to take a stand against pending
legislation in Uganda that would criminalize homosexuality and in extreme
cases, even punish it with death (reftel). On December 11, after the Ambassador
raised USG (U.S. Government) concerns, Cardinal Antonelli Ennio, President of
the Pontifical Council for the Family, reaffirmed the Church’s position that
legal approaches to homosexuality are inappropriate. Antonelli admitted that he
had not followed the Uganda controversy closely, but agreed that Catholic
bishops there or anywhere should not/not support the criminalization of
homosexuality. The Ambassador urged the Cardinal to make sure bishops in Uganda
understood this.
And so we can see that not only do the US representatives of
the Church but also the Vatican as well agreed that these laws should not be
instituted because we can read later on in that same cable:
…The
Vatican likely will not want bishops in Uganda to support the criminalization
of homosexuality, so Embassy efforts may well translate into Vatican officials
communicating with bishops in Uganda to reaffirm the Church teaching that
homosexuality is a personal moral decision, which should not be penalized in
any way by judicial authorities. The Vatican, however, likely will shy away
from instructing the bishops directly to denounce the bill, as bishops
everywhere are given a lot of leeway in deciding how to conduct pastoral work
in their own dioceses.
On December 10, 2009, the Vatican confirmed this stand when
it released a
statement which opposed “all grave violations of human rights against
homosexual persons,” particularly “the murder and abuse of homosexual persons
are to be confronted on all levels, especially when such violence is
perpetrated by the State.” The statement didn’t reference Uganda by name, but
that last statement was taken as an oblique reference to the proposed
Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Shortly before Christmas Day that year, the Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Uganda, Cyprian Lwanga, denounced the proposed
Anti-Homosexuality Bill in his annual Christmas message from Rubaga
Cathedral. That message was broadcast over several Ugandan television channels.
These responses make sense since they are perfectly aligned
with official Catholic Church teaching on homosexuality. Here is a copy/paste from our official
teachings of the Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church on how we as
Christians are to treat those with same-sex attraction:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
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.
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.
Responses from other friends: "F" wrote: I think the Uganda situation is indicative of what's wrong with our
country. The people in any society have the right to decide for
themselves what their society should stand for and what it will reject. Where the issues concerning homosexuality are put to the voters
in our country, the homosexual agenda usually loses, which is why they
go to the courts and legislatures. Uganda and other African countries do
not want homosexuality polluting their society, so they pass laws
insuring it won't. I see nothing wrong with that.
And
before anyone says homosexuality in itself is no sin, just remember
what happens when you let the camel get its nose under your tent
flap.
"A" wrote: My personal view is that this law is on the same level as the
repressive laws in the
Islamic theocracies, those of pagan Rome and now of many other
places.
Even after reading F's reply, I still would argue that the civil
authorities -
and that is who makes these laws and pretends to grant special
rights - whether in agreement or opposition to Divine Natural law - has no
authority to do so.
IMO, civil authority is limited to control and regulate the safety
and security of
its citizens. In all instances and matters where civil institutions have both
authority and the duty to legislate the civil laws must coincide with natural and
Divine laws.
Civil authorities may have the power and means to enforce laws, they
have no right
to impose sanctions nor to grant rights outside of their delegated
authority - restrictions and punishments such as the 'law' you referred to, nor
'rights' to
abortion, same sex marriages etc.
One can argue that civil laws which agree and coincide with Divine
law are good, and I would grant that, but these laws would still be 'ultra vires'
for the government, unless _all_ citizens agreed to live under that
government - i.e I think that citizens can agree to abide to restrictions over and above what
the strictest
minimum demands, but the government cannot impose extra duties or
restrictions on its own, nor an a minority or even a large majority.
For, if we grant the majority that power, we have no reason to
complain about the current state of affairs in the world.
OTOH, WWJD?
John 8:11 Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I
condemn thee.
Go, and now sin no more.
Ultimately, in none of these cases do the human courts have full
knowledge of all the circumstances related to these 'transgressions', nor will
the transgressors escape judgment altogether. For Catholics we have confession for the rest, I would leave them to
the 'just judge'.
While I am sure there is much more to this, these are the ideas I
would base my argument on.
"O" (responding to "A")
"...this [Ugandan] law is on the same level as the
repressive laws in the Islamic theocracies, those of pagan Rome and now of many other
places."
I think a law may be described as repressive if,
and only if, the law constrains a natural human desire to act. Laws
which constrain unnatural human acts are in principle just laws. Such
laws may denounce, prohibit, or punish unnatural behavior; these are
matters of degree. I think the severity of the law ought to be
restricted to that level necessary to protect or promote the
commonweal. The severity of the law is a matter of prudence for the
governing body of the community.
People living in community,
assuming they possess suffrage and political freedom, give up personal
autonomy and submit to the restraints of justice as reflected in the
community's expressed values (norms) and evidenced in the community's
laws.
If Ugandans as a community believe homosexual activity is
unnatural human activity and believe that tolerating such activity is
contrary to the promotion of the commonweal then, it seems to me, the
governing authority is obligated to evidence those beliefs in the
community's laws. Whether the law merely denounces or punishes is a
matter of degree and prudence, but I think not principle.
"A" responds to "O" with:
"Whether the law merely denounces or punishes is a matter of
degree and prudence, but I think not principle."
Point well taken, but:
If it is not a matter of principle, then would reasoning according
to the same 'rules' not also give the 'community/government' the 'right' to confer 'rights'
on its citizens, rights which promote " unnatural human acts ", 'rights' which
condone/facilitate abortion, euthanasia etc, etc. ??
"O" replies:
I think not.
If the positive statement is true then so is its
contrapositive.
Positive:
If a law constrains a natural human desire to act then the
law is unjust.
Contrapositive:
If the law is [not un] just then the law allows [not constrains]
a natural human desire to act.
Abortion and euthanasia are not natural human acts.
Scott says: I would add, abortion and euthanasia are acts which do harm to others. I
believe laws should protect others, especially those who cannot protect
themselves. I tend to be on the side of saying we should not be
legislating an act between two consenting adults which (other than to
their eternal soul) is doing no direct harm.
Nathan replies: But
Scott, the Ugandans could very well believe that homosexual behavior is
an actual danger to their society as a whole seeing as even with less
than 7% of the US population of men having sex with men but account for
more than 78%% of new HIV infections among males in 2010. A good case
can be made for Uganda to punish homosexual behavior as a method of
protecting Ugandan society as a whole. (Source)
"O" responding to Scott:
" ... we
should not be legislating an act between two consenting adults which (other
than to their eternal soul) is doing no direct harm."
May I
interpret the above to the following conditional statement?
"If an evil
act does no immediate harm to the actors then society ought not prohibit the evil
act."
Since
"immediate harm" does not include the universe of "harms,"
the following conditionals can stand with the above as equally true.
"If an
evil act does non- immediate harm to the actors then society may prohibit the
evil act."
"If an
evil act does harm to the commonweal then society ought prohibit the evil act."
I would agree
with all the conditionals stated above as true.
Society's prudence would determine the immediate and future states of "harm" as used
above.
Second question: Should states be allowed to establish in law that it is permissible to refuse business to homosexuals.
Scott's response: I would not necessarily be in favor of a law specifying that a business may be permitted to refuse business to any "class" of people. I think we get into shaky territory when we legislate morality on one side or the other. The fact is, businesses already may "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Using the law to beat people into submission over personal choices is a bit crazy. The New Mexico case, where a photographer refused to shoot pictures of a same-sex union should not have been taken to court over this - the judge should have thrown this out as a frivolous case, but since he did not and even ruled in favor of the homosexuals, this story still (as of this writing) isn't over. CathMom5's response: Yes. This is a different situation. What happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to whomever we choose?" I don't believe that any Christian should be forced to, say, bake and decorate a "wedding" cake for a homosexual couple if they feel that it means that they are implicitly approving of such a union when that union is against their Christian morals. Or, a woman who owns a home that she rents rooms from as a Bed and Breakfast. She was going to give the two women who showed up at her door a room until they told her that the were a couple. She said that she did not want them in her home. I would also say that it is a rare thing that there is only one business, a bakery, a B and B, etc. in the area. So, why can't that homosexual couple find a baker, or a B and B, or whatever business, that will provide that service for them--I'm sure that they are out there. I'm sure that in the cases that have gone to court and hit the news, the homosexual couple was not only looking for trouble but happy to have found it. I don't believe someone should be sued out of business because they refused to provide a service for a homosexual couple. A business should have the "right to refuse service." I believe that laws are overdue that uphold a business owner's right to refuse service. Our laws, our courts, our society is bending over backwards to give this very small minority of our population not equality but privilege. Please make sure that the argument does not start to go the "that is exactly what happened to African Americans" route. This false similarity keeps popping up. I remember arguing about the "rights" of homosexuals in a 90's philosophy class and this came up. "This is just like what happened to blacks before the civil rights movement." While there may be parallels on the surface, it is not the same. African Americans and those of other races in this country should, and now do, have the same rights--heterosexual or homosexual. Our society was biased against Blacks because of their skin color, not biased on moral grounds. In my opinion, homosexuals would not have much bias against them if their sex life didn't become their whole identity. They get away with bullying people because they cry "prejudice," and our society lets them be bullies because of a guilt complex over the despicable things people have done in the past. Nathan's response:States should not institute laws that permit some to refuse
service to homosexuals PROVIDED that the government does not COMPEL business
owners to perform actions that directly go against their deeply held religious
beliefs. A bakery owner cannot refuse to
bake a cake for a homosexual individual simply because the owner disagrees with
his lifestyle BUT the owner shouldn’t be compelled to bake a wedding cake for a
homosexual couple if he feels that to do so would be a public expression of
agreement with ‘same-sex marriage’. It’s not that business owners want to
“refuse service” to gays simply because they’re gay; it’s that some business
owners — particularly people who work in the wedding industry — don’t want to
be forced to employ their talents in service of something that defies their
deeply held religious convictions.
Cathmom5 responds to Nathan: I think you expressed what I meant to say better than I. I don't believe any business should be "compelled" to do business with anyone. I agree that a business (like a bakery) should not refuse service solely upon a person's sexual or perceived sexual orientation. However, the owner of a bakery may feel that baking a wedding cake crosses the line into condoning or participating in the celebration of a ceremony, and they should neither be compelled to make the "couple" a cake nor be sued out of business because they refused to do so. And as I said--Why can't they go to another bakery? I doubt there are many towns where there is one, single bakery (especially in a place large city like Seattle where a small business is having a tough time surviving after being sued by a homosexual couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake). It seems that some homosexual couples go out of their way to make trouble for business owners who take a stand on moral principles. Responses from other friends: "A" replies: Based on my previous comments, my answer would be 'No.' "M" answers: This is a double edged
question because what gives anybody the right to discriminate against
another person just because of sexual orientation. However, having a law
in place to protect such individuals harms others because those same
individuals have the propensity to make vexious law suits.
Third question: Should states be allowed to define "marriage" as the union between a man and a woman, only - directly excluding the possibility of "same sex marriages?"
Scott's response: While I do believe states have the right to define marriage for which they grant licenses to, for those states which are permitting same sex unions, they should not use the term "marriage." The term "marriage" should be reserved to what it has always stood for, the union of a man to a woman, period. Like it or not, in our Judeo-Christian based society, "marriage" has scriptural roots, not secular. Even in most non-Judeo-Christian societies, the norm is that marriage takes place within religious ceremonies. The term "marriage" should be reserved for those who partake in Holy Matrimony. By the same token, those who are non-religious and are contracted by the state and have that union overseen by non-religious magistrates should refer to their contract the same way homosexuals should - as civil unions, not marriages. I realize that it is commonplace to refer to any such union as a "marriage," but in reality, without the witness of God's representatives, it is just a civil union. CathMom5's response: Yes. I do believe that should be up to the states. If the vast majority of the people in that state want "marriage" defined as only a union between a man and a woman, than they should have the right to vote that into state policy or law. After all, our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles which includes the efficacy and morality of marriage. However, it seems the politically correct minority of the moment gets to make laws in their favor. Nathan's response:Should states
have a right to define marriage as between one man and one woman? Since marriage has been defined as between
one man and one woman for many millennia, the question should be ‘should states
have a right to define marriage in any way they choose?’ And I believe we ought not change what has
been tried and true for thousands of years.
The States have no right to
change the definition of any word, especially at the whim of what is popular at
the moment. The best they can do is
possibly invent a new word, like ‘civil union’ and give the individuals in such
a union the same rights as a married couple has with whatever exception the
States population might deem exclusionary (like adoption for example). Responses from other friends: "F" responds: Of course they should. States, i.e., the people, have a right to define
the moral and cultural parameters of their society. Above all, they
should not be subject to the deviant behavior and questionable morals of
minorities who live in their jurisdictions.
"A" posits: While I do wish the state's laws always agreed with my own convictions,
it seems an inescapable conclusion for me, that if we give the state the
'right' to define morality, how will we argue against any law which
defines something against our convictions, something we consider immoral?
"M" writes: Homosexuals
are a minority group and they are intent upon imposing their values on
the rest of us. I disagree with the Dalai Lama on this matter since I do
not believe that the state can redefine marriage so that deviants can
destroy what we have.
HOWEVER,
that being said, maybe we need to look at the whole picture of
marriage. At the present time the act of marriage is carried out
according to the civil law. If we were to rely upon the Scripture then
we might view marriage in a different way because in the ancient times
there was no ritual, just a coming together with the consent of the
parents, and a brief ceremony where the marriage took place. When we
marry we say vows to each other and this is in fact the act of marriage.
The celebrant is nothing more than a witness to those vows that the
bride and groom say to each other, the rest is just ritual. There is a
lot more to marriage than that ceremony and I think we all know this to
be the truth. It is a coming together and it is a commitment to each
other to live the rest of our lives together.
Our
civil authorities are out of control and this is true because the wrong
kind of people get elected to the Parliament. These are the people with
an agenda to destroy our civil society in order to rebuild according to
their vision, and heaven forbid that they should ever get the chance to
carry out their plans.
Homosexuals
had a legitimate complaint regarding discrimination that they have
faced because their relationships have not been legally recognized. The
question is: do they need marriage to have those relationships
recognized. There has been a shift in how they are expressing their
angst about the discrimination that they have faced from insurance
companies etc. as well as hospitals. Yes, they have legitimate concerns,
but do they need the institution of marriage to remove those legitimate
issues? Some of what the homosexuals are doing to formalize their
relationships is absolutely ridiculous, and that includes two women
dressing up as brides, or one woman dressed as a groom and the other as a
bride.
If
they want to have a commitment ceremony then fine… let them have their
ceremony. The State can recognize the partnership by simply recognizing
that these couples have the same relationship as two heterosexual people
living together who do not have that piece of paper that is called a
marriage certificate. I see no reason as to why homosexuals could not
have a civil union agreement. It seems that they want more for their own
devious reasons.
Scott rewords Question 3:
Rewording that a bit.... Is a state allowed to define
*civil* marriage to allow for unions that could never be considered
sacramental by the Church? (e.g., granting civil marriages to divorced
persons; civil marriages to someone who has not been released from a
religious vow or is a priest; or, in this case granting a civil marriage
to 2 people of the same sex?
"O" replies:
... if we give the state the 'right' to define morality ..."
The state's right to define morality is, I think, a sine qua non.
To be effective, a state
must assume to itself a monopoly on violence.
To insure domestic
tranquility, the state must provide a civil means for citizen redress.
Morality is defined as the
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and
bad behavior
Therefore, the state must set
moral standards.
" Is a state allowed ... ?
When
can one state judge another state's morality -- its definition of human rights? Legal positivism, I think, prevents ever
making such judgments.
The philosophy of legal positivism prevents arguing
for human rights outside the legal system per se. Legal systems cannot criticize each other. Other than lacking in internal consistencies,
legal positivism does not allow argument regarding another state's jurisprudence.
If legal system A, claims that legal system B is
immoral it must do so only from a reference to itself. System B does not recognize the validity of
system A, so the criticism by system A of system B is correctly disregarded as baseless
by system B.
The Nazis leaders used legal positivism to defend themselves at Nuremberg. The
only reason, the Nazis claimed, that they found themselves in the defendants'
chair at Nuremberg was that they had the misfortune of losing the war.
The Nazis granted that their legal system was different than the Allies, and granted
that fundamental German values were different than the Allies, one of which was
the supremacy of the Aryan race. They incorporated their values into their laws
that included the de-valuing of Jews relative to Aryans. The Nazis argued,
therefore, that the systematic elimination of Jews was, in the German legal system,
entirely valid. And, since, under legal positivism, the Allies could not judge
the Nazis legal system as invalid, the Allies could not judge the defendants
acts as criminal.
Jackson, the lead prosecutor, had to depart from the philosophy of legal positivism
and proceed to a higher authority, a new and higher vantage point to prosecute
the legal system of another country. He appealed to the basic principles of civilization
in order to prosecute the jurisprudence of the Nazi legal system. To transcend
human law, Jackson successfully took recourse to natural law -- the Creator's law. One,
I think, cannot appeal this particular Ugandan law to natural law
successfully because the natural law and the Ugandan law are
harmonious.
Steve Hays responded to my article on Onanism v. Homosexuality, and since a combox reply would not be practical, I am responding to him with a new article. Steve's comments are in yellow, where he has quoted me is in blue.
I'm going to comment on a few recently claims by Catholic apologist Scott Windsor.
I found the article interesting, and even almost Catholic in many places, however... you knew that was coming :-) ... when it comes to Onan's sin - the writer makes a very definitive statement that Onan was not slain for spilling his seed, but in reality - it is precisely for what Onan DID (spilling his seed) and not his MOTIVE (not wanting to produce children for his brother).
i) Evangelical converts to Catholicism like Windsor and Dave Armstrong resort to traditional prooftexting. A more sophisticated Catholic apologist would skip the fanciful prooftexting and justify his denomination's teaching by appealing to the theory of development as well as attempting to mount a natural law argument.
a) Hmmm, why bring up Dave Armstrong? Are you trying to draw him into this discussion?
b) Then you go straight into ad hominem as if whether or not I am a “sophisticated Catholic apologist” or not has any bearing on the points made!
c) Catholicism is not a “denomination” - it is Protestantism which has denominated itself to be apart from Catholicism. Catholic simply means “universal” - whereas “Baptist” or “Lutheran” or “Methodist” are given names to distinguish themselves from the Universal Church which Jesus Christ built… but I digress (squirrel!).
d) Hays ignores my thesis and jumps to supporting arguments I made. which are tangential.
ii) As is typical of evangelical converts to Rome, Windsor is out of touch with Catholic scholarship on his locus classicus. This, again, betrays the fact that apologists like Windsor and Armstrong remain outsiders to their adopted denomination. But here's some examples of modern Catholic scholarship on the issue at hand:
Onan is commissioned to raise seed to his brother's wife, according to the levirate law; cf.Deut 25:5-10. Oanan's offense is obvious: he selfishly refuses the responsibility of fulfilling his duty to his brother, as the law provided. That is the point of his offense. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Prentice Hall 1990), 38.
Moreover, from the biblical author’s point of view, Onan’s sin was his refusal to fulfill the important responsibility involved in the levirate law (cf.Dt 25:5-10). New Catholic Encyclopedia (CUA, 2nd ed., 2003), 9:315b.
In common usage often taken to mean improperly completed intercourse or even masturbation. The word is taken from the story of Onan in the Book of Genesis...This was in accordance with the custom of Levirate marriage...Popular usage of the term onanism is based on the assumption that the evil for which the Lord took Onan’s life was his unchastity. This, however, is by no means clear from the text, in which his refusal to conform to the prescribed marriage custom can be seen as the wickedness that brought vengeance upon him. Consequently, no certain argument can be based upon this text to prove the sinful character of either improperly completed intercourse or masturbation. Evidence for this must be sought elsewhere. Ibid. 10:600a.
e) Again, ad hominem as "typical evangelical converts to Rome…” is unnecessary, irrelevant and
invalid argumentation.
f) Again, naming Armstrong in this discussion - who was not a party to the original discussion.
g) Irony: Hays refers to “locus classicus,” as if I am ignorant of it, and then cites a MODERN source! How about going to a “classic” source instead of the modernist commentary in the New Jerusalem Bible or the “New” Catholic Encyclopedia? I reject Mr. Hays attempt to prove “locus classicus” from “modern” commentaries (neither of which he cites has any authority). Would he like me to admit there have been some revisionists in the Catholic Church? Fine, I will admit to that, but that, however, does not change my point in the least.
h) Hays then argues that it “is by no means clear from the text” that Onan was punished for what he did and argues (as the two other respondents did) that it had more to do with his motive than what he did. I refer the reader (again) back to what the actual Scripture says Gen. 38:10 -
10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.
So back to my point, the Lord slew him, because of what he DID, not for WHY he did it. To say it was due to Onan’s motives that he was slain imputes something to the text which is simply not there. My opponents here are rationalizing that because the text also mentions the motive, that it was his motive that was the reason for his punishment - but again, the text does not say it was due to WHY he did the “detestable thing” but that he DID the “detestable thing.” My point remains unassailed. I ask the objective reader - what did Onan DO which the Lord found detestable? Don’t rationalize WHY he did it, just tell me what he DID - OK?
iii) Windsor shortsightedly excludes Onan's motivation. Yet that runs contrary to Catholic teaching on contraception, where intent is a key consideration. Conjugal relations should always be open to the possibility of conception:
2366 it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.
i) It is not “shortsighted” at all, but that being said - I do not “exclude” Onan’s motivation, in fact I agree 100% with them that this is WHY he DID what he DID - but I remind Mr. Hays, but moreso the objective reader of this discourse, that verse 10 does not say that God punished Onan because of his motive, but because of his ACT. And this is a FACT which Mr. Hays cannot get around, no matter how hard he tries.
Continuing with Windsor:
It was here that for the first time a major Protestant communion opted for some limited use of contraception, so long as the motives were not selfish, based in luxury or mere convenience. Now, honestly ask yourself, for what other reason, outside of a personal health issue, would have been considered acceptable by such limitations? Not many, if any! Yet less than 100 years later it is precisely for selfish, luxury or mere convenience reasons that contraception is practiced! Today's practices by most who participate in contraception would be condemned by the 1930 Lambeth Conference! It should be noted as well, than more than a third of the voting members of this conference voted against acceptance of the resolution.
The church of Roman supports "limited use of contraception." It simply draws a makeshift distinction between "artificial" contraception and "natural" methods of birth control.
j) Nice attempt at the Red Herring argument, Mr. Hays. How about dealing with what you quoted instead of going off on a tangent which Begs the Question? (Two invalid arguments in one statement there, Mr. Hays!). To make it easier, I’ll summarize the point Mr. Hays SHOULD have responded to… The 1930 Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church was THE FIRST TIME even among Protestants that a LIMITED use of ABC (Artificial Birth Control) methods MIGHT be used IF done for the right reasons (which the conference conveniently does not define). What the Lambeth Conference DOES define are reasons NOT to partake in ABC methods - which are “selfish, luxury or mere convenience” - which are PRECISELY why MOST people participate in ABC methods today! Thus - by the standard of 1930, most who partake in ABC methods are in the wrong. How about dealing with the ACTUAL POINT, Mr. Hays?
Well, as an article inSalon puts forth, the anti-contraception movement (primarily Catholic) had not caught hold among Evangelicals, but that all changed in 2011. The "HHS Mandate" was passed on July 19, 2011 and according to Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, on July 20 said: “HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has recommended mandatory coverage for ‘emergency contraception,’ which is a euphemism for the morning-after pill, which often kills a newly conceived child by not allowing the embryo to implant on the wall of the mother’s womb.” In September of 2012 the founder of Hobby Lobby sued Kathleen Sebelius and based on the fact that his company was founded upon Christian principles, they should be exempted from the mandate.
Passage of Obamacare was made possible by support from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, colluding with Catholic politicians like Bart Stupak and Nancy Pelosi. Sebelius is another Catholic official.
k) Again, missing the point, the point is that FINALLY “Evangelicals” are coming around and re-joining Catholics in opposing ABC methods of ALL kinds.
l) To be honest, those “Catholics” you named may have a LOT to answer for when they stand before the Judgment Seat. I would not want to be in their shoes! But again, what these “Catholics” (whom I personally would consider to be CINOs, Catholic In Name Only) have done is irrelevant to the point of how “Evangelicals” are coming around on this issue. Ignoring the points does not make them go away, Mr. Hays.
While recognizing the abhorrent sins here, the Catholic Church has recognized, perhaps moreso recently than previously, that we must recognize the sinner and the sin are not the same. While the Church has more openly embraced sinners - she has not changed her position on the sinful acts and/or lifestyles. While the cliche may be a bit overused, it does ring true - "Love the sinner; hate the sin." Pope Francis relates the Church to a "field hospital," and you really can't treat those who need you if you don't first bring them into the hospital!
Well, you can read the exchange yourself and see - but essentially, I can only assume here, that those respondents are supporters of ABC and/or participants in it - and thus have a vested interest in arguing for such methods, but do they realize they are so, so much in the minority of the historic Christian viewpoint? Even among their own fore-fathers (for which they can only go back about 500 years, at best) ABC was by and large condemned. In their relatively short history, only the last (less than) 20% of their existence as protesting (Protestant) Christians can be seen as supportive of the modern (or Modernist) views on ABC. One would think this SHOULD cause them at least SOME concern!
To the contrary, Rome used to take a very different position on the nature of conception. Based on Aristotelian embryology, abortion before ensoulment wasn't deemed to be homicide. That's documented in John Noonan's classic monograph on Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists (Belknap Press, enlarged edition, 1986).
By Windsor's nostalgic logic, we should return to the good old days when abortion in the first trimester wasn't classified as homicide by Rome's leading theologians and canon lawyers.
m) Mr. Hays, simply making reference to a secondary source which allegedly argues for “Rome” having a “very different position” is not valid documentation and would not be acceptable in any sort of debate forum. If you wish to challenge what I have to say, please, at least do so validly. If you have a primary source for me to consider, please present it. If the secondary source you cited is worth anything, it quoted and cited its primary sources - go to those and present them and they will be given the consideration they deserve. You entitled your response "Ensoulment" - yet your only reference to that is in this invalid citation. I repeat, if you wish to make a valid case for the Catholic position on "Ensoulment" - please begin with valid documentation.
n) While what Mr. Hays "responds" to here was a tangential point, the REAL point is that Protestantism has changed its stance on ABC methods and that even in their own (less than) 500 year history, less than 20% of that has taught ABC methods in a favorable light.
o) The response Mr. Hays quoted from me just above (in blue) also was actually getting back to the original thesis of the original article... "squirrel!"
p) I will say, the main thesis I began with "Onanism v. Homosexuality" was a bit "lost" in my responses to "rockingwithhawking" and "ANNOYED PINOY" - and I take responsibility for that "squirrel" on my part. The point there was, and was actually in agreement with "ANNOYED PINOY's" response - that homosexuality is the epitome of "spilled seed" as conception cannot occur. Both homosexuality and "Onanism" are condemned by the Lord.
q) In conclusion, I am disappointed in your response, Mr. Hays. Typically you do a lot better work, but in this “response” you have skipped over several points and when you have quoted my words, your arguments have not dealt with the topic at hand. I really had come to expect better scholarship from you.
