Homosexuality and the Bible

2 September 2010 | by Letters Editor

From John Lee, Johannesburg:

In response to Joseph Williams, “Are gay parishioners welcome?” (August 18), my experience over many years has been that gay people, who comprise at least 10% of the population, are generally very active and certainly welcome and numerous in our Catholic parishes.

Homosexuality — a genuine preferential attraction to people of one’s own gender — is like heterosexuality: a natural and normal variant of human sexual make-up. It is not something one chooses, as the uninformed imagine. The attraction forms long before puberty, the earliest experiences of the young child.

No single factor causes a particular orientation. Even in today’s world of changing attitudes, gay men and women often lead lives of quiet desperation and anxious secrecy. Who in their right mind would choose a “lifestyle” fraught with such rejection and discrimination?

In a darker age they would have been burned at the stake by the Catholic inquisition. In more recent times, gay men and women have been gassed in Hitler’s concentration camps.

Most experts agree that the condition is as irreversible as heterosexuality. The condition is not a sickness; therefore the attraction itself cannot be sinful.

What does the Bible say? Neither the actual narrative concerning Sodom and Gommorah (Gen 19:1-29), nor the preceding references, demand that the immediate sin of the Sodomites was sexual, let alone homosexual in nature.

The Hebrew word yadha—to know—also means to observe, so it is more reasonable to think that “the two strangers” were considered spies for neighbouring enemies. On 15 occasions elsewhere, another word, shakah, describes homosexual relations in Scripture.

Today’s biblical scholars see the subject of the Sodom story as one of gross inhospitality. The offer of Lot’s daughters is a possible diversion to avoid the sacred duty of hospitality, which was more important than the honour of Lot’s daughters. In any event, Lot must have been incredibly stupid to offer his daughters if the intent of the men was homosexual rape! No references to Sodom is given in any of the Old or New Testament texts prohibiting same-sex vices, whether in Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians or 1 Timothy. Jesus refered to Sodom only in the context of inhospitality. It was only in later centuries that the idea of same-sex rape came into the Sodom episode.

True, homosexual acts are condemned by the Bible. In the same chapters of Leviticus, marital relations during the menstrual period are prohibited; celibacy is seen as abnormal. Nudity is judged reprehensible even in the presence of one’s family, yet polygamy and concubinage are regularly allowed among the Hebrews. They could not eat rabbit or ham, nor cut their hair or wear fabrics of blended materials. Men could not clip their beards and women could not don male attire, nor could farmers plant two types of crops in a single field. All these were described as abominations. Looked at today, we can see that many of these prohibitions were culturally conditioned.

Scripture is full of close, intimate, same-sex relationships. Ruth made an extraordinary commitment with Naomi, even after death to lie inseperably by her side. David asserted that his love for Jonathan was for him “more wonderful that the love of a woman” (2 Sam 1:26). St Aelred of Rievaulx, who was undoubtedly gay, idealised same-sex attachements.

Why are these examples in scripture? For our edification and to approve, encourage and even praise multiple variants in human relationships.

Comments

360 Responses to “Homosexuality and the Bible”

Malcolm on September 2nd, 2010

“Homosexuality — a genuine preferential attraction to people of one’s own gender — is like heterosexuality: a natural and normal variant of human sexual make-up. It is not something one chooses, as the uninformed imagine. The attraction forms long before puberty, the earliest experiences of the young child.”

What Mr John Lee is saying that ones sexual orientation is predetermined; one is driven by sexual impulse that one is unable to resist?
Interesting, it would helpful to look at the empirical evidence that would support that view.
feetxxxl on September 2nd, 2010

the principles of the new covenant of christ show that homosexuality is of god. how can gender pairing and choices of errogenous zones to express sexual intimacy come against the love of christ, godloving(love one another as i have loved you) ones neighbor as oneself, the 2nd commandment, the summation of all new covenant law, knowing that one cannot love god unless he is loving his neighbor also.

‘WHAT EVER IS NOT AGAINST US IS FOR US”
feetxxxl on September 2nd, 2010

can interpretations of law trump the love of christ and principles of his covenant. is slavery which god said was good in lev, now under the new covenant of christ be an intolerable evil, because of its violation of the 2nd commandment?

“the law is a shadow of things to come not the realities themselves”
Malcolm on September 2nd, 2010

Perhaps a clear distinction between homosexual orientation and activity could be made. Anyway the Holy Bible is uncompromising on condemnation on activity, why water it down. Possibly because one might be called a bigot.
feetxxxl on September 2nd, 2010

again how does gender pairing and choices of errogenous zones to express sexual intimacy come against the love of the new covenant of christ.
neti on September 3rd, 2010

Honestly, I wont even comment that, I wonder what kind of Bible did you study ?
I am awaiting zoophiles to come back and say that the relationship between human beings and animals are the normal ones and there is a support in the Bible for that as well.
Martin Keenan on September 4th, 2010

Yet another Letter of the Week which contradicts Catholic teaching.

There is nothing natural or normal about homosexual attraction. No more is congenital blindness “normal” or a propensity to violence “natural”. We live in a fallen world and those who are born blind, or who develop fiery tempers, or discover same-sex attraction, have to make their way as best they can with God´s merciful help. Mr. Lee had do better to study the Church´s teaching on the subject and closely attend to it before presuming to “inform” the readers of “The Southern Cross” of all manner of defective and unsupportable generalisations, pseudo-scientific clap-trap, and erratic and incomplete scrtiptural exegesis.

Those who experience same-sex attraction (including vulnerable and impressionable teen-agers who are passing through a perfectly normal phase of sexual confusion) deserve better than to be fed this propaganda.
Vincent Couling on September 5th, 2010

I had hoped to take a long sabbatical from writing on these comments sections, but feel obliged to make an intervention after reading the sloppy comments posted on John Lee’s well-written and carefully-considered letter.

As a gay Catholic I can speak from personal experience of the deep and lasting psychic damage wrought upon myself when, as a vulnerable and impressionable seventeen-year-old teenager, I first read the 1986 letter of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith curiously entitled “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”. [It really is not too much of a stretch to needle Martin by suggesting that this letter is notorious for all manner of defective and unsupportable generalisations, pseudo-scientific clap-trap, and erratic and incomplete scriptural exegesis.] The flaws in the arguments presented in this letter are expertly teased out by the Dominican theologian and philosopher Fr Gareth Moore in his scrupulously objective analysis entitled “A Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality,” a work which is essential reading for anyone who takes this topic seriously. Fr Moore is uncompromising, as is revealed by his words “we are not here to be made to feel more comfortable or to have our prejudices reinforced … we are here for the truth.”

Unfortunately, Fr Moore’s book is written in an academic style that would probably not be readily accessible to the average teenager. Any teen (or adult!) who might stumble upon this thread, and who is looking for a critical yet accessible analysis of the CDF documents on homosexuality, would do well to read Andrew Sullivan’s excellent piece “Alone again, naturally” which first appeared in 1994. It deals effectively with the false analogies typified in the above comments, and a copy of the text is available at the following link: http://igfculturewatch.com/1994/11/28/alone-again-naturally/ . An excerpt from this piece follows:

“In many species and almost all human cultures, there are some who seem to find their destiny in a similar but different sexual and emotional union. They do this not by subverting their own nature, or indeed human nature, but by fulfilling it in a way that doesn’t deny heterosexual primacy, but rather honors it by its rare and distinct otherness. As albinos remind us of the brilliance of color; as redheads offer a startling contrast to the blandness of their peers; as genius teaches us, by contrast, the virtue of moderation; as the disabled person reveals to us in negative form the beauty of the fully functioning human body; so the homosexual person might be seen as a natural foil to the heterosexual norm, a variation that does not eclipse the theme, but resonates with it. Extinguishing – or prohibiting – homosexuality is, from this point of view, not a virtuous necessity, but the real crime against nature, a refusal to accept the pied beauty of God’s creation, a denial of the way in which the other need not threaten, but may actually give depth and contrast to the self.

This is the alternative argument embedded in the Church’s recent grappling with natural law, that is just as consonant with the spirit of natural law as the Church’s current position. It is more consonant with what actually occurs in nature; seeks an end to every form of natural life; and upholds the dignity of each human person. It is so obvious an alternative to the Church’s current stance that it is hard to imagine the forces of avoidance that have kept it so firmly at bay for so long.

For many homosexual Catholics, life within the Church is a difficult endeavor. In my 20s, as I attempted to unite the possibilities of sexual longing and emotional commitment, I discovered what many heterosexuals and homosexuals had discovered before me: that it is a troubling and troublesome mission. There’s a disingenuous tendency, when discussing both homosexual and heterosexual emotional life, to glamorize and idealize the entire venture. To posit the possibility of a loving union, after all, is not to guarantee its achievement. There is also a lamentable inclination to believe that all conflicts can finally be resolved; that the homosexual Catholic’s struggle can be removed by a simple theological coup de main; that the conflict is somehow deeper than many other struggles in the Church – of women, say, or of the divorced. The truth is that pain, as Christ taught, is not a reason to question truth; it may indeed be a reason to embrace it.

But it must also be true that to dismiss the possibility of a loving union for homosexuals at all – to banish from the minds and hearts of countless gay men and women the idea that they, too, can find solace and love in one another – is to create the conditions for a human etiolation that no Christian community can contemplate without remorse. What finally convinced me of the wrongness of the Church’s teachings was not that they were intellectually so confused, but that in the circumstances of my own life – and of the lives I discovered around me – they seemed so destructive of the possibilities of human love and self-realization. By crippling the potential for connection and growth, the Church’s teachings created a dynamic that in practice led not to virtue but to pathology; by requiring the first lie in a human life, which would lead to an entire battery of others, they contorted human beings into caricatures of solitary eccentricity, frustrated bitterness, incapacitating anxiety – and helped perpetuate all the human wickedness and cruelty and insensitivity that such lives inevitably carry in their wake. These doctrines could not in practice do what they wanted to do: they could not both affirm human dignity and deny human love.

This truth is not an argument; it is merely an observation. But observations are at the heart not simply of the Church’s traditional Thomist philosophy, but also of the phenomenological vision of the current pope. To observe these things, to affirm their truth, is not to oppose the Church, but to hope in it, to believe in it as a human institution that is yet the eternal vessel of God’s love. It is to say that such lives as those of countless gay men and lesbians must ultimately affect the Church not because our lives are perfect, or without contradiction, or without sin, but because our lives are in some sense also the life of the Church.”
Malcolm on September 5th, 2010

Mr John Lee says in reference to homosexual act: “In a darker age they would have been burned at the stake by the Catholic inquisition. In more recent times, gay men and women have been gassed in Hitler’s concentration camps”.

Well, I do no agree with Vincent view that the above letter is a well-written and carefully-considered letter.

Firstly what is needed is empirical evidence to support Mr Lee’s claims in the second paragraph. In my opinion there are none.

Secondly, I am unaware of the Catholic inquisition burning any homosexual. If this did happen, was it the State or the Church. If it were the State or Church , could we have references. The inquisitions as far as I know dealt with crimes against the teaching of the Church and were quite lenient and had no powers to sentence anyone to death.

Thirdly lets no minimize the Holocaust by pointing out that Hitler murdered Homosexuals, he murdered heterosexuals as well, 6 million Jews, millions of Catholics, Gypsy’s, and those considered mentally unstable.

Fourthly lets not romanticize the homosexual act, its disgusting. The majority of men when we are young, when we need solace or love, we go to our mothers, our fathers, they are there to give love and advice. When we are older we find that in our wives.

Why would anyone go to a strange male to give him those things. What can a male find in another male that which is lacking in himself? This is the perverseness which we speak of.

Lets go back to the argument “I was borne that way”. That is the most pathetic argument. How does anyone know what sexual orientation one is when one is borne. I can go along with the presumption that a innate male desire might have occurred in the mind, in the life of the male, and was encouraged by outside or inner forces, that the will to cease became diminished, and the easy way out now is to say I was borne that way.

I think Johns letter is totally disingenuous just with those few examples and I am sure this will be a good debate.
P.R.Margeot on September 5th, 2010

The Church says the sin is condemned but not the sinner. We must love everyone and show respect to all.
However, I would prefer that the people concerned keep a low profile and most importantly not try to impose their views on the world and impose their norms on the rest of us. I find their parades and demonstrations as being very aggressive and destructive. Keep a low profile and we will be all be happier.
Deneys on September 5th, 2010

Jesus Christ loves us all, homosexuals inculded. He excludes no one from His offer of love and forgiveness – all He asks in return is that we love Him with our whole hearts. In my experience, many homosexuals, especially homosexual men, have not been shown the incredible love of Christ. Why?

First, this love is primarily encountered through the family. The parents of each child are the stewards of God’s love for His children on earth, and in this the father especially bears this responsibility. That is why he has the honor of being named after The Father. Sadly, in my experience, many homosexuals have not had such fathers in their lives: either they were absent, or they did not raise their children with the caring love and attention that is required. Instead of being the model of our Eternal and All-loving Father, who loves each one of us with the most tender love imaginable, more than we can imagine or possible conceive in an infinitude of time, they were angry, disinterested, unfaithful to their spouses, and sometimes even abusive. And so the children were deprived of that which they needed most in those years. This has casued them unspeakable anguish.

Second, the love of Christ is encountered in friends and the general environment. And since one need not mention the widespread rejection and hostility to Christianity in our culture, it’s no surprise that few seem to encounter Christ’s love in the general culture. In fact, here homosexuals are dealt a double-blow, because they have been blackmailed by feminists and pro-abortion groups into taking on guilt in order to become victims, so that the feminists and others may too become victims. For the only way to convince yourself that you are a victim is to make everyone a victim.

And so again I say that homosexuals have not had the opportunity to receive the wonderful love of Jesus Christ. And this is the only reason why they will not accept His teachings. What remains then? Arguments are not appropriate now. Those can come later. Now, only the awesome message of Christ’s infinite love and mercy for all people, only the message of the Divine Mercy, of God’s burning desire to have compassion on His beloved people, of His desire to hold us as a mother holds her baby in her arms.
feetxxxl on September 5th, 2010

to all

what is sorely lacking in this site are personal testimony of what has been seen and experienced by the commenters in their heart thru the spirit that lives in them. to be honest i have never heard one anywhere. i have heard hundreds of testimonies of gay believers who have come to christ experiencing an affirmation of their orientation thru his spirit. but i have never heard anyone ever give testimony that they witnessed a deceitful, denying, or dilusional spirit in someone because they were gay. as believers our witness is primary in our walk in faith in christ “that which we have heard, which which we have looked at, which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have touched…………….in fellowship of walking in the light”(arent we called to be in fellowship with everyone as mother teresa was with all the tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of hindus in india that she ministered to)…………..john who said we must love and one cannot love god unless he in loving his brother also.

surely everyone either in family , as neighbors, in the work place, regularly or in frequently are in contact with someone who is gay. i would love to hear their testimonies about these encounters.
Derrick Kourie on September 5th, 2010

@Vincent: I salute you for your courage and integrity. Please don’t keep a low profile, but continue to speak the truth as you see it. I know several people who read these postings, and who find what you say to be encouraging and informative.

@Malcolm: Your view that homosexuality is not a matter of nature (”born that way”) but of nurture, goes beyond the position taken by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, it is possible that Jesus would not characterise homosexual acts as “disgusting”. Such words reflect your own prejudice. In point of fact, we do not know what Jesus would have said about the homosexual acts.

We do know, however, that Jesus found “disgusting” things like hypocrisy, money changers in the temple, religious leaders who dressed themselves up in fine clothes, people who thrust themselves forward in the church and society, those who laid heavy religious burdens on the people, people who liked to be called rabbi and father by others, and those who thanked God that they were not sinful like the rest of humanity. He spoke of such people as painted sepulchers.

“Yes,” said Jesus, “what sorrow also awaits you experts in religious law! For you crush people with unbearable religious demands, and you never lift a finger to ease the burden.” (Luke 11:46, New Living Translation ©2007)
John on September 6th, 2010

I am shocked that such an article can be found on a Catholic web site, but I will comment on it nonetheless as I fully believe that the Truth must be proclaimed here. The Truth as proclaimed by the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

I am a man who suffers from homosexual inclinations, I do not call myself “gay” as to label myself based on a sexual orientation is in itself demeaning. I have come to learn, through my journey over the past years, that the teaching of the Catholic Church that gay relationships are in no way morally acceptable, are to be the Truth. How easy it would have been for me to agree with people such as John Lee and rejected the teachings of the Church. For a time I did, but through the grace of God I came to embrace the true teachings of the Church. The result being that I have found a peace and joy in my heart that could never be attained in any relationship on Earth. The arguments found in the article posed by John Lee are not new. Countless “pro gay” ministers have uttered the same arguments, trying to find a Biblical basis in order to justify their cause. All of which have been dismissed, and dismissed on a logical, moral and Biblical basis. The Courage Apostolate (www.couragerc.net) is a Catholic approved web site that is aimed at revealing the truth about homosexuality and providing support to those who suffer from homosexual inclinations. I have found much assistance from it and I strongly recommend people who require assistance or more information to it.

Some books that can further assist those who wish to seek the Truth as proclaimed by the Holy Roman Catholic Church on the matter of homosexuality are as follows: Father John Harvey’s “Homosexuality and the Catholic Church – Clear Answers To Difficult Questions” and “The Gay Gospel?” by Joe Dallas. These books tackle the arguments posed by John Lee and any other “pro gay” ministers. I implore all to read them for a full and complete view on the matter.

The fact of the matter is that homosexuality cannot be condoned. It is a teaching that the Church has taught from its beginning. (Please refer to this link for supporting evidence http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp). I therefore implore any person who suffers from homosexual inclinations to seek the truth and advice from the wise. A good priest is always a great start and the Courage Apostolate web site also offers great assistance.

Blessings to all.

Yours in Christ.

John
Vincent Couling on September 6th, 2010

Dear Malcolm and P R Margeot,

I have the distinct (but perhaps incorrect?) impression that you are both retired, somewhat elderly gentlemen. And like (almost?) all people, your point of view – which is, after all, simply a view from a particular point, with all the inherent limitations implied – is coloured by the cultural context of your formation, etc.

I’m sure that you are both aware, though, that the trends revealed by opinion polls indicate an ever greater acceptance of gays into the cultural mainstream. With more and more gays falling out of the closet at ever younger ages, the gay is no longer an abstract bogeyman, the embodiment of all that is perverse and evil in the world – no, the gay is a son or daughter, a niece or nephew, a cousin, a work colleague, a neighbour or a friend – sometimes even a mother or father. And it is very difficult to demonize a real flesh-and-blood person, a beautiful child of Yahweh, made in His Image and Likeness. [Surely my halo shines brightly today – for I resisted the naughty temptation to use a feminine pronoun for the Divine.]

Curiosity causes me to wonder if either of you have ever known a self-accepting gay person, having chatted with them about their struggles, been pastoral with them … your posts make me think probably not. I could be ultra-mean, and rub salt into the mortal wounds of your (astonishingly rapidly) dying world-view … and say something like when your generation is dead and buried, your prejudice will go with it. But that is not the way of the Gospel, which demands mutual respect and dialogue where we genuinely listen to each other with humility and compassion and love. [Not to get too worried, guys ... I’m thinking fraternal love here ]

Malcolm, my instinctive reflex is to quote empirical evidence to support John Lee’s assertions about what are admittedly the worst excesses of some of the inquisitions, and the homosexual dimension of the Holocaust. But I doubt that will really get us anywhere, since what is needed here is not abstract knowledge, but a change of heart, a transformation. And argument probably cannot achieve this, since it is the stuff of personal encounter and experience. [For your own edification, you might like to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust and to http://www.aaronsgayinfo.com/timeline/time1200.html
. How mention of the Pink Triangle aspect of the Holocaust minimizes the Holocaust is beyond me! And to the best of my knowledge, no-one was murdered in a concentration camp by virtue of the fact that they were heterosexual in orientation!]

P R Margeot, you might find gay pride marches distasteful, but they commemorate the Stonewall riots, which took place in June of 1969 some 9 days after I was born – somehow providing context to my own particular point of view. This marked a political turning point, with gays refusing to remain passive in the face of their own persecution … police brutality against the gay community had finally led to an astonishing and spontaneous outpouring of anger and resistance, and days of running riots [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots ], and the birth of “gay pride.” The fact that homosexuality is still criminalized in so many “corners” of our globe should serve to remind us that political activism by gays remains an unsurprising necessity in the drive to secure (and where secured, to preserve) basic civil rights. We might well ask what the Church is doing to aid gays in their struggle – and here is a place where the SACBC Justice and Peace office might profit from some deep introspection. So I’m afraid that, out of necessity, it’s going to be “in your face” for a while longer.

Malcolm, you find the thought of homosexual sex disgusting. This is your personal opinion, a visceral reaction. Apparently most children, when they learn about sex, and realize that they were conceived as a result of an act of sexual passion by their parents, react with disgust. All individuals, I am sure, have many visceral reactions, and thoughts of disgust, when contemplating particular sexual scenarios. But few people would display your decided lack of good taste, airing their personal sexual dislikes in public. One’s personal sexual likes and dislikes, fantasies and phobias, seem hardly to have a place in the sphere of rational debate about the morality of homosexual unions.

You ask “Why would anyone go to a strange male to give him those things. What can a male find in another male that which is lacking in himself?” Your incomprehension is quite understandable, since you are clearly reacting from a particularly low level of human consciousness. I know that might sound cruel and harsh, but I believe it to be an accurate assessment of the facts. The answer is really quite simple, Malcolm … most of us are called out of ourselves by the great longings and yearnings of desire for another. Yearnings and longings planted in us by Yahweh Himself! As Sebastian Moore has said, desire is love trying to happen! And for those who have as the object of their affection another of the same gender as themselves, well, nothing cold seem more natural, more beautiful, more rewarding or fulfilling! I don’t expect you to understand that at the level of emotion or personal experience, Malcolm – only at the level of abstract reason. Think of it this way: how you might yearn for a woman is how a gay man might yearn for another man … it is a simple fact of nature, a fact to which many can attest.

The important question, of course, is what is the pastoral response of Holy Mother going to be as more and more of her gay children life lives of self-acceptance and integrity, forming stable unions as loving couples. Will she embrace them, and their unions? If one examines the Gospel, it appears difficult to see how she can do anything else … after all, wherever there is authentic love, there is God!

And I’m not in this for the thrill of the debate, Malcolm … for a bit of jousting over abstract academic questions about which I’m eager to share my poorly-thought-out and unnecessarily caustic opinions. I’m in this for my own sanity and psychological and spiritual well being … in a sense, for my very survival. The stakes are infinitely higher for me than they are for you. As hard as it might be Malcolm, try and imagine yourself in a gay person’s shoes. And maybe then try and imagine what Jesus, the very author of love, would do.
Vincent Couling on September 6th, 2010

Thank you, Derrick, for the kind words of encouragement – they are greatly appreciated.
Vincent Couling on September 6th, 2010

Dear John,

Have you ever dipped into John Boswell’s “Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality”? It provides an excellent counterbalance to the Website you recommended … all the more so since it provides that all-important ingredient called context.

John, do you recall Jesus’ caveat in his parable of the talents (Mathew 25:14-30)? Ought we not to be loath to hide God’s generous gifts to us in the ground?

Whereas you see your homosexual orientation as an affliction to be suffered, I see mine as a gracious gift from God, to be celebrated and lived with integrity. And that, my dear brother in Christ, is where we part company … .

Pax et Bonum.
Malcolm on September 6th, 2010

Derrick Kourie, I do agree with your last two paragraph, on the texts that are in the Scriptures on the Authority of the Church. For it is in that cradle the Holy Bible emerges and where the Holy Bible credentials rest, as being authentic.

So you would agree, that what Jesus said and instructed are true, on that same authority. A text that is enlightening is Mark16:16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned.

Now Jesus does not say you can believe in some things I say and other things as you please. So I take it on that Authority, that the Church, the structures, the Teaching Authority is the work of Divine Providence.

Therefor you will agree that Scripture is correct in its condemnation of Homosexual activity and the Catechism of the Holy Catholic Church is correct in its Teaching on the subject.

The fundamental difference between you and Jesus Mr Kourie, or any other Human is that Jesus could read the hearts of men and addressed His subjects with that knowledge. When you presume to read the mind of Jesus to what he might or might not of said, then you are not on sound ground. Stick to what has been revealed to His Church.
John on September 6th, 2010

Dear Vincent,

I truly feel for you. I have many friends, who are not Catholic, that have come to see their homosexuality as a “gift” from God. One to be accepted and to be incorporated into their life with honour and integrity. I feel for you my brother in Christ, for to believe such a lie is not to fully love Christ. As you know, Christ’s greatest commandments to us was to love one another and to obey God’s commandments. As homosexuality is a clear sin to the Lord, how can one possibly embrace it and still say that they’re in the full communion of His Church and in God Himself? One cannot, for it is also stated in Scripture that one cannot serve two masters. Either we must serve the Lord as truthfully as one can and as fully as one can based on the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, or we live a lie and thus not fully embrace the Lord and His Church.

You are incorrect Vincent to say that I see it as an affliction, rather I see it as a challenge. I see it as anyone would see any sin and temptation for that matter, even as a heterosexual would be faced with their moral challenges. They are to be overcome with the assistance and grace of Christ, and what better way to do so by fully embracing the teachings of the Church. After all, St. Paul lovingly reminds us “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (1 Cor. 10:13). Please note that I am not a depressed person who has been held back by the Church because the Church told me it is wrong. I am truly a self content person who is truly grateful that the Church of Christ is here for me, to help me and to support me. So much so, that my natural heterosexual inclinations have been “reinstated” for the lack of a better word. That is the miracle that I have been blessed with by embracing the true teachings of the Church, and I praise God for it every day of my life.

I pray for you my brother that you may find this peace within you by embracing the teachings of the Church. I can testify to it that it is true. After all, the Church is the embodiment of Christ, and Christ loves us and wants us to be happy. I have found this happiness, and hope that you will to.

Dear Malcolm,

Thank you for your clarity and well thought comment. “Stick to what has been revealed to His Church” —- I could not have said it better.

Yours in Christ.

John
Vincent Couling on September 6th, 2010

For a devastating look at the damage “ex-gay” ministries cause, look no further than here, where the co-founder of Exodus spills the beans, so to speak, on what ex-gay boot camp in the US of A is really all about:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/category/ex-ex-gays

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/category/converstion-reparative-therapy
Malcolm on September 6th, 2010

Thanks for the links John, they are helpful.

May God bless you always.
Martin Keenan on September 6th, 2010

Here is an idea: men are forbidden to engage in genital activity outside marriage – except in the case of genital activity with other men. Does anyone wish to defend this proposition? I leave women aside here since I see no women contributing on this or similar threads.

Here is another idea: men are forbidden to engage in genital activity outside marriage – except in the case of a man who engages in genital activity in a permanent and exclusive loving relationship with another man. Will anyone who supports this proposition care to explain why it should not extend to a man in a permanent and exclusive loving relationship with a woman?

The universal call to holiness does not permit us to negotiate with God so as to permit us to be disciples of Christ on our own terms. I wholly endorse John`s posts on this topic on this and on other threads.

In matters of morality, the truth “as Vincent” sees it (or as Derrick Kourie or anyone else “sees” it) is dangerous and harmful because Vincent views everything through the prism of his own sexual affinity. This is a type of narcissism and it is no sure basis for moral discussion. People generally confuse “opinion” with “conscience.” Frankly, personal opinions on morals are of no interest whatever in enabling one to live a good life.

The medley of “authorities” re-cycled in pretended justification of aberrant teaching has to be put in the balance against the supreme authority of Christ which He imparted to His Church. It is for this reason that those who claim the “right” of men to have sex with men begin or end up by abusing the Church`s right to teach on morals at all, and their ultimate authority is usually society`s tolerance of acts which most people would not dream of committing themselves, for reasons into which it is not necessary to inquire.

It is a serious error to confuse toleration with approval, but widespread approval within some societies at some moments in recorded history (itself a very long way beyond what the homosexual agenda has so far been able to achieve) cannot change what is morally evil into something that is morally good.
Derrick Kourie on September 6th, 2010

@Malcolm: You instruct me to follow the Church’s teaching, and caution me with Mark16:16—that I shall be condemned if I don’t. You do not understand that I am asking the same of you (without threatening condemnation if you don’t). Please, at a minimum, follow the Church’s example in your choice of words and in the tone of your arguments. Neither Jesus, nor the Church label homosexual activity as “disgusting”, as you do. Your choice of words is most unfortunate, to say the least. Imagine the sense of rejection and self-loathing that such words could engender in a young homosexual person if he/she were to read them.

And, while you label as “pathetic” a homosexual’s claim that he/she was “born that way”, the catechism much more wisely says that the “psychological genesis [of homosexuality] remains largely unexplained.”

I acknowledge, as does the catechism, that homosexuals “do not choose homosexuality; for most of them it is a trial.” Some of the nicest, wisest, gifted and loving people I have known are homosexuals—including priests. I have never considered it my business to inquire into the nature of their relationships with other people. That is a matter between themselves and God. I am grateful for them; for their example of integrity and groundedness, seemingly derived from their suffering.

Historically, homosexuals have gifted the world with so much in the sciences and arts. We owe them a debt of gratitude. For example, the homosexual and mathematician, Alan Turing, has not only made a massive contribution to modern day mathematics; he also significantly assisted the allies in winning the second world war by cracking German codes. But he eventually committed suicide, because bigots believed that his homosexual behaviour was “disgusting”.

@John: At times your writing seems to confuse the notions of homosexuality and homosexual acts. I see no reason why a homosexual should not embrace his/her homosexuality as a gift from God. I have known blind and cripple people who regard their blindness or physical disability as a gift. Such people often have heightened sensitivities and awarenesses that us lesser mortals lack. What we regard as a disability, they experience as a privilege—an opportunity to experience life in a unique way that God reserves for special people.

@Martin: I have just seen your posting. Do I agree with the catechism that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered … under no circumstances can they be approved.”? Since I am heterosexual, the matter is mercifully entirely an academic one. I could give notional assent to the proposition, or I could reject it. Either way, my life is unaffected.

But, you may well ask, how would I advise a homosexual who was foolish enough to look to me for advice? Although this is a hypothetical situation, I think I would offer the same advice that I was given as a young heterosexual person by the Marist Brothers: Let your physical engagement be commensurate with your commitment. If you are fully and totally committed to a person in a lifelong relationship, then your physical engagement is a matter of mutual consent. If that turns out to be “intrinsically disordered”, well then throw yourself at the mercy of our loving father.

You see, Martin, I would really like to embrace wholeheartedly the church’s official position. Unfortunately, I just cannot do so with a sense of integrity—in good conscience, if you like. You will no doubt insist that I inform my conscience, and I will insist that I try very seriously to do so. The matter is open-ended: I could no doubt do more, but I also could do a darn sight less. And Malcolm will no doubt caution me that my soul is danger of hell-fire and damnation, and I will wonder whether it will be just so if I were to acquiesce in the Church’s official position.

I try to imagine Jesus encountering a homosexual couple who have lived together for a lifetime. I have the greatest difficulty in imagining Jesus saying to them: “Whenever you have genital contact, you engage in an activity which is intrinsically disordered. I disapprove of it.” (I cannot for the life of me imagine Jesus using the kind of language that Malcolm used.) I think that I would argue with such a Jesus. I would want to know why? In what sense is his law of love being violated? Who is being harmed?

Perhaps my grasp of who and what Jesus is like is seriously deficient. Despite your impression of me, I do not claim infallibility, nor tremendous piety. Perhaps you can enlighten me, without giving a circular argument of “because the church says so”, why it is the case that homosexual acts are always “intrinsically disordered … Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

Perhaps there is a middle way. Perhaps you and Malcolm would concede that the acts need not be condemned under every circumstance, even if you do not ever approve of them. I am searching for answers, but those I have found to date appear to be in conflict with the face-value words of the catechism.
Vincent Couling on September 6th, 2010

Dear Martin,

The first two paragraphs of your post above provide one of the most compelling arguments I’ve yet seen for the need for provision to be made for sacramental marriage for same-sex couples. Whereas the man and woman currently have that avenue open to them, the two men, or two women, do not. Or do they? After all, the ministers of this sacrament are the couple themselves … and if two people of the same gender promise themselves to each other, and seal the promise with sexual consummation – surely that makes for a sacramental marriage in the eyes of God?!

Some bits and bobs from Ezekiel Ch34: The word of Yahweh was addressed to me as follows … Shepherds ought to feed their flock … you have failed to make weak sheep strong, or to care for the sick ones, or bandage the wounded ones … you have failed to bring back strays or look for the lost … on the contrary, you have ruled them cruelly and violently … I am going to take my flock back from them and I shall not allow them to feed my flock … I shall feed them in good pasturage … there they will rest in good grazing ground … I myself will pasture my sheep … I shall look after the lost one, bring back the stray, bandage the wounded and make the weak strong … I shall be a true shepherd to them … as for you, my sheep, I will judge between sheep and sheep … since you have butted all the weak sheep with your rumps and shoulders and horns, until you have chased them away, I am going to come and rescue my sheep.

I lift my eyes to the mountains: where is help to come from? Help comes to me from Yaweh, who made heaven and earth.

Frankly, that is all I have left … and it is surprisingly and abundantly enough!
Vincent Couling on September 6th, 2010

And Martin, I am not the only one who views everything through the prism of his own sexual affinity – of that you can be assured. I wholeheartedly applaud your clarion call for authentic impartiality and objectivity.
Malcolm on September 7th, 2010

Derrick Kourie, please point out where I instructed you specifically? It is clear that I used Matt 16:16 to point out the logical criteria of belief for the Church, The Holy Bible and the Catechism of the Holy Catholic Church.

Please let me assist you in understanding the Catechism that you partially paraphrase to suite your argument.

cc 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.

Mr Derrick Kourie do you have a problem with the words: grave depravity or disorderd or under no circumstances can they be approved.
Malcolm on September 7th, 2010

Apologies: should read, logical criterion.
Derrick Kourie on September 7th, 2010

Well Malcolm, let me spell it out for you:
1. I have a problem characterising all homosexual acts as “disgusting”. That is not a statement supported by the catechism. Neither does the catechism support the idea that homosexuality is a choice, or that it cannot be a condition into which one is born. The latter notion you characterised as a “pathetic argument”.

2. Note carefully the structure of the catechism’s text about homosexual acts. It says:
2(a) Scripture presents them as acts of grave depravity. That is a statement of fact. Scripture does indeed provide such a characterisation. Scripture also characterises eating shellfish as an abomination (Lev. 11:10). But the catechism avoids directly affirming such archaic, primitive and deeply judgmental characterisations. (Isn’t it interesting that the Gospels are silent about homosexuality.)
2(b) It then goes on to say that because of what scripture says, tradition has regarded the acts as “intrinsically disordered”. To say this is somewhat milder than saying that they are a grave depravity.
2(c) The catechism neither affirms nor denies what scripture and tradition say. Instead, what it positively asserts about the acts are:
2(c)(i) They are contrary to natural law.
2(c)(ii) They close the sexual act to the gift of life—a statement of fact.
2(c)(iii) They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.
2(c)(iv) Under no circumstances can they be approved.
I construe these positive assertions to be the Church’s official position on homosexuality.

3. I will confess to you that I don’t know what to make of the natural law argument. I don’t understand it. I neither affirm nor deny the claim, because I do not have a clear idea of what the notion of natural law entails. “Natural law” is apparently something other than the “laws of nature” as uncovered by science. In his 1966 book, Ratzinger describes the appeal to natural law as something that Christianity took over from the Stoics. At the time, he seemed to anticipate that the Church would cease to argue from a “natural law” perspective. Of course, Humanae Vitae proved him wrong, and he himself now appears to espouse “natural law” arguments. Whatever the case, I don’t understand the notion.

4. Neither do I have a clear idea of what “genuine affective complementarity” means. I think I understand what “genuine sexual complementarity” means, and I accept that homosexual acts cannot be characterised in this way. However, I am not sure why sexual acts have to be characterised by complementarity at all. Of itself, complementarity does not confer legitimacy. After all, a rape may involve “genuine sexual complementarity”, but it is undoubtedly immoral (disgusting, or maybe just pathetic!).

5. Finally, I have difficulty accepting the assertion that homosexual acts can “under no circumstances” be approved. I will certainly not condemn them under all circumstances. In particular, I will not condemn them when they are occur in a context of a loving committed relationship.

Now, your literalist approach to scripture may conclude that this logically leaves me condemned. (Math 16:6). I guess I will take my chances with the Lord.
John on September 7th, 2010

Dear Derrick Kourie,

If I may ask, since when did a loving relationship make anything acceptable to God? I pose to you the same argument that I posed to Vincent:

If I have a loving relationship with a 10 year old for example, and wish to have sexual relations with him/her, provided there is love and commitment, how could you refuse me that? Alternatively, if I am in complete love with a family member and wish to express that love sexually, could you refuse me that? Or to the other extreme, if I have a loving relationship with my pet dog/cat, surely sexual intercourse can be condoned provided there’s love and commitment?

I do believe that the crux of your argument will be based on the same argument that the Church basis its views: That it is immoral, unnatural and a sin to God. And that is the bottom line, one which the Church teaches and rightfully so.
Derrick Kourie on September 7th, 2010

John: I like St Bonaventure’s definition of love:
Love is that which seeks the good of the beloved.

A loving relationship with a 10 year old could not result in sexual relations with the 10 year old. That would not be seeking the good of the child.

I would like to use the term “love” in the same sense as “God is Love”.
John on September 7th, 2010

Dear Derrick Kourie,

I’m sorry, but you quote from St. Bonaventure or your quote that “God is Love” is not a valid argument based on the questions posed and has been taken out of context to suit your needs. The fact of the matter is that sexual intercourse is to be performed between a husband and a wife. Not for the use of self gratification, but for the use of strengthening their love and most importantly, for the use of procreation. Any other use of sex is a sin and the Church stands against it as much as it stands against homosexual acts. Sex between people of the same gender has no possibility of procreation, why therefore would God or His Church condone it? They do not for there can be no life generated from the act, only death.

Also, you argument loses in the event of a family member. I could very well justify that it would be for “the good of the beloved” and then where would you be?

Again, I must stress that my goal is to give people hope. Hope and faith in Church and in Christ. All of which the Church offers, especially in its support structures such as the Courage Apostolate.

John
Malcolm on September 7th, 2010

Derrick, if I may call you Derrick. My personal words on the Homosexual act in no way was aimed as a description of Homosexuals in general. What needed to be pointed out that there are harsher words used, and for me the words that I used are legitimate and I can understand on your side why the words are not .

I do believe in God, the incarnation and it would follow the Church Teaching. I have said this before, I am also in need of redemption and I am grateful that we have a just and merciful God. I do not know what my eternal fate will be and I do not know yours, hopefully you will wish me well as I wish you well.
Vincent Couling on September 7th, 2010

John, the crassness of your arguments is typical of a young straight yob. I think I would have preferred you when you were still gay.

Molestation of a child can hardly be described as an act of love since a child does not have the capacity to enter as an equal into a loving sexual relationship. A loving relationship has to be free of exploitation, domination, violence, or use of power against unwilling victims (such as children, who lack the psycho-sexual maturity to enter into a sexual relationship, period).

As for a proper look at the Polygamy, Incest, Bestiality harp that traditionalists regularly draw out of mothballs when they have run out of proper arguments against homosexuality, I recommend Professor John Corvino’s research article “Homosexuality and the PIB Argument” which appeared in the journal Ethics, vol 115, 2005, pp 501-534 [ http://wrightjj1.people.cofc.edu/teaching/PHIL3000/corvino%20homosexuality%20and%20the%20PIB%20arg.pdf ]. Here is a professional philosopher and academic tackling this issue comprehensively. I challenge you as a Christian to further inform your conscience by actually reading this article through.

By invoking the law of love as a measure for relationship, one is not casting morality to the wind – one is in fact holding fast to the highest measure of morality. Gay sex, just like straight sex, can be authentically loving, and it can be violent, abusive, etc (homosexual rape or paedophilia is as abhorrent as heterosexual rape or paedophilia).

And in terms of an authentically Catholic sexual ethic, it is no secret that many (if not the majority) of Catholic moral theologians today question more than a few of the assertions of the Magisterium. Even some bishops have openly asked questions. (Can there ever be anything wrong with asking questions?) Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, in his book “Confronting power and sex in the Catholic Church: reclaiming the spirit of Jesus” speaks of the need to return to an original sexual ethic! I quote from his book: “There are always problems when human beings claim that they know the mind of God. So is the statement that it is God’s will, and indeed order, that both the unitive and procreative aspects must necessarily be present in each act of sexual intercourse a proven fact or a simple assertion? If it is a proven fact, what are the proofs? Why do church documents not present such proofs? … If it is only an assertion, is there any reason why we should not apply the principle of logic: what is freely asserted may be freely denied? If it is no more than an assertion, does it really matter who it is who makes the assertion or how often it is made? I remind again of the statement from Veritatis Splendor, ‘The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience,’ and of the principles I drew from this in the last chapter. In this whole important field of sexuality, is conscience assisted only by an unproven assertion? If not, where are the arguments in favour of the assertion that would convince an open and honest conscience?” Bishop Robinson then explores a personalist sexual ethic, as do most Catholic moral theologians writing today (see, for example, Salzman and Lawler’s “The sexual person: towards a renewed Catholic anthropology” and references cited therein).

I believe that this debate is at heart about whether or not magisterial pronouncements on human sexuality flow from a priori or a posteriori knowledge and arguments. The reason homosexual sex is forbidden is the same reason masturbation is forbidden (and classed as a mortal sin – cutting one’s self off from God completely!!!), or artificially contracepted heterosexual sex is forbidden: the Magisterium teaches that the procreative and the unitive aspects of sex may never be separated. And, as Bishop Robinson has asked, if this is claimed as an a priori (and infallible and immutable?) fact, where is the proof? Could Martin, Malcolm, John or P R Margeot provide a proof? Or guide us to a proof in church documents, or in the Holy Scriptures, or in the academic journals, or anywhere else?

I think that the origins of this idea of the non-separability of the procreative and unitive aspects of sex can be found in two distinct sources: (i) the (flawed) Aristotelian axiom that the male seed possesses the essence of the new life, and that the female (who is a defective male) merely provides the matter (much like planting a mealie seed in the ground) … so that spilling the seed is a grave crime (Aquinas, using the Aristotelian axiom, argued that masturbation was a greater sin than heterosexual rape since in the latter the seed had a chance to survive and reach its full potentiality as a new human being!); and (ii) the absorption into the Church of Stoic natural-law philosophy which regarded pleasure as lawful only when enjoyed in pursuit of a worthy end. Neither of these sources has anything to do with Jesus and his movement called “The Way,” and so neither can possibly belong to Jesus’ deposit of faith. The church will inevitably have to allow for proper theological reflection on sexual teaching, and it will hardly be surprising to find further evolution in official church teaching in this area.
Malcolm on September 7th, 2010

To my brother Vincent, I must say, I nearly said the feminine gender. You might have been delighted.

Here is what the universal message to your question, and quite hopeful it is.

Luke 24:45. Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.
Tunc aperuit illis sensum ut intellegerent scripturas

24:46. And he said to them: Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise again from the dead, the third day:
Et dixit eis quoniam sic scriptum est et sic oportebat Christum pati et resurgere a mortuis die tertia

24:47. And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Et praedicari in nomine eius paenitentiam et remissionem peccatorum in omnes gentes incipientibus ab Hierosolyma

24:48. And you are witnesses of these things.
Vos autem estis testes horum

What a wonderful sacrament to consider.
Vincent Couling on September 7th, 2010

John says “The fact of the matter is that sexual intercourse is to be performed between a husband and a wife. Not for the use of self gratification, but for the use of strengthening their love and most importantly, for the use of procreation. Any other use of sex is a sin.”

So why does the church allow a sterile woman to marry a man, or vice-versa? A post-menopausal woman is allowed to marry, as is a woman who has had a hysterectomy as a consequence of cancer, etc. Should not such a woman (or a man who is sterile?) be doomed to the celibate life that the Magisterium imposes on the homosexual? And if not, why not? Why can’t the gay couple use sex for the strengthening of their love, just like a sterile heterosexual couple? Just wondering … .
Vincent Couling on September 7th, 2010

Malcolm, I am perfectly content with my gender! And are you suggesting that I need to go to confession? If so, what exactly do you think it is that I am to confess? I’m afraid I’m not always very quick on the uptake.
Malcolm on September 7th, 2010

And I’m not in this for the thrill of the debate, Malcolm … for a bit of jousting over abstract academic questions about which I’m eager to share my poorly-thought-out and unnecessarily caustic opinions. I’m in this for my own sanity and psychological and spiritual well being … in a sense, for my very survival. The stakes are infinitely higher for me than they are for you. As hard as it might be Malcolm, try and imagine yourself in a gay person’s shoes. And maybe then try and imagine what Jesus, the very author of love, would do.
Vincent Couling on September 7th, 2010

Ah, I see. Yes, I concur … quite hopeful it is. Thanks for that.
Malcolm on September 7th, 2010

That is what I am replying to Vincent.

God Bless you.
Vincent Couling on September 7th, 2010

Thank you for the blessing, Malcolm – it means more than you can know.

Blessings to you, too.

And apologies for when I became far too personal.
P.R.Margeot on September 7th, 2010

I really wish this debate to end now. My contribution was negligible and with humility I will say that I do not know as much as the other writers on this subject. I can only repeat that the sin is condemned not the sinner. We must respect and love our neighbour. We live in a society not in isolation. Society has the right to defend itself.
This debate will never end and I wish a moderator would step in and pour oil on the troubled waters, to remind us all that this is a Catholic forum. Imagine a muslim reading us.
One final word ,and I say it with respect, and love, to those concerned. I try to understand those who are militant, I try to feel for them, but I say to them : you cannot defend the indefensible. Once you accept that, you will feel relieved, and will be on your way to find the peace that you deserve, with the help of God ,and the advice of a good catholic priest. A good Catholic priest is worth 10 psychiatrists/psychologists and he does not charge anything. Plus his job is to save souls. Let’s pray for one another. I need your prayers as I have no guarantee that my soul will be saved. But I try hard because one day there will be accounts to render. Forward in Faith now….
Vincent Couling on September 7th, 2010

Dear P R Margeot,

I’m afraid that there is a colossal row going on in “the Catholic family” right now, and yes, it is heated and at times quite unseemly and downright ugly, but there is no short cut to resolution, and it cannot be avoided. We have thesis and antithesis, and we are undergoing the painful tension of synthesis. But we remain family – including the gay “children,” who seem now to some to be bringing so much scandal … but who, by the grace of God, might actually ultimately bring a greater depth to the family bonds. (I can hope, can’t I?!) And there will come a time when our Muslim brothers and sisters will have to face this family row for themselves (in fact, it’s already happening in places).

For myself, I’m feeling utterly spent, and hope to retreat into the desert for a while, to gather my wits and calm down a bit.

I agree, too, that we should pray for each other.

Pax et bonum.
P.R.Margeot on September 7th, 2010

Dear Vincent, you wrote ” to retreat into the desert”, I do not know if it is literal or to some place with few people to rest and find yourself. If is is literal(the Karoo, the Namib), I want you to know that I also have a huge affinity with those places where I feel different !! If you head that way, enjoy the Desert, think of us and we think of you.
Martin Keenan on September 7th, 2010

Being at the distance that I currently am from South Africa, I have not been able to enter into this debate as closely as I might have wished (perhaps that was for the best).

My first post was an objection to the Letters page being used as a vehicle for opening up a debate which is entirely unsuitable for a family Catholic newspaper. Extensive blogging (on this and other threads on this and other websites) proves that the arguments are not capable of being resolved in such a format which, rather, opens up unhealthy divisions and leads to confusion and frustration.

There are times and places for such discussions, and the Letters page of “The Southern Cross” is not one of them. I consider “The Southern Cross” to be irresponsible in printing this provocative letter by John Lee (which presents itself as a series of statements of fact whereas most of its contents are mere opinion) and to have compounded the fault by classing it as “Letter of the Week”.

***

That said, there are some points raised in the thread which have yet to receive an answer, but it is obvious that they cannot all be addressed comprehensively even if I had all the answers. As for the repeated requests for “proof” (in the sense of scientific proof), this transgresses on the distinction between theology and the other sciences. If people wish to enter a theological debate, they must respect the basic presuppositions and parameters of theology. Much arid argumentation arises from people drifting between theology and sociology (for instance).

[1] Let me take a simple question from Vincent concerning the validity of a marriage between spouses one or both of whom are sterile. The argument is that, in this case, (a) the Church permits a sexual union which is incapable of resulting in procreation therefore (b) the intrinsic bond between sex and procreation is broken. Pausing here, we now approach what is distinctive about theological debate. The Church´s teaching is founded on the Word of God, and the Church always leaves scope for the mysterious intervention of Divine providence. Sarah was beyond child-bearing (Gen.18:11) and Elizabeth was barren (Lk.1:7), but with God all things are possible (Mt.19:26). In permitting sterile parties to wed, the Church is recalling these significant events of salvation history and acknowledging God´s universal dominion over all creation.

[2] On “natural law”, Derrick has presumably read CCC 1954-1960. The part of the natural law lying at the heart of the present topic is, of course, the fact of sex as a male-female complementarity within what is irreducible about the reproduction of our species. This is not to say that at some (even many) times and places alternative (properly, deviant) moral views are known and tolerated. Arguments from history, anthropology and sociology are frequently offered as disproving the universal trend of sexual morality, but the existence of counter-instances cannot disprove a generalisation.

[3] It is sometimes argued that a new anthropological reality has been discovered (or perhaps has arisen) in recent years which alone compels a reconsideration by the Church of her teaching on homosexuality. This is a reference to “loving committed relationships” between adult homosexuals. There is nothing new or revolutionary about such relationships: whether or not Philolaus and Diocles in Bronze Age Thebes, or Harmodios and Aristogeiton in Athens in the 6th c. BC, or the Emperor Hadrian and Antinous in Egypt in in the 2nd c. AD had such a relationship, it was generally assumed in antiquity that they all did. Cassius Dio (writing around the year AD 200) reported that the Emperor Nero (reigned AD 54-68), although at the time “married” to a freedman named Protagoras, entered into a formal “marriage” with a eunuch called Sporus. This may or may not have been a deliberate act pour épater les bourgeois, but the underlying affectivity might have existed all the same. Google all these couples and others (together with all necessary source references) will emerge.

[4] A “loving, committed relationship” does not, of itself, validate sexual activity of any kind whatever. This, in any event, is an incomplete description of what marriage entails (permanency and exclusivity – not forgetting openness to life – are missing).
Martin Keenan on September 8th, 2010

(5) To answer one of Derrick’s speculations: in the only recorded instance of Our Lord’s encounter with someone in an irregular relationship, He (condemning the sin, not the sinner) said:- “Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more” (Jn.8:11). St. Paul, in a very different situation, hurled condemnations at a man in (let us presume) a “loving, committed relationship” which – as it happens – was immoral but which the Corinthian Christians perversely and shockingly took pride in. It was the first reading for yesterday’s Mass (1Co.5:1-11).

(6) There is another passage of Sacred Scripture not so far mentioned in this thread which is directly relevant to the argument of a moral equivalence between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex (Mt.19:4-6; cf. Mk.10:6-9):-

“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

Marriage is not just a matter of the consent of the parties. God and society are involved. Since marriage was ordained for the procreation of the species, the married couple cooperate with God in the act of creating new life. It was God, through the male-female complementarity which He established, who joined man and woman together. It is not for us to re-write the Divine order.
Derrick Kourie on September 8th, 2010

Martin: Thanks for your input, especially your references to scripture. None of these directly address the question of homosexuality. Jesus’ engagement with the Samarian woman at the well is another example of how he dealt with people in irregular sexual relationships. Your reference to natural law does not really address the heart of my problem: Who gets to define natural law? Is it a viable platform for dialogue with the secular world, or is it merely something which the Church / Magesterium / Pope gets to discern and interpret? If some theologian avers that “Slimming tablets are against the natural law—they are an artificial means of preventing the natural consequences of eating” on what basis can this be affirmed or denied? Vincent’s point about repeated unproven assertions is relevant in this regard, although I take your point that a demand for “proof” in theological discussion is probably over the top.

====

However, because I think that your prime point is an important one, worthy of some discussion, I am content to leave behind the discussion on homosexuality. I refer to your point that letters such as John Lee’s should not receive prominence (perhaps not even be published?) in a family newspaper such as Southern Cross. I understand your concern. I wish that we Catholics were all one big happy family and that there were no controversial matters dividing us.

Unfortunately, this is not so. The haemorhaging from the western church over the last four decades points to what some would label a crisis. There are two approaches to the matter, which I will crudely label Right and Left, each with its own view of the importance, extent, cause and remedy of the alleged crisis.

Since Humanae Vitae, the “Right” has gradually consolidated its position through the appointment of “trustworthy” people into positions of power: bishops, cardinals, curial officials, etc. Its motto corresponds with that of Cardinal Ottaviani: “Semper Idem”. It is less concerned with numbers than with retaining what it perceives to be an unbroken line of doctrine. To be a Catholic entails an acceptance of a package deal of doctrine. Those who dissent are inadequately instructed. Reading, study and prayer will bring them to the truth. Dissenters should either properly inform themselves and fall in line, or leave the Church. Dissent from or questioning of traditional doctrines (and even from current church policy and practice) is equated to disloyalty. Legitimate differences, such as there may be, represent dirty linen that should not be washed in public. Heterodoxy does not deserve a voice in a family Catholic newspaper, let alone a prominent place.

Those of us on the “Left” (I hate that label) think differently. We are concerned that doctrine, especially in regard to human sexuality but also in other areas, has become encrusted in medieval paradigms. Rather than try to spell out details and enumerate the where & what and why of our concerns, let my drive to my main point: we feel marginalised in our Church. As bishops seem to be hand-picked for their conformance with what we consider to be controversial Vatican positions, fewer and fewer in the hierarchy are left to express our concerns. Many of those who were once loyal Catholics (lay people, and even priests and nuns) have left the Church and struggle to find authentic spiritual expression either in other denominations, or in some kind of secular spirituality.

So, dear Martin, when you express the wish to retain the Southern Cross as a forum that is free from controversial discussion, part of me wants to say: so be it. But there is another part of me that says: Where, then, are we “dissenters” to express our views? Are we to simply stop our pretence at being loyal Catholics, and move out of the Church, like so many others? That seems to be the agenda of the “Right”. And yet, some of us “Lefties” find ourselves saying: “Lord, to whom shall we turn. You have the message of eternal life.” Despite everything, we love the Church, we do not want to “disown” it, and in fact, in our faltering spiritual quest, we find Jesus in the Church, and especially in the Eucharist.
P.R.Margeot on September 8th, 2010

Mr.Derrick Kourie, your letter of the 8th above merits consideration. I found your pespective interesting and unorthodox at the same time. Leaving the original subject aside, and not refering to your paragraph to Mr.Keenan, in your second paragraph, I would say that the Crisis on our Holy Church since the Council is the worse ever crisis. It is worse than the French revolution.
In the third paragraph, you write that since 1968, the “Right” has gradually consolidated its position into positions of power etc”. Did you not mean the “Left” ? It could have been an error on your part. But it did strike me. My understanding of the situation is that the “Left” has taken over all the levers of command and nearly 100% of all positions (Cardinals, Bishop) since the Council. Here by “Left” I mean modernists, liberals, progressives. The mass has been changed, a new catechism has been issued, new rites, new liturgy,
etc. The results came immediately: apostasy, loss of Faith, thousands of priests leaving, thousands of nuns leaving …. The Church had been fighting the Error of Modernism for 150 years ( and quite successfully too) until the council when the floodgates were opened, when the good Pope John said that the Church’s windows needed to be opened….and in came a huge Storm destroying nearly everything….
So I would venture to say that Holy Church needs to go back to Tradition, there is no other way for her to regain her self-esteem, her strength, her sons and daughters who have left …. And our Lord Jesus Christ must reign socially. That’s crucial. We must fight to establish His Reign.
Derrick Kourie on September 8th, 2010

Dear P.R.Margeot: I made no typing error. I meant what I said.

I think that the levers of power are too far to the right. You believe that they are too far to the left. Tempting as it may be, I am reluctant to conclude that they are probably correctly positioned (which is what I suppose Martin, Malcolm and others would say).

I certainly do not regard the bulk of bishops and cardinals as modernists, liberals and progressives—whatever those labels might designate. The Vatican II (and subsequent) changes in the rites and liturgies (whether in the Mass or otherwise) do not represent the slightest problem for me. On the contrary, I am disturbed that a tiny group of people continue to oppose the changes which were so clearly endorsed by the entire Church hierarchy under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I worry that these ultra-conservative individuals have absorbed more energy from Rome warranted by their tiny numbers. Nevertheless, I have no problem supporting the pope’s recent moves to reinstate the Latin Mass for those who want it, albeit that the process turned out to be something of a public relations disaster due to the holocaust-denying bishop. (I just wish that the recent and impending changes to the English liturgy had been equally accommodating to the “left”. Loosely speaking, it is precisely that reluctance to make any concessions whatsoever to the left that I find disturbing.)

The new catechism pretty much represents the current orthodox position on all points of any left/right controversy. I do not see how it can be regarded as particularly modernist / liberal / progressive. (Again, these are words that I use with great reluctance.)

I radically disagree with your analysis that Vatican II changes brought about apostasy, loss of faith, and the exodus of numerous nuns and priests. On the contrary, I believe that the most important reason (not the only one) for an exodus from the Church is because the generation of bishops who succeeded the Vatican II generation have become increasingly hesitant to follow through on the reform trajectory that Vatican II had started.

Even if my view is wrong, the most I could reasonably concede is that the exodus has been caused by an increasingly secularised world. I find it almost impossible to imagine that the exodus would have been prevented if Vatican II had not occurred, if Good Pope John had not opened the windows of aggiorniamento, or if Vatican II had followed the very conservative instincts of cardinals such as Lefebre and Ottaviani.

I do not mean to be brutal or offensive, but I do not how else to respond to you in honesty. I recall once having a disagreement with someone who tried to resolve the issue by claiming that I was “being got at” (by the Devil, I presume). Perhaps that is how you feel about my “liberal/progressive” stance. I hope that I am not being got at. I suppose that we will just have to agree to differ on these matters.
Malcolm on September 8th, 2010

Would agree with your point on secularism Derrick, the exodus from most churches has been quite dramatic compared with the Catholic Church, anyway that would be a debate for some other occasion.

I am not to sure why it is necessary to define Catholics into categories, it might be more productive just to deal with the issues than be bogged down, to the them and us?
P.R.Margeot on September 8th, 2010

Dear Mr Kourie, I’ll start with your last paragraph : I would never say to you that you “are being got at” (by the Devil) !!! Never.
First of all, your views are fascinating : I have never “spoken” to any one with your views, which to me are unique. I will always respect you and your views which I do not understand at all.
Obviously we will have to leave it at that (if ever you come to Durban, give me a ring : I would like to meet you over a cup of tea so that I can meet a man with abolutely opposite views to mine !! I am serious , I mean it).
A brief note before signing off: in the two years preceding the council, 62 schemas were painstakenly prepared by a large commission composed ,among others, of Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre. Points to be debated/discussed by the 2400 Bishops during the council. You know the rest of the story. Within 12 days of the opening of the council, a “coup” took place and the 62 Schemas were thrown in the dustbin and by an extra-ordinary “co-incidence”, a well-organized group from countries along the Rhine produced well-prepared documents which then were discussed and these ideas implemented. The modernists had taken over the council…. and they still in control.
Basically, what the Pope wants is to unite Catholics. Some quarters interpret his actions as betrayal to the council. It is not the case at all. He visits the Mosque, the Synagogue, surely these actions should be applauded by the “Left”. But when he says that the mass of all time, the Tridentine mass, has never been banned and can be freely said by any priest and that those who like that mass should be allowed to have it, then there is an uproar and most Bishops just do not want to hear about the old mass. So where is the balance, the fairness, the justice ? The conciliar Church is very strong and has nothing to fear from the re-introduction of the mass of all time FOR THOSE WHO WANT IT. Nobody is suggesting that the Novus Ordo must be replaced or changed. But by the same token, no spokes should be placed in the wheels of those attached to Tradition. I say, to be mercantile, ” let the market decide”….May the Lord bless you.
Martin Keenan on September 9th, 2010

Dear Derrick, I am heartened by the tone and direction of your post. Let´s stick with the question whether “The Southern Cross” is a suitable forum for debate on contentious issues regarding doctrine and morals. You raise a subsidiary question as to where (if anywhere) such a debate can be had if not here. There are several easily accessible and professedly “Catholic” fora where concerns such as yours are regularly raised (in ascending order of intellectual credibility I suggest: ncronline, “The Tablet”, “Commonweal”, “America Magazine”, and “Concilium”). For reasons which should be apparent, the question still arises whether the debate held in these fora is “healthy” or merely divisive, but the primary issue I raised – and to which you responded – is the unsuitability of “The Southern Cross” as a forum. That question has to be examined on its own terms.

***

Let me offer three reasons:

(1) It is a FAMILY newspaper, read by people of all ages and of all levels of education from primary to post-graduate. Some topics (including adolescent confusion over sexuality) have to be handled with great sensitivity by parents who take seriously their duties to educate their children in the faith. John Lee´s letter (to take only the most recent example) was deliberately provocative, his treatment of the material he handled was biassed and partial, he ignored the Church´s teaching altogether (other than by a tendentious side-swipe at the Inquisition), and he skated over several disputed issues of fact as if they were not only uncontentious but actually uncontestable. For example, he discussed a handful of passages in the Old Testament while ignoring completely the New Testament, and by a careless use of terminology invited the reader to conclude – without any justification – that Ruth and Naomi (among others) were in a sexual relationship. If that was not his point, I see no reason whatever for him to draw those personages into the discussion. Deep and abiding non-sexual friendships between persons of the same sex are NOT and were never the issue, and are not what is generally understood by the term he deployed: “same-sex relationships”.

(2) It is a CATHOLIC family newspaper owned and controlled (directly or indirectly) by the SACBC. Letters and articles directly contradicting the faith and abusing the Apostolic See really have no place in the Catholic media at all, let alone in an organ connected with the local hierarchy and which is effectively a monopoly. The first and inescapable obligation upon a Catholic is to learn (each within his or her capacity) the content of the faith. If the study of the faith raises problems for individuals, that opens up a second stage of engagement which must be dealt with in private and not in public by trawling for support in order to mobilise a bandwagon of factitious “opinion” in order to create new “facts”. The duty of the Catholic media (which are, by definition, ephemeral) is to support the basic apostolate by propagating the faith as taught by the Church – due allowance being made for the host of topics which are within the domain of free discussion (to take three current example at random:- the validity of the apparitions at Medjugorge, the utility and effectiveness of the Synod of Bishops as currently constituted, and the comparative failure of women´s voices to be heard in the existing structures for dialogue within the Church).

(3) It is a POPULAR Catholic family newspaper, not a learned theological journal. Letters are normally limited to 300 words and articles to 1,000 words or less. These constraints of space make it impossible for anything other than a tabloid approach to be given to subjects. A well-rounded overview of any topic is impossible. I am sure you agree that no topic of any seriousness (least of all issues of faith) deserves to be treated as a parlour game.
Bev Keevill on September 9th, 2010

God’s Commandment is, Love your Neighbour as yourself. I have written in on this topic before and as a mother of a beautiful gay daughter I find all this very very sad. All we have to do is get on with our lives, believe in God’s love for us and accept other’s as they are! We make life so so complicated! My daughter has taught me so much and for that I am grateful. We as a family do not have any issues with who she is and neither do her friends we are peaceful and loving and none of these complicated issues get in the way of our relationship as a family, it really is as simple as that the choice is yours!

Much love
Bev
Malcolm on September 9th, 2010

Martin, this is shocking, had no inclination that our Catholic Newspaper had links to a, party political government controlled propaganda media outlet. ( (2) It is a CATHOLIC family newspaper owned and controlled (directly or indirectly) by the SACBC).

Members of my family had shares in the Southern Cross and were asked to give them up, which they did.

Please if you have more detail, it would be interesting. In my view an unacceptable situation for a Catholic Newspaper to be in.
Derrick Kourie on September 9th, 2010

Martin:

The following as background: The SC proclaims itself to be published /independently/ by the Catholic Newspaper and Publishing Company Ltd. As far as I know it was, but is no longer, owned by the SACBC—a move which frees it from the obligation of being an official SACBC mouthpiece. Nevertheless, I presume that there is at least some episcopal representation on its board of directors. Whatever the case, it certainly has a moral obligation to retain the “National Catholic” character that it proclaims in its banner.

The present letter editorial policy relies significantly on the disclaimer at the bottom of the letter page, indicating that letters do not represent the views of the editorial board, hierarchy, etc and “should not be understood to necessarily reflect the teachings, disciplines or policies of the Church accurately.”

It seems that you are contending that this is not good enough. You wish the editor to control more explicitly letter content and placement in terms of the parameters such as those that you list: that the SC is a family, Catholic, popular-type newspaper. I speculate that you are content for the editor to retain the disclaimer, but that you additionally expect him to do a first pass screening of letters, removing those which patently do not “reflect the teachings, disciplines or policies of the Church accurately”—or, at the very least, pointing this out in a footnote to the letter.

Leaving aside, for the moment, your other concerns (about the newspaper’s the family and popular dimensions) I would not agree with censoring. I don’t object to footnoting, although that could probably become tiresome. My reasons are as follows:

I believe that the current deep and painful divisions in the “first-world” Church are real and widespread. They reach beyond disagreements about practice and policy, but down to the very levels of alleged formal teaching—e.g. contraception, papal vs collegial authority, etc. One way to deal with these disagreements would be a kind of denial: let dissenters fulminate away in the foreign fora that you enumerate, well-known for accommodating such “heterodox” views. Do not disturb the comfortable orthodoxy of the those who read the SC. As one of the writers in the letter columns of the latest SC edition (8th-14th Sept) says: “If you are unhappy with the teachings of the Church… [reconsider why] you consider yourself to be [a Catholic].” In other words, get out of the system if you are unhappy. You do not belong.

In my opinion, if “dissenters” are marginalised, more and more young people, thoughtful people and influential people will leave the Church. It will decline in size and influence and eventually attain a kind of derided “sect” status. I do not claim this as a fact, but as a matter of judgment and concern.

So, I applaud the fact that the SC does not participate in this marginalisation, but allows its letter columns to be a forum of robust debate. If the SC presented a censored, saccharine and sanitised version of the South African Catholic Church it would not be authentically reflecting the daily realities of Catholic life, concerns, opinions and experiences. After all, the divisions are local as well as international (vide the liturgy debate). Why should local Catholics have to turn to foreign sources such as Commonweal, Tablet etc. to air their views?

The point I am pressing is this: it seems to me that there is a link between an agenda to disallow completely open debate and an agenda to push “dissenters” out of the Church if they do not acquiesce in matters alleged to be formal Church teaching. If this is indeed the case, then perhaps it should be said openly. I vigourously oppose such an agenda. I continue to believe that those who express dissent are not disloyal. Rather, they are concerned and committed. The matter seems self-evident to me, despite your earlier contestation of my claim.

Regarding the family dimension and the question of adolescent sexual confusion: I think that the chances that John’s letter would set a young person off on the wrong path are pretty remote. It is unlikely that such a youngster would read the SC in the first place. At any rate, it is very probable that other information sources on the topic of homosexuality would be available to such a young person—information from peers, teachers, the secular media, TV, etc. The matter is indeed quite complex, and requires an editorial judgment call. I think that from this “family” perspective, I would have made the same judgment call as the editor, though I acknowledge your concern.

Your point about the “popular” status of the SC is taken. Again, I don’t believe that the average reader will be unaware of the controversies in the Church, and I am not sure of the extent to which the editor should censor letters, based on such considerations. I am, however, cogniscant of the danger of creating a kind of culture of complaint, and this appears to be well underway in the Church. (The latest SC edition has 3 letters of complaint, and 2 rebuttals.) Perhaps this is in part due to the inertia of the our church leaders, who (with some exceptions) do not seem to recognise the existence of a problem, or do not know how to address the problem, or perhaps have an agenda such as outlined above.

Of course, a highly technical theological argument could probably be deemed to be inappropriate in the SC letter column, and should arguably be rejected by the editor, but I don’t think that point is a point of contention here.
Derrick Kourie on September 9th, 2010

@Bev: Thank you for your honesty, love and courage. May the Lord abundantly bless you and your family.
Malcolm on September 9th, 2010

Any disclaimers on letters or description as a National Catholic News Paper has no credibility, as long as there is a link to the SABC.
Malcolm on September 9th, 2010

Dear Bev, I am probably not the greatest father around, however like you, I love my family and there are redeeming qualities in all people, even the worst.

The truth is, that the first commandment is to love God, above all else. Its a hard commandment and I wish you and your family well.
Vincent Couling on September 9th, 2010

With all this talk of whether or not the post-conciliar hierarchy is “left-wing” or “right-wing,” liberal or conservative, is it any wonder that we have the (Freudian?) slip of Malcolm calling the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference a “party political government controlled propaganda media outlet”. Could it be that he thinks the curial government (with departments with provocative names like Propaganda Fide) is indeed “party political” … at least in the sense that potential bishops are apparently screened for their “doctrinal fidelity” on matters such as artificial contraception, etc … though maybe in the more sinister sense that they are chosen because they favour a particular restorationist vision of post Vatican II ecclesiology? And could it be that he thinks the local bishops’ conferences are now simply groupings of regional branch-managers for a highly-centralized and omnipotent Vatican bureaucracy? Okay, I’m being deliberately provocative here – but I promise that my tongue is firmly in my cheek.
Vincent Couling on September 9th, 2010

Dear Bev,

Thank you for scything through all the unnecessary complications, and getting to the heart of the matter! Not surprising that a Mother’s intuition trumps all the theorizing … now if only a few more of our theologians were Mothers! (Maybe one day, we’ll even have a few Mothers as bishops … now wouldn’t that add a vital dimension to deliberations at church councils!)

It was recently argued in an article in L’Osservatore Romano (the semi-official Vatican newspaper) that a greater female presence might have stopped the child abuse pheomenon in the church … sage thoughts. And a greater female presence might have prevented a lot of the unnecessary theological strictures imposed on marginalized groups like gays and lesbians.

Thank you for your beautiful, pastoral post – a ray of sunshine on this otherwise often-gloomy thread.
Vincent Couling on September 9th, 2010

Dear Malcolm,

I’m not really itching for another scrap with you – it was an honest mistake to confuse the SACBC acronym with the similar SABC. The consequences were just too tempting for me to resist poking a bit of fun. At tad childish of me, I know.

I am truly humbled by Derrick Kourie’s posts. Derrick has a way of remaining true to the ideal of respectful dialogue. I have learnt much from you, Derrick – thank you for your graceful example.
Malcolm on September 9th, 2010

My apologies to all, and I humbly ask forgiveness, and take back what I said. Its never wise to respond, when the red flag goes up, I will try to remember the lesson.

Thank you Vincent.
Malcolm on September 9th, 2010

Hmmm, now you know what I think of the SABC. Hopefully I have it right.
Vincent Couling on September 9th, 2010

I don’t think you’re alone in holding that opinion, Malcolm!
Vincent Couling on September 9th, 2010

As many of you might know (and as reported in our beloved Catholic weekly, the Southern Cross), there was a recent international gathering of some 600 moral theologians in Trent, Italy. I post below (since it touches on issues raised in this thread) a portion of Fr Charles Curran’s remarks at the close of the conference [see http://ncronline.org/news/global/we-cannot-put-our-heads-sand text for the complete address].

“As I listened to our discussions of past, present and future, there was one important issue that did not receive enough attention. I refer to the different approaches taken by the majority of Catholic moral theologians and of the hierarchical magisterium of the church. James Keenan in his acclaimed history of Catholic moral theology in the 20th century describes the methodology of Pope John Paul II’s 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor as neo-manualist. Keenan goes on to say, “Few moral theologians found the encyclical a hospitable acceptance of their work during the 25 years since Humanae Vitae.” Enda McDonagh has titled his latest book Theology in Winter Light.

This is not only a theoretical issue; it has practical ramifications since it deals with such concrete issues as contraception, sterilization, divorce, homosexuality, abortion in its legal and moral aspects, and especially the role of women in the church. Even Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor recognized the problem and called it “a genuine crisis.” But we in this meeting have not really addressed this crisis.

We cannot put our heads in the sand. The present problems of priests’ pedophilia and its cover-up by bishops have made many recognize the need for change in our church. The reality is that many people have left the church not because of disagreements with basic areas of faith and Catholic eucharistic celebration, but often because of the issues mentioned above, as well as the pedophilia crisis. Our church today is in serious trouble, but I have to admit in light of the earlier emphasis on social location I am speaking primarily from the perspective of the church in Europe and in North America. But still, the problem today in these churches is great and has to be recognized and addressed. This problem is especially acute for women in our church.

Bishop Kevin Dowling [of Rustenburg, South Africa] has recently candidly addressed the authoritarianism and overcentralization in the church today. Antonio Autiero [of the University of Münster, Germany], our host in Trent, has recognized the great number of Catholics leaving the church today because of its moral teachings. “One cannot deny that there is a movement away from the church, quite explicitly or sometimes even simply pragmatically, precisely on account of the church’s insistence on moral themes public or private, marked by normative solutions that make little sense to the critical consciousness of contemporary men and women.”

The Pew Research Center in the United States concluded a few years ago that one out of three people who were raised in the Catholic church in the United States are no longer Catholic today. The second largest “religious denomination” in the United States today consists of fallen-away Catholics. One out of 10 people in the United States is such a fallen-away Catholic.

Catholic parents and grandparents are well aware of this reality. Let me add here a personal note. A few weeks ago I was on vacation for a week with friends — a wife and husband, their four children, and eight grandchildren along with other friends. The grandparents are in their 70s and the adult children are around 40. Only one of the four adult children was married in the Catholic church, but today two of them and their spouses are staunch members of the Episcopal church. I assure you that relativism and secularism played no role in their decisions.

Our love for the church and our role as Catholic moral theologians call for all of us to address these issues no matter what our positions are. We who are advocates for change must recognize our own limited social location and the need to listen to all others. An honest, open dialogue is required on the part of everyone in the church based on a mutual love for the church, a respect for all those engaging in the discussion, and a recognition of the essential roles in the church of the Holy Spirit, the hierarchical magisterium, theologians, and the sensus fidelium. We are all called to put flesh and blood on the ancient axiom, “In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.” (“In necessary matters, unity; in doubtful matters, freedom; in all things, charity.”)”
Malcolm on September 9th, 2010

The theologians need to look at this.

Decline in US mainline denominations continues
by Joshua A Goldberg, Christian Post
Posted: Monday, February 15, 2010, 16:08 (GMT)

The largest Protestant denomination in the US has reported a decline in membership for the second year in a row, according to the National Council of Churches’ 2010 yearbook of churches.

The Catholic Church, meanwhile, rebounded from last year’s reported membership loss with a 1.49 percent growth, joining church bodies including the Assemblies of God and the Church of God in Christ as the few large US denominations with reported growth.

Also reporting growth in NCC’s 78th annual Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches were the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses – though a significant number of the two organizations’ core beliefs are considered by conservative Bible scholars as contradictory to historic orthodox Christianity.

Notably, the NCC reported in its announcement of the 2010 yearbook’s release Friday that eleven of the 25 largest churches did not report updated figures.

Furthermore, membership figures reported in the 2010 yearbook were collected by the churches in 2008 and reported to the yearbook’s staff in 2009.

Despite the delay and lack in new stats, the yearbook continues to provide a unique look at the nearly 230 national church bodies as well as information on nearly 240 U.S. local and regional ecumenical bodies.

In her remarks on this year’s stats – which, again, are actually from 2008 due to the reporting delay – the Rev. Dr. Eileen W. Lindner, editor of the annual yearbook since 1998, acknowledged the continued loss of membership in the largest mainline denominations.

This year, church bodies reporting the highest membership losses were the Presbyterian Church (USA), down 3.28 percent to 2,941,412; American Baptist Churches in the USA, down 2 percent to 1,358,351; and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, down 1.92 percent to 4,709,956 members.

Though she noted that many observers have attributed accelerated membership decline of some churches to “an increasing secularization of American postmodern society, and its disproportionate impact on liberal religious groups,” Lindner advised caution in assessing the causes of decline.

She also said statistics in the yearbook actually reflect “continued high overall church participation, and account for the religious affiliation of over 163 million Americans.”

“American society as a whole has not experienced the kind and rate of secularization so clearly demonstrated during the last quarter century in Western Europe. Indeed, American church membership trends have defied gravity particularly where the Pentecostal experience is included,” she added.

Lindner also noted that the largest plurality of immigrants to the United States in the last 50 years have been Christian in their religious affiliation.

“In an era in which we have come to expect the inevitable advance of secularism in the U.S., the influx of robust Christian communities among new immigrants once again amends the topographical map,” she reported.

So while a number of denominations have reported losses, overall, the Church in the America is growing.

Total church membership reported in the 2010 Yearbook was 147,384,631 members, up 0.49 percent over 2009.

That figure has been rising every year since 2006, when the overall membership total dropped for a second straight year following a record high 161 million.

As the yearbook only records figures from national church bodies, the total membership value doesn’t take into consideration the multitude of non-denominational churches scattered across America.

The following is list of the largest 25 church bodies in order of size, according to NCC’s 2010 yearbook:

1. The Catholic Church, 68,115,001 members, up 1.49 percent.
2. Southern Baptist Convention,16,228,438 members, down 0.24percent.
3. The United Methodist Church, 7,853,987 members, down 0.98 percent.
4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5,974,041 members, up 1.71 percent.
5. The Church of God in Christ, 5,499,875 members, no membership updates reported.
6. National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc, 5,000,000 members, no membership updates reported.
7. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 4,633,887 members, down1.62 percent.
8. National Baptist Convention of America, Inc., 3,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
9. Assemblies of God (ranked 10 last year), 2,899,702 members, up 1.27 percent.
10. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 1(ranked 9 last year), 2,844,952 members, down 3.28 percent.
11. African Methodist Episcopal Church, 2,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
11. National Missionary Baptist Convention of America, 2,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
11. Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc. 2,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
14. The Lutheran Church– Missouri Synod (LCMS), 2,337,349 members, down 1.92 percent.
15. The Episcopal Church, 2,057,292 members, down 2.81 percent.
16. Churches of Christ, 1,639,495 members, no membership updates reported.
17. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, 1,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
17. Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc., 1,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
19. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, 1,400,000 members, members, no membership updates reported.
20. American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A., 1,331,127 members, down 2.00 percent.
21. Baptist Bible Fellowship International (ranked 22 last year), 1,200,000 members, no membership updates reported.
22. Jehovah’s Witnesses (ranked 23 last year) 1,114,009members, up 2.00 percent.
23. United Church of Christ (ranked 22 last year), 1,111,691 members, down 2.93 percent.
24. Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), (ranked 25 last year), 1,072,169 members, up 1.76 percent.
25. Christian Churches and Churches of Christ (ranked 24 last year), 1,071,6
Martin Keenan on September 10th, 2010

Dear Derrick, I don´t accept that there is any question of censorship here. The editor of “The Southern Cross” (like all newspaper editors) has full discretion whether or not to print any letter or article he receives, and to edit the content for length. My complaint is that he was irresponsible in this particular case. He is the editor of a popular Catholic family newspaper and he should exercise his judgement on the basis of what the newspaper is and not what it can never be – viz. an organ for “robust debate” on highly contentious issues involving the truths of the faith.

On my “family” point I really don´t want to argue with you about probabilities, but Mr Lee offered a spectacularly bad piece of scriptural exegesis which curious youngsters of around 13-17 are very likely to pick up on, and some things have a way of sticking. Selective smutty reading of the Bible is (or was) something of a national sport when I was an adolescent. These are, by definition, impressionable people with enough to contend with without absurdities like the material Mr. Lee (courtesy of the editor) deposited on the Letters page. A presentation, however brief, which fails even to notice the pertinent New Testament texts is hopelessly flawed.

On the “popular” point you concede the topic is complex: in one letter we have contentious issues of opinion presented as fact, unsubstantiated assertions of fact, grossly defective and inadequate scriptural exegesis, and a tendentious account of the Church´s response to homosexuals in “the dark ages”. Such a letter would never have seen the light of day in any respectable journal, and that has nothing to do with suppressing “dissent”. Perhaps the editor or sub-editor was ignorant of the letter´s defects. In any event, my complaint alleges the abuse of the freedom of the press.
P.R.Margeot on September 10th, 2010

This is a very brief comment on Mr Couling’s post above, dated 9th September. He quotes Charles Curran at an important conference. The Catholic Church has spoken on that “priest”, he is not a spokesman or conveyor of Truth for the Holy Church. To readers, just go on Google if you want to find more about that man who has helped to destroy the Church. He seems to be obsessed with sexuality, abortion, pre-marital sex, contraception, liberation, ad nauseam… We do not want people like Charles Curran and ,sorry Mr Couling, these are the very people who are destroying the Holy Church, our Mother on Earth.
I repeat: we need to go back to Tradition, to the Tridentine Mass, the mass of all time, the mass which for centuries gave us the blessings and grace from Above, which gave us the martyrs and Saints over centuries. Furthermore, we need to fight two Errors which have infiltrated, poisoned the Catholic Church: Modernism and Liberalism, both condemned by the Popes. Catholics, read the Encyclicals, and please realize that the Church did not start in 1965. With 2000 years behing Tradition, basically the Church cannot be wrong.(Yes, she did sin in the past, yes she made mistakes, but she is the the only true Church and possesses the whole Truth. Let’s never forget that).
We must follow the Pope, obey the Pope, have some humility, have love for all, even dissenters and revolutionaries in the very bosom of the Church who are not content to see the terrible state of the Church today: they want even more chaos and destruction, or am I missing something. To the dissenters, we do not want your approach, your desire to “experiment”,your burning desire to impose things on the rest of us : it is you who need to conform to the Holy Church, to obey with humility. Since 1965, you have had plenty of time to experiment and destroy with impunity. Now , please, move a little and allow the Holy Church to find herself and to find her way out of this revolutionary quagmire. What we need now is holy priests, many more holy priests( who will spend a lot of time at the altar and in the confessional), many more religious vocations, we need to bring sanity to the Church,
We need to go back to our Rosaries and on our knees. We must stop acting like little gods, drop the idea of “Man and his Rights” and all that non-sense, false ecumenism, which has placed the Holy Church at the same level as all other religions.No, no, we do not want all that. We also remember that Truth and Error cannot be mixed. Never.
To the revolutionaries, I say : you have had your time, you’ve been allowed to experiment and look at the results since 1965. Catholics, the time has come to make a decision, we do not have much time now. Let’s go back to Tradition and let’s be generous and magnanimous towards those who are frightened, scared of changes (for the better this time, I hasten to say). The supreme Law of the Church is the salvation of souls. Let’s never forget that.
Derrick Kourie on September 10th, 2010

Dear Martin (and others),

This must needs be my last posting. I have already devoted more time and energy than I should to this thread.

1. You maintain: ” [The editor] should exercise his judgment on the basis of what the newspaper is and not what it can never be – viz. an organ for “robust debate”. ”
You do not give your views of what the newspaper is; only that it can never be an organ for robust debate. From my perspective, your assertion involves a contradiction. A Catholic newspaper ought to reflect contemporary Catholic issues, and if those contemporary issues include matters of robust debate, then I think the newspaper ceases to be a credible newspaper if it avoids them. I will concede that it needs to be more than just an organ for robust debate, and I will concede that the extent and depth of that debate will inevitably be limited.

2. You say that “… I really don´t want to argue with you about probabilities, but Mr Lee offered a spectacularly bad piece of scriptural exegesis which curious youngsters of around 13-17 are very likely to pick up on…”
Again, there appears to be a contradiction here. One cannot avoid addressing the matter in probabilistic terms, and you in fact do so when you say “very likely”. Probability has to be an important consideration, because editorial action needs to be commensurate with the probability of harm.

I cannot give statistical information about the chances of a youngster being misled by information in the SC, but I really do think your “very likely” assertion significantly exaggerates the risk. I can only speak allegorically: I would have been overjoyed had my children—both avid readers—bothered to read the SC at any stage over the more than 2 decades during which they were resident in my house. Instead, they consistently ignored it, looking right past it as it lay in full glare on one end of the coffee table before them while they watched the TV at the other end. One son has just confessed to me that his maximal involvement was that he would occasionally look at the cartoon on the back page!

However, my children were subjected to many other sources of religious misinformation, often coming from within the very heart of the Church: an old parish priest who preached that the destiny of their immortal souls depended on the extent to which they prayed for the dead; a young curate who speculated in a sermon that the Down syndrome child born to a couple he knew might well have been God’s way of warning the couple that they should not be using contraceptives; a catechism teacher who was appalled at the notion that Adam and Eve and the Genesis story should not be interpreted literally; another catechism teacher whose constant emphasis seemed to be on the threat of the devil; etc. I would far rather have had my children exposed to John’s letter than to some of these (and many other) destructive influences from within the religious establishment.

However, I will concede that John’s letter was probably wrong about the inquisition; and it drew unsubstantiated conclusions about the relationships of Ruth/Naomi and David/Jonathan. I found his analysis of the Sodom story interesting—his exegesis is indeed reflected elsewhere on the web. I know nothing of St Aelred. Most of all, I concur with you about his avoidance of mentioning St Paul in making his case. More than anything else, that omission significantly dents his case. In my view none of this obliges the editor to refuse publication, but argues perhaps for a lower status.

Before finally signing off, I will take the liberty of making two points:

The first (with apologies for those dreaded labels) is this general point: that those who consider themselves orthodox appear to be far more tolerant of heterodoxy to the right than to the left. For the sake of brevity, I will restrain myself from giving you a deluge of examples. Suffice it point to out that many “right of orthodox” views in this thread have been largely ignored.

My second point is more personal, and relates to John Lee’s neglect of St Paul’s views on homosexuality. I am not a scripture scholar. I have difficulty in reasoning on the basis of scriptural citations alone, because in my experience, skilled commentators can (and do) get the Bible to say just about anything that they want it to say. I am much more comfortable in arguing and understanding from reason, and then seeking ex post facto scriptural affirmation for that reasoning. In my opinion, if you wish to have the Church shift its position on homosexual acts (”they can never be approved”), and if you wish to make your case on scriptural grounds, (which appears to be John Lee’s agenda) you will have to deal with St Paul’s opinions on the matter, and I am not sure that this can be done. Instead, I have tried to argue on rational grounds against universal disapproval of homosexual acts, and I will leave it to clever scripture scholars to find a way of interpreting St Paul. I simply cannot accept that God requires of us to draw conclusions from the Bible which contradict our own rationality.

Of course, in saying this, I am not claiming infallibility in my reasoning, but if I am wrong, I would like those of “orthodox” persuasion to indicate in what way I am wrong through reason. It is not good enough to say “the Church has always taught…”, “it is against natural law”, “the Bible says”. Such arguments have no force in secular society. I cannot use them when I debate with my atheist or agnostic friends, many of whom are ex-Catholics. After all, as a heterosexual, I have no personal stake in what is or is not licit for a homosexual person. From that perspective, it would be easy and comfortable to just accept what the catechism says, and move on. But I need rational support for defending the Church to those who are really hostile to her.

I was very encouraged and indeed excited by the Pope’s Regensburg appeal for discussion on the basis of reason. It is such a pity that the force of his appeal was obscured by a misunderstanding. In my opinion, Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, is more rational and satisfying as a faith position than any other that I have found. In particular, I believe that our faith embodies all the essentials to deeply challenge and rock the foundations of the secularism that has swept the West. But it is my judgment we cannot do so, unless we give way on a number of positions we regard as orthodox, but which seemingly cannot be grounded in reason.

May God bless you all.
Malcolm on September 10th, 2010

Martin makes a point. As Catholics we constantly have to deal with many non-Catholics who have a perception of what Catholics are. Those perceptions are shaped by teachers, who do not know much about Catholicism or the History of the Church.

What Mr Lee wrote could have been retrieved from the rabid anti-Catholic organizations such as Chick Publications 20 years ago.

Now when a Catholic sprouts the same propaganda and is conveyed by The National Catholic Newspaper without the antidote, how is the poison curtailed.

There is a maligning of our Church by many organizations including the Secular Press and one would except The National Catholic News Paper of South Africa to present authentic Catholic Teaching.

Do I hear “and what is that.” Well for example: all Catholics are called to live a chaste life, not just those who are inclined to homosexual behavior. To live this life appears to be the calling of one segment of the community. That message needs to be carried through the Southern Cross on front page by those qualified to do so.

In closing there seems to be a freedom to slander our Church, Pope, or anyone who upholds orthodox teaching, by spreading disinformation. There is a commandment that says “Thy shalt not bare false witness against thy neighbor.” It is incumbent on all Catholics, to not only speak the truth but to seek it.
Martin Keenan on September 10th, 2010

Although Derrick Kourie has signed off from this thread, too much of the argumentation remains in a confused state, and if a prolonged thread on a website cannot produce a coherent debate worthy of the name, then a fortiori the Letters page of “The Southern Cross” cannot. In passing I reject his suggestion that my positions are self-contradictory: to say, for instance, that I do not want to argue over probabilities (meaning I would prefer not to) does not preclude me from doing so.

I admit to being totally thrown by Derrick´s attitude that it is not enough to ground the argument (and it is a theological one because it concerns the Divine plan) on either the teaching authority of the Church, Sacred Scripture or Tradition. The Word of God mediated through the teaching authority of the Church is our only source of truth in matters of faith and morals. We cannot discover it through the unaided use of our own reasoning faculties so as to be able to “prove” any given subject to a non-believer. I thought Derrick had substantially conceded this point when he wrote: “a demand for ´proof´ in theological discussion is probably over the top. ” For a discussion of the obstacles that can make the use of the faculty of reasoning dubious in any given individual, see CCC 36-38.

Malcolm has partly forestalled me on what I wanted to write about some basic propositions, but for the sake of clarity I will (1) present my own understanding of the case, dealing in passing with several of Derrick´s points scattered in various posts of his and then (2) concentrate on the ostensible subject of this thread, “Homosexuality and the Bible”. Without any apology, I put these in separate posts.
Martin Keenan on September 10th, 2010

[A] All Catholics are obliged to inform themselves (within their individual capacities) of the Church´s teaching, and to adhere to those parts of it which form the deposit of faith (not limited to infallible declarations). The Second Vatican Council taught as much in Lumen gentium, n.25. This is because the Church received from her Divine Master the authority to teach (Mt.28:19f.; Lk.10:16, etc), and she has the assurance that her teaching cannot err (Mt.ibid., Jn.16:7-13; 1Tim.3:15, etc.). This is mainstream Catholicism.

[B] A mother whose daugher is homosexual is not justified in saying that, because of her love for her daughter, she cannot accept the Church´s teaching on homosexuality. A man who is homosexual is not justified in saying that, because of his longing to experience sex (for any reason whatever) he rejects the Church´s teaching on the immorality of sex acts between men. The first indication of a malformed conscience is the refusal to accept the possibility that one´s own personal circumstances (especially those relating to the gratification of sensual desires) have led us into a situation of sin. Whether there are 600 or 600,000 “theologians” in the world who consider the Church´s teaching on homosexuality to be wrong, their views are incapable of amounting to any “authority” whatever.

[C] It is not a sin to find part or parts of the Church´s teaching difficult to understand, but people who encounter such difficulties should attempt to resolve them through prayer, study, and the advice of a spiritual director. Making it generally public that one cannot accept this or that teaching, and offering arguments in pretended support that are ill-informed, incomplete, and self-serving runs the risk of confusing or scandalising the faithful and polarising debate. Those who have no or no adequate competence in the topics on which they broadcast their opinions are doubly to be reprobated.

[D] It is irresponsible and greatly to be reprehended that a popular Catholic family newspaper should become an organ for disseminating incohate, ill-considered and ignorant expressions of opinion on sensitive topics which contradict the Church´s teaching and abuse the Holy Father. To say that this is simply to reflect the state of the Church in Southern Africa is a manifest lie. All it does is demonstrate that within the Church in Southern Africa there exist vociferous individuals who refuse to accept any restraint upon their imagined “right” to criticise and insult the faith.

[E] Dissenters are never “forced out of the Church”, but by their lack of faith they themselves impair their communion with her and with God. In the most serious cases the remedy of excommunication is sometimes applied. This is not expulsion from the Church but a temporary bar on the reception of the Sacraments which can readily be lifted by an act of confession through the proper channels. An utterly insignificant fraction of public and notorious dissenters have been excommunicated in the last 50 years.
Martin Keenan on September 10th, 2010

“Homosexuality and the Bible”

(1) The male-female complementarity is radical and fundamental to Man as a species according to the Divine plan. This is evident from the fact and nature of sexual reproduction and from Sacred Scripture as explained by the Church´s teaching authority conferred upon her by Our Lord.

(2) In the account of creation given in the second chapter of Genesis we find that God created a man and settled him in Eden, but He saw that it was not good for him to be alone and so He decided to make “a suitable partner” for him. Therefore He created various animals and birds and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. “The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man” (v.20).

(3) And so God created woman: “When he brought her to the man, the man said: ´This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh´ . . That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.” (vv.22b-24.).

(4) Instinctively – as it were, in the first exercise of the “natural law” – the man recognised that the woman was the only creature suitable to be his sexual and affective partner.

(5) There was nothing accidental, contingent, ill-considered or temporary in this arrangement as made by the Creator, and no space is left for the speculation that a different or other type of sexual mate might have been or be suitable for man. Nor was this provision of the Divine plan superseded in the course of evolution, for within recorded history Our Lord confirmed its eternal validity: God joined man and woman and no-one may interfere to disrupt this aspect of the Divine plan (Mt.19:5-6; Mk.6-9).

(6) The absolute and radical nature of male-female complementarity for Man is not confined to the genito-sexual but pertains to the person whole and entire. Same-sex couples can at best mimic in a partial and defective way some external aspects of this complementarity, but insofar as the feminine is mimicked by one of the parties in a same-sex relationship this only proves that that model is but a poor imitation and travesty of the real thing, and insofar as the feminine is not mimicked by either party, this manifests the reality of same-sex couples – viz. that they are a futile exercise in narcissism. The myth of the obsessed and frustrated Narcissus is itself a metaphor for homosexuality as an integral part of the culture of death

(7) Now, it is true that homosexuality as such is not noticed in the Gospels although it is freely and thoroughly condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. However there are three instances where Our Lord is reported as having condemned extra-marital sex (and here I must apologise for my previous conflation of two pericopes):-
the case of the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn.4:17f.) who was in (let us assume) a “loving committed relationship” with a man not her husband;
the case of the woman taken in the act of committing adultery (Jn.8:4-11) who may or may not have been in a “loving committed relationship”; and
the case of the sinful woman who anointed Jesus´feet (Lk.7:37-47), although it is true we are not specifically told what her sins were, but it is generally accepted that they were sexual and that she was a prostitute.

(8) Now, it is argued that this is a condemnation of extra-marital sex by heterosexuals which does not apply to homosexuals. Our Lord commended marriage as we have seen (expressly on the basis of male-female complementarity), and in these three cases He condemns extra-marital sex. Whatever else homosexual sex is, it is certainly extra-marital sex and so falls under the condemnation. If the argument from silence is pursued to its logical conclusion it could be said that in the Gospels Our Lord does not in terms condemn extra-marital sex by males, but only by females. This absurd conclusion is as preposterous as the idea that Our Lord tacitly approved homosexual marriage (His quotation of Gen.2 cited at (5) above excludes this possibility).
Vincent Couling on September 10th, 2010

Martin’s above three posts are typical of the neo-manualist minority mentality. This neo-manualism, with its New Natural Law theory, seems to provide the backbone of the “reform of the reform” restorationist project. And judging from these posts, the zeal of the restorationists appears to be running at fever pitch.

Other readers should be aware that there are other venerable theological traditions, and that the absolute certainty and self-confidence displayed by Martin above is the stuff of a neo-Scholastic ecclesiology – where the hierarchy alone possess the Truth, and where the hierarchs have absolutely nothing to learn from the laity (or the theologians!); where the priestly caste are separated from the laity at Mass by a communion rail (pre-Vatican II, but post “Early Church”); etc. Well, Vatican II renewed the concept of Church as the People of God. And let us not forget the “ressourcement”, whereby what appear to be modern innovations are in fact new insights arrived at from integrating modern anthropological discoveries with authentic tradition reaching back to our earliest Catholic roots. Here the moral tradition is seen to be dynamic, undergoing refinement and development: Ecclesia semper reformanda est. This resonates with the words of Pope John XXIII, “we are not on earth to guard a museum, but to cultivate a flowering garden of life.”

In light of Martin’s posts, I think it crucial to remind readers of the document “Called to be Catholic: Church in a time of peril” [ http://www.nplc.org/commonground/calledcatholic.htm ] which was released by the much-loved Joseph Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago some three months before he died of pancreatic cancer in 1997. This gifted prelate believed that hierarchs risked alienating many believers by ignoring awkward issues such as the role of women, and questions about human sexuality and church governance. The document urges Catholics to pursue disagreements in a spirit of dialogue, and to be guided by working principles such as “We should recognize that no single group or viewpoint in the church has a complete monopoly on the truth. While the bishops united with the Pope have been specially endowed by God with the power to preserve the true faith, they too exercise their office by taking counsel with one another and with the experience of the whole church, past and present. Solutions to the church’s problems will almost inevitably emerge from a variety of sources”; “We should not envision ourselves or any one part of the church a saving remnant. No group within the church should judge itself alone to be possessed of enlightenment or spurn the mass of Catholics, their leaders, or their institutions as unfaithful”; “We should presume that those with whom we differ are acting in good faith. They deserve civility, charity, and a good-faith effort to understand their concerns. We should not substitute labels, abstractions, or blanketing terms–”radical feminism,” “the hierarchy,” “the Vatican”–for living, complicated realities”; “We should put the best possible construction on differing positions, addressing their strongest points rather than seizing upon the most vulnerable aspects in order to discredit them. We should detect the valid insights and legitimate worries that may underlie even questionable arguments”; and “We should be cautious in ascribing motives. We should not impugn another’s love of the church and loyalty to it. We should not rush to interpret disagreements as conflicts of starkly opposing principles rather than as differences in degree or in prudential pastoral judgments about the relevant facts.”

Like Derrick, I too must make this my last posting, since my time and energies must be brought to focus on other pressing matters … what has brought me back here (like a dog to its vomit, I’m afraid!) is a perceived urgent need to remind readers (if there are any, other than those posting here) that the “Martin Keenan” mentality is, thank God, but one among a plurality.

And to demonstrate that Martin’s pontificating on homosexuality is but an (overly conservative, overly scrupulous) opinion, I feel that I must draw attention yet again to the thoughts of Professor Fr Jan Visser, one of the vey conservative manualist theologians who collaborated on the writing of the CDF’s 1975 document “Persona Humana”. I quote Fr Paul Surlis (Professor of moral theology and social ethics at St John’s University, New York, from 1975 till 2000): “Visser distinguishes between a moral theology that embodies absolute, inflexible principles, and a pastoral theology that concerns itself with persons and individual situations where the principles of moral theology could be applied leniently out of compassion and sensitivity to personal needs. Visser adheres to the view that, judged in terms of principles, homosexuality is intrinsically immoral. But when counselling a homosexual person, Visser is concerned with enabling this person to live a Christian life in his or her concrete situation. In the L’Europa interview, he explained, ‘when one is dealing with people who are so deeply homosexual that they will be in serious personal and perhaps social trouble unless they attain a steady partnership, within their homosexual lives, one can recommend them to seek such a partnership, and one accepts this relationship as the best they can do in their present situation.’ ”

Professor Surlis continues “In any case, the Vatican has never revoked his interpretation of leniency in pastoral practice for homosexuals in a stable relationship, and it stands as a quasi-official interpretation of a curial declaration by one of its official authors. These facts lead me to conclude that we should challenge the position that the declaration Persona Humana is an integral part of Catholic teaching on homosexuality when, in fact, it is the view of one school of Roman theologians,* and, in particular, of one cardinal** who would foist his personal views on the universal church as “Catholic teaching.” It is unacceptable that teaching documents formulated by a few curial officials and their theologians should be used to justify punitive treatment of theologians and pastoral practitioners … . But it is also the fault of overly timid bishops and religious superiors if they fail to call the Vatican’s behaviour what it is–a scandalous abuse of power.”

For those who battle to understand St Paul (as I surely have), I would recommend Fr Richard Rohr’s excellent CD set “Great Themes of St Paul: Life as Participation”, which sees St Paul essentially as a mystic. It is quite a remarkable set of talks, which left me unable to ever see St Paul or his epistles in quite the same way again. The topic of homosexuality is but one among many that are covered, and St Paul’s vision is seamlessly integrated with modern anthropology and cosmology, lending a powerful ring of truth and authenticity to Fr Rohr’s treatment.

* the manualists – the letter was to have been formulated as a collaboration by Professors of Moral Theology from the manualist AND personalist traditions. The personalists “withdrew” (were forced out?) from the “collaboration” when one very senior Cardinal Bishop by the name of Pietro Palazzini, of the manualist tradition, took much from a chapter in a book he had written, and voila, Persona Humana came to be.

**Pietro Palazzini
Vincent Couling on September 11th, 2010

After a good night’s sleep filled with richly symbolic dreams, I feel the need to make one more intervention, in an effort to explain my thoughts surrounding the quagmire Holy Mother has gotten herself bogged down in as regards human sexuality.

I feel it necessary for us to examine the (still unresolved) realms of epistemology, or how knowledge is “obtained”. Mysticism refers to knowledge revealed through faith or revelation, Rationalism to knowledge obtained via abstract reasoning, and Empiricism to knowledge obtained from observation and experiment.

It would be foolish to argue that Aristotle was purely a Rationalist (he did, in fact, value experience), or that Galileo was purely an Empiricist (he did value reason and intuition as sources of knowledge). But we do have to concede that Aristotle’s axioms on Earth being immovable and at the centre of the universe, which held sway for nearly two millennia (becoming a seemingly immutable tradition, oft-repeated as it was), were ultimately undermined by Galileo’s empirical observations through his telescope, giving rise to a completely new and unfamiliar understanding of cosmology, and deeply unsettling the hierarchs of the day.

I suppose one could argue that knowledge is arrived at through a beautiful dance between mysticism, empiricism and rationalism. And tensions will abound … and indeed, they should! What I would passionately argue for, though, is the need to be extremely cautious when claiming to possess the fullness of truth – our understanding is gradually evolving, and we should avoid at all costs, especially in the field of anthropology, any claims to definitive knowledge of an absolute truth. For we never know what gems still remain to be discovered!

I can see that Christ’s deposit of divine revelation is the only source of knowledge for such supernatural realities as the incarnation of the divine, the Trinity, the resurrection of Jesus, etc . These are things about which rationalism and empiricism can tell us little, if anything. The laws of physics cannot be used to explain a resurrection phenomenon! But to attempt to understand the workings of the cosmos, including our role in the cosmos, requires that delicate dance between rationalism, empiricism and mysticism: and a healthy disdain for any emphatic pontifications which claim to be the final word, in a sense denying the possibility of further insights. One cannot argue that knowledge of morality can only be arrived at from “a priori” divine revelation (if such a divine revelation even exists!), especially when such alleged divine revelation shows itself to be arbitrary and excessively burdensome.

St Augustine understood this perfectly well, as amply evidenced by his remarkable words “The writings of bishops may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; even councils held in particular regions or provinces must without quibbling give way to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones, if as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden becomes known.”

Let us take the topic of masturbation, which has long been a taboo in Western culture, the medical profession having even alleged masturbation to be the cause of mental disease and physical disease such as blindness. With Kinsey’s empirical studies, followed by many better studies, we now know that masturbation is an almost ubiquitous phenomenon amongst males, and highly prevalent amongst females. The medical and human sciences now view masturbation benignly, as a mostly harmless activity that is an almost inevitable dimension of normal adolescent sexual development. Even the Magisterium, with its propensity for a manualist view of human sexuality, has had to face the tension between this empirical knowledge and their rationalist argument that masturbation is an objective moral evil (and a direct offence against God) since sexual pleasure is only allowed in a marital context when fully open to the procreation of new life. Such tensions are plain for all to see, even in the Catechism, which is now quite nuanced:

“2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. ‘Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.’ ‘The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.’ For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of ‘the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.’

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.“

What we find here, in the second paragraph, is not dissimilar to Professor Fr Jan Visser’s analysis of the homosexual condition, where he draws a distinction between the inflexible principles of moral theology, and a pastoral theology that shows compassion and leniency in particular cases.

This, though, leaves me to ask a very important question. After all, I myself am an overly-scrupulous type. If something is in truth objectively and intrinsically evil, a direct offence against God, I want no part of it! The question, then, is, does the analysis of Fr Visser, and of the CCC, where rationalist argument does not square with empirical observation, not imply that the rationalist argument (like that of Aristotle) must give way to an extensive revision? (I am reminded in all of this of the pearl of wisdom given by Frederick Franck: “When logic follows experience, it is likely to be valid. When experience derives from logic, it is bound to be self-deception: delusional, spurious, false.”) Are we not currently in such a state of flux, perhaps even of powerful turbulence? Old axioms, long assumed to be absolute truth, are being challenged by fresh anthropological insights arrived at through empirical studies. And the tensions are amply evident, even in the CDF documents on homosexuality. Is not the delicate dance between the mystical, empirical and rational now underway as regards a fresh development in Church understanding of human sexuality? Should not theologians be set free to join in the dance without fear or favour, so they may go wherever the questions lead them? Are we not on the cusp of profound new insights into the human condition, insights which must be synthesized into a more-evolved, yet still orthodox, sexual ethic.

In the pre-Kinsey paradigm, all men and all women were presumed to be heterosexual. Homosexual acts were a crime against this innate heterosexuality of all people. The “ressourcement“ view would not really negate this, but would extrapolate the old orthodoxy to make room for a fresh discovery – all New Testament condemnations of homosexual acts can be seen as a condemnation of heterosexuals doing what for them is quite unnatural. But now that our anthropological insights have revealed that some people are constitutionally homosexual (even the CCC seems to concede this point), can we really apply, willy-nilly, such proscriptions to constitutional homosexuals? Isn’t it rather that their unions can only be moral if with someone of the same gender as themselves? And that for them, immorality would be occur should they enter into a heterosexual relationship, going against their innate nature?

Appeals to the second creation account are interesting, for here, God lets Adam decide for himself what relationship will fulfil him … the choice is quite clearly left to Adam, God does not proscribe. And the Adam in this allegory chooses Eve, as would any heterosexual Adam. But the constitutionally homosexual Adam would have said “Hell No!” and would have chosen Steve. And God would surely be fine with this, rather than condemn this gay Adam to a life of lonely celibacy, devoid of all but disinterested friendships – after all, this God said “It is not good that man should be alone – I will create for him a helpmate”.

Some, like Martin, fight tenaciously to keep the old paradigm of human sexuality alive … but there has been a seismic event. The New World has been discovered! And those who obstinately and steadfastly refuse to draw it on their maps in a vain effort to keep the old understanding of truth afloat – well, they must examine their motives in doing so. Are they uncomfortable with change, with anything but a black and white dualistic worldview? Surely they must realize that there is a high price to be paid for mendacity in any form.
P.R.Margeot on September 11th, 2010

I really hope this is the last post. I am sick and tired of reading about homosexuality, homosexuals, heterosexuals, masturbation, lesbians, etc from people obsessed with these things. Nobody can defend the indefensible. All this in the “Southern Cross”. This is not acceptable. Some other readers have spent time , energy, dedication to try and explain the situation. They must be thanked. For heaven’s sake, let’s close this subject. Many people do not want it. How about readers ignoring letters on the subject?
feetxxxl on September 12th, 2010

that christendom would declare homosexuality a sin, shows , that even after 2000 years, we believers are still struggling to embrace the new covenant of christ.

fellow believers, how can we think that physicalities of gender pairing and choices of erogenous zones to express sexual intimacy, can come against the godlove(love one another as i have loved you) of the 2nd commandment about loving our neighbor as ourselves.

Scripture says this commandment is the summation of ALL new covenant law.(romans and galations) if that is, so then the essence of the 2nd commandment is in every law of the new covenant.

And surely we cannot trump the love of christ with our interpretations of scripture. scripture says christ’s love transcends all knowledge.

i attend both gay and conservative straight churches. my many testimonies of the life giving spirit of christ are that he fills the lives and marriages of gay believers in the same way as in those of heterosexual believers.

i have not heard of one testimony(”that which we have heard, which we have looked, which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have touched…..1john1) about any gay believer being filled with a spirit of deceit, delusion, or denial because he was being gay. if anyone has one please share it with me. i would be interested in hearing it.

if our concern is about health issues concerning their sexual intimacy, there is nothing involving anal sex that cannot be dealt with thru safe sex practices. surely those who love each other would not engage in something that would harm either themselves or their spouse. That in itself would bring shame. There is no shame in gay bonding, it is done out of mutual love, affection, devotion, trust, respect for a shared committed life together, the same as with heterosexuals. heterosexuals practice anal sex as well, with no difficulty.

if our concern is about scripture, under the new covenant, we no longer have a relationship to god thru regulation as in deut 28,(torn curtain) but instead directly to the spirit of the one who lives in each of us.

christ’s love is our regulation. under the new covenant anything that is a sin is that which comes against the 2nd commandment,( about christ’s love) and the fruit of christ’s spirit of galatians……love(christ’s love), joy, peace, kindness, goodness, self-control, faithfulness, gentleness, and patience.

being homosexual doesnt come against these.

“that which is not against us is for us”mark

bottom line: scripture has never said that being homosexual was a sin. Because something is made a prohibition in the old does not automatically make it of itself a sin or a sin under the new. there were many prohibitions in the old covenant that of themselves were not sins.

romans is about SHAMEFUL THINGS such as LUST. there is no shame in being homosexual. and homosexuals do not bond out of lust, or anything else that is defiling to the spirit thru which we were created.

as i said before, we dont have a relationship to god thru regulation. standing on legalities about 1tim and 1cor to attempt to make a regulation, comes against our very faith in christ.

and there is no word “only” in gen and matt19.

About being holy, under the new covenant our holiness comes solely from the spirit of christ living within us. we ourselves can do nothing to make ourselves holy.

your brother in christ
P.R.Margeot on September 12th, 2010

Thank you , Anonymous, for your final contribution to this debate. Thank you for your time and dedication to the cause which you believe is right. We will have to agree to disagree and end this discussion here. Please allow me to make a small suggestion when you write : to always write God and Christ in CAPITAL letters. I know , it is a small detail, not important. On this note, I wish you the best , happiness, and may you find on earth patience and Hope, and like all of us, I am certain you also hope for your eternal reward with God. May your guardian angel keep you safe through your journey. Life on earth is not a pic-nic, we must be on our guard, as the Evil one is forever pulling us down. On our knees,to our Rosaries.
Martin Keenan on September 13th, 2010

The weekend has intervened, and with it the parable of the man who wasted his inheritance on debauchery but eventually came to his senses.

Regrettably, PR, the case is worse than you might suppose. The method of argumentation adopted by Dr. Vincent Couling in these pages is intellectually dishonest and contemptible (see next post), disclosing a mind that is second-rate and immature. He also offends against logic because he denies the existence of a papal magisterium but claims to recognise a Conciliar one. The fact that the Conciliar magisterium affirms and defends the papal (Lumen gentium, n.25) makes his position self-contradictory.

Dr. Couling lacks the justification of CCL can.212(3) for publishing his ideas because he has no particular competence or expertise in moral theology (Catholic or otherwise) – all his arguments being second-hand. In any event he is in breach of CCL. cann.209(1) (duty to maintain communion with the Church), 211 (duty to propagate the Gospel), and 212(1) (duty of obedience to the pastors of the Church). His officious personal revelations indicate a serious risk of action under CCL, can.915 (those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion”).

Those who bask in the luxury of a conscience that conveniently permits them to indulge in sensual gratifications which the Church has always condemned as immoral will have to make better shift on Judgement Day than to explain that they read about the subject on the internet or in books by diverse authors and that Fr. Curran (et al.) said it was permissible. The utter lack of originality of thought exhibited by Dr. Vincent Couling itself condemns him.

I am done debating with him until he acknowledges his faults and changes his ways. Dr. Vincent Couling has an immeasurably precious immortal soul (which is in grave danger), but his posts are worthless. The same can be said for the vulgar nonsense spouted by feetxxxl.
Martin Keenan on September 13th, 2010

The manner of argumentation used by Dr. Vincent Couling in these pages is contemptible. For example:-

Item [1]: He subjected Sacred Scripture to an exegesis which is in itself crass and inadequate (ignoring the very verses which destroy his case: Gen.1:27f.) and was, moreover, expressed in coarse and offensive language.

Item [2]: He renders rational debate impossible by his chosen tactic of replying to detailed arguments by pasting absurdly long extracts from the writings of others which were necessarily not directed at the specific points in issue in these threads. The motive can only be to stifle debate.

Item [3]: He gratuitously insulted John in his defence of the Church´s teaching when John had previously – on another thread – engaged with Dr. Vincent Couling with grace, generosity and charity in debating this precise topic. Unsurprisingly, John dropped out of the discussion on this thread.

***

The manner of argumentation adopted by Dr. Vincent Couling in these pages is intellectually dishonest. For example:-

Item [4]: He habitually pretends that the views I express here (which present the Church´s teaching as found in the CCC and Gaudium et spes, nn.12-18 and Part II, cap. 1 passim, for example)) are my own and are of no authority; and it is puerile of him to think that by affixing labels to me personally he has disposed of the teaching of the Church. The issue has always been the Church´s Divinely-conferred authority to teach and her Divinely-conferred charism of the truth – the rock on which all dissent stumbles.

Item [5]: He poses specific challenges in debate (as on the Church´s sanctioning of marriage between partners who are sterile) but ignores the responses when they undermine his case. Elsewhere, when he erroneously thought I had not responded to a previous challenge, he sought to milk my supposititious “deafening silence” as an implicit admission of the validity of his argument.

Item [6]: On the perilously few occasions when he condescends to notice specific teachings of the magisterium without abusing them, he fails to acknowledge – after notice duly given – that he has misinterpreted, misquoted or used out of context crucial passages (as he did, for instance, on another thread regarding Gaudium et spes, n. 43). If that particular case has not, in fact, come to his attention, he is obliged to reconsider his use of those passages and withdraw his citation.

Item [7]: He parleys works such as Judge Noonan´s as “magisterial and meticulously-researched” when he must know that a 100 page feuilleton pretending to review 2,000 years of the Church´s attitude to slavery cannot hope to be exhaustive enough to deserve those accolades, especially when it is obvious that Noonan´s “research” is derivative and dependent on secondary sources and (as Cardinal Dulles demonstrated in a review in “First Things” in October 2005) falls far short of covering that part of the ground which is unfavourable to Noonan´s pre-conceived ideas.

The commission of these faults has nothing to do with “robust debate” but gravely offends against the truth.
Malcolm on September 13th, 2010

This thread needs to carry on a little further P R

Vatican 1

5. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since
o it is the same God
 who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and
 who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.
6. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.
o The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either
 the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or
 unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
7. Hence, so far is the church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For
o she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather
o she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace.
8. Nor does the church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method:
o but while she admits this just freedom,
o she takes particular care that they do not
 become infected with errors by conflicting with divine teaching, or,
 by going beyond their proper limits, intrude upon what belongs to faith and
o engender confusion.
9. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
o not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
o but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
10. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding [36] .
Malcolm on September 13th, 2010

In general there has been a dishonesty in these post, it is not necessary for me to point them all out, least to say that paraphrasing documentation to suite an argument and not revealing the full context as it would destroy the argument, was quite a revelation.

Anyway, Martin has pointed to the correct direction. We are all mature enough to recognize when a teacher, Theologian is in conflict with Church Teaching and there is no value in pointing to them. If it is a choice between God, His revelation to mankind, His Church, or the contradictions of those who are in conflict.

To resolve issues there has to be a commitment to truth.

Sorry I am punching this out with a speed as I have other commitments, God Bless you all.
P.R.Margeot on September 13th, 2010

To Martin and Malcolm, THANK YOU for your sterling contribution, detailed information, and truly Catholic ‘exposés’ which were enriching and refreshing AND clear. I understood what you wrote. To the pleasure of reading you in the future. May you (and all others) be blessed and protected.
Malcolm on September 14th, 2010

Vatican 1 Chapter 4. On faith and reason 5-10. 1-4 is also interesting.

1. The perpetual agreement of the catholic church has maintained and maintains this too: that
o there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct
 not only as regards its source,
 but also as regards its object.
2. With regard to the source,
o we know at the one level by natural reason,
o at the other level by divine faith.
3. With regard to the object,
o besides those things to which natural reason can attain,
o there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God
 which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.
o Wherefore, when the Apostle, who witnesses that God was known to the gentiles from created things [29] , comes to treat of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ [30] , he declares: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this. God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God [31] . And the Only-begotten himself, in his confession to the Father, acknowledges that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones [32] .
4. Now reason,
o does indeed
 when it seeks persistently, piously and soberly,
o achieve
 by God’s gift
o some understanding,
 and that most profitable,
o of the mysteries,
 whether by analogy from what it knows naturally,
 or from the connexion of these mysteries
 with one another and
 with the final end of humanity;
but reason
o is never rendered capable of penetrating these mysteries
o in the way in which it penetrates those truths which form its proper object.
o For
 the divine mysteries,
 by their very nature,
 so far surpass the created understanding
 that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith,
 they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity,
 as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord,
 for we walk by faith, and not by sight [33] .
Martin Keenan on September 23rd, 2010

“gay people, who comprise at least 10% of the population”

News just in for Mr. Lee (I am not sure what was the relevance of the statistic, or what “population” he was intending to describe, but, like everything else in his letter, Mr. Lee was speaking of what he knew not).

From “The Daily Telegraph”, 23 September 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/8020574/Gay-population-much-lower-than-believed-first-official-figures-show.html :-

“Gay population much lower than believed, first official figures show
Just one and a half per cent of the UK population is gay or bisexual, far lower than previous estimates suggested, the first official survey on sexual identity has revealed . . The true picture comes from a survey of 450,000 people carried out by the Office for National Statistics, the largest pool for social data after the Census . . Ninety-five per cent of people said they are heterosexual while less than one per cent put themselves in the ‘other’ category, offered for those who did not see themselves as straight, gay or bisexual. Some three per cent said they did not know their preference or refused to answer. “
Rosemary Gravenor on October 1st, 2010

@Vincent, I always follow everything you contribute to. Mostly I appreciate your big-heartedness and honesty. It is only those at a higher level of consciousness that can understand the relevant ‘dance’ begun by Christ.

@Derrick, I also am impressed at your persistence in asking the hard questions, your bigness in sticking to the ‘rules’ of debate by primarily respecting the dignity of others.

As for the rest, only time will tell how right or how wrong the Teaching authority of the Church has been on this issue of human sexuality. It has been so wrong in the past, there is no reason to believe it cannot ever be wrong in the future.

Of interest may be the very interesting quote I came across thanks to Martin on another stream on this site: Perhaps we have placed an excessive trust in ecclesial structures and programmes, in the distribution of powers and functions; but what will happen if salt loses its flavour? Pope Benedict XVI – Lisbon 2010.
Rosemary Gravenor on October 1st, 2010

PS. I happen to know that John Lee does not have a cell phone nor access to the Internet so he is blissfully unaware of all your condemnations. They are like hot foul wind blowing nowhere slowly…
Rosemary Gravenor on October 1st, 2010

Vincent for you to console yourself in the desert on your lonesome (and others to do with what you will):

When doctrines, dogmas and teachings come to be at the fore of our search for the divine and His Truth, we’ve already lost that which is essential: relationship with God.

Jesus reminds us that no disciple is greater than his master. If we turn to knowledge about God to learn how to live our lives, then we’ll never be able to rise above the narrowness and boundaries of dogmatism.
P.R.Margeot on October 1st, 2010

In the Catholic Church, our Mother on Earth, there is no room for the Revolution. The Church by its nature is traditional and is now heading slowly but surely towards calmer waters. Slowly but surely, the mass of all time will regain its rightful place and the faithful will be surprised how quickly our Holy Church will regain her strength, vitality, honour, respect from the world. The world will never love her, but it will show respect to her. Then, thanks to the sterling work done by the traditional priests and by the nuns in their schools, we will slowly see a rise in vocations, which will produce more grace and blessings in the world , we will see an increase in large families which produce vocations, and so goes the happy, harmonious circle….Exciting times are coming , no one will be excluded. We thank our good Pope Benedict. May God grant him a few more years to give a final impulse to the process of bringing order, unity, and peace to our Holy Church. No man is an island.
Rosemary Gravenor on October 2nd, 2010

@PR
It is so blatantly clear that your faith is in “holy Mother Church’ and my faith is in the person of Jesus, the Christ. Your perceptions don’t even reflect the of the mind of God – but appear to me as some wild dream of how things are going to pan out. Jesus told us in scripture that NO ONE knows – neither the time… or the ultimate ‘parousia’ till it comes about.

Jesus found space for revolution… He was not Catholic [as you or even i experience it]. Essentialy i believe he showed us how to live and how to die. He did not in any way show me that submission to an institution was to be my ’salvation’. He shows me how to submit myself to “seeing” the Christ in ALL others. That is the hard thing that I still struggle with daily.
P.R.Margeot on October 3rd, 2010

I wish you all a great sunday in our Lord Jesus Christ. I found Him a long time ago, I accept Him, love Him, and His Holy Church. The revolutionaries have the right to think what they want, we are not in North Korea thank God. I wish the revolutionaries well, they must continue on therir track. the Holy Church of Jesus Christ, guided by the Holy Ghost, protected by Mary our Mother in Heaven, and St Michael, is on its way to recovery from that terrible ordeal. More and more the mass of all time is being said and abundant graces and blessings are being showered on earth. The Church’s business is to save souls for eternity, she is now getting stronger and stronger. Thank you to our Pope.
Martin Keenan on October 4th, 2010

Our Lord conferred authority on those He appointed to lead His Church, to teach in His name:

(Mt.28:18-20) “Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

and speaking to the 72 (Lk.10:16) – “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

Ms. Gravenor (from this and numerous other aberrant posts) evidently rejects the authority of the Church Our Lord founded.
Malcolm on October 4th, 2010

Rosemary you say that you believe in Jesus. Clearly you do not believe in what Jesus instructed His Apostles to do or the structures that Jesus set up regarding His Church nor do you believe in His Authority or Word.

You clearly have no respect for the Authority that Jesus conferred to His Apostles and their successors. You do not submit yourself to His teaching or the Church mission to propagate His teaching.

You have judged yourself higher than the Apostles and Church. In other words, you have started your own religion with yourself as head.
Malcolm on October 5th, 2010

Rosemary, just have a good read in what you say, and possibly you might realize how spiritually confused you are.

You say: “It is so blatantly clear that your faith is in “holy Mother Church’ and my faith is in the person of Jesus, the Christ. Your perceptions don’t even reflect the of the mind of God – but appear to me as some wild dream of how things are going to pan out.”

Lets unpack this spiritual amnesia. a) Faith in Jesus is determined by a readiness to Accept what God our Father has revealed to us through His prophets in the O/T and through his Son. So Divine truth is eternal and unchanging based on His authority and word.
Here you will note Rosemary that Faith it is not based on your personal opinion or your emotional state, which changes from post to post.

b) In order to love your neighbour it is a prerequisite to love God, the fountain the Giver of all gifts. Now I must admit this is no easy task to love those who appear to have no redeeming qualities. However as a dogma which is Divine revealed truth would have it, we have no personal choice but to carry and submit to it, if we are Christian. It is God love, in the sacrifice of Jesus His Son, for all humankind sins in order that we can achieve eternal life. To achieve this love one has to ask of it, therefore this grace is a gift, which is given freely.

c) Dogma is the teaching of Jesus handed down to humankind through the ages by His Church. That power and authority has been given to the Church by no other than Jesus, who you say Rosemary and I quote “my faith is in the person of Jesus, the Christ.”

Here resides your contradiction, you reject dogma, Church teaching, which is Divine, unchanging and still maintain you have faith in the person of Jesus. This is your morass of confusion, how could you know the Mind of God when you cannot recognize the Authority, truths that He commissioned His Church to hand down from generation to generation.

From my apprentice Christianity, it is clear to me as Martin and PR have said that Jesus promised that He would be with the Church for all time and the Holy Spirit will guide the Church in all truth.

Rosemary with respect, your faith in truth, is contradictory and is more personal opinion, the obligation to act on faith which you profess is not there. If it were there, you would be one with what the Church Teaches but you are not, you are the sideline complaining endlessly setting yourself apart.

May God Bless you
Ogeltak on October 13th, 2010

I am a gay cath0lic y0uth. And i have been feeling lost for such a l0ng time. I am finally trying to accept myself the way God made me and its a t0ugh and challenging task. During my last c0nfessi0n i t0ld the priest ab0ut my situati0n,and he explained to me that its n0t a sin to be gay,as the church realises that there are s0me people who were b0rn that why, it is a sin h0wever,when i act on my ‘gay’ feelings, the same way it is a sin for heterosexuals to hav sex before marriage. When i think ab0ut this, it means that im supposed to stay single for the rest of my life. . .In a way it feels as th0ugh im being punished for s0mthing i didnt have c0ntrol over. Im a christian, filled with faith, and i believe that God has a plan for me, that i waz born for a reas0n, i also believe that as people,n0matter hw devinely inspired and m0tivated, we are n0t perfect and we make mistakes. This is n0t to say that the church is s0mewhat bad and cruel, but everything takes time.
P.R.Margeot on October 16th, 2010

Dear Ogeltak, it takes courage to write what you wrote. I also understand a little of what goes through your mind, your fears, your aspirations, your future life, etc. Your priest probably gave you some good advice. You may want at a future stage to see another priest, a priest of Tradition for example. They are very learned and wise. You seem to have grasped the situation in which you find yourself.
We are all weak and sinners,but one thing is certain : if a good priest can stay chaste and can control his instincts for the whole of his life, so can a lay person. It is very possible. We read many of the saints’ life and see how they went through this earthly life with all its temptations.
God has a plan for you, there is no doubt. Not being very learned myself and not being a psychologist, I am limited to give good advice. And I want the best advice given to you. To speak to a good priest is the way foreward. Please offer your suffering to our Lord who died for us, pray Him and His Holy Mother, pray the rosary, pray the Saints, and accept that , if it is God’s will, you will attain happiness in living a single life. Your life could be consecrated to God as a lay person. In such a case, you may develop talents and acquire vast knowledge which you may use to advance the Kingdom of God on earth :do not forget that He must reign on earth. Courage, dear young friend. Perseverence always.
John on October 18th, 2010

To Ogeltak,

I advise you to adhere to the loving and wise words of P.R.Margeot. Do not give into despair for I tell you solemnly, the chance of living a blessed life full of happiness is very possible. I too suffer from homosexual feelings but have decided not to embrace them. There was a point in my life where I faced the same dilemma as you. Am I going to be happy? Am I going to live a life of solitude? It was until I embraced the True teachings of the Catholic Church that I came to find peace. It was by accepting Christ as my Lord and Saviour, and realizing that everything in life is meaningless without Him, that I came to find peace. I’ve accepted the fact that I may have to live my life without having an intimate relationship with another, but this possibility does not fill me with dread. Rather, Christ’s Love and unending mercy has filled me with hope and peace, and I now live with a joy in my heart that I have never known before. All this of course was made possible by searching for the Truth, by seeking counsel from a priest and by reading up on the True teachings of the Catholic Church. I will pray for you my friend and hope that you will find the peace that you so long for. Perseverance always.
Vincent Couling on October 20th, 2010

Dear Ogeltak,

Greetings from a fellow gay Catholic – though by no means a youth. I agree with P R Margeot that it takes courage to write what you wrote! The Spirit is clearly working in your life, as you grapple with profound and onerous personal questions. You are perhaps at a delicate stage of your spiritual journey, and it might be wise if you sought out a mentor of sorts – someone you can trust, and to whom you can articulate your inmost thoughts and feelings, someone who can help you as you walk this formative stage of your life’s journey. Far be it from me to “give you advice” in any patronizing way – all I can do is share what I found to be useful on my own pilgrimage as a gay Catholic. I found it extremely useful to visit a psychologist (I was careful to find one who suited my own particular needs – a woman who was herself Christian, and so had the understanding and empahy to help me on my journey of integrating my sexuality and my spirituality).

The Church has a great deal of respect for the psychological process, and makes use of it in the formation of priests … the Second Vatican Council speaks highly of it in the council document Gaudium et Spes: “The recent studies and findings of science, history and philosophy raise new questions which effect life and which demand new theological investigations. … In pastoral care, sufficient use must be made not only of theological principles, but also of the findings of the secular sciences, especially of psychology and sociology, so that the faithful may be brought to a more adequate and mature life of faith. … May the faithful … blend new sciences and theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and the teaching of Christian doctrine, so that their religious culture and morality may keep pace with scientific knowledge and with the constantly progressing technology. Thus they will be able to interpret and evaluate all things in a truly Christian spirit.”

You can also see that there was openness by the Council Fathers to new scientific insights … which today must surely include the relatively recent realization that some people are gay. The very word “homosexual” first appeared in print in 1869, and the theologians of the Church are only gradually undertaking a proper investigation of what it all means … I know that presents difficulties, since there are no ready answers for you, and you will need to carefully negotiate your way forward, reading as much as you can, and perhaps speaking to as many people as you can … though that might only come in time, especially if you are not yet openly out. One person who I have found particularly useful on my journey is the gay Catholic priest and theologian Fr James Alison, who lives in Sao Paulo, Brazil, but who has visited South Africa. I attended a talk of his (see http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng59.html ), and a weekend retreat, and found it all very useful. He has written a “Letter to a young gay Catholic” (http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng52.html ) that might be useful for you to read, and there is a recent radio interview wherein he examines some of the “new questions which … demand new theological investigations” over at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/stories/2010/3029756.htm . Another resource that I found useful is the Website Fortunate Familes – Catholic families with lesbian daughters and gay sons, which has some powerful personal testimonies and a well-researched series called “let’s talk about homosexuality”.

Ogeltak, young man, I hope that I haven’t been too presumptuous in suggesting “useful material”! In fact, I might get into serious trouble in this comments section for daring to do so . (I noticed your post two days ago, and wasn’t going to write anything in reply, the whole gay thing being very tricky to discuss right now without temperatures rising all ’round – but the sheer honesty of your post [and my conscience] got the better of me.) I truly wish you God’s richest blessings as you walk your journey of self-discovery. Always remember that you are a precious son of God, ceated in His Image and Likeness … you are a beautiful human being! The Spirit will be close to you … trust your inner voice, and, in the words of Shakespeare, “this above all: to thine own self be true”.
Ogeltak on November 21st, 2010

Thanx 4 every1’s advice i appreciate it, and i appeal to u all to please pray 4 me and otherz like me. To P Margot, i thnk i wil c a priest of traditi0n when im ‘out’, because i believe my parish priest to be one.So i wil go to him,when the time has c0me.
I recently came to the realisati0n that it is time to tel the ppl in my life-a sort of coming out-bt i d0nt knw how and wher to start. Ive told alm0st al my friends, its my family that poses a chalenge,so y0ur prayerz wil be highly appreciated.
Thank you
Ogeltak on November 21st, 2010

Thanx 4 every1’s advice i appreciate it, and i appeal to u all to please pray 4 me and otherz like me. To P Margot, i thnk i wil c a priest of traditi0n when im ‘out’, because i believe my parish priest to be one. So i wil go to him,when the time has c0me.
Vincent thanx al0t, kn0wing that y0u went thr0ugh a similar j0urney helps me believe that i to0 will make it.

I recently came to the realisati0n that it is time to tel the ppl in my life-a sort of coming out-bt i d0nt knw how and wher to start. Ive told alm0st al my friends, its my family that poses a chalenge,so y0ur prayerz wil be highly appreciated.
Thank you
P.R.Margeot on November 21st, 2010

Perseverance and courage, dear Ogeltak.
Martin Keenan on November 22nd, 2010

Ogeltak: in matters of faith and morals, I encourage you to ignore the babble of opinions (even the babble of opinions of “specialists” – particularly those who claim to be Catholic) and above all do not simply go where your animal instincts lead you. This is the way of the world. As Christians we are called to another way.

Listen to and adhere to the constant teaching of Holy Mother Church – a wise and loving mother – and you cannot go wrong; for she hands on what has been given to her by her Divine Master who is the way the truth and the life.

Read again what John has posted. Vincent chose another route, which contradicts the Church’s teaching.

Seek out a priest who is faithful to the Church’s teaching, and speak to him as you would to Jesus.
P.R.Margeot on December 18th, 2010

Dear Ogeltak, I wish you peace for Christmas and a fuller understanding of the route to follow. Follow the advice of Mr Keenan above : you won’t go wrong.
We think of you, courage, perseverance.
Ogeltak on January 11th, 2011

Thanks a lot, my Christmas waz good, it br0ught me ever closer to our Lord.
Ive c0me to realise that if i am to show other people Christ’s l0ve, then im g0ing to have to begin by loving myself fully and embracing all that i am- whatever that means. It waznt an easy ch0ice to make but i but i believe that He guided me to it. Thanks for your advice once again and God bless.
Vincent Couling on January 12th, 2011

Dear Ogeltak,

Thank you for sharing your unfolding faith journey with us. It sounds like Christmas was a wonderful time for you. Your insights are quite profound … and I would suggest that they are not the fruits of a calculating mind, but rather those of a contemplative mind … i.e. one that is open and receptive to Jesus’ transforming love.

May God richly bless you as you walk this earthly pilgrimage, fellow sojourner in Christ!

Much love,

Vincent
John on January 19th, 2011

Hi All,

Just to let you know, we are currently in the process of creating a New Courage Chapter here in South Africa which will operate in the Archdiocese of Johannesburg. I have conferred with a willing priest and am now liaising with Courage members in the United States as to just how we will be able to get the ball rolling. This is the initial phase so your prayers in making this a success will be greatly appreciated. This ministry will be the first in South Africa, indeed the whole of Africa, and as such it will provide assistance to all those who are in need of it.

As you may know, Father John Harvey who was appointed by Terence Cardinal Cooke, Servant of God, as the director of the Courage Apostolate passed away on the 27th of December 2010. He’s contribution in bringing people who have homosexual inclinations closer to God was amazing and will continue to do so through the Apostolate and his many works. I hope to create the Chapter in South Africa in his memory.

Wishing you all well.

John
Vincent Couling on January 28th, 2011

I note that the Courage Apolstolate’s handbook includes a twelve step programme modelled on the AA 12 steps:

“The Twelve Steps of Courage
(taken from the Courage Handbook)

We admitted that we were powerless over homosexuality and our lives had become unmanageable.

We came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

We made a decision to turn our will and our lives to the care of God as we understood Him.

We made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

We admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

We were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of our character.

We humbly asked God to remove our shortcomings.

We made a list of all persons we had harmed and became willing to make direct amends to them all.

We made the direct amends to such people whenever possible except when to do so would injure them or others.

We continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.

We sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for the knowledge of God’s Will for us and the power to carry it out.

Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to others and to practice these principles in all our affairs.”

Now, we should bear in mind that the mainstream scientific and medical view is that alcoholism is a disease, and that the mainstream scientific and medical view is that homosexuality is NEITHER a disease, NOR a disorder.

In fact, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.” A thorough review of the scientific data led the American Psychological Association to adop the same position in 1975, urging all mental health professionals “to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations.” The National Association of Social Workers has since adopted a similar policy.

So what exactly are the “defects of character” that are to be removed in the sixth step of Courage? What is the insanity that is implied in the second step?

I believe that it is language such as this, especially when espoused by clergy (with all the moral authority that is implied by their office), that leads to a great deal of inner turmoil in the lives of LGBT people, especially when in the formative years of their lives. This turmoil can even have dire consequences, such as the snuffing out of one’s own life … as borne out in a recent study entitled “Suicide and Suicide Risk in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations: Review and Recommendations ” published in the special isssue “Suicide, Mental Health, and Youth Development” of the Journal of Homosexuality ( http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a931819675~frm=titlelink ).

The study reports “strong research evidence of significantly elevated rates of lifetime reported suicide attempts among LGBT adolescents and adults,” and while it verifies other research findings which indicate abnormally high levels of depression, anxiety and substance abuse in gay teens, “the panel found that these problems, by themselves, do not account for the higher rates of suicide attempts that have been reported by LGBT people.”

So what does? Stigma and discrimination play a key role, whether from family members, peers or religious communities – as do discriminatory laws and public policies.

The twelve steps of Courage might quite well contribute to such a climate of self-rejection, self-loathing and internalized homophobia. I would argue that the Courage Apostolate heed well the sound advice of the Council Fathers of the Second Vatican Council: “The recent studies and findings of science, history and philosophy raise new questions which effect life and which demand new theological investigations. … In pastoral care, sufficient use must be made not only of theological principles, but also of the findings of the secular sciences, especially of psychology and sociology, so that the faithful may be brought to a more adequate and mature life of faith. … May the faithful … blend new sciences and theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and the teaching of Christian doctrine, so that their religious culture and morality may keep pace with scientific knowledge and with the constantly progressing technology. Thus they will be able to interpret and evaluate all things in a truly Christian spirit.” (Gaudium et Spes)
Jonathan Waldburger on January 30th, 2011

The Bible (OT and NT) are clear on this issue. The Church is NEVER going to change its position. The Church claims to be infallible in faith and morals, and the unbroken 2000 year chain of clear teaching on homosexuality is as infallible as any official pronouncement. Any change in teaching would unravel the Church’s whole understanding of itself in terms of it being protected from error, a promise the Church believes to be made by Christ himself.

More than that, the Church’s understanding of morality has always been primarily underpinned by Natural Law. Accordingly, any physical sexual activity that is not ordered towards and open to reproduction is disordered. To overlook Natural Law in the area of homosexuality would undermine the basis of all the moral claims the Church has ever made, not just those pertaining to sexual ethics.

If it were to overturn its consistent teaching on homosexuality, the Church would unravel. My advice to those holding out for such a change in teaching would be to consider Anglicanism.
John on February 3rd, 2011

Hi Vincent,

I am reluctant to respond to you on this matter, mainly because I know that on an intellectual level you are far more superior than I. I however note your comments on the 12 step program and I’d just like to let you know that before implementing any of these processes proper thought and counsel will be sought from the clergy. In certain cases we may not utilize every single aspect of the Courage Apostolate, and deal certain cases individually.

I would just like to reiterate a point that you seem to forget, and that is that the Apostolate, indeed the Church itself, does not aim to make homosexually inclined people to have feelings of “self-rejection, self-loathing and internalized homophobia”. Indeed, a core function of the Apostolate is to propagate the teachings of the Church to treat homosexuals with respect and dignity and show that the Church cares and loves them. The 5 goals of Courage further emphasizes this point:

“The following five goals of Courage were created by the members themselves, when Courage was founded. The goals are read at the start of each meeting and each member is called to practice them in daily life.
1. Live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality. (Chastity)
2. Dedicate ones life to Christ through service to others, spiritual reading, prayer, meditation, individual spiritual direction, frequent attendance at Mass, and the frequent reception of the sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist. (Prayer and Dedication)
3. Foster a spirit of fellowship in which all may share thoughts and experiences, and so ensure that no one will have to face the problems of homosexuality alone. (Fellowship)
4. Be mindful of the truth that chaste friendships are not only possible but necessary in a chaste Christian life and in doing so provide encouragement to one another in forming and sustaining them. (Support)
5. Live lives that may serve as good examples to others. (Good Example/Role Model).”

Also, you may take some time to read up on personal testimonies of Courage members and see what a positive impact the Apostolate has had on their lives. And I also wish to remind you that I too have homosexual inclinations and have found the Courage Apostolate to be of enormous assistance.

Pax Christi

John
Vincent Couling on February 16th, 2011

Dear Jonathan,

Some have misconstrued a handful of verses in Sacred Scripture as “proof” of Divine condemnation of all instances of homosexual sex, even in the context of loving monogamous unions. All Catholics should be mindful of Magisterial endorsement of the historical-critical method for interpreting scripture.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” states that “Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts … . A non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices … quite contrary to the Christian Gospel. The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory … fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.”

During the period when the various books of the Bible were formulated, it was believed that all people were essentially heterosexual. Homosexual sex was therefore perhaps thought to be always and everywhere deviant and unnatural. The relatively recent anthropological discovery that some people are constitutionally homosexual (this word itself being coined ca. 1869) has profound implications for the Catholic sexual ethic, which surely needs to be extrapolated to include the love relationships of our gay brothers and sisters in Christ.

This understanding is amply borne out in Gaudium et Spes 62: “In fact, recent research and discoveries in the sciences … bring up new problems which have an important bearing on life itself and demand new scrutiny by theologians. In pastoral care sufficient use should be made … of the findings of secular sciences, especially psychology and sociology: in this way the faithful will be brought to a purer and more mature living of the faith. Let the faithful incorporate the findings of new sciences and teachings and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and thought.”
Vincent Couling on February 16th, 2011

Dear Jonathan,

As to your advice about considering Anglicanism, I am a baptised member of the Mystical Body of Christ, and was baptised into the Mystical Body via the Roman Catholic tradition … by my best mate at Catholic School (yes, I was a Methodist, and never Christened). It was a most sacred and solemn event which took place in the school toilet block, by a large wash basin. I wanted baptism quite badly, and he offered to administer the sacrament, following the formula perfectly, with much reverence. Intentionality on both our parts was honest and true. As I recall, much grace was poured out into my life, much-needed grace, my father dying when I was but 9 years old, a tad of hardship ensuing. As a seventeen year old university student, I underwent formal instruction with a religious sister, and received conditional baptism (as a formality … though, in my heart, I know my conversion had taken place many years earlier), as well as the other sacraments of initiation.

I cannot predict the future, but I’m pretty certain that I will never be able to leave the Roman Catholic tradition … in fact, I have a strong, probably irresistible sense of vocation that the Spirit is calling me to remain within the Roman Catholic tradition, which is after all as much my family as my biological family. As a visible sign that being gay is really no big deal … we are mostly rather ordinary people, who can strive (and sometimes fail, sometimes spectacularly!) to live good and holy lives, and relationships of integrity and love and tenderness, contributing to the overall good of the community. The very word catholic has an interesting etymology, meaning at root “universal” … there is room at the Lord’s Table even for the sinners and outcasts, and yes, even for gay people who strive to live lives and relationships of integrity.

An analogy to what you are recommending would be to tell a gay or lesbian child who comes out to his or her Catholic parents that they would do well to leave their biological family and seek adoption by an Anglican family … quite a bizzare recommendation, if I might say so.

Nay, I was received into the Catholic Church, it is my family, it is my spiritual home, it has nourished me deeply (spiritually and intellectually), and I’m really and truly not interested in the “advice” to pack my bags and move out. And I’m really not at all sorry if I make you or a few wearers of red socks uncomfortable along the way … a bit of discomfort might be a good thing in these circumstances! Who knows, it might even lead to a bit of healthy introspection and deeper insight.
Vincent Couling on February 16th, 2011

Dear Jonathan,

You make the sweeping claim that “the Church claims to be infallible in faith and morals.”

It just might be worth examining what the Council Fathers of Vatican II had to say. In Lumen Gentium no 25 we find “And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends.”

Unless I am very much mistaken, the Magisterium has yet to provide a convincing, reasoned argument to display that it is part of Christ’s revealed doctrine (i.e. belonging to the deposit of faith) that the homosexual orientation is objectvely disordered, or that homosexual acts are intrinsically (i.e. always and everywhere) evil. Indeed, I have searched the Christian Gospels, and can find nary a word by Jesus on the issue of homosexuality. The words of others need to be scrutinized under the lens of historical-critical biblical analysis as approved by the Holy See. Paying particular attention to instances where a fundamentalist exegesis might “unwittingly confuse the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.”

The Council’s Decree on Ecumenism (no. 6) says “Therefore, if the influence of events or of the times has led to deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of doctrine (which must be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself), these should be appropriately rectified at the proper moment.”

Let us never forget Canon 749 part 3: “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.”

Perhaps the time will come when some of the current Magisterial pronouncements on human sexuality will be seen to be deficient, and will be appropriately rectified … much as happened with the Magisterium’s apparent error on the moral question of slavery, which I have expounded on at length elsewhere (see http://www.scross.co.za/2010/08/commit-to-the-common-good/ ).

To put it In a nutshell, so to speak, let me ask you a question as regards immutable church teaching on a rather significant matter of morality: Would it be correct to embrace the 1866 teaching of the Holy Office, signed by Pope Pius IX: “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.” Or rather to embrace the subsequent teaching of Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor (no. 80) that asserts slavery to be intrinsically evil and objectively disordered? I look forward to your elucidation.

Let us also not forget the words of Pope Pelagius II (words drafted by the man who was to become Pope Gregory the Great):

“Dear brethren, do you think that when Peter was reversing his position, one should have replied: We refuse to hear what you are saying since you previously taught the opposite? In the matter [at hand] one position was held while the truth was being sought, and a different position was adopted after truth had been found. Why should a change of position be thought a crime … ? For what is reprehensible is not changing one’s mind, but being fickle in one’s views. If the mind remains unwavering in seeking to know what is right, why should you object when it abandons its ignorance and reformulates its views?”

Or the words of St Augustine: “The writings of bishops may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; even councils held in particular regions or provinces must without quibbling give way to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones, if as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden becomes known.”

The relatively recent anthropological discovery that some people are constitutionally gay (as opposed to being defective heterosexuals) is just such a fresh discovery and new insight, considerably changing the theological landscape on the question of sexual morality. Much work remains to be done. Kudos to the theologians who are displaying the courage to roll up their sleeves and start working (see the call for reform by over 200 German-speaking theologians at the link http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2011/02/04/a-year-of-departure-german-speaking-theologians-call-for-reform/ : Here we find a courageous call for open dialogue in several spheres, including “4. Freedom of Conscience: Respect for individual conscience means placing trust in people’s ability to make decisions and carry responsibility. It is the task of the Church to support this capability. The Church must not revert to paternalism. Serious work needs to be done especially in the realm of personal life decisions and individual manners of life. The Church’s esteem for marriage and unmarried forms of life goes without saying. But this does not require that we exclude people who responsibly live out love, faithfulness, and mutual care in same-sex partnerships or in a remarriage after divorce.” There is hope that the Spirit will be allowed to where she will!)
Vincent Couling on February 16th, 2011

Oops … that last sentence should read:

There is hope that the Spirit will be allowed to blow where she will!
John on February 17th, 2011

Hi Vincent,

You truly have a gift of intellect and reasoning, which makes it really quite impossible to refute what you say with a simple mind as my own. But all that you state, given the Church’s official position, is at the end of the day your opinion. It is not the truth as proclaimed by the Holy Mother Church. Therefore good sir, why is it that you so passionately seek to defy the official Church teaching on this matter? Worse, why do you seek to impose this opinion on others especially those looking for the truth? Clearly it would be to justify your position on the matter and perhaps justify your specific lifestyle. I can respect your view but I must ask that you please also respect the Church’s official teaching on the matter. If you do not, I believe that what you preach is tantamount to heresy, which in that case would exclude you from the Catholic community.

Am I wrong to say this? The Nicene Creed clearly states:

“We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church”

And by saying this very thing we clearly proclaim to believe all that the Catholic Church teaches.

Pax Christi

John
Vincent Couling on February 17th, 2011

I am in no position to impose my opinion on others, John … my arguments stand or fall by their merit, and I would have it no other way. It is some hierarchs, and indeed yourself, who appear to want to impose opinion on others, threatening declarations of heresy, and of excommunication, as the penalty for asking awkward questions! Goodness gracious me my mo!

Your position essentially is: the Magesterium is unquestionably right because they cannot err in matters of morals or faith … now how is one to argue with such a fundamentalist mindset? Where is the possibility for respectful dialogue, for new insight? Fortunately, the Council Fathers of the Second Vatican Council do not appear to share such a fundamentalist approach … read my posts above for further clarification, they clearly show the Council Fathers (and other Saints) as having an openness to fresh insights, to development in moral theology, etc.

It seems a trifle affected to greet me with “pax Christi” when you have just inferred that I’m a heretic who is no longer in communion with the Church. Believe me, John, when I say categorically that I would never have the temerity to pass such a judgement on you or any other!

As for my “lifestyle”, why is it that straight people have lives, but gay people have lifestyles? Frankly, you know nothing about my “lifestyle”, and should refrain from making any assumptions about it. My arguments apply to the principles of the question … kindly refrain from ad hominems, they are not charitable, and potentially bring you in danger of being excluded from the Catholic community (said VERY tongue in cheek to show you what it feels like to be on the receiving end of your own judgmentalism).

Have a good day, and a splendid old time at your Courage meetings … just bear in mind that you do not have a monopoly on courage where the gay/Catholic question is concerned.
John on February 17th, 2011

Hi Vincent,

I’m sorry to have angered you, that was not my intent. All I am doing is stating that which has been taught to me by the Holy Catholic Church:

“To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic” and “Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church” —- from http://www.catholic.com.

As to your point that I believe “the Magesterium is unquestionably right because they cannot err in matters of morals or faith”, yes, I completely believe that. As much as I am called to fully believe in all the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, such as: the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary.

I therefore pass no judgment on yourself, I’m merely stating that which is taught by the Church. As to point that I’m trying to impose my opinion on others you are incorrect as I am not doing that at all. All I am trying to do is reiterate the teachings of the Church on the matter of homosexuality and show that the Church loves those with such afflictions.

Pax Christi

John
Vincent Couling on February 17th, 2011

Hello John,

Do you understand what is meant by the sentence “the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church”?
Vincent Couling on February 17th, 2011

Do you understand what the Council Fathers are saying when they declare: “And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends”?
Vincent Couling on February 17th, 2011

Do you grasp the very strict limits imposed by the above statements?
John on February 17th, 2011

Hi Vincent,

I do, however I believe that you have taken them out of context. I will ask my parish priest for his view on this matter and revert back to you.

Pax Christi

John
Vincent Couling on February 17th, 2011

Well, John, I believe that it is you who has attempted to take “them” out of context by apparently agreeing with Jonathan’s sweeping assertion above that “the Church claims to be infallible in faith and morals” full stop. The notion of infallibility in defining doctrine of faith and morals is clearly (and infallibly!!!?) limited to the “contents” of the deposit of faith! Now the burden of proof lies upon the Magisterium to show that the relatively recent anthropological discovery of constitutional homosexuality, and its implications for loving gay unions, has been dealt with in the deposit of faith – right up there with the Incarnation etc. Good luck to them! They will need it!
John on February 17th, 2011

Hi Vincent,

I still haven’t received a response from my parish priest, I ask you to bear with me in this regard.

As to Church infallibility, I refer you the following: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that it is Christ who is infallible, and he grants a measure of his infallibility to his body, the Church. That infallibility is worked out through these twelve traits, but it is expressed most majestically and fully through Christ’s minister of infallibility: one person—the Rock on which the Church is built, Peter and his successors.” —- from http://www.catholic.com

I also refer you to the following: ‘That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation. The teaching of the Vatican Council is to be found in Session III, cap. 4, where it is declared that “the doctrine of faith, which God has revealed, has not been proposed as a philosophical discovery to be improved upon by human talent, but has been committed as a Divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted by her”; and in Session IV, cap. 4, where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra “enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals”. —- from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Luck therefore is not a factor that will be required.

Pax Christi

John
P.R.Margeot on February 17th, 2011

Jonathan’s letter above is full of merit and represents the view of the overwhelming majority of Catholics. John’s contribution to this debate is excellent and I thank him for the clarity and balanced views he holds. John’s humility is a lesson for me. I also bow myself before Mr Couling’s very, very superior intellect. In fact, he is so intelligent that no one can match him in this forum.
Having said that, my view is that we must never accept the norms of a very, very, very tiny minority of people who are different. The people who are different should not try to impose their views on others. The people in question are not condemned but the sin is.
People overwhelmingly , instinctively know that that lifestyle is not normal.It is something that one feels naturally. A simple question: why can’t those with that lifestyle remain quiet and keep a low profile? That would spare them a lot of trouble and that would help them emotionally, they would have some peace, they would have to have humility and accept what they cannot change.
They must pray to God, see a good Catholic priest, they must have the vision. humility and courage of a John. They must finally realize that they can but create confusion and chaos in the minds of Catholics. THAT’ S where they should be responsible. They can quote ad infinitum all the literature on that subject, they will never convince anyone. The Church will not budge, because she cannot budge.
I really wish that this subject be closed in this forum of ” The Southern Cross”.
I appeal to all to just close the subject, and move on. Alternatively, not to react to any provocative statements by any one.
I wish peace and happiness to all. I have a lot to learn about humility. I am a sinner. But my faith in God is great, I want to reach Heaven , I am doing what I can to get there. I want all of you to reach our heavenly mansion…. To all I say : courage, never give up the struggle, be strong, Salus animarum suprema lex. We do not have much time.
Vincent Couling on February 17th, 2011

Dear PRM,

You should read more opinion surveys!

Regards,

V

PS I hardly think that sarcastic ad hominems about my intellect add any value to the “dialogue”.
Vincent Couling on February 17th, 2011

Exempli gratia …

http://catholicsforequality.org/c4eblog/american-catholic-support-equality-rise
P.R.Margeot on February 18th, 2011

Q.E.D.
Vincent Couling on February 18th, 2011

Earlier I said: “Now the burden of proof lies upon the Magisterium to show that the relatively recent anthropological discovery of constitutional homosexuality, and its implications for loving gay unions, has been dealt with in the deposit of faith.”

Well, of course, this business of loving gay unions HAS been decisively dealt with in the deposit of faith … “I give you a new commandment … love one another as I have loved you,” echoing the Prophet Micah’s “This is what Yahweh asks of you, only this … that you act justly, that you love tenderly, that you walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8) .

And so this business of two men or two women loving each other deeply and intimately in a lasting covenantal relationship very definitely has been covered in the deposit of faith. It appears safe to conclude “quod erat demonstrandum”, no!
Vincent Couling on February 18th, 2011

And may the fleas of a thousand dromedaries infest the armpits of whoever dares to call such authentic love a sin!
John on February 18th, 2011

I thank you P.R.Margeot. I have to agree that I too wish that this thread was never published, especially on a Catholic website! Too much damage has already been made, especially I fear for young Ogeltak.

I think it’s best to leave this matter entirely. The Truth, as proclaimed by the Holy Catholic Church, has been stated here. I suppose that as with everything the Church teaches, this will need to be believed and embraced by each person individually, especially those who wish to be faithful Catholics.

To Vincent: I wish you the best sir and hope that you may one day embrace the teachings of the Church more fully. I have, and am more blessed and happier for it.

Wishing you all well.

Pax Christi

John
P.R.Margeot on February 18th, 2011

Mr Couling has effectively won the debate, we close it now, and finally I was not sarcastic above when I mentioned his superior intellect. I meant every word that I wrote. I wish him well for the future, we also should pray for each other. St Michael, protect the Holy Church.
Vincent Couling on February 18th, 2011

Dear PRM,

You, as usual, give me pause for reflection. It really feels quite hollow to be told that I have a superior intellect, or that I have won the debate, since ultimately it is really not about those things. It is, as you so often quite rightly remind us, about living out our faith with a spirit of generosity and humility and charity.

Please forgive me if I have been too aggressive in stating my case … I have to concede that the gay/Catholic question is for me much more than an abstract and impersonal one … I apologise if my passion for this topic is thought to border on zealotry!

I also freely acknowledge that my opinion is but one among many, and I freely acknowledge that the church will have to grapple with this question for some time to come … hopefully with the theologians being free to apply their minds to the synthesis of the current thesis and antithesis (which are presently in a state of great tension!).

While I do not want to dominate the discussion or stifle the opinions of others, I think that I have the right to ask awkward questions when some believe emphatically that they are in full possession of “the truth” on the gay question, and feel free to state their case.

PR, I freely admit that I often feel hopelessly inadequate in my feeble grasp of “the truth” … but it really worries me when I see others feel so confident in their certitude of “the truth”, even as humanity as a collective painfully groans in seeking out a deeper understanding of the gay question (among others). After all, “for now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” … and if St Paul could admit that, who are we to dare claim otherwise?

Thank you, PR, for your kind wishes … I know they are bestowed in a good and generous spirit, and I am very grateful for your graciousness. Thank you, too, for praying for me … be assured that you are also in my prayers.

With every good wish,

V
Ogeltak on February 18th, 2011

I d0nt kn0w how im g0ing to tel my family but im prayng 4 the right w0rdz and am sure the Spirit wil show me. I understand both of the view points presented, i guess its just one of th0se things. . .Am preparing for the pilgrimage in Madrid with the world’s youth in August. Im h0ping it’l gve me m0re spiritual open-nes and prepare me for the t0ugh r0ad ahead.

Yourz faithfully,
Katlego(ogeltak)
Vincent Couling on February 23rd, 2011

I see that a post by John (dated 17 Feb) was released belatedly (sometimes the posts are held up for moderation … seemingly at random) … in it, he continues to go on about infallibility, seeming to desire a blanket infallibility for all official church doctrines on matters of faith or morals. I really have no further desire to bang my head against this particular brick wall, but I see that Katlego is still reading this thread, and in conscience feel that I must attempt to set the record straight … .

John, I think that you are unaware of some basic caveats, even though I have already brought them to your attention: for a particular doctrine to be recognized as infallible, it must be explicitly declared to be definitive and binding. See the Code of Canon Law, Canon 749 part 3: “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.”

In 2005 Pope Benedict XVI himself said “The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know.”

This is an opportunity for some basic catechesis … I recommend Prof Peter Hunter’s excellent article “Church teaching, conscience and the stifling of discussion” which appeared in The Trefoil, and which I see is available on-line at http://www.scribd.com/doc/44340826/Peter-Hunter-in-Trefoil-No-269 .

It might prove especially useful to impressionable young gay people who are defenceless in the face of overly-confident fundamentalists who like to claim infallibility even where the Supreme Pontiff doesn’t!
Vincent Couling on February 23rd, 2011

And might I take this opportunity, Katlego, to extend to you my very warmest wishes for a blessed and transformative pilgrimage experience in Madrid later this year!

May the Lord bless you abundantly,

With much love,

Vincent
John on February 23rd, 2011

Hi Vincent,

It’s unfortunate that you have resorted to name calling when I have shown but the deepest respect for you. I’m not a “fundamentalist”, I am merely stating that which the Church teaches. I quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the issue of 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 throughout the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which present homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Gen. 19:1-29, Rom. 1:24-27, 1 Cor. 6:10, 1Tim. 1:10], tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered [Persona Humana 8]. 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.”

In the Catechism the Church’s position has been made clear as well added to a number of references to Holy Scripture. Where I have placed my faith in what the Church teachers as well as in Holy Scripture, you have placed yours in the opinions of others (Something that I too did for a long time before accepting the truth). That is fundamentally the difference between you and I.

I finish with the following form the catechism as well:

“2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is 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.”

John
Vincent Couling on February 23rd, 2011

CCC 2357-2359 appears to be non-infallible teaching. To claim otherwise requires at least a demonstration that the Magisterium declares this teaching to be infallible, or to belong to the deposit of faith (which it apparently cannot, since the anthropological discovery that some people are constitutionally gay is a relatively recent one, and as we know, Jesus is never recorded by his disciples as having spoken on the matter) … after all, the Magisterium itself declares (infallibly?) that infallibility is limited to the deposit of faith. If you can point me to a Magisterial declaration on the gay question which deliberately invokes the status of infallibility (whether ex cathedra from a Pontiff, or from a council, or elsewhere), I’d be most fascinated.

To claim, as you have above, that ALL church doctrine is infallible is in violation of (infallible?) church teaching on the doctrine of infallibility. It is most certainly not “merely stating that which the Church teaches”. It appears to be creating new teaching, and fresh revelation … a somewhat unorthodox position to be taken by someone who claims blind and unquestioning obedience/orthodoxy, if I might say. It is for this reason alone that I label such a position to be one of fundamentalism … I apologise if you feel the label is name calling (it is, of course, but not necessarily of a pejorative nature … in my humble opinion, it is simply calling a spade a spade … note that the Pontifical Biblical Commission itself, in my quote a few posts back, speaks of the fundamentalist approach in biblical exegesis, an approach you seem to approve of).

If I might be so bold, may I suggest that you peruse Prof. Hunter’s excellent article before you rush off a rebuttal (maybe sit on it overnight) … it might help you to understand some of the subtleties involved here.
Vincent Couling on February 23rd, 2011

Might I also be permitted another observation, John? You say that the fundamental (that word again!) difference between you and me is that you have placed your faith in what the Church teaches as well as in Holy Scripture, while I have placed mine in the opinions of others.

Now if you were time-warped back a few years or more, would you believe that slavery was okay, just because that is what scripture evidently teaches, and that was church teaching (I refer to the 1866 statement again)? Some other examples quoted directly from Prof. Hunter’s article might excite your imagination as you play out the thought experiment of being warped back in time …

“However, many items of current Church teaching were not always accepted in the past. Some were disputed during the early centuries of the Church and had to be settled by ecumenical councils. Often blood was spilt over these matters.

While the Church developed from a divine origin, it is a human institution. So it’s not surprising that it has negative as well as well as positive features, and that it is capable of making serious mistakes.

It was once deemed immoral for someone lending money to charge interest and so make a profit. This, called usury, has long since ceased to be considered a sin. Then, only a few centuries ago the Church approved of the torture of heretics. Obviously, no longer. (But the Papal States kept up torture as policy until well into the 19th century.)

In the early 17th century Galileo’s discovery that the earth moves around the sun brought condemnation by the Church. The Inquisition forced him to retract his claims, and he lived under house arrest. Much later the validity of Galileo’s work was acknowledged by the Church, and only in 1993 was his personal innocence officially recognised by the Pope.

After the French Revolution the rulers of that country issued a “Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man”. The Pope immediately condemned the statement. From the 1840s until the end of the 19th century the notions of liberalism and democracy were also condemned. They were put in the “Syllabus of Errors” and Catholics who participated in elections in France and Italy were excommunicated. Today, however, the concepts of human rights form a central part of Church teaching about social justice.

In 1930 Pius XI’s encyclical on Christian education included a firm rejection of schools shared by boys and girls. But in later decades Catholic coeducational schools became accepted and increasingly common.

Pius XII identified the ‘Mystical Body of Christ’ with the visible Roman Catholic Church, but at the Second Vatican Council this vision was replaced with a wider perspective and a new respect for other faith communities.

Examples like these should make one at least wonder whether to accept the notion that all our Church’s non-basic teaching is forever, and that it must be accepted uncritically.

Fortunately the Church is capable of learning from its mistakes, of changing its practices and of amending its tenets. But as has been remarked by Sr Joan Chittister OSB (National Catholic Reporter, 13/7/2005), “The problem is that its tenets often get changed long after it [the Church] has done eons of damage to society, people and church alike.”

THE question as to whether Church law (whether in statements on immoral acts or items of canon law) calls for unquestioning assent reminds one of the stories, at the beginning of Matthew chapter 12, concerning matters strictly against Jewish religious Law.

In one of these stories, Jesus responded to the Pharisees’ criticism of his disciples for picking corn and thus harvesting on the Sabbath, which was against the Jewish Law. But, said Jesus, they were hungry, and needed food. Later, in the synagogue, Jesus was asked whether it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath. Jesus responded by speaking of a sheep that had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath, and whose saving on such a day would certainly be justified. “It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” In modern parlance, “Circumstances alter cases.”

But is there nevertheless a case for a simple obedience to a Church-espoused moral rule, whatever the consequences?

It might be argued that the mere fact of changes in the past does not justify dissent from any item of current teaching. But it does give rise to questions of the absoluteness and unchangeability of current teaching, and whether we should regard it as automatically binding on us.”
Vincent Couling on February 23rd, 2011

John, I can assure you that I have paid careful attention to church teaching on matters gay – but in trying to own that teaching, I have discovered serious issues of conscience arising quite dramatically. I have spent far too many hours reading as much as I can from ALL sources (especially scientific sources, which the Council Fathers of Vatican II hold in high regard -see Gaudium et Spes 62: “In fact, recent research and discoveries in the sciences … bring up new problems which have an important bearing on life itself and demand new scrutiny by theologians. In pastoral care sufficient use should be made … of the findings of secular sciences, especially psychology and sociology: in this way the faithful will be brought to a purer and more mature living of the faith. Let the faithful incorporate the findings of new sciences and teachings and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and thought.”)

Catholicism is ultimately about BOTH faith AND reason … and there lies the rub. I cannot abdicate my reason to follow in blind and unquestioning obedience all church doctrine on morals, especially where conflicts with reason are glaringly evident (is that really faith anyhow?). And that, I think is the real difference between you and me.
Vincent Couling on February 23rd, 2011

John,

I am quite happy to allow you to get in the last word. Unless a new facet to the argument arises, I feel that this thread has grown quite stale. I hope not to return here.
John on February 23rd, 2011

Hi Vincent,

Indeed, we’ve reached the “beating a dead horse” phase of this argument (Though I think this point was reached a long time ago already….). I think that we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this matter. I cannot revert back to my old path, and you are adamant in your position. I hope that you can respect my decision, as I assure you that I fully respect yours.

In any event I’d just like to let you know that you will be in my prayers daily. I wish you all of the best. God bless.

John
Joseph on May 5th, 2011

Issues of human sexuality in this millennia have reached a point at which two camps have emerged both within the sciences and in Theology. What doesn’t really help the situation is Catholics that do not educate and teach each other in gentleness and understanding (CCC #2358) thus leading the children of God into alienation.
The Church based on Sacred Scripture has always taught that homosexual “acts” are intrinsically evil (CCC #2357) but that in no way should alienate our brothers and sisters with that orientation. Bad experiments with results misinterpreted by Social scienctists rather than researchers in Life Sciences have fueled a great deal of misconceptions about the effect of genetics and mutation rates on same sex orientation. Well one problem that science faces in explaining same sex attraction from a genetics and mutations point of view is the rate and occurrence in a random population as compared to other genetic conditions.
There is a lot of people with same sex orientation than Albinism or Down’s Syndrome whereas these are supposed to be conditions in the same class of genetics/ heritable/ mutation rate conditions. Secondly to explain it from a brain development point of view is also not really possible due to brain plasticity so it comes back to nature vs nurture type issue. Homosexuality seems more of a psychological manifestation of environmental influences that a person is exposed to and the fact that the representation in a random population in westernized societies is high adds on to the complication.

For a Catholic I feel Isaiah 22:22 as fulfilled in Matthew 16:19 should inform and guide our decisions. Infallibility in a purely Catholic sense is not there to stifle our enjoyment of life but rather to direct us in humility and obedience to our natural end who is none other than Our Beloved Heavenly Dad (through the Spirit of the Son and Divine providence we have been given the privilege to cry out Abba!).

These things are hard to follow, but I guess what makes them somewhat easy to follow is the remembrance of Christ on the Cross and that He said I am with you always to the end of time. He also promised us that “I have spoken these things while staying with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you. (John 14:25-26). Under the power of the Keys and guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church under the direction of the reigning Head Bishop of Rome is empowered to teach on issues of faith and morals (not only to refer to what other Head Bishops taught).
Vincent Couling on May 6th, 2011

Dear Joseph,

It is perhaps a little presumptuous of me, I know, to ask such a question, but I’m going to ask it anyway: are you an ultramontanist, and if so is this a psychological manifestation of environmental influences that you were exposed to as a youngster? If an ultramontanist, can you ever consent to give any credence to scientific results which contradict a papal teaching? If an ultramostanist, is your (perhaps non-dispassionate) appeal to the sciences not merely an attempt to give a veneer of rationalism to an irrational and uncritical assent to whatever the Pope teaches (irrespective of the “level” of teaching authority being invoked)?

As a matter of curiosity, Joseph, to which of the following papal teachings would you give your assent? (i) Would it be correct to embrace the 1866 teaching of the Holy Office, signed by Pope Pius IX: “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.” (ii) Or would it rather be correct to embrace the subsequent teaching of Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor (no. 80) that asserts slavery to be intrinsically evil and objectively disordered?

In light of this, are you able to at least concede the POSSIBILITY for evolution in official church teaching as concerns issues of human sexuality?! For an excellent catholic theological consideration of these matters, I would suggest the paper “Truly human sexual acts: a response to Patrick Lee and Robert George” by the Catholic moral theologians Todd A Salzman and Michael G. Lawler, which appeared in the journal Theological Studies in 2008 (volume 69, pp 663-680).

As a matter of interest, could you please cite some articles which have appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific literature to support your extravagant claims in your post, or are you happy to admit that you are merely indulging in wild hypotheses?

As a professional scientist (though not in the biological sciences) I must say that I was quite intrigued to read that two camps had emerged within the sciences in relation to issues of human sexuality. I am eager to know more, and would welcome further details so that I might be educated and taught in gentleness and understanding.

What ultimately disappoints me about your post is that you begin in a spirit of openness, implying that Catholics should educate and teach EACH OTHER in such a spirit of gentleness and understanding, while you close with a somewhat ambiguous ramble about infallibility in the Catholic sense. Are you implying that the pope is beyond being taught or educated, that there can be no reciprocity where the Holy Father is concerned? Is what you are really wanting to say something along the lines of: the official teaching of the church on issues of human sexuality is infallible? And if this is indeed the case, where is the room for authentic scientific enquiry? Why even bother to raise the possibility of scientific enquiry if what is to be held is what the Holy Father has decreed? That homosexuality is an objective disorder! In point of fact, can the physical sciences ever have anything to say about such a tenet!

I am personally more comfortable with attempting to arrive at a synthesis of both faith and reason where matters of human sexuality are concerned … and delight when I see an openness to further discernment, and to possibilities of an evolution in understanding … and here I would point to Professor Peter Hunter’s excellent article “Church teaching, conscience and the stifling of discussion” which appeared in The Trefoil, and which I see is available on-line at http://www.scribd.com/doc/44340826/Peter-Hunter-in-Trefoil-No-269 .

After all, Pope Benedict XVI himself has said “The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know.”

In addition, Pope Benedict, when still a young Professor Ratzinger, wrote in his article “The Transmission of Divine Revelation,” which appeared in “Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II” (1969), that “Not every tradition that arises in the Church is a true celebration and keeping present of the mystery of Christ. There is a distorting, as well as legitimate, tradition … Consequently tradition must not be considered only affirmatively but also critically.”

Let us not be afraid of a critical analysis and reappraisal of matters gay … of fresh theological debate arround these matters.

After all, we have been given permission for such theological investigation by none other than the Council Fathers of the Second Vatican Council: “The recent studies and findings of science, history and philosophy raise new questions which effect life and which demand new theological investigations. May the faithful … blend new sciences and theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and the teaching of Christian doctrine, so that their religious culture and morality may keep pace with scientific knowledge and with the constantly progressing technology. Thus they will be able to interpret and evaluate all things in a truly Christian spirit.”

Just some food for thought from a gay Catholic who has grown profoundly weary of having the Catechism (esp #2357) quoted at him … and who feels increasingly alienated every time it is yet again brought out of mothballs … irrespective of your rather queer opinion that it should in no way serve to alienate me!

Warmest wishes,

Vincent

PS Is the “Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,” and who “will teach you everything,” only going to teach the bishops, or the entire People of God? Surveys indicate that a majority of Catholics disagree with the official teachings of the church on several matters of sexual morality! If nothing else presents cause for a reappraisal of Catholic sexual ethics, this startling fact surely does.
Vincent Couling on May 6th, 2011

I think that it might be of use to quote from the excellent “viewpoint” article of Robert McClory (author of “Faithful Dissenters: Men and Women Who Loved and Changed the Church”) which appeared in the NCR last year ( see http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/newman-sense-and-consent-faithful ), since it does much to unpack the point I was somewhat clumsily trying to make in my postscript (apologies for the length of the quote, but its coherence is otherwise possibly lost):

“There is stark irony in the words Pope Benedict XVI chose when he announced last February his plan to visit England this year and there pronounce John Henry Newman as among the “blessed,” just one step from canonization as a saint. He cited Newman as an example for all the world of opposition to dissent. “In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises,” said the pope, “it is important to recognize dissent for what it is and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate.”

If Newman’s remains had not decomposed — as Vatican investigators discovered when they attempted to dig up his coffin in 2008 seeking evidence of his sanctity — he would have been spinning in his grave. For Newman was as singular a voice for responsible dissent and the rights of the laity as the Roman Catholic church has ever seen. He paid dearly for his convictions and was very nearly silenced or worse when he became embroiled in 1859 in a controversy over the development of doctrine.

The idea of development was not popular at the time, especially among the hierarchy. So Newman, using history to make his point, wrote about the Arian heresy of the 4th century. Twenty-five years before, he had produced a massive, scholarly history of the Arians and how they failed, despite a 50-year, emperor-supported campaign to impose as church doctrine the belief that Christ was not divine; rather, he was a most elevated, godlike being, but creature nevertheless. Now in a lengthy, pointed article, titled “On Consulting the Faithful on Matters of Doctrine,” Newman argued that the Arian position, shared by the overwhelming majority of the bishops and endorsed by at least one pope, did not become Catholic doctrine because a great mass of the laity along with a handful of priests and bishops resisted. Despite beatings, seizures of property and in some cases martyrdom, they refused, they dissented. They clung to the doctrine of the Council of Nicea, which, they were assured, had been discredited. Only at the First Council of Constantinople was the Arian position repudiated.

Belief in Christ’s divinity was maintained during the greater part of the 4th century, wrote Newman, “not by the unswerving firmness of the Holy See, Councils or Bishops, but … by the consensus fidelium [consent of the faithful]. On the one hand, I say, there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens [the teaching church]. The body of the Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. … There were untrustworthy Councils, unfaithful Bishops; there was weakness, fear of consequences, misguidance, delusion, hallucination, endless, hopeless, extending itself into nearly every corner of the Catholic church.”

To explain how such a thing happened (and could happen again), Newman relied on his own, well developed ideas about the “sense” and the “consent” of the faithful. Church teaching, he argued cannot be a top-down enterprise, a one-way street. It must be the result of a conspiratio, literally a breathing together of the faithful and the bishops. It is the first responsibility of the episcopacy and papacy, he said, to listen carefully before teaching doctrine.

And to what must they listen? Said Newman, “I think I am right in saying that the tradition of the Apostles, committed to the whole Church … manifests itself variously at various times: sometimes by the mouth of the episcopacy, sometimes by the doctors, sometimes by the people, sometimes by liturgies … customs, disputes, movements, and all those other phenomena which are comprised under the name of history. It follows that none of these channels of tradition may be treated with disrespect.” This is not to undercut the teaching authority of the bishops, insisted Newman; they must wade through all these sources. And, he added, of all the sources, “I am accustomed to lay stress on the consensus fidelium.” “
P.R.Margeot on May 6th, 2011

The debate is re-ignited…. I appeal to Catholics not to respond to anything on this thread, let’s close this once and for all. Let us not waste time and energy. We are wasting precious time to discuss a subject which has been debated ad nauseam right here. Nobody will bring anything new here. Everything has been said. The Church has spoken : she condemns the sin but never the sinner. She loves all her children, her children need her,and more importantly, they need our Lord God ,Jesus Christ. To those who suffer, take courage, have hope, and with humility, pray, if help is needed. All of us suffer in some ways. We are all striving to reach Heaven for our eternal reard. I vote for Heaven….
Joseph on May 7th, 2011

Hi Vincent

You could start with these papers;
1. http://www.mygenes.co.nz/
2. Jannini EA, Blanchard R, Camperio-Ciani A, and Bancroft J. Male homosexuality: Nature or culture? J Sex Med 2010;7:3245–3253.
3. Rahman, 2005 #5397;
4. Kula, 2003 #5398;
5. Byne, 1993 #5401

ultimately end with these ones;
1 Corinthians 6:9–10
Revelations 21:8
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:18-32
1 Timothy 1:10

C.C.C. # 1814 – “Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God.” [DV 5] For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will. ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’ Living faith “work[s] through charity.” [Rom. 1:17; Gal. 5:6] . To be Catholic is to believe and hold all the teachings of the Church, that is why at Baptism for example we do the profession of the faith and we are asked;

“Do you believe in and openly profess the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?

To which we respond “I do”

And we are given a condition “If you have firmly resolved to live in accordance with the holy doctrine of Christ, ever to remain faithful to His Church, to avoid sin, to love God with your whole heart, and your neighbor as yourself, declare now this your will, and promise in the presence of the All-seeing God, before your parents, teachers, and the whole congregration.” Before we become Catholics, to hold contrary beliefs is to renege on our baptismal promise or vow.

Sorry P.R.Margeot, I just had to say this last part. I will say no more.
Joseph on May 7th, 2011

By the way, when Pope Pius IX was exhumed for beatification in 2000, his body was discovered to be incorrupt thus he is one of those preserved by Almighty God from decay.
On December 8, 1634 the apparition of the three Archangels, Our Lady of Good Success affirmed the pope’s infallibility. Remember this is how all dogmas of the Church were revealed and instituted.
Being Christian is being repentant not forcing the Church to affirm one’s lifestyle and their own judgement as infallible.
Joseph on May 7th, 2011

By the way, when Pope Pius IX was exhumed for beatification in 2000, his body was discovered to be incorrupt thus he is one of those preserved by Almighty God from decay.

On December 8, 1634 the apparition of the three Archangels, Our Lady of Good Success affirmed the pope’s infallibility. Remember this is how all dogmas of the Church were revealed and instituted.

Being Christian is being repentant not forcing the Church to affirm one’s lifestyle and their own judgement as infallible.
Vincent Couling on May 8th, 2011

Dear Joseph,

You quote “To be Catholic is to believe and hold all the teachings of the Church.”

If we accept this at face value, then I wonder why you have sidestepped altogether my rather simple question …

“As a matter of curiosity, Joseph, to which of the following papal teachings would you give your assent? (i) Would it be correct to embrace the 1866 teaching of the Holy Office, signed by Pope Pius IX: “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.” (ii) Or would it rather be correct to embrace the subsequent teaching of Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor (no. 80) that asserts slavery to be intrinsically evil and objectively disordered?”

I await your considered reply … with bated breath! Perhaps you will answer that we must hold both teachings to be true at the same time!
Vincent Couling on May 8th, 2011

Dear Joseph,

Might I follow your lead, and quote from the CCC?

CCC 67: Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.
Vincent Couling on May 8th, 2011

Dear Joseph,

Thank you for providing some references to scientific papers … I look forward to reading them, and might quite well return with some references of my own. Hopefully you will give the Salzman & Lawler article a squiz. If you cannot download it, e-mail me and I will send you a copy (as permitted by copyright laws) … google me if you want my e-mail address.

Kind regards,

Vincent
Vincent Couling on May 8th, 2011

Dear P R Margeot,

I’m afraid the debate is far from concluded … and as long as there are children of God who have been gifted by Him with a homosexual sexual orientation, and as long as the Magisterium deny these children the possibility of loving monogamous love-relationships, the debate will rage on.

You will have noticed a trend … the thread remains dormant until someone brings a heavy cudgel to bear on the gay question … and my promise to myself is that whenever that happens, I will respond with all the righteous anger that wells up in the deepest recesses of my being!

Be assured of my deep faith,

With love,

Vincent
Joseph on May 9th, 2011

Dear Vincent

Response #1
Colossians 3:22
“… slaves, obey your human masters in everything.”

Leviticus 25:44
As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you – you may buy male and female slaves from the nations all around you.

Deuteronomy 15:12-14
If your fellow Hebrew – whether male or female – is sold to you and serves you for six years, then in the seventh year you must let that servant go free. If you set them free, you must not send them away empty-handed. You must supply them generously from your flock, your threshing floor, and your winepress – as the LORD your God has blessed you, you must give to them.

Summary to response #1
Slavery and the buying and selling of slaves is common even in the Bible. Father Abram, renamed Abraham (Father of a nation) had slaves, you will recall that Hagar who was the mother of Ishmael was herself a slave girl. These slaves were treated with dignity and as instructed in Deuteronomy 15:12-14, there were conditions attached to their conditions of service. In Colossians 3:22, we see St Paul instructing slaves to obey their masters.
However, it is the form of the slavery or the conditions or rather the utter disregard for the inalienable rights natural to the dignity of every person that takes out the humane aspect in slavery.
In that respect I do respect and accept the teaching of BI Pope Pius IX. In the time of BI Pope John Paul II, the trade in slaves had become an inhuman practice in which people were treated like animals (much like the children of Israel in Egypt – remember Almighty God sent Moses to deliver them from the inhumane conditions they found themselves in).
It is my humble belief that both popes were right if one reads with the eye of faith rather than if one is hunting for something to criticize. Remember also that comprehension is not a pre-requisite for obedience otherwise none of us would believe and obey any mystery of the Church because by nature mysteries are beyond understanding. I’m not saying here that this teaching is a mystery rather I’m shading light on the obedience of faith.

Response #2
CCC #67
God continues to reveal Himself to individuals “not indeed for the declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of human acts” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II q174 a6 reply 3);

Additional points for your consideration (Catholic Encyclopedia)
#1. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of “the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen (”In Ps. xvii”, 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen’s pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270.

You, being a learned and intelligent fellow will of course realise that although we profess our faith in the Holy and Blessed Trinity (Triune God), it is not an explicit teaching of Sacred Scripture. The word Trinity doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bible.

#2. Ineffabilis Deus
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception (December 8, 1854); confirmed in 1846 by Our Lady of Lourdes.

Summary to response #2
Apparitions while they do not add to the Revelation of Christ Jesus (The Word made flesh), clarify mysteries that are not easy for humanity to define let alone understand (which in itself is the nature of mysteries).
In fact the last part of CCC #67 teaches on the nature of treating and how the Church screens and subsequently accepts or rejects ‘revelations’. The revelation or apparition of Our Lady alluded to in my earlier comment does not introduce new truths but rather affirms Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19, the Word made flesh Himself (Christ Jesus) uttered those words and so the Church in her wisdom approved Our Lady of Good Success.

So indeed, any papal pronouncement made “ex cathedra” should be regarded as infallible. However, papal private Theological writings should be treated as such “private writings”. In fact this is how the Catholic Church has managed to survive for ~2000 years and will go on as she is now as promised by her master “the gates of hell will never have dominion over her (Mt 16:18), and I will be with you till the end of time (Mt 28:20). Really as a Catholic you have nothing to fear the teachings of this Church made ex cathedra are protected by truth Himself because it He who reveals them to the Church.

Just as an aside, do you realise there are other teachings of Christ not writted in the Bible (John 21:15; 2 Thess 2:15)? These are found in the Didache, Early Church fathers and ultimately in Our Lord’s Apostolic kerygma; teachings such as the Divine perichoresis …
P.R.Margeot on May 9th, 2011

I wish all the debaters well and I understand Mr Couling’s determination to have the last word. So once he has the last word, readers will just abstain from writing and the thread will become dormant again.
Vincent Couling on May 9th, 2011

Dear P.R.M.,

I’m afraid that your attempt to mischaracterize me as always having to have the last word does not necessarily bear up to scrutiny. The previous disturbance of this thread from its state of quasi-quiescence (of almost a full calendar month!) was, I think, initiated on 18 December 2010 by none other than P.R.M., who wished Ogeltak a Merry Christmas, and who couldn’t resist the somewhat biased exhortation to dear young Ogeltak to “follow the advice of Mr Keenan above”.

Sticks and stones … !

And while I’m at it, might I also point out that I ended my rebuttals by saying to the intrepid and assiduous John (surname not known – interesting, that!) that “I am quite happy to allow you to get in the last word. Unless a new facet to the argument arises, I feel that this thread has grown quite stale. I hope not to return here.”

Unfortunately, Joseph (surname also unknown) has dashed my hopes, and seeing the counter on this most popular of the “Popular Posts” increase by one, I felt compelled to return! My curiosity simply got the better of me, I must confess.

And yes, there will be a rebuttal or two to follow … the house of cards has been set up rather too beautifully and elaborately for me to resist yanking out one crucial one from the ground level!

Tally ho and Jolly Roger,

Vincent Couling
Vincent Couling on May 9th, 2011

Dear Joseph,

As you quite well know, the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1866 declared that “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery … . It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.” It is somewhat ironic that this declaration was issued a few months after the 13th amendment to the US constitution abolished slavery, after a most horrific civil war had been waged in North America over this very issue! That the world at the time held the unfolding of these events in the forefront of their consciousness is surely indisputable! It was the great issue of the age (much as the gay question is in some respects the great issue of our own age). Your post above is excellent in its expounding of the “divine law” (i.e. the scriptures) – something that Pope Pius IX would have considered very carefully when signing the declaration! Well done!

It is worth bearing in mind that as recently as the early 1800s various Catholic orders (Jesuits, Ursulines and Capuchins) partook in the slave trade, using slaves to run their plantations.

Now at the Second Vatican Council this stance CHANGED to “… everyone must consider his every neighbour without exception as another self, taking into account first of all his life and the means necessary to living it with dignity … whatever insults human dignity, such as … slavery … are infamies indeed … they are supreme dishonour to the Creator.” [Gaudiem et Spes #27] Pope John Paul II went further in asserting slavery to be intrinsically evil and objectively disordered [Veritatis Splendor #80].

Let me quote directly from VS #80 to dispel any doubts that you might have as to the development of this doctrine (note that Pope John Paul II builds directly on the Conciliar declaration from Gaudiem et Spes quoted above):

“80. Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”.”

So slavery is intrinsically evil … i.e. always and everywhere evil … i.e. slavery is always and everywhere contrary to the natural and the divine law!

We have a clear development of doctrine (much as you explain so beautifully as regards the doctrine of the Holy Trinity! … and much as I exemplified by quoting extensively from the Robert McClory article as regards Cardinal John Henry Newman and the Arian Heresy … did you not read that post?)

Warmest wishes,

Vincent
Vincent Couling on May 9th, 2011

Dear Joseph,

Might I also remind you, when quoting from the Sacred Scriptures to make a point, that Holy Mother now permits a historical-critical analysis (another development in doctrine), so that The Pontifical Biblical Commission could say in their document “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” which was presented to Pope John Paul II:

“Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts … . A non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices … quite contrary to the Christian Gospel. The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory … fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.”

Interesting, no!

Best wishes,

Vincent
John on May 9th, 2011

Hi Vincent,

My full name is Joao Salvador Pires E Cunha. (Joao being John in Portugeuse).

Seeing that this thread could not possibly add any more value to anyone, I hope this will end it? We can only hope….

John
Vincent Couling on May 9th, 2011

And one last thrust with my trusty rapier, Joseph.

When quoting from the CCC as regards private revelation, my point was to illustrate what Holy Mother teaches!

Private revelation does NOT belong to the deposit of faith!

Now the Conciliar Documents of Vatican II are quite unambiguous in stating that “And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.” (Lumen Gentium #25).

So private revelation can NEVER be infallible, since it does not belong to the deposit of faith. Consequently, trying to use noninfallible private revelation to say something infallible about infallibility is quite simply bizzare!
Vincent Couling on May 9th, 2011

One final jab …

Could you point me to any clearly defined infallible pronouncement from Holy Mother as regards the gay question?! Remember Canon 749 part 3: “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.”
Vincent Couling on May 9th, 2011

Dear John,

I must admit that I am profoundly distressed that I prodded you into giving your full name … that was really a very low blow, and uncharitable in the extreme. I genuinely regret having sunk so very low. (The fact that I feel I need to emphasize that I am being sincere and not sarcastic makes me blush with a self-recognition that is rather unpleasant.) In point of fact, I have no problem with you witholding your name, considering the sensitivity of the subject at hand, and the persecution us homosexuals can still face in this day and age for being out.

If you would like to reconsider posting your name (a very courageous act, might I say!), just e-mail the editor and I’m sure he’ll immediately expunge it from the record.

Again, be assured of my heartfelt apologies for my somewhat ruthless prodding … I truly regret it!

Your brother in Christ,

Vincent
John on May 9th, 2011

Hi Vincent,

It’s not a problem. I do not feel threatened in the least, though I personally know exactly what stupid acts of bigotry happen in this world of ours.

I do however ask that this be the end of it. It’s really not adding value any more, both sides of the argument have been put through already.

I wish you and all blessings.

John
Vincent Couling on May 9th, 2011

Hi John,

Agreed!

I, too, wish you peace and blessings,

Much love,

Vincent
Joseph on May 9th, 2011

When talking fails we entrust everything to Our Beloved Heavenly Father to enlighten our minds. It is Christian love and charity that forces one to try and open a bolted door with the hope that it will open and that one might save a friend. The obedience of faith and the memory of Christ Jesus wriggling in pain on the cross and shouting “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” often probes us to leave our comfort zone and say things that are not so easy to say.

Vincent, it was genuine love that prompted me and my posts were sincere and from the heart, you might have noticed that I’m not a Theologian but rather a scientist. However, I know that Our Beloved Father in Heaven will never abandon us even on our deathbeds, most especially in probing our hearts even on this here issue.

I believe that Truth is stubborn, it’s a rock that can never be moved, it is that which we cannot defend but rather defends us and it answers to no created being because it has only one master. I guess we must all learn to be humble and obedient to the truth without which we risk playing religious politics that leads not to God but rather to our own self-actualisation (applies mostly to me).

I rest my case, and implore The Blessed Virgin Mary to pray for us and bring us to the full knowledge and love of Christ Jesus.

best regards

your friend in Christ Jesus, joseph
Vincent Couling on May 9th, 2011

Dear Joseph,

I have an inkling of who you are, and I must say that I am touched by the humility of your last post.

Forgive me if I have been too strident in setting out my case … there is a great tension here (all the greater since it involves the actual lives of real flesh and blood people) … and I am under no illusion that my paltry attempts as set out here will bring resolution to this profoundly troubling question. What seems to be required is an application of the collective mind of the Body of Christ, in a spirit of openness, humility and fearless honesty.

My goal really is to ask awkward questions, to prompt some deeper thinking about a very delicate and very pressing pastoral problem … that is going to have to be faced with courageous conversations, open dialogue, a real listening to each other, and an openness to the Holy Spirit.

It is in this spirit that I wish you well, my fellow pilgrim,

Equally your friend in Jesus,

Vincent
Bev Keevill on May 10th, 2011

I am so happy that this topic is still one of much interest, we need to talk about it, air our views and still be able to love one another as God’s children. As I have mentioned before my daughter is a Lesbian and there is only love, respect and togetherness in our family, she is now married to her partner and what a happy occasion that was, the love and support they received was amazing and humbling. At the end of the day all that matters is that we love one another, God does not get in the way people do. If we TRULY BELIEVE in his love all else falls into place.
May God bless you all
Much love
Bev
Vincent Couling on May 10th, 2011

An opportunity presents itself to all people of good conscience to do something concrete to combat homophobia.

According to Avaaz, “In 48 hours, the Ugandan Parliament may vote on a brutal new law that carries the death penalty for homosexuality. Thousands of Ugandans could face execution — just for being gay.”

Avaaz are organizing an online petition to express a global outcry against this hate-filled attempt to pass a despicable bill into law. To sign the petition, thereby expressing solidarity with one’s gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ, visit

http://www.avaaz.org/en/uganda_stop_homophobia_petition_2/?vl
Joseph on May 10th, 2011

I was about to leave this post but my conscience burns inside me that I should make my position clear so that no one feels supported by me when I mean the opposite. I am and remain utterly and absolutely opposed to homosexuality in all it’s forms whatever they may be. Almighty God created them male and female (Genesis 1:27) and made them for each other. It is utter disobedience of man and refusal to accept the truth made simple from the foundation of the world that directs some to burn in passion for each other, man on man working that which is an abomination (Romans 1:18 – 32).

Romans 1:22; Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

Romans 1:24
Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.

Romans 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And others;
1 Corinthians 6:9–10
Revelations 21:8
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:18-32
1 Timothy 1:10

I pronounce wholeheartedly that I in no uncertain terms hold homosexuality and lesbianism as abominations and whoever defends it is not wise although they may claim to be wise; no one is holier than Almighty God and in Sacred Scripture Almighty God made His position abundantly clear. Turn away from this evil while you still can, do not give to the devil inflaming your heart with false rebellious wisdom. There are so may who burn with lust over any woman they see, there are those who are compulsive thieves, there are those who worship the devil and those who abort the youngest of our brothers and sisters and claim that it’s their God given right to be free; should they be understood and just be left alone? Of course not, it is the duty of every Christian to rebuke evil acts and march into Heaven with the grace of Almighty God dragging these people along with them regardless of the cost to yourself.
John on May 10th, 2011

Hi Joseph,

Though I fully know where you’re coming from, the method followed will not yield positive results. In particular the method of “dragging these people along” is extremely ineffective and is not the way that a Christian should behave. All Scripture has been correctly quoted as well as what the Church has to say on the matter. After that it falls to the individual to decide what to believe, right or wrong. All we can do is pray for them.

In this you should be rest assured that you have made your argument clear which is one held by the majority of Christians and by the Church. Let’s leave it at that.
Vincent Couling on May 10th, 2011

Dear Joseph,

Please indulge me as I repeat an earlier post of mine aimed at a different antagonist …

Some have misconstrued a handful of verses in Sacred Scripture as “proof” of Divine condemnation of all instances of homosexual sex, even in the context of loving monogamous unions. All Catholics should be mindful of Magisterial endorsement of the historical-critical method for interpreting scripture.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” states that “Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts … . A non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices … quite contrary to the Christian Gospel. The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory … fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.”

During the period when the various books of the Bible were formulated, it was believed that all people were essentially heterosexual. Homosexual sex was therefore perhaps thought to be always and everywhere deviant and unnatural. The relatively recent anthropological discovery that some people are constitutionally homosexual (this word itself being coined ca. 1869) has profound implications for the Catholic sexual ethic, which surely needs to be extrapolated to include the love relationships of our gay brothers and sisters in Christ.

This understanding is amply borne out in Gaudium et Spes 62: “In fact, recent research and discoveries in the sciences … bring up new problems which have an important bearing on life itself and demand new scrutiny by theologians. In pastoral care sufficient use should be made … of the findings of secular sciences, especially psychology and sociology: in this way the faithful will be brought to a purer and more mature living of the faith. Let the faithful incorporate the findings of new sciences and teachings and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and thought.”
Vincent Couling on May 10th, 2011

Dear Joseph,

You might also be interested to read something Pope Benedict XVI had to say last week in his message to the commision of biblical scholars … see http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/how-to-read-the-bible-as-a-catholic/ .

I will quote a little:

“While Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is true, one cannot take individual biblical quotes or passages and say each one is literally true, Pope Benedict XVI said.

“It is possible to perceive the sacred Scriptures as the word of God” only by looking at the Bible as a whole, “a totality in which the individual elements enlighten each other and open the way to understanding,” the Pope wrote in a message to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

“It is not possible to apply the criterion of inspiration or of absolute truth in a mechanical way, extrapolating a single phrase or expression,” the Pope wrote in the message released May 5 at the Vatican.”
Vincent Couling on May 10th, 2011

Dear Joseph,

Your earlier display of quoting snippets from the Holy Writ to “prove” that slavery is not contrary to the natural or divine law brilliantly exemplifies the very point that I am trying to make.

Let me remind you of your “proofs”:

“Response #1
Colossians 3:22
“… slaves, obey your human masters in everything.”

Leviticus 25:44
As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you – you may buy male and female slaves from the nations all around you.

Deuteronomy 15:12-14
If your fellow Hebrew – whether male or female – is sold to you and serves you for six years, then in the seventh year you must let that servant go free. If you set them free, you must not send them away empty-handed. You must supply them generously from your flock, your threshing floor, and your winepress – as the LORD your God has blessed you, you must give to them.”

Now these remind me of your “proofs” vis-a-vis homosexuality. Curious that Pope John Paul II, building on the documents of Vatican II, could call slavery intrinsically evil (i.e. always and everywhere evil”.

I wonder if the penny will ever drop?

Sigh ………
Vincent Couling on May 10th, 2011

Dear Joseph,

I strongly suggest that you read the excellent article “”But the Bible says …”? A Catholic reading of Romans 1″ written by Fr James Alison, a Catholic priest and theologian. See http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng15.html .

Just to whet your appetite, to pique your curiosity, et cetera, here is a snippet …

“owing to arguments surrounding Episcopal appointments in the Anglican Church on both sides of the Atlantic, a huge amount of press has been generated in which it has been repeated ad nauseam that “The Bible is quite clear…” about this or that. Furthermore we are told time and again that those who think either that gay people should be allowed to marry, or that being gay should be no bar to Episcopal consecration, are in some way repudiating an obvious written sacred injunction. The impression that “the Bible is quite clear” has passed largely unchallenged in the media, which has found it easiest to present the argument as being between conservative people who take the Bible seriously (and are thus against gay people) and liberal people who don’t (and thus aren’t against gay people).

Well, what is being treated to public travesty here is the Bible. Indeed it seems to me that if anything, the truth is closer to being exactly the other way round: you need a very modern liberal reading of the Bible in order to make it a weapon against gay people, and those who refuse to do this are, by and large, much more traditional in their Biblical reading habits. But this sounds so counterintuitive in our world that I’d like to take time to show that there is at least one perfectly respectable Catholic way to read this text which enables us to see it in quite a different light.”

Follow the link for a real delight!
Vincent Couling on May 10th, 2011

A bit more from Alsion’s article just in case you don’t want to go there (but then, what sort of scientist wouldn’t!)

“If any of us is faced with the following verse from Romans 1, it seems to have an obvious and clear meaning:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural… (Romans 1:26)

A quick show of hands in any English-speaking country nowadays would probably agree to the following statement: “This quite clearly refers to lesbianism. That is the obvious meaning of the words. To deny that this refers to lesbianism is the sort of thing that you would expect from a clever-clogs biblical exegete with an ideological axe to grind.” Well, all I’d like to say at this point is that we have several commentaries on these words dating from the centuries between the writing of this text and the preaching of St John Chrysostom at the end of the fourth century. None of them read the passage as referring to lesbianism. Both St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria interpreted it straightforwardly as meaning women having anal intercourse with members of the other sex. Chrysostom was in fact the first Church Father of whom we have record to read the passage as having anything to do with lesbianism.

Now, my first point is this: irrespective of who is closer to the mark as to what St Paul was referring to, one thing is irrefutable: what modern readers claim to be “the obvious meaning of the text” was not obvious to Saint Augustine, who has for many centuries enjoyed the status of being a particularly authoritative reader of Scripture. Therefore there can be no claim that there has been an uninterrupted witness to the text being read as having to do with lesbianism. There hasn’t. It has been perfectly normal for long stretches of time to read this passage in the Catholic Church without seeing St Paul as saying anything to do with lesbianism. This means that no Catholic is under any obligation to read this passage as having something to do with lesbianism. Furthermore, it is a perfectly respectable position for a Catholic to take that there is no reference to lesbianism in Holy Scripture, given that the only candidate for a reference is one whose “obvious meaning” was taken, for several hundred years, to be something quite else.”
Vincent Couling on May 10th, 2011

So, Joseph, can you tell me why you so vehemently pronounce lesbiansim to be an abomination? Do you have a scriptural text to support your case? Or is it simply that you have a cultural bias against lesbianism?

Pray tell!

Oh, and what Hebrew word are you translating as “abomination”? Toevah translates as “ritually unclean”, methinks! So where does this “abomination” stuff come from!

Do you intend “abomination” to define something that excites disgust and hatred? Is this your visceral reaction? Are you projecting your visceral feelings onto the Holy Writ? Shame on you!!!
John on May 10th, 2011

You know Mr. Couling there’s a big part of me that wishes I could believe you. How much easier my life would be if I could allow my conscience to rely fully on your well constructed arguments and of those whom you quote. But I just can’t but for the caution in my heart and on the official position of the Church.

If I may ask what is your advice to a man in my position? Should I ignore the Church and what she advises? Knowing very well that this would cause great pain to my family, especially my parents? You’ve been excellent in stating the theory and views of others, but please advise from a practical perspective what actions should be taken? I would really like to know.
Vincent Couling on May 10th, 2011

Dear John,

It is so very difficult for me to “talk pastoral” on such a public forum. I’ll let you in on something that I’d rather not go into in any detail here, since it might constitute casting my pearl before swine, but I have had a profound mystical experience (somewhat unsurprisingly, during a Eucharistic prayer!), and since that grace-filled moment (which happened when I was in quite a dark place) I have never been able to doubt my inner authority.

I would very much like to chat with you … if you would like, e-mail me your ‘phone number and I’ll give you a call. (Just google my name.)

By the way, your conscience can never rely on my arguments!

con + scio = to know together with (together with God!). It’s funny, but science has the same root … and means, at its broadest, the art of knowing.

My dear friend, I know all too well the journey you are talking about. I would suggest that you always listen to the caution in your heart! I have always stayed true to that inner voice … and in the long run, I realise that I am much the better for it! I would caution you against being overly scrupulous, though (I know all about that as well!). It can be as hazardous as being overly lax! In fact, perhaps even more so. For it can impede growth itself.

By the way, I have never ignored the Church and what she advises! I am eternally grateful to Holy Mother for all her nurturing, and for providing the excellent priests I have known. Holy Mother is rich beyond measure, of that I’m certain!

From a practical level … wow! I have been open to the possibility that the Church will move to a greater acceptance of gay love-relationships (the broad Gospel message suggests to me that this is inevitable). It is possible to live out a gay covenantal love relationship with great integrity … I have seen it with my own eves … I am blessed to know several gay couples in committed unions, and they are among the most talented and creative and loving people I know.

As for my personal situation, it would be suicidal of me to even think of bringing that to this forum … but if we chat, I’ll let you know.

No one promised that the Christian journey would be an easy one, John. We all have to pick up our cross … including those who, in conscience, choose to live out their lives in gay covenantal unions!

This above all: to thine own self be true!

Know thyself!

And the contemplative tradition helps immeasurably (at least, it has for me)!
John on May 10th, 2011

Thank you Mr. Couling, I wish you could always write in such a manner as with all your posts, but I suppose it does become difficult when somebody ruffles your feathers….

What you say has indeed affirmed my position and the decision I made. The voice in me, based on my own personal journey, has shown me that what the Church currently teaches is what I must accept for my life. If ever the Church were to change Her position, then I would accept that too. Until then however I will obey Her and Her authority in all matters, including this one.

Indeed we must all bear our own crosses, and I will bear this one hopefully for the glory of God.

Perhaps this would be a fitting way to end this debate. It seems it is us two that always do, each conveying the decisions we made in our lives.

I will keep you in my prayers Mr. Couling as I hope I will be in yours.

John
Vincent Couling on May 11th, 2011

Dear John,

I found the following from Pope Benedict XVI on conscience:

“In the Christian tradition, “conscience”, “con-scientia”, means “with knowledge”: that is, ourselves, our being is open and can listen to the voice of being itself, the voice of God. Thus, the voice of the great values is engraved in our being and the greatness of the human being is precisely that he is not closed in on himself, he is not reduced to the material, something quantifiable, but possesses an inner openness to the essentials and has the possibility of listening. In the depths of our being, not only can we listen to the needs of the moment, to material needs, but we can also hear the voice of the Creator himself and thus discern what is good and what is bad.”
Vincent Couling on May 11th, 2011

The reason I quote this is that I think each of us ultimately have to make mature adult decisions, in conscience, as regards our life journey, etc. I think that much of our journey has to do with forming our consciences … but ultimately we have to make choices: at whatever juncture in our life we are at we have to make our choices in conscience. i.e. not simply because the church teaches such-and-such, or because so-and-so says such and such, but because when I am alone with God, my well-formed conscience tells me such and such! In other words, we have to assume personal responsibility for our actions – and that requires a maturity far beyond “I do this because the church says I must”! We need to own church teaching for ourselves … and if, in the light of mature reason, we disagree with a particular teaching, well … you surely know what St Thomas Aquinas said!

Conscience is supreme and inviolable. See CCC 1782: “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” ”

I’ll end with CCC 1787: “Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.”

And so, John, you must understand that my many posts here are not about trying to convert you (or others) to live a life contrary to your conscience! Only you can decide what is right for you! I suppose my questions and critiques are part of my quest to form and inform my conscience and to be true to the serious seeking and discernment exhorted in CCC 1787 … all the more so since I believe the Church’s noninfallible teachings on matters gay (e.g. as contained in the CDF’s 1986 pastoral letter “on the pastoral care of homosexual persons”) are far from the last word on the matter!
Katlego on May 12th, 2011

Well i did my bid by c0nsulting with a c0uple of priests, and i am pleased with what i got. Both priests told me i had n0thing to w0rry about and that God l0ves me very much. They also went on to enc0urage me being in l0ving and faithful partnerships,and that the greatest enemy was myself. I realise that its g0ing to be hard but i kn0w that i have a huge supp0rt system and Jesus is beside me always, helping me al0ng this earthly j0urney. . .

Wishing you all many Easter blessings,
Katlego
John on May 13th, 2011

Hi Katlego,

Just to clarify if you don’t mind, but did the priests actually advise you that homosexual relationships are OK to have?

John
Katlego on May 13th, 2011

Yes.
P.R.Margeot on May 14th, 2011

To John : CAVEAT, CAVEAT, CAVEAT. Your conscience should be followed,do not let yourself to be influenced by anyone on this forum. The church condemns the sin, not the sinner, we said many times. And that’s it.

To Katlego: CAVEAT. Do not consult these priests,they are wrong, in error and will cause souls to be lost eternally. Speak to a traditional Priest who will speak the Truth.

To all: Let’s close this “debate” which has gone for too long on a Catholic family, paper. This is becoming unreal, un-Catholic,and will cause untold harm to some minds.

I appeal to the Editor to close this subject.
Vincent Couling on May 16th, 2011

And I appeal to the Editor to keep this subject open for continued debate. All the more so since this is a Catholic family newspaper … which means that the countless gay and Catholic youngsters out there can have an opportunity to glean some deeper insight into their “predicament”, and learn that those who pontificate about how gays are necessarily to live their lives as celibates etc. are arguing from a viewpoint that is rapidly being discredited through objective study and analysis.

I have a sense of what has really caused harm to the minds of countless gay youngsters … profoundly unpastoral, irrational and unscientific proclamations of objective disorder and intrinsic evil, etc. A quick google of “gay suicide” will reveal much … and it is perhaps not overstating the case to argue that some pharisees actually have blood on their hands in this regard!
Vincent Couling on May 16th, 2011

Some good news from Avaaz today … I quote directly from their source …

Dear friends,

Uganda’s anti-gay law has failed! It looked sure to pass last week, but after 1.6 million petition signatures delivered to Parliament, tens of thousands of phone calls to our own governments, hundreds of media stories about our campaign and a massive global outcry, Ugandan politicians dropped the bill!

It was down to the wire – religious extremists tried to push the bill through on Wednesday, and then convened an unprecedented emergency session of Parliament on Friday. But each time, within hours, we reacted. A huge congratulations to everyone who signed, called, forwarded and donated to this campaign – with our help, thousands of innocent people in Uganda’s gay community do not wake up this morning facing execution for whom they chose to love.

Frank Mugisha, a courageous leader of the gay community in Uganda sent us this message:

“Brave Ugandan LGBT activists and millions of people around the world have stood together and faced down this horrendous anti-homosexuality bill.The support from the Avaaz global community has tipped the scales to prevent this Bill going forward. Global solidarity has made a huge difference”

The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs’ Office also wrote to Avaaz:

“Many thanks. As you know, thanks to a very large extent to the intensive lobbying and combined effort of you, other civil society representatives, EU and other governments, plus our delegation and embassies on the ground the Bill was not presented to the Parliament this morning.”

This fight is not over. The extremists behind this bill could try again within just 18 months. But this is the second time we’ve helped defeat this bill, and we’ll keep going until the hate-mongers give up.

Transforming the deeper causes of ignorance and hatred behind homophobia is an historic, long term struggle, one of the great causes of our generation. But Uganda has become a front line in that struggle, and a powerful symbol. The victory there echoes across many other places where hope is desperately needed, showing that kindness, love, tolerance and respect can defeat hatred and ignorance. Again, a huge thanks to all who made it happen.

With enormous gratitude and admiration for this amazing community,

Ricken, Emma, Iain, Alice, Giulia, Saloni and the whole Avaaz team.

Media highlights:

Anti-gay bill shelved:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13392723

Avaaz’s response to the outcome in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/13/uganda-anti-gay-bill-shelved

Ugandan President did not back bill because of “criticism of human rights groups”:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/05/13/international/i042638D37.DTL

Anti-gay bill delayed amid outcry:
http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Uganda-shelves-anti-gay-bill-20110513

Uganda’s “kill the gays” bill defeated:
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE74C0HP20110513
Vincent Couling on May 16th, 2011

PRM recommends that Katlego speak only with traditional priests (whatever those are). I would like to remind him that even Professor Fr Jan Visser, one of the very conservative manualist theologians who collaborated on the writing of the CDF’s 1975 document “Persona Humana,” which had extremely negative things to say about the homosexual “condition,” was able to offer pastoral advice to gays: “when one is dealing with people who are so deeply homosexual that they will be in serious personal and perhaps social trouble unless they attain a steady partnership, within their homosexual lives, one can recommend them to seek such a partnership, and one accepts this relationship as the best they can do in their present situation.” (This is expressed quite negatively, in my opinion, but the essence of his point is plain for all to see!)

Fr Visser’s pastoral advice is echoed in what the two good and faithful Catholic priests said to Katlego above: “They also went on to encourage me being in loving and faithful partnerships” … note the emphasis on partnerships which are loving and faithful … now that advice sounds as Catholic and as Christian as you can get!
Vincent Couling on May 16th, 2011

And I echo PRM’s advice to Katlego: “Your conscience should be followed, do not let yourself to be influenced by anyone on this forum” … and most especially do not let yourself be influenced by those who shamelessly stoop so very low as to utilize the very blackest form of emotional blackmail, outrageously proclaiming that gays who enter into covenantal relationships will have their souls lost eternally.
P.R.Margeot on May 17th, 2011

I rest my case.

Catholics, an ordinary Catholic, a sinner as well, wrote and tried to pass on to you what he believes and knows to be right. The Church has spoken on THAT subject. For me, no torrent of writing from Mr Couling (who is obviously a very learned man) will ,can change things. The more readers contribute, argue, exhaust themselves on that subject, the more this vitalizes, energizes Mr Couling. That’s how things go.
I suggested more than once : do not feed this thread. Let it die naturally.
I also said : let Mr Couling have the last word. It won’t change things. We recognize here publicly his great debating skills. He has however not won the debate, he cannot win it. He must have some humility like all of us.
I ask Mr Simmermacher to intervene here. I know …. “freedom of speech etc etc”….
But there is a limit to what Catholics can take.

I wish Mr Couling well, I think I understand how his mind works. I will pray for him as I ask for his prayers as well. We do not see eye to eye at all, but he remains my brother in Christ.

Salus animarum suprema lex.
Bev Keevill on May 19th, 2011

Dear Vincent

Thank you for keeping the topic open and for being so passionate about an issue that the world and our Church are at some time going to have to face.

Wonderful news about Uganda thanks for letting us know about the site!

My daughter is in Zambia working at the moment and I am so worried that if she lets slip that she is gay she could be ostracised. What a world we live in! I think if we are really honest we all do things that are sinful but just because no one else knows we are seen to be “good”. The bible says “love your enemies” but do we?

Much love
Bev
John on May 24th, 2011

Hi Katlego,

I’m sorry to hear that. Just to let you know, I also spoke to a priest on this matter years ago and he also pushed me in that direction. Despite this advice, which I now deem to be in error, I still ended up knowing the truth. In that I still have much hope for you and I will keep you in my prayers. My life’s journey has shown that God truly never abandons us and that if we keep true, through the grace of God we will come to know the truth and as such serve the Lord truthfully.

I wish you all the best Katlego.

Dear PR: Don’t worry my good friend. I hear the Church’s instruction on this matter and will always obey no matter how tough it gets. This is a cross that I bear gladly and hopefully for the glory of God.

John
Vincent Couling on May 24th, 2011

Dear John,

I think that you are being a bit melodramatic to suggest that the priests are “pushing” Katlego in any particular direction. They are offering him pastoral advice … but it is ultimately up to each individual to inform his or her conscience, and to have the courage to take personal responsibility for his or her choices!

I say: ‘none of this “the Devil made me do it” nonsense!’

And might I suggest that there are as many spiritual paths as there are people walking the face of the earth. Your particular journey, as critically important as it is to you, is not necessarily the “right” journey for any other! Each has to walk their own path, and the path that the good Lord is calling you to is not necessarily the correct path for any other. Perhaps you are being called to be a celibate gay man, perhaps you are being called to form a “Courage” chapter in Johannesburg … but kindly refrain from assuming that all gay Catholics are being called to lives of monastic celibacy by the Lord or to join “Courage” groups! Have the grace to let other gay Catholics discern the Lord’s call for themselves … and perhaps have the graciousness to respect their experience of vocation, of being called, even if it differs completely from your personal calling! (Perhaps it would be comforting to you to think/know that all gay Catholics feel called to your particular path – it might make you perceive your chosen path to be somewhat less lonely or onerous or overwhelming or whatever – but those are hardly good reasons to attempt to impose your personal experience on others!) Katlego must own his truth … like all of us … and only he can do that, in the secret recesses of his heart, while sitting quietly and reverently in the presence of our Lord. Let us trust Katlego to have the maturity and faithfulness to come to the right conclusions for his own unique journey!

John, my advice to you is to be true to your conscience. Katlego, my advice to you is to be true to your conscience. PRM … same advice. To myself … same advice. To the good priests dispensing pastoral advice, same advice. Et cetera, et cetera.

John, I have no intention of demeaning your journey, and its sacredness to you, and its profound meaning in your life. But kindly do not hold it up as the blueprint for all gay Catholics. It certainly makes no sense for me … I cannot identify with it at all. And let me assure you that I have never been promiscuous … and I believe with all my heart and mind and soul, with every fibre of my being, that gay relationships can fulfil the highest morality, i.e. they can be lived out in the fullness love and respect and honour and creativity and fecundity (in the broadest sense of the word). I am thoroughlly convinced that gay covenantal love-relationships have a place in God’s plan for humanity.

To illustrate this, I will quote a little from the brilliant theologian Eugene Rogers (who I believe is himself in a gay partnership):
Vincent Couling on May 24th, 2011

See http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3069 for Eugene F. Rogers’ full article, which begins as follows:

“I want to consider gay marriage by first reflecting on the theology of marriage, and I want to reflect on the theology of marriage under the rubric of sanctification. This approach is consistent with the tradition of the Orthodox Church, which regards marriage as a way of participating in the divine life not by way of sexual satisfaction but by way of ascetic self-denial for the sake of more desirable goods. Theologically understood, marriage is not primarily for the control of lust or for procreation. It is a discipline whereby we give ourselves to another for the sake of growing in holiness — for, more precisely, the sake of God.

In this respect marriage and monasticism are two forms of the same discipline, as the Orthodox writer Paul Evdokimov has argued. They are both ways of committing ourselves to others — a spouse or a monastic community — from whom we cannot easily escape. Both the monastic and the married give themselves over to be transformed by the perceptions of others; both seek to learn, over time, by the discipline of living with others something about how God perceives human beings.

Rowan Williams has written, “Grace, for the Christian believer, is a transformation that depends in large part on knowing yourself to be seen in a certain way: as significant, as wanted. The whole story of creation, incarnation, and our incorporation into the fellowship of Christ’s body tells us that God desires us, as if we were God, as if we were that unconditional response to God’s giving that God’s [Son] makes in the life of the Trinity. We are created [and we marry] so that we may be caught up in this, so that we may grow into the wholehearted love of God by learning that God loves us as God loves God.” Like all forms of asceticism, this is a high-risk endeavor. It can expose the worst in people — so that it can be healed.

Sexuality, in short, is for sanctification, that is, for God. It is to be a means by which God catches human beings up into the community of God’s Spirit and the identity of God’s child. Monogamy and monasticism are two ways of embodying features of the triune life in which God initiates, responds to and celebrates love.

Monasticism is for people who find a bodily, sexual sanctification first and foremost in the desirous perception of God. Marriage is for people who find themselves transformed by the desirous perception of another human being made in God’s image. In a marital or monastic community, the parties commit themselves to practicing faith, hope and charity in a situation in which those virtues get plenty of opportunity to be exercised.”

and which ends as follows …

“For the risk of commitment to be worth it and to have the best chance of success, the community must have plenty of time and be made up of the right sort of people. Growth takes a lifetime. The right sort of people are those who will succeed in exposing and healing one another’s flaws.

For gay and lesbian people, the right sort of otherness is unlikely to be represented by someone of the opposite sex, because only someone of the apposite, not opposite, sex will get deep enough into the relationship to expose one’s vulnerabilities and inspire the trust that healing requires. The crucial question is, What sort of created diversity will lead one to holiness?

The answer is no doubt as various as creation itself. But certainly same-sex couples find the right spur to vulnerability, self-exposure, and the long and difficult commitment over time to discover themselves in the perceptions of another — they find all this in someone of the same sex. Theologically, says theologian David McCarthy, a homosexual orientation is this: “Gay men and lesbians are persons who encounter the other (and thus themselves) in relation to persons of the same sex.” Some people, therefore, are called to same-sex partnerships for their own sanctification. Opposite-sex partnerships wouldn’t work for them, because those would evade rather than establish the right kind of transformative vulnerability.

The difference between members of a same-sex couple is not “merely psychological,” but also an embodied difference, if only because sexual response is nothing if not something done bodily. Difference cannot be reduced to male-female complementarity, because that would leave Jesus a deficient human being. Jesus did not need a female other half to be fully human. (This point raises the issue of what singleness is for, but that’s a question for another day.)

If this account is correct, then it turns out that conservatives wish to deprive same-sex couples not so much of satisfaction as of sanctification. But that is contradictory, because so far as I know no conservative has ever seriously argued that same-sex couples need sanctification any less than cross-sex couples do. It is at least contradictory to attempt in the name of holiness to deprive people of the means of their own sanctification,

Conservatives often claim it’s dangerous to practice homosexuality, because it might be a sin. I want to propose that the danger runs both ways. It is more than contradictory, it may even be resisting the Spirit, to attempt to deprive same-sex couples of the discipline of marriage and not to celebrate same-sex weddings. I don’t mean this kind of rhetoric to insult others or forestall discussion. I just mean that the danger of refusing to celebrate love is real.

And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast to his son, and sent his servants to those who were invited to the marriage feast; but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, “Tell those who are invited, Behold, I have made ready my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves are killed, and everything is ready; come to the marriage feast.” But they made light of it and went off . . . Then he said to his servants, . . . “Go therefore to the thoroughfares, and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find. And . . . so the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment; and he said to him, “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?” And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, “Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth” (Matt. 22:1-13).

Not to celebrate same-sex weddings may also be morally dangerous.”
John on May 25th, 2011

Hi Vincent,

You seem bent on discrediting any comment made against your views, even if they be made with love and concern for another. I can see why those who were originally involved in this debate no longer post comments: It’s basically futile.

This will truly be my last comment on this matter.

To you all I wish you peace and I ask you keep an eye and ear open to the formation of the Courage Apostolate in South Africa, the first Chapter in Africa. As Father Pollitt suggested on this very web site, it truly is time for a pastoral response to homosexuality in South Africa. This very debate has proven it.

John
Vincent Couling on May 25th, 2011

Dear John,

Perhaps you should cast an eye over some of your previous posts in this thread … and then perhaps reflect upon the possibility of removing the Siberian pine forest from your own eye.

Let me remind you of some of your gems:

“I am shocked that such an article can be found on a Catholic web site, but I will comment on it nonetheless as I fully believe that the Truth must be proclaimed here. The Truth as proclaimed by the Holy Roman Catholic Church. … I have come to learn, through my journey over the past years, that the teaching of the Catholic Church that gay relationships are in no way morally acceptable, are to be the Truth. … The arguments found in the article posed by John Lee are not new. Countless “pro gay” ministers have uttered the same arguments, trying to find a Biblical basis in order to justify their cause. All of which have been dismissed, and dismissed on a logical, moral and Biblical basis. … The fact of the matter is that homosexuality cannot be condoned. It is a teaching that the Church has taught from its beginning.”

Do you really wonder at my paltry attempts to illustrate your outrageously sweeping claim (that all arguments justifying covenantal gay relationships have been demolished on logical, moral and biblical bases) to be fatally flawed and quite risible?

It is the oft-times cruel imposition of the line that all gays are called to celibate lives that has perhaps driven many away from this debate (and, indeed, from the Church itself!). At least the celibate monastics have their community! Who are we gays to have? Ourselves and the cat?! It is all horrendously dehumanizing and offensive. I approached a very senior prelate for pastoral advice … and had recommended to me two things: (i) Dr Van Aardweg’s book (which is part of the ex-gay machine, and wherein it is essentially suggested that the gay Catholic avoid mainstream psychologists because they tend to want integrate one’s sexuality and spirituality!!!), and (ii) that I follow a course of “self therapy”!!! No wonder Andrew Sullivan entitled his essay “alone again – naturally”! Is the irony really lost on you? There appears to be NO authentically pastoral official response offered by the Catholic Church in South Africa to gays and lesbians. And those Bishops I have approached on this issue become very awkward, and and have squirmed, and sometimes are really far too busy to discuss it.

I wait patiently with hopeful expectation for a courageous conversation on this topic within the Catholic Church – where ALL voices can be heard, inclusing those like Bev Keevill and her daughter! I have been mulling over what to say to Bev, especially in light of what she said on Fr Pollit’s Blog post “Is it time for a pastoral response to homosexuality in South Africa?”, … I have to confess that I am utterly at a loss for words. And I am deeply and profoundly hurt by it all.
Vincent Couling on May 25th, 2011

And John, if I might say, the very fact that you are shocked that such a sane and pastoral letter as John Lee’s above can be published on a Catholic Web site speaks volumes about your desire and agenda to forestall an authentic debate on matters Catholic and gay.

On one crucial point we do, however, concur: “it truly is time for a pastoral response to homosexuality in South Africa.”
John on May 25th, 2011

Vincent,

What has been made clear, and clear to all who have read through this thread (though I doubt anybody would possibly want to read through such large comments especially those continuously repeated!) is that you are completely closed to the notion that the official teaching of the Church on this matter is correct and should be respected. I on the other hand have explored a homosexual lifestyle and through my experiences I have come to see it as wrong and contrary to the will of God.

I’m saddened as you paint me in a very bleak picture sir and I personally take offence. I have the utmost serious and caring intentions to help those who like me suffer from homosexual inclinations to find peace. Yes peace in the Holy Catholic Church in terms of who they are and what they feel. Instead you paint me as a bigot and a person who wishes to impose my own views on others. This is an injustice to me where all I wish to do is to assist others.

I have no doubt that you will comment after this to which I fully invite you to. It matters not to me anymore what you say for though I may stand alone in argument on this website I know I have countless brothers and sisters in the Courage Apostolate across the world who share my views and struggles.

I have reached the point where enough is enough, I shall comment no further no matter what false profanities or injustices are raised against me.

John
Vincent Couling on May 25th, 2011

John, you say: “I on the other hand have explored a homosexual lifestyle and through my experiences I have come to see it as wrong and contrary to the will of God. ”

Wrong and contrary to the will of God for you, or for all gay Catholics … that is the question, sir!

I.e. do you speak for yourself, for your own “inner forum”, or for all gay Catholics?

And if for all gay Catholics, how so?
Vincent Couling on May 25th, 2011

John:

What has been made clear, and clear to all who have read through this thread is that you are completely closed to the notion that the official teaching of the Church on this matter is incorrect and should be debated.
Vincent Couling on May 25th, 2011

Though I would tend to say, for various reasons, “… the notion that the teaching of the Church on this matter might incorrect …”.
Vincent Couling on May 25th, 2011

John: I usually only repeat something when a chestnut is raised from the mothballs for the umpteenth time, and requires a response already elucidated earlier on the thread … check back and see for yourself!

For myself, I am done “debating” with you, and will only respond if someone else raises a point of contention (or a hoary old chestnut).
Vincent Couling on May 25th, 2011

And if you think snippy soundbites are going to deal with complex issues, so be it.
Vincent Couling on May 25th, 2011

oops … yes, I’ve become irascible, and proof reading has gone out the window …

Though I would tend to say, for various reasons, “… the notion that the official teaching of the Church on this matter might be incorrect …”.
Vincent Couling on May 25th, 2011

In an attempt to reverse this thread out of the current cul-de-sac it finds itself in, I draw attention to the paper “A Pastoral response to Homosexuality in the Church” written by the Reverend Matt Glover of Lilydale Baptist Church, Australia. The Rev Glover posted a link to it on Fr Russell Pollitt’s Blog (see http://www.scross.co.za/2011/05/is-it-time-for-a-pastoral-response-to-homosexuality-in-south-africa/ ). Having read it, I must say that it is a sane attempt to begin a courageous conversation, and I recommend it highly (it is 39 pages long, but then these things cannot be adequately dealt with using soundbites).

The link to the article follows …

http://www.pflagbrisbane.org.au/wp-content/uploads/docs/A%20Pastoral%20Response%20to%20Homosexuality%20in%20the%20Church.pdf
Vincent Couling on May 30th, 2011

It seems that ours is not the only neck of the Catholic woods in which the question “Is it time for a pastoral response to homosexuality?” is being asked.

I draw attention to the “More Than a Monologue: Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church” series of conferences to be held by two Jesuit universities and two interdenominational divinity schools in the USA. I hope that the Editor don’t mind my posting the following preamble by Professor Paul Lakeland, who is one of the conference organizers … I post it because I believe that it reveals much about the unfolding of courageous conversations around matters gay and Catholic in the Church universal.

(For more information about the conferences, visit http://blog.fairfield.edu/morethanamonologue/ )
Vincent Couling on May 30th, 2011

Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church: Time for a Serious Conversation?
By Paul Lakeland

From my position at Fairfield University I have been keeping a close watch on the U.S. Catholic Church for exactly 30 years. In this time I have seen attitudes change among friends, colleagues and students in many ways. One of them is the cultural acceptability of sexual diversity in the Church. Here in the second decade of the 21st century, we seem to be at a turning point. The time has clearly come for a serious conversation. Every year fewer people, especially among the young, are willing to argue for heterosexual normativity, and that speaks loudly for a future without discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Strikingly, of all American Christian groups, Catholics are the most supportive of same-sex marriage and/or civil unions: a whopping 74 percent expressed support in a recent poll from the Public Research Institute. This is despite the strong opposition of their own bishops.

One important step toward a more open conversation will be taken this coming fall, when, under the collective heading of “More Than a Monologue: Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church,” two Jesuit universities and two interdenominational divinity schools will host a series of four day-long conferences open to the public. Fordham University and Fairfield University, Union Theological Seminary and Yale University Divinity School will each create distinct opportunities for all who wish to attend to speak and to listen to the many and varied voices that Catholic have on this issue.

What do you do in the Catholic Church when the bishops and the Catholic population as a whole seem to be so far apart on something that everyone thinks is important? On the part of the bishops, simply speaking louder against equality is no solution. Any good teacher knows that a failure to communicate cannot simply be blamed on the students. Sometimes it is plainly the fault of the teacher, whether poor content or poor presentation. Good bishops, like good teachers, know to examine their methods and maybe even their content when reception of what they have to say is on the wane. And Catholics as a whole need to know why they believe what they say they believe and what are the positions and opinions of their fellow religionists who come to very different conclusions. Perhaps, everyone needs to take a deep breath.

The issue of Church opposition to same-sex marriage or civil union is not the heart of the problem. It is simply a symbol of marginalization. The truth of the matter is that Catholic gays and lesbians, transgendered and bisexual Catholics, live in a Church which they perceive is not welcoming them as the people God made them to be, created surely “in the image and likeness of God.” In civil law the struggles against discrimination and the movement for marriage equality may well primarily be issues of civil and human rights. In the Church they are that and much more. To be made in the image and likeness of God, as the Christian tradition sees it, is to be made — body and soul — to reflect the Trinity, that is to be made for love and relationality. When the Church requires life-long celibacy of all people who are not heterosexual (the demand it makes of homosexuals who wish to participate fully in Church life), it imposes a sanction which is, in effect, the imposition of a life of less love and human relationship than is available to heterosexual Christians. A call to be less loving, body and soul, is a call to be less in the image and likeness of God.

Bishops have responsibilities to defend law and doctrine, and sometimes that makes it hard for them to hear the voice of the Spirit moving through the body of the baptized. Catholic laypeople, as they exercise their ministry in the secular world, are primarily motivated by their ordinary human experience, living and working alongside their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender friends and family. Catholic or not, these people have the same human needs and concerns as their heterosexual counterparts, they are often role models of Christian life and love, and they look to the Church for acceptance as the people they are.

The objective of the public conference series, “More Than a Monologue,” is to raise awareness and generate vigorous debate on sexual diversity issues within the community of faith and beyond to the broader civic and political worlds that the Catholic Church and the Catholic people inhabit. The doors of the conferences will be open to all, whatever their points of view, in the confident expectation that true dialogue and honest conversation is the way forward. The conference organizers are motivated by a deep love of their Catholic tradition. “More Than a Monologue” is an act of faith and hope that there is a sure and full place in the Church for people of diverse sexual orientation and experience.

***********

Paul Lakeland, one of the “More Than a Monologue” conference organizers, is the Aloysius P. Kelley S.J. Professor of Catholic Studies and Director of the Center for Catholic Studies at Fairfield University.
Bev Keevill on May 31st, 2011

Vincent thank you so much for all the research you do informing us that there is something happening out there. One begins to feel a bit hopeless that change will ever happen! Your passion is wonderful keep it up, for all our sons and daughters out there! THANK YOU!

Much love
Bev
desmond O'Regan on June 2nd, 2011

I think that it is great to be in an inclusive Church. We have come to realise that excluding people on the basis of sexual preferences is to pay homage to a taboo, still powerful and active all over the world. Catholics are not exempt from this powerful force, but even in the Vatican, where they now believe that homosexual preferences are genetically formed, and impossible to change, BUT they fail to abandon the taboo by clinging to the notion which was prevalent when I was a lad that the sexual urges will drive them to acts which are intrinsically disordered.
One might, of course, say the same of marriage, but no one mentions that. So the Vatican is deeply confused about all matters to do with sex, and poor old wonderful Eros is the Devil himself, despite The Song of Songs. Say a prayer for ball those old gents trying to deal with something about which they know nothing! Sexual sins are always mortal-where do they get such piffle. Does anyone, anywhere believe such nonsense. If in doubt, ask your wife!
God bless all gays, who have suffered enough from primitive taboos. May we all benefit from their stories, thank God our Constitution says so, and so should we all. Des
Deneys on June 5th, 2011

Dear Des: You ask, “‘Sexual sins are always mortal’ – where do they get such piffle?”

Well, they get it from the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5, verse 28, from the mouth of Jesus himself, when he says, “I tell you, whoever looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

They also get it from the Catechism, which, following Jesus’ words above, teaches that offenses against the virtue of purity are grave matter, or in other words, mortal sins.

Remember the words of St Paul in I Cor 6:10: “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, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” God Bless you.
Vincent Couling on June 6th, 2011

Dear Deneys,

I am appalled by the atrocious translation of 1 Cor 6:10 that you have dredged out of the muck of the modern translation quagmire (this example being from the NIV, I believe)! Yet another hoary chestnut raised from the pitifully meagre armoury of the fundamentalist anti-gay propaganda machine. “Scripture says … !!!” … hhhrumph!

Surely in the present milieu, where our hierarchs, in their infinite wisdom, have insisted that translations of the Missale Romanum into the vernacular must reject the dynamic equivalence methodologies, insisiting instead on an unflinching fidelity to the techniques of a formal equivalence translation, I am surprised that Deneys would dare quote such an obvious example of ideological scholarship … of reading into scripture what simply is not there, so as to support the contemporary worldview of anti-gay fundamentalists.

Perhaps Deneys would like to explain how the word “arsenokoites” can be translated as “homosexual offenders” (whether by dynamic OR formal equivalence!!!) … after all, this translation is a relatively modern and unorthodox innovation that has at its root a clear political agenda, and which is specious in the extreme!

If neither slanderers nor swindlers are to inherit the Kingdom of God, then I fear greatly for those who present the specious and false translation of “arsenokoites” as “homosexual offenders”!
Deneys on June 6th, 2011

Dear Vincent: I used the NIV because I thought it would be ok for most people, since it’s in contemporary language. It was not for ideological reasons.

I think St Pual and the whole of Scripture are clear on this issue, whether or not this particular word means “homosexual offender”. Besides, I don’t need Scripture or St Paul to tell me that homosexual acts are wrong: reason tells me so.
Vincent Couling on June 6th, 2011

Ah, Deneys, I see … “reason” tells you so. Is this the same “reason” which allowed Aristotle to deduce as axiomatic (i.e. as a self-evident truth) that the earth is at the centre of the universe, and perfectly stationary, with all celestial objects orbiting it in perfect circles? Let us not forget the Holy Mother / Galileo debacle, Deneys. And let us always examine very closely our pet “self-evident truths”, and our reasons for clinging to them even when the overwhelming evidence indicates that they are utterly untenable!
Deneys on June 6th, 2011

Dear Vincent: No, it is not the same reason. The study of particular, changeable things, like the earth or the sun, produces particular, changeable conclusions. But the study of universal, unchangeable things, like geometry or human nature, produces universal, unchangeable conclusions. And in this way we can be certain about the goodness or badness of human acts.
Vincent Couling on June 6th, 2011

Ha! Are you aware of the enormous effect the accidental discovery of non-Euclidian geometry had on philosophy, and in particular on the idea that “reason” can discern or intuit “universal and unchangeable truth”!
Vincent Couling on June 6th, 2011

Much as its application to the space-time continuum had a profound impact on the “obvious” axiom (derived from “every-day experience”) that space is Euclidian! Of course, we have that niggling little problem of relativistic effects … !
Deneys on June 6th, 2011

Dear Vincent: Yes, I am aware of non-Euclidian geometry. I studied both types at university. Note though that the discovery that our world is non-Euclidian in no way disproves the demonstrations found in Euclidian geometry, for these conclusions are derived solely from the principles or axioms which are obtained by abstraction from matter. On this basis, it is possible to reach true conclusions becasue abstraction is not false. And in the same way, by abstracting the form of human nature from its particular characteristics, we can arrive at certain conclusions regarding this nature, such as the morality of certain acts.
Vincent Couling on June 6th, 2011

Deneys, I didn’t ask you if you were aware of non-Euclidian geometry. I asked you if you were aware that it’s discovery profoundly affected the philosophical notion that “reason” can discern or intuit “universal and unchangeable truth”!

I have already touched (elsewhere on this thread) on the effects of (flawed) Aristotelian axioms (as regards the biology of human reproduction) on sexual morality … axioms absorbed into Christian theology by people like St Thomas Aquinas. If I repeat what I said earlier, John might accuse me of making unnecessary repetition, so I am in a bit of a quandry.

Unfortunately for John, a chestnut has been raised from the mothballs (and NOT by me), so hopefully I will be forgiven the following indulgence (what I regard to be a necessary repetition of what was posted earlier on this very thread):

“I think that the origins of this idea of the non-separability of the procreative and unitive aspects of sex can be found in two distinct sources: (i) the (flawed) Aristotelian axiom that the male seed possesses the essence of the new life, and that the female (who is a defective male) merely provides the matter (much like planting a mealie seed in the ground) … so that spilling the seed is a grave crime (Aquinas, using the Aristotelian axiom, argued that masturbation was a greater sin than heterosexual rape since in the latter the seed had a chance to survive and reach its full potentiality as a new human being!); and (ii) the absorption into the Church of Stoic natural-law philosophy which regarded pleasure as lawful only when enjoyed in pursuit of a worthy end. Neither of these sources has anything to do with Jesus and his movement called “The Way,” and so neither can possibly belong to Jesus’ deposit of faith. The church will inevitably have to allow for proper theological reflection on sexual teaching, and it will hardly be surprising to find further evolution in official church teaching in this area.”
Deneys on June 7th, 2011

Dear Vincent: the discovery of non-Euclidian geometry did not profoundly affect the notion that we can know reality as it is. For its discovery actually confirms what traditional philosophy has maintained, the imperfection of matter. Our universe “wants” to be Euclidian but is not due to the imperfection of matter. Insofar as Euclidian geometry is a part of mathematics, it is true, and insofar as non-Euclidian geometry is a part of physics, it is true. I hope this clarifies things for you.
Then you quote an earlier post. (I’m sorry but I haven’t read the whole thread – maybe I should have) This quote shows a confused understanding of natural law and its arguments for why homosexual acts are wrong. Natural law is not based on outdated biological notions or Stoic abhorrence to pleasure but rather on the unchanging nature of the human person as a rational animal.
Nature has given us certain faculties such as our senses, our appetite for food, our sexual desires, our mind and will, etc., by which we reach our end and perfection. Now the essence of morality consists in our attainment of our end and perfection, which in turn means using the things nature has given us in the way in which they were intended to be used. So if we act in accordance with the natural purpose of our faculties these acts are moral, since they bring us to our perfection, but if we act in a way which is not consonant with the purpose of these faculties then these acts are immoral, since they hinder us from reaching our end.
Now if we examine the purpose of our sexual organs, it should be clear to all that they are naturally intended for heterosexual relations (the anatomy itself manifests this) in order to bring new life into the world. This forms the basis of all sexual morality. To use them in this way would therefore be moral. But to use them in a manner contrary to this purpose would be immoral. This principle explains why masturbation, fornication, and homosexual acts are wrong, because all these acts are contrary to the natural purpose of human sexuality.
I recommend reading Blessed Pope JP II’s Theology of the Body for a far more beautiful and personalistic account of this principle.
theo on June 20th, 2011

I have scanned trough the discussions and I have one fundamental problem.
One is trying to say it’s wrong and the other it is wright by quoting this and quoting that but you are all missing the point. If you are catholic and you call your self catholic you should live a catholic life and that means adhering to all the teachings of the church and I mean all the teaching.

For denying one of the teachings is denying more if not all because they are all interlinked and there for you are not a true catholic and should not call your self a true catholic.

A lot of these problems arise due to poor leadership with in the church
namely our bishops and priests who are suppose to give us guidance in the
teachings of the catholic church yet a lot of them will just remain silent on the mater because they don’t want to loose parishioners or for what ever reason.

We should rather engage in prayer for our clergy so they may take up their roles in the church as leaders in the teachings of the church and not to be scared of preaching about it in church and if somebody does not like it they do not have to be there, there are many other religions that might support their theories and should then rather go there.

As for the catholic church we can only grow strong if our leaders are strong
and stop watering our faith down as to not offend some one.

So I urge u to rather say a prayer for our leaders in the church as catholic’s
rather than engaging in meaningless debates like this.

May God bless us and have mercy on us all.
Deneys on June 21st, 2011

Dear Theo: you are so right. To be Catholic means to believe in all the teachings of the Church. As someone said, “Christianity is a package deal. It’s not like a supermarket where you can pick some things and leave others, or like a smorgasbord, but like a meal at home where your mom says, ‘eat everything on your plate.’”

Given that, I think we should also try our best to understand why the Church teaches what she teaches. After all, knowledge is better than faith (although in this life not everything can be known fully). Some people accept what the Church teaches with sheer faith – they don’t need any more convincing because they know that Jesus’ Church cannot make an error; while others accept it with both faith and reason – they believe fully and also seek the reasons for their faith; others do not have faith but posses good will – it is they who need to hear the reasons for the Church’s teachings; while others still have neither faith nor good will – and for them arguments are of no use. Only prayer, good example and Christian love will move them.
theo on June 21st, 2011

Deneys you are not quite right understanding with out faith is nothing.
And faith with out understanding will collapse.

The problem is where you get your info from. To understand the teachings of the church you need guidance and that guidance should come from the clergy.

That is why Jesus put the apostles who were the first clergy of the church in the positions that they were with the clergy of today. Which is to guide us and help us to understand. It is when we take maters in to our own hands that things go wrong and that goes for clergy as well. That is also how the protestants broke away from the church, and to divide is to conquer!

God bless us
Deneys on June 22nd, 2011

Dear Theo: why is understanding without faith nothing? And why will faith without understanding collapse?
theo on June 22nd, 2011

The two go hand in hand and history supports that.
Deneys on June 26th, 2011

Hi Theo: maybe history does, but can you say why they go hand in hand? I’m just curious to know what you mean by faith and understanding. Yes, we need the guidance of the clergy, but the clergy also have to get their understanding from somewhere…

Grace builds on nature, and likewise faith presupposes reason. Natural undaided human reason can more or less grasp the moral law, but it needs faith to believe in the mysteries of our faith, like the Trinity and the Eucharist. Happy feast of Corpus Christi!
theo on June 27th, 2011

Hi Deneys: The reason why the two go hand in hand is when you do not understand your faith and the church and were it comes from you are likely to come to some disingenuous conclusion such as god condones homosexuality or sex before marriage and so forth.

As for the mysteries of our faith we can not exactly understand them but we also can to a certain degree through the teachings of the church.
The problem with faith and faith alone is and i will give you an example.
I was listening to the apologetics of a certain church in Edenvale where the pastor was talking about forgiveness and heaven and hell and he was talking about scripture and punishment and how some of us would be punished more than others and that he could not really explain this so it must be a mystery of faith but that there had to be different levels of heaven and hell.
Now the problem with this is that this is a typical protestant response to something that they do not understand or can not explain. When the truth of the mater is that the scriptures that this pastor was battling with was in actual fact referring to purgatory which is in fact further explained and maid clear in the deuteronomical books or apocrypha as other wise known. which the protestants do not have in there bible. And thats why I say understanding and faith go hand in hand and when you take that and include history it becomes more clear.

Our clergy should get their understanding from god they are the door man for us as I herd a priest explain while speaking about his role in the mass.
Deneys on July 6th, 2011

Theo: Cool, I see what you’re saying. Agreed. But note that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is not a matter of faith, like say the Incarnation or the Eucharist, which comes solely from Divine Revelation, but rather a matter of reason. In other words you don’t have to be a Christian to see that homosexual acts are wrong, just like you don’t have to be a Christian to see that theft, lying, or sex outside marriage is wrong. These kinds of things are knowable to everyone by the light of natural reason, although sin obscures this light.
theo on July 7th, 2011

Deneys You are correct you don’t have to be a christian to see all thous things
but the chances that you will are very slim especially with out guidance. that is why we look to the church as catholic’s for guidance. And church teaching on this mater is in fact that it is a sin which makes it a matter of faith as well and there is no grey area in this matter.
Bev Keevill on July 20th, 2011

I think that the one true commandment which none of us understands is

“DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE OTHERS DO UNTO YOU”

What others do is between God and themselves. I am truly becoming to think that staying away from judgemental people and just being at home with God is the anwer, he never judges, only people do.

Disheartened
Bev
Bev Keevill on July 20th, 2011

Please excuse my English I was going to say becoming disheartened.

Bev
theo on July 21st, 2011

bev you are quite wright do unto others as you would have done unto you and for that reason we should rectify and rebuke one and other when we loos our way it is not about judging that is not for us to do but for God because he does judge and he will but rebuking something completely different and there is nothing wrong with that even st Paul rebuked st Peter in the bible who by the way was our first pope.

This is about being a true catholic in every way and believing in all the teachings of the church and i mean all not just what suits us and when it suits us other wise we should not call ourselves catholic but rather protestant atheist or what ever ells but definitely not catholic!!

We should be on fire for God and our religion and help one and other to become better catholic’s and call a snake a snake and stop watering things down as to not offend some one. All these other churches do so well because that is exactly what they do they call it as they see it and believe it but in the catholic church most of us are to scared to offend some one and we are the ones with the most answers because we are the church that God him self established on this earth.

Your view on just being at home with god if i understood you correctly is a topical protestant belief and a catholic one. I know that we get despondent some times but that is no reason to turn our backs on the church and God.

Theo
theo on July 21st, 2011

By the way we should actually judge one and other but not condemn that is for God to do

Theo
John on July 22nd, 2011

@ Bev: Please don’t lose heart Bev. Truly God will never leave us and He loves us all at all times. Though I fully understand where you’re coming from. I lose heart at times myself, it’s not easy living with homosexual inclinations. It’s not easy to constantly battle these feelings when all you really want to do is love somebody completely. And I know that you have a daughter who has accepted being gay and truly I hope the best for her. May you and her be blessed.

@ Theo: You are absolutely correct at what you state however I implore you to use a more sympathetic approach. It’s easy to stand up and judge others actions and to condemn them as being wrong, it’s far more difficult to be in the position of judgment when afflicted with the feelings or when someone you love has those feelings or is openly gay. I believe this is something Catholics and Christians in general need to be better at.
Katlego on July 22nd, 2011

Can s0meone please st0p referring to being gay as suffering fr0m inclinati0ns! Like its a disease or dis0rder! ! I believe it to be a blessing, one that im stil getting to understand fully. Its n0t easy but il get there.
Deneys on July 24th, 2011

We can’t, Katlego, because we love you. We have to be honest with ourselves and God and speak the truth. Acting on homosexual desires will only bring you unhappiness because it is not what you have been made for. Nobody is perfect, we all sin, but we should try to help one another to walk in the truth with love. If you listen, your own conscience is telling you this. I will pray for you. God Bless.
Bev Keevill on July 25th, 2011

Thank you for your kindness John. I have not turned my back on God, far from it, I know that He loves us without question. I just can not deal with people who judge so harshly. We need more love, joy and hope in our faith and less fear and judgement. Let us leave the judgement to God and just love one another. I feel sad for folk who are so focused on sin and judgement when it is so much easier to just love.

Much love
Bev
theo on July 25th, 2011

@John Thank you for your criticism I do tend to seem non sympathetic at times yet having dealt with a lot a lot of these issues I have learned over time that some times you have to be cruel to be kind so please except what I said with the best of intentions.

As for condemning that is not for me or any one else to do except for God but rather show our faults to each other for the purpose of bringing one and other closer to God in order to inherit everlasting life.

@ bev God asks us in his word to judge one and other in order to show love to one and other. when a child steps out of line do we not rectify and discipline as gods word instructs us and is that not a form of loving? if you didn’t love one and other why are we having this discussion?

God bless us all

theo
Bev Keevill on July 26th, 2011

I am having this discussion because I have a Lesbian Daughter and because I come from the way of love, it has been easy for me to accept her and love her unconditionally and I thouhgt that might help others. I have tried not to get personal in my replies unless it is a positive response because I believe that is what love is about. I realise that this discussion is actually not about us but about the church, so I now bow gracefully out and wish you blessings and love.
Bev
Vincent Couling on July 26th, 2011

Several things have kept me from writing on this thread for some time now. Among them are new responsibilities at work, and a flourishing relationship with a wonderful gay man. (Yes, he’s a rather conservative Catholic too!) It is amazing how the business of actually living life can put blogging (and theorizing about life) on the backburner.

That said, I have glanced over recent comments, and am painfully reminded of the profound hurt and anguish that can be experienced by young gay and lesbian Catholics, thanks to the pontificating condescension of fellow straight members of the Mystical Body of Christ. All the more so when some choose to examine the lives of gays and lesbians in a dehumanizingly calculating and clinical fashion, making the most astonishing claims about “truth,” and about what others have been made for, and perhaps most astonishingly of all claiming intimate knowledge about the contents of the conscience of others!

The etymology of the word “conscience” is, I believe, “con + scio” = “I know together with” … the implication for believers being knowing together with God! Not together with Deneys, for surely he is a lesser Deity! I am thrilled that Deneys believes (with such extraordinary conviction) that he knows what Katlego’s conscience is telling Katlego! I suppose that Deneys would argue that reason informs him! How utterly shameless, how utterly depraved, how profoundly un-Christlike.

Deneys knows that homosexual sex is wrong by the light of natural reason. In fact, for him, human nature can be studied in the same fashion as geometry … yielding unchangeable conclusions … yielding absolute Truth!

Perhaps though we might be permitted to turn to Poincare: “If geometry were an experimental science, it would not be an exact science. It would be subjected to continual revision … The geometrical axioms are therefore neither synthetic a priori intuitions nor experimental facts. They are conventions. Our choice among all possible conventions is guided by experimental facts; but it remains free, and is only limited by the necessity of avoiding every contradiction, and thus it is that postulates may remain rigorously true even when the experimental laws which have determined their adoption are only approximate. In other words, the axioms of geometry are only definitions in disguise. What then are we to think of the question: Is Euclidian geometry true? It has no meaning. We might as well ask if the metric system is true and if the old weights and measures are false; if Cartesian coordinates are true and polar coordinates false. One geometry cannot be more true than another: it can only be more convenient.”

So back to Deneys’ assertions about geometry. Indeed, if geometry is fundamentally a formal exercise in deducing certain conclusions from certain formal premises, i.e. a collection of statements of the form “if … then,” then we immediately recognize that geometry has nothing to say about the meaning or truthfulness of the hypotheses! Surely to attempt to draw an analogy between geometry and natural-law axioms , or human nature, or the goodness or badness of human acts, or “knowing reality,” is absurd in the extreme.

To claim that reason tells us that homosexual acts are wrong, is to pretend that the “reason” doing the telling is unbiased and objective (a priori or innate) truth … untainted by cultural or social context, et cetera. To claim as a priori knowledge, or as self-evident truth, that the primary (or sole?) purpose of sex is procreation, so that masturbation and contraceptive heterosexual sex and homosexual sex and sex between a knowingly sterile [e.g. post-menopausal] heterosexual couple is immoral (objectively disordered) – is to make an astonishing claim. It completely overlooks the possibility that the primary purpose of sex might quite well be to foster what is perhaps the highest moral good: the fostering of covenantal love-relationships (see the brilliant and compelling theological reflection by Eugene F. Rogers at http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3069). And to pretend that the axioms underpinning such a claim [purpose of sex = procreation full stop] are in any way analogous to the axioms underpinning the study of geometry is to present the hounds with the scent of a red herring. To pretend that such axioms (or apparently self-evident truths) about human sexuality have not been shaped by the Aristotelian biology (and Aquinas’ assimilation of it into mainstream Catholic theology and natural law theory) borders on outright mendacity.

As for Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body, yes, it does make a pretence of being personalistic … but at heart it is a neo-manualist theology, the personalism always being proscribed by natural law axioms. (And it is principally for this reason that I hope he is never canonized … since it could lead to a disastrous cult around this theology, giving it an “authority” it probably doesn’t deserve.) For a truly personalist approach, and for an excellent critique of John Paul II’s theology of the body, I recommend (highly!) Salzman and Lawler’s book “The sexual person: towards a renewed Catholic anthropology,” or their research article “Truly human sexual acts: a response to Patrick Lee and Robert George” which appeared in the journal Theological Studies in 2008 (volume 69, pp 663-680). In my opinion, this is essential reading for anyone who genuinely desires to approach the burning question of matters gay and Catholic in the spirit of the authentic seeker or mystic.

I personally draw much inspiration from Sir Arthur Eddington, a man who fascinates me not only because he was a brilliant astronomer and physicist, but also because he was a philosopher, a Quaker and a mystic. About the theory of relativity he says “And yet, in regard to the nature of things, this knowledge is only an empty shell – a form of symbols. It is knowledge of structural form, and not knowledge of content. All through the physical world runs that unknown content, which must surely be the stuff of our consciousness.” For him, science cannot answer questions of morality (i.e. good and evil, truth and falsehood, meaningfulness and meaninglessness) … for him, such questions can only be answered by “intimate knowledge,” by personal experience! Like all mystics, he places much emphasis on the seeking. I suppose that it should come as no surprise that the Quakers in the UK were the first modern religious group to be accepting of gay love-relationships!
Vincent Couling on July 26th, 2011

Dear Bev,

Yes, indeed, you do appear to come from the way of love! Your unconditional love for your daughter is an inspiration to us all!

Frankly, this discussion is both about us and about the Church … after all, we are the Church! It is a poignant and heart-rending discussion, especially for gays and lesbians, and their friends and family.

Ultimately all we can do is live out our lives with love and compassion, and in accordance with our well-formed consciences.

I know that you are disheartened … oft times, so am I. When my soul feels parched, as in a desert, I am always refreshed by the words of the prophet Micah:

“This is what Yahweh asks of you, only this … that you act justly, that you love tenderly, that you walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8) .

Much love to you and your daughter … and please be assured that many, many Catholics understand the plight of gay and lesbian Catholics, and are full of love and authentic compassion for their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ!
Vincent Couling on July 26th, 2011

Dear Katlego,

I share your frustrations with the someone who often refers to being gay as suffering from inclinations! Like it’s a disease or disorder! I, too, believe that being gay is a blessing … you’re quite right in observing that it’s not an easy journey, being gay in the world … but – and I speak only for myself – it is a journey I wouldn’t (with a bit of hindsight on my side) trade away for anything in the world!

What I also find frustrating about this someone is his idea that being gay is truly an intrinsic disorder … but that one must be ever so scrupulously gentle in how one actually spits it out to “the gays” … as if that could possibly change anything at all! I am reminded of that delightfully perceptive cartoon of a bishop standing imperiously on the cathedral steps under a banner reading “Welcome, inherently disordered persons!” while a couple walking their dog past the scene comment “How nice! They’re reaching out to gays!”

Peace and blessings to you, young man … so very wise beyond your years!
John on July 27th, 2011

What I find amazing Vincent is that in your most recent comment you believe that Blessed John Paul the Second should not be canonized! Not only does it seem completely unfounded to make such a comment but also cruel. Anyone who knows the life of John Paul understands such a comment to be completely absurd.

If anything is clear Vincent is that everything posted by yourself needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. I would go so far as to say an entire table spoon in fact.
Deneys on July 27th, 2011

Dear Vincent: I read the one essay you suggested, “Truly human sexual acts”. Like you, they offer good rhetoric but few arguments. At root they seem to be denying that we can grasp the purpose of natual things. According to this assumption, as long as there is personal complementarily between partners there is no essential difference between infertile heterosexual acts and homosexual acts.

Now I think most of us would dispute that. Surely there is an essential difference between the sexual organs and the digestive syste? They’re not intended for the same things. Wouldn’t you agree that the eye is meant for seeing or that the knife is meant for cutting? So why can’t you affrim, albeit in a general yet still definite manner, that the sexual faculty is intended to be used for heterosexual sex? If you can know what an eye or an apple is, why can’t you know the true purpose of sex?
Vincent Couling on July 27th, 2011

Deneys, please clarify: is the penis for urinating, or for ejaculating semen?

Is the mouth for eating, for breathing, for tasting, for talking, for chewing finger nails, for biting a lover’s earlobe, for holding a nail while adjusting a picture frame?

My point? Let’s not be unnecessarily proscriptive, and claim with a triumphal air that reason is perfectly clear-cut on the only permitted purposes of various organs.
Deneys on July 27th, 2011

Vincent: none of the things you suggested violate the essential purpose of those organs, so yes, they are of course moral. But using the mouth for lying, or for eating human flesh (an extreme example) would violate its natural purpose. It’s not rocket science.
Vincent Couling on July 27th, 2011

Hi Deneys,

In the light of reason, a knife is for cutting. Would it be intrinsically disordered of me to use my knife for spreading butter across my slice of toast?

If the natural purpose of sex is to procreate, then all the average Catholic couple need do is have sex 2.4 times, having used NFP to do so during the most fertile period of the woman’s cycle. No need to ever have sex again! In fact, heaven forbid ever having sex again (especially with the intention of avoiding conception – be it via artificial contraception, or NFP, or using the “wrong” plumbing) … since it would violate the natural purpose of sex – that being procreation alone. True! Deneys told me so!

Try explaining that to the average devout heterosexual Catholic couple, Deneys! Much luck to your endeavours!
John on July 27th, 2011

Previous comment was deleted upon request. The following still holds prevalence:

Just to add to the thread, I found a very interesting article this morning called “Vatican Cardinal: Divine judgment will fall on priests who do not oppose abortion, homosexuality”. In particular I wish to emphasize the following point made by his Eminence Cardinal Robert Sarah :

“we no longer know what is evil and what is good. There are a multitude of points of view. Today, we call white what we once called black, and vice versa. What is serious, and make no mistake about it, is the transformation of error into a rule of life. In this context, as priests, pastors and guides of the People of God, you should be continuously focused on being always loyal to the doctrine of Christ. It is necessary for you to constantly strive to acquire the sensitivity of conscience, the faithful respect for dogma and morality, which constitute the deposit of faith and the common patrimony of the Church of Christ.”

For the full article I refer you to the following link.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/divine-judgment-will-fall-on-priests-who-do-not-oppose-abortion-and-attacks?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LifesitenewscomLatestHeadlines+%28LifeSiteNews.com+Latest+Headlines%29
Vincent Couling on July 27th, 2011

Oh, Deneys, could you please tell me what, in the light of reason, is the essential purpose of the mouth? I rank eating, tasting, breathing and talking all quite highly … but I’m really quite confused, and need you to guide me out of the quagmire of my dimness … .
Vincent Couling on July 27th, 2011

Heaven forbid that there should be more than one essential purpose for any one given organ or act, methinks … since that might just blow your limitations to the natural purpose of sex out of the water! Good grief … it might even imply that there might be more than one essential natural purpose to sex! Goodness gracious me … a complex, multifaceted God … a complex, pied beauty to creation … how awesome! Now that is a God I can believe in!!!
Vincent Couling on July 27th, 2011

And while you’re at it Deneys, could you please clarify for us what precisely is the essential purpose of the penis?!
John on July 27th, 2011

Hi Vincent,

Body parts aside, I must ask if there is anything that we can know for certain based on your arguments?

I refer you to the article called “Beyond the Dictatorship of Relativism” by Robert Royal. I quote the following important relevant piece:

“Though there’s no solid scientific evidence for gay genes, and plenty of evidence about the disaster for children and adults that results from our cavalier treatment of marriage, it’s become something of a blind faith and a moral crusade for a certain segment of our population to pretend otherwise. Our social radicals deplore moral crusades in principle when Christians and others are merely standing up for the accumulated wisdom and social practice of every human society in every age, not some groundless experiment in social tolerance. The radicals claim that society ought to be open and neutral, not dominated by divisive public moral rules.”

For the full article I refer you to this link http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/beyond-the-dictatorship-of-relativism.html.
Vincent Couling on July 27th, 2011

As I said earlier …

Pope Benedict, when still a young Professor Ratzinger, wrote in his article “The Transmission of Divine Revelation,” which appeared in “Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II” (1969), that “Not every tradition that arises in the Church is a true celebration and keeping present of the mystery of Christ. There is a distorting, as well as legitimate, tradition … Consequently tradition must not be considered only affirmatively but also critically.”

Let us not be afraid of a critical analysis and reappraisal of matters gay … of fresh theological debate arround these matters.
Bev Keevill on July 27th, 2011

Vincent you are like a breath of fresh air – I can see God smiling and rolling his eyes!

Happiness always!
Bev
Katlego on July 27th, 2011
Katlego on July 27th, 2011

Thank you Vincent. Im reminded of the gospel teaching of trying with all your might to pass thr0ugh the narr0w gates, it tells me that im on the right path as it feels nearly impossible, but every so often, God sh0ws me a sign, a reas0n to keep pushing, and this is one of those m0ments.

Thank you,
Katlego
Deneys on July 27th, 2011

Vincent, as you point out there are many purposes and uses for the different organs, but that does not mean that they may be used for anything whatsoever. Every organ, every artifact, is made by its author for some purpose, and through our reason and intelligence we are all able to grasp this intention. I guess you already know that the word “organ” just means “‘tool”. Now if art imitates nature, and if our man-made tools have specific purposes – purposes which we can discover – then it follows that our organs, the natural tools, have their specific purposes for which they were made. They’re just not made for other things.

Vincent, I am not trying to hurt or condemn homosexuals, but just trying to show as clearly as possible – both for you and for anyone who might be reading this forum, Catholic or not, gay or not – why the Church teaches what She teaches. If I have done so in a dehumanizing manner which displays an insensitivity to those for whom these discussions are a reality, who might feel deep anguish inside, I am sorry. Please forgive me. I love all of you and truly want only the best for you. You are a child of God and deserve profound respect, no matter what your views might be. Christ loves us all more than we can imagine! God Bless you.
John on July 28th, 2011

5“And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me. 6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” —- Matthew 18:5-6
John on July 28th, 2011

An article called “Reasoning with Atheists” by Jennifer Fulwiler has certain points which I believe can be applied here. I don’t mean to say that those who oppose the Church’s teachings on homosexuality are atheists, however they don’t believe in that which the Church teaches which is a form of disbelief.

The point I wish to make is that which Jennifer herself tries to make:

“When people ask me for tips about how to reach out to atheists, I’ve noticed that their questions tend to be along the lines of how to better educate these folks about the truths of the Faith—which books to buy for them, the best arguments to make, etc. This seems like it would be a good path; after all, most people who self-identify as atheists are reasonable, linear thinkers, so you’d think that the best way to introduce them God and his Church would be to lay out all the compelling arguments in favor of our beliefs. This may be a good strategy for someone who displays a sincere, peaceful openness to the discussion, but for the average person whose identity is deeply wrapped up in his or her atheism, it’s not going to get you very far. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that reasoning with them is a waste of time.”

“If you try to evangelize to these folks through reason alone, your head will feel like it’s going to split too. For every point you make in the case for Christianity, there will be a counterpoint, and then you’ll have a counterpoint to their counterpoint, and this will go on and on until it spirals back to where it began when they say “BUT I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD!” They’ll fancy themselves to be intellectual woodchippers (to borrow Myers’ analogy), and you’ll feel like you’re trapped in some macabre version of Who’s on First…And that’s when you see that people simply cannot reason their way into faith.”

I fully believe that the same reasoning can be applied here with those who simply refuse to believe in what the Church teaches on homosexuality: “BUT I DON’T BELIEVE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S TEACHINGS!”

And perhaps the best advice to reach out to these persons would be to as Jennifer put it:

“And so, with your atheist friends and family members, love them, pray for them, and show them the light of Christ at every moment possible. But don’t worry too much about winning arguments, because you can’t reason your way into love.”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/reasoning-with-atheists.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#ixzz1TNXJCvnV
Vincent Couling on July 28th, 2011

John clumsily tries to make a point by quoting Matthew 18:5-6. What he probably doesn’t realize is that every time a young gay or lesbian Catholic commits suicide because his or her very hope has been crushed out of him/her by the “intrinsically disordered inclinations” crusaders, some or other magisterial official or “courage” 12 stepper might be the very one who needs to reflect most deeply on millstones around necks and all that jazz.

Personal stories often illustrate these realities best … for the personal testimony of Catholic parents of gay children, take a look at http://www.fortunatefamilies.org/ under “stories”

As for John’s post directly above, wherein he quotes from Fulwiler’s patronizing article on the evangelization of atheists, and somewhat bewilderingly tries to draw parallels between atheists and the likes of me, I am now more convinced than ever that John is completely out of touch with reality.

He simply cannot get his head around the possibility that some faith-filled Catholics are deeply offended by the official church teaching on homosexuality precisely because it offends their deep faith, and their fidelity to the teachings of Jesus, and the stirrings of the Holy Spirit in their hearts!

Since we can presumably follow John’s lead and draw analogies from the articles of others, I would like to do so myself … and so will quote from an excellent recent post by Rita Ferrone over at the Pray Tell blog, since it illustrates rather well this point of confusing obedience with faithfulness, albeit in the context of these awful new English translations of the Missale Romanum … I leave other readers to tease out the parallels with blind and unquestioning obedience on the gay question … .
Vincent Couling on July 28th, 2011

Quoted directly from Rita Ferrone’s article entitled “Just Obey?” over at the Pray Tell blog … http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2011/07/25/just-obey/

“Wilfred Cardinal Napier of the Archdiocese of Durban, South Africa, seems to be finding it hard to accept the fact that there are some Catholics who are critical of the new translation of the Roman Missal and haven’t just kept their thoughts to themselves.

In a letter to the editor of the Tablet that appeared last week, his Eminence raised objections to the Tablet’s coverage of the Missal. Interestingly, he didn’t dispute the contentions raised in the articles, some of which have been critical of the translation and its background. Instead, he questioned the faith of European Catholics.

(Quote from the Cardinal’s letter now follows) “Robert Mickens’ articles on the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (Icel), the Holy See and the new English translation of the Mass (18 June-2 July) as well as what one reads in The Tablet week after week, lead me to wonder, whatever happened to religious faith and obedience in Europe? Have Catholics in Europe gone totally cerebral and rational? Is there nothing of the heart or the imagination? Is there no room for humble submission to the highest authority in the Church, the Holy Father and those he chooses to work with him?”

Mickens is an American, but never mind. The point seems to be that when the hierarchy produces a translation, it’s a betrayal of religious faith (and puts the evangelization of future generations in jeopardy, he goes on to suggest) to criticize those texts or point out flaws in the process by which they were produced. It’s not that the criticisms are unjust, but that criticism per se is faithless.

As you probably have guessed, the Cardinal’s broadside (he goes on to invoke the Acts of the Apostles and Peter at Caesarea Philippi, too) seems to me to take matters too far. Are religious faith, imagination, the heart, humility and obedience really only on one side of the Missal controversy? I don’t think so. I would say, rather, that there are sincere and thoughtful—and faith-filled—people on all sides of the Missal controversy, from the sharply critical to the moderately concerned, from the generally optimistic to the wildly enthusiastic, from those who have taken a “wait and see” attitude to those who have signed and circulated petitions.

Indeed, perhaps the conclusion one ought to draw from the persistent recurrence of criticism is very different from the one proposed by Cardinal Napier in this letter. Evidently, heart and imagination, faith and loyalty are compelling some faithful Catholics—in Europe and elsewhere—to question the wisdom of the coming translation.

If this is the case, and problems and issues continue to grate, is shutting down criticism (and labeling the people with concerns as lacking in faith) really the best way to proceed under the circumstances? Cardinal Napier points to an example of docility to the apostles’ leadership in the Acts of the Apostles, but there are other episodes in Acts in which disagreements become occasions for prayerful consultation, discernment of the Spirit, and changes of policy.

You’ll recall that the translation of the Order of Mass was released prematurely in South Africa in 2009, and occasioned so much hullaballoo that the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship asked them to withdraw it. Cardinal Napier took a hard line at that time, and perhaps it is galling to him that two years later, despite his chastisements, example, and catechesis, people are still not in line. I realize the frustration he must feel.

What I think is problematic, however, is the idea that church leaders can resolve controversies simply by calling for religious submission or by branding those who disagree as lacking in faith.”
John on July 28th, 2011

Thank you Vincent for proving that which I exactly I tried to point out by posting Jennifer’s article. That there’s just no point arguing with one who doesn’t believe. Yet again another counterpoint has been made to my point.

Perhaps good sir I am out of touch with reality. But if to be insane is equivalent to fully believing in God and His Holy Catholic Church and in what it teaches on the matter of homosexuality then by all means call me loopy. I’d rather be insane than in this matter than against God and Church. But then that’s just me.

“Bury me on my head, for very soon this world will be turned upside down” —- Diogenes.

What you have completely missed Vincent, and not surprisingly so seeing that you seem to be filled with contempt on this matter, is the point that what we need to do is love people like you more instead of trying to reason with you alone. You can throw insults at me and the Courage Apostolate and all the good work that it does, but Love will win out. Of that I am completely and utterly certain of.
Bev Keevill on July 28th, 2011

I notice there is a perspective “pre-marital sex is wrong” and there is not one comment – makes you think, are we too afraid to go there or is that just not as wrong ………….

Bev
Vincent Couling on July 28th, 2011

But John, don’t you see … you too are an unbeliever! You don’t believe that covenantal gay love relationships are possible, and good and holy and life-giving and blessed in the eyes of Yahweh! And so I throw back at you your statement that “there’s just no point arguing with one who doesn’t believe”!
John on July 28th, 2011

Indeed Vincent you are correct that I don’t believe that a gay relationship can be “good and holy and life-giving and blessed in the eyes of Yahweh.” I don’t believe that because that is not something that is taught by Holy Scripture and the Holy Catholic Church. Therefore there is absolutely no grounds for me to believe in that. You on the other hand have decided not to believe in what the Church and Scripture teaches, and that’s where the problem is. That’s the whole argument here.

@ Bev: I think that we’re not arguing the point of whether premarital sex is wrong because we all know it’s wrong. Nobody’s stupid enough to argue that point luckily.
Vincent Couling on July 28th, 2011

Hi Bev,

The fact that Holy Mother won’t marry gays and lesbians means that, due to their lack of pastoral response, they are in a sense leaving gays and lesbians in committed covenantal love relationships little option but to have sex out of wedlock. Rather interesting! Of course, the Latin Rite view is that a priest does not marry a couple … the couple themselves are the ministers of the sacrament! So that if a gay couple promise themselves to each other … well, they might quite well be sacramentally married in the eyes of Yahweh, in spite of the pontifications of various naysayers who might cry “fornication”! I wonder what the theologians would make of it all!

Salzman and Lawler, as personalists, emphasize relationships (after all, in the light of the law of love of God, neighbour and self, it is authentically loving relationships that are paramount), and in their work treat the question of premarital sex with mature sensitivity.

Personally, I think the time for a mature, open and frank discussion in the Catholic Church on matters of human sexuality is long, long, loooonnnnngggg overdue!

Warmest wishes,

Vincent
Vincent Couling on July 28th, 2011

As a matter of interest, I draw attention to the Guttmacher Institute’s report of earlier this year (see http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/04/13/index.html for the news release and a link to the report itself).

The report has the findings of a survey of US women, and two of the key findings are of relevance:

“Among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same among Catholic women (98%),”

and

“Only 2% of Catholic women rely on natural family planning; this is true even among Catholic women who attend church once a month or more.”

A 2008 survey of 1 500 Mass goers in England and Wales, undertaken by The Tablet, found that while 82% of Catholics are familiar with the Church’s moral teachings, more than half of 18-45 year olds still cohabited before marriage.

Are we to dismiss these people as faithless, or stupid, or whatever other nasty and patronizing term comes to mind? Surely we cannot dismiss 98% of Catholics as faithless!

This disobedience is indicative of a terrifying disconnect in the Mystical Body of Christ … between the faithful and the Magisterium.

It is amply clear to any thinking Catholic that something is amiss … surely our theologians should be allowed to examine the root causes of this crisis (for that is what it is!) without let or hinderance!

But let us not pretend that it is only the gays and lesbians who are disconnected from official church teaching as regards human sexuality … the disconnect is far more pervasive than just that!
P.R.Margeot on July 28th, 2011

I did say that I was resting my case. Very exceptionally I am duty-bound to submit the following for the benefit of those trying to explain the Church’s position. Please read it carefully as I know you will. This is done without any evil intention whatsoever.
PLEASE READ ; http://www.cfnews.org/hm-tactics.htm

Oremus pro invicem
Deneys on July 29th, 2011

Vincent, you are quite right that there is a sad inconsistency in the beliefs and practices of many Catholics. You are also right to point out that those who hold that homosexuality is not part of God’s plan for man must also reject artificial contraception, cohabitation, and the like. It is not consistent to do otherwise. It all fits together. Maybe this seems too hard or outlandish for you, but it’s worth it. Christ is worth it. “Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God”. Our Lord also reminds us that way to Heaven goes through a narrow gate and the way is rough, while the way to Hell is wide and the way is easy. Purity is one of those areas in which we experience this struggle every day, but in the long run it’s worth it.
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

Hi Deneys,

I wonder what your take would be on “natural” contraception … i.e. charting the woman’s cycle with the deliberate intention of only having sex when the woman is infertile, so that there is absolutely no chance of conception taking place.

How does this square with the essential nature of the sex act being procreation?

Shouldn’t the couple simply abstain from sex after begetting their 2.4 children?

I’m genuinely interested in your take on this … .

Warm regards on a chilly day in Pietermaritzburg!

Vincent
theo on July 29th, 2011

I applaud your comment and link P.R. Margeot.

@ vincent And I will say what I have said before that you can not call your self a catholic if you do not believe in all the infallible true teachings of the church in its fullness you should rather call your self what you are which is a heretic and definitely not catholic when you preach hearsay like this. while you were doing this researchdid you see the drop in marriages with in the catholic church over the last sixty years or so since the sexual revolution. This has been caused by the clergy within the catholic church trying to be politically correct and lack of pastoral responsibility in teaching the infallible teaching of the church and openly giving communion to so called catholics who are pro-abortion in US in government who should actually be excommunicated.

So you are right we cannot dismiss this 98% as faithless, but should rather pray for them and for our clergy to take their rightful place within the catholic church and start teaching the infallible teachings of the church and enforcing it. The seed of immorality within the church was planted roughly a hundred years ago and took round about 50years to grow into what it is today. Pope Benedict has planted the seed of change once again, unfortunately it could take another 50 to 100 years to change, to restore itself within the church. We should all be praying for the restoration of the church and it’s infallible teachings.

Theo
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

Hi Theo,

I’m not at all convinced that you understand the (noninfallible?) doctrine of infallibility, let alone which teachings of the church are considered infallible, and which not.

If you believe that the (very recent!) church teachings about homosexuality are infallible, you are very much mistaken.

Let me remind you of some basic canon law:

Canon 749 part 3: “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.”

And let me remind you of some words spoken by Pope Benedict XVI in 2005: “The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know.”

And let me also remind you of the words of the Council Fathers of Vatican II: “And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.” (Lumen Gentium #25).

Nowhere in the deposit of the faith do we find any discussion of the morality of gay relationships … indeed, the very word and concept “homosexual” belongs to the mid eighteen hundreds … almost two millennia down the line! So is it possible to ever make an infallible pronouncement about the morality of gay love relationships? Methinks not!

Have a lovely day,

V
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

Dear P.R. Margeot,

I wonder if you could point us to a website outlining the (age-old) tactics of the heterosexist movement?

I could write bucketloads about it, much from bitter personal experience.

But I won’t bore you with those petty details …

I will offer one paltry link, though … just to balance the books …

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/

(a site dedicated to news, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric).

Top o’ the World to ye,

V
P.R.Margeot on July 29th, 2011

Deneys, I can see that your last post (29th , above) really summarises, encapsulates, and logically,effectively closes this debate. Any Catholic should fully agree with you that, accepted that homosexuality is not in God’s Master Plan, so are artificial contraception, co-habitation, re-marriage while one spouse is still living, extra-marital relations : these are not in God’s plan. I also strongly favour/like the Beatitude that was quoted by Deneys:”Blessed are the PURE of heart, they shall SEE God”. With humility and using this Forum, I propose that Catholics should strive to make that Beatitude penetrate deep in their psyche….think and meditate it often, every day…
Finally, let us all request, beg, implore our Holy Church to, once and for all, declare formally that these sins above are what they are :sins and their teaching should be clear, unambiguous, and send the message to the world that the Holy Catholic Church is going to be back in business in this world. Back in the business of saving souls for eternity. She will be unpopular but she will be back in business. This is my wish, my hope,my dream,and my life then would be absolutely fulfilled. I wish Peace and happiness to all who spend SO MUCH time and energy during these past 10 months. Instaurare omnia in Christo. Ave Maria,our Mother in Heaven….the example of purity for us sinners.
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

Actually, PRM, it is a major inconsistency in logic which keeps the debate far from closed … unless, of course, you have your blinkers on!

Deneys has yet to answer my (admittedly somewhat leading) questions:

“I wonder what your take would be on “natural” contraception … i.e. charting the woman’s cycle with the deliberate intention of only having sex when the woman is infertile, so that there is absolutely no chance of conception taking place.

How does this square with the essential nature of the sex act being procreation?

Shouldn’t the couple simply abstain from sex after begetting their 2.4 children?”

I can’t wait to apply cold, hard logic to his answers!

As a matter of curiosity, what do you make of those gay couples who are in faithful, committed, monogamous covenantal love-relationships? What of their purity? What of their example in the face of the promiscuity of the world? Does it count for nothing in your eyes? I’m sure that is counts for something in the eyes of Yahweh!

I have a hunch that Our Lady is particularly fond of her gay and lesbian children … and let me assure you, all the gay and lesbian Catholics that I know are extremely fond of Our Lady!
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

Dear PRM,

Could you let us know how you gathered your profound insights into what constitutes God’s “Master Plan”?

I’m fascinated to know more …

Best,

V
John on July 29th, 2011

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.”

Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Under no circumstances can they be approved.
John on July 29th, 2011

“Sexuality has an intrinsic meaning and direction, which is not homosexual…The meaning and direction of sexuality is to bring about the union of man and woman and in this way give humanity posterity, children, future. This is the determination internal to the essence of sexuality. Everything else is against sexuality’s intrinsic meaning and direction. This is a point we need to hold firm, even if it is not pleasing to our age….The issue at stake here is the intrinsic truth sexuality’s significance in the constitution of man’s being. (pp. 151-152)” —- Light of the World, Pope Benedict
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

Pope Benedict XVI is entitled to his opinion, as are the authors of the Catechism. To claim that either of the above two statements constitute infallible teaching, or absolute truth, is, of course, patent nonsense!
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

I must confess that the triple repetition of the exhortation that “under no circumstances can they be approved” had me rolling around in a fit of uncontrolled laughter. I sense a little hysteria in the “courage” camp (no pun intended) …
John on July 29th, 2011

What is patent nonsense is the attempt to promote one’s own agenda and views on the matter of homosexuality as good on others, especially when there’s so much biblical and traditional proof & reasoning against it. You are also entitled to your opinion Vincent, I pray that you emphasize the fact that it is a groundless opinion and one which the entire Church is against. This is to ensure that persons who have homosexual feelings don’t come across your opinions and become negatively influenced by them.
John on July 29th, 2011

Mass hysteria in the “Courage” camp? Hardly. What there is however is overwhelming concern that a fellow brother of Christ has fallen and believes sexual sins to be pure instead of things of darkness. Added to this is the concern that other brothers and sisters in Christ may be affected by it too.

I know it’s hard to believe Vincent, but I do care for you, ramblings aside.
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

John, I must confess that I find you profoundly irritating, for you take us in endless circles by repeating (ad infinitum, ad nauseum) patent nonsense …

There is a paucity of biblical and traditional “proof and reasoning” against homosexuality … I would go so far as to say a lacuna exixts in this regard.

I am shocked that you can claim that the entire church is against my opinion on sexual ethics when I have pointed out surveys where 98% of Catholics are in open dissent against magisterial dogma in this regard.

Do you enevn know what the church is? The entire People of God!

As for the opinions of the People of God, the Church, on homosexuality … these have been tested in numerous opinion polls. It is a straightforward lie to make sweeping claims as regards the “entire Church” when ALL empirical studies indicate the antithesis of your claims, and when these studies have been mentioned on this very thread!

In this vein, I remind you of one of my earlier posts …
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

The follwoing excerpt is from: “Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church: Time for a Serious Conversation?” by Paul Lakeland, Aloysius P. Kelley S.J. Professor of Catholic Studies and Director of the Center for Catholic Studies at Fairfield University.

“From my position at Fairfield University I have been keeping a close watch on the U.S. Catholic Church for exactly 30 years. In this time I have seen attitudes change among friends, colleagues and students in many ways. One of them is the cultural acceptability of sexual diversity in the Church. Here in the second decade of the 21st century, we seem to be at a turning point. The time has clearly come for a serious conversation. Every year fewer people, especially among the young, are willing to argue for heterosexual normativity, and that speaks loudly for a future without discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Strikingly, of all American Christian groups, Catholics are the most supportive of same-sex marriage and/or civil unions: a whopping 74 percent expressed support in a recent poll from the Public Research Institute. This is despite the strong opposition of their own bishops.”

So much for the campy and hysterical claim that mine is “a groundless opinion and one which the entire Church is against.”
theo on July 29th, 2011

Dear Vincent
I find it very disingenuous of you and deceitful by nature through the misuse of your intellect to try and justify your own sinfulness. Which is sinful in by nature in itself. What you are saying is absolute hearsay, in my meager opinion you should be excommunicated for this. I find it extremely disturbing that you can go to mass and participate in the sacraments openly, while openly admitting to your homosexuality and the mere fact that your parish priest is allowing it, this matter should actually be taken further with the Catholic authorities. It is very easy to find somebody to agree with you, that does not mean to say that you are right.

I am posting a link for you that might broaden your mindset on contraception, abortion and homosexuality and how all of them go hand in hand. It is +_ an hour long.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbKAlpbzASU

Theo
Bev Keevill on July 29th, 2011

Oh the conceit of it who do we think we are to sit on the high throne and state that another brother has fallen and we are worried! We should be saying we are so sorry the Church does not see the love between two people as pure and forget the sex whose business is it anyway! There is so much sexual sin and because it is not homosexual and not out there but hidden others are married in the sight of God and all is ok! What hypocrisy!

Bev
P.R.Margeot on July 29th, 2011

My correction above : God does not have a “Master Plan” but simply His Plan (His Will) for this earth since the Creation. Men are to submit to God, have some humility, stop thinking they are little gods themselves.
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

Sorry to sound snobbish, but I will refrain from engaging further with John, since he and I are in a rather boring infinite loop type situation, and I feel obliged (and a little thrilled!) to hit the ESC key!

I am, however, keen to engage with Deneys on the essential purpose of sex in the light of natural reason and all that …
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

I have a fair idea of who the little gods actually are, PRM … those who claim infallibility for their opinions! And that is something I would NEVER do, let me assure you!!!

I’m quite happy for the People of God to reach consensus on matters of sexual ethics … and for the theologians to do the hard work of figuring the subtleties out … but I will never “obey” tin gods out of blind obedience, no matter the matching redness of the socks that they might wear!
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

It sounds like Theo (now that’s punny!) would like to burn me at the stake for the sake of mere hearsay! Would someone put the matches on a high shelf, please … one out of reach of the children …
P.R.Margeot on July 29th, 2011

@ Theo : I salute your courage for writing what you wrote above.

This matter is now taking another course and many innocent souls may be lost in the process and great intellectual discourse on the subject… Yes, I also ask how can a Catholic go to sunday mass and receive Holy communion and make all sorts of claims and openly say that it is o.k. that the priests say so etc. I also request the Authorities step into this matter and bring finality to this painful subject. Yes, I say painful (to all it is) and it has gone long enough in this Catholic newspaper.

To those who may have missed it, please read :

http://www.cfnews.org/hm-tactics.htm

It is vital. You must know who you are facing.
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

Theo, if contraception goes hand-in-hand with abortion and homosexuality (it still beggars belief that abortion and homosexuality can be thought to go hand-in-hand!) then why does the magisterium permit contraception via natural family planning?
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

PRM, are you saying that 98% of Catholics must be excommunicated, and denied communion on Sundays? Are the Temple Police going to stand at the gates, and ask questions before permitting people to enter? “Are you using artificial contraception?” … and surely there must be a lie detector test to weed out those who would lie! How far are you going to push this crusade?
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

Or, PRM, is it only the gays you want to exclude? Turning a blind eye to the 98% of straights? As Bev has pointed out, this all stinks to the highest heavens of hypocrisy!!!
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

It sounds like “The Authorities” will be called in: the Temple Police are very effective at dealing with this sort of situation … I just hope and pray that the authorities have the courage to permit a courageous conversation with their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ. I also hope that the authorities will reflect on the authentic meaning of the word “authority”.
Bev Keevill on July 29th, 2011

I no longer go to Church but I still love God and the Chuch and am hoping against hope that the Church, not God, will come to it’s senses! I know without a shadow of a doubt that God loves me and my lesbian daughter and that he will not punish her. She is an Advanced Life Support Paramedic and has saved many lives, has been bitten by a patient who was HIV Positive and still goes back out there to do for her community! I am not saying that if you are a homosexual you have to do something good but I am trying to show you that these folk are not deviants but good and wholesome folk who just want to live in peace and love like every one else.

Bev
P.R.Margeot on July 29th, 2011

Catholics, I make another appeal to you not to reply to any of the provocative statements,militant statements which have appeared so far. I am concerned about innocent young people reading these lines and absorbing these ideas.
Many of the original contributors have left this debate and I can understand them. They knew it was futile. They probably knew who they were opposing….
What I cannot fathom is the militancy of that cause. Those people are like unchained, most vehement, always want to win, have the last word etc etc ad nauseam. What on earth is happening to our sanity ?
When will the Southern Cross step in and close this chapter?
When will our Authorities step in as well and show some courage?
Oremus pro invicem.
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

PRM, you are not the only one who is concerned by many of the provocative, militant statements which have appeared here … or of the effect of some of the ideas which innocent young minds might be exposed to, and the deleterious effect those outlandish ideas might have on innocent young minds (especially when those minds might belong to young gay people)!
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

Some have even raised suspicions about the character of the Second Vatican Council! If I’m not mistaken, you don’t hold that council in the highest of regard, do you, PRM?
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

The foetid odour of hypocrisy hangs thick in the air … whited sepulchres and all that …
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

I suppose when “winning” means finally being able to be your true self in the world, entering into mature adult love-relationships like everyone else, and simply be a productive member of society, possessing some modicum of integrity (as wholeness) in the world … then, yes, I WANT TO WIN!
theo on July 29th, 2011

Dear Vincent
It is clear that you have not bothered to look at the link i posted and implore you to do so before commenting on that again. it is not about excommunicating the 98% it is about showing them the errors in there ways and what the teachings are and allowing them to use the vessel put there by god in the form of confession to repent and to be in a state of grace before receiving communion. and for those who do not follow this path and openly embrace their sinfulness to be excommunicated.

As for the rest make sure that they are very clear on the teachings and this done properly through the clergy and that they understand it.Then leave it on their heads and between them and God and let God deal with them.

Theo
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

Theo, I’m thrilled that you have the bandwidth to download hour-long YouTube videos, but I don’t. Perhaps the 98% are not in error … perhaps the error lies elsewhere … have you ever considered that?
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

Theo, I have already alluded to how the precedent has been set of the faithful correcting the hierarchs! Manbe it is time for them to do so again, this time, in the matter of sexual ethics!

Let me remind you of an excerpt from my earlier posting of the excellent “viewpoint” article of Robert McClory (author of “Faithful Dissenters: Men and Women Who Loved and Changed the Church”) which appeared in the NCR last year ( see http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/newman-sense-and-consent-faithful ):

“Now in a lengthy, pointed article, titled “On Consulting the Faithful on Matters of Doctrine,” Newman argued that the Arian position, shared by the overwhelming majority of the bishops and endorsed by at least one pope, did not become Catholic doctrine because a great mass of the laity along with a handful of priests and bishops resisted. Despite beatings, seizures of property and in some cases martyrdom, they refused, they dissented. They clung to the doctrine of the Council of Nicea, which, they were assured, had been discredited. Only at the First Council of Constantinople was the Arian position repudiated.

Belief in Christ’s divinity was maintained during the greater part of the 4th century, wrote Newman, “not by the unswerving firmness of the Holy See, Councils or Bishops, but … by the consensus fidelium [consent of the faithful]. On the one hand, I say, there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens [the teaching church]. The body of the Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. … There were untrustworthy Councils, unfaithful Bishops; there was weakness, fear of consequences, misguidance, delusion, hallucination, endless, hopeless, extending itself into nearly every corner of the Catholic church.”

To explain how such a thing happened (and could happen again), Newman relied on his own, well developed ideas about the “sense” and the “consent” of the faithful. Church teaching, he argued cannot be a top-down enterprise, a one-way street. It must be the result of a conspiratio, literally a breathing together of the faithful and the bishops. It is the first responsibility of the episcopacy and papacy, he said, to listen carefully before teaching doctrine.

And to what must they listen? Said Newman, “I think I am right in saying that the tradition of the Apostles, committed to the whole Church … manifests itself variously at various times: sometimes by the mouth of the episcopacy, sometimes by the doctors, sometimes by the people, sometimes by liturgies … customs, disputes, movements, and all those other phenomena which are comprised under the name of history. It follows that none of these channels of tradition may be treated with disrespect.” This is not to undercut the teaching authority of the bishops, insisted Newman; they must wade through all these sources. And, he added, of all the sources, “I am accustomed to lay stress on the consensus fidelium.” “
theo on July 29th, 2011

Vincent I have and realized that the highway to damnation is wide but the path to
salvation narrow and difficult. I am very happy for you to watch it at my place.

Theo
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

Can I bring my boyfriend? Who’ll supply the popcorn?
bev keevill on July 29th, 2011
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

There’s a poignantly beautiful reflection by Jamie Manson (M Div [Yale] – majors in Catholic teology and sexual ethics!) over at NCR … it’s entitled “Witnessing a Catholic same-sex wedding”, URL http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/witnessing-catholic-same-sex-wedding
theo on July 29th, 2011

You are welcome I will even supply the popcorn

As for you link it is impossible to be deeply committed to the catholic faith and participate in something like that committed yes but to their own man maid faith not the catholic faith. This is sick and from the absolute depths of hell.

Theo
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged … ” (Matthew 7:1)
theo on July 29th, 2011

Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before swine lest they trample them underfoot and turn and tear you to pieces. (matthew 7:6)
Do to others whatever you would have them do to you (matthew 7:12)

Don’t take scripture out of context for your own justification.
Vincent Couling on July 29th, 2011

Funny, those two quotes also sprang to my mind! As did your rather powerful conclusion! (I think here especially of the fact that there is no scripture which deals with homosexuality as we understand it in the modern world … and yet, many modern translations take extraordinary liberties in how they translate words such as “arsenokoites,” for example, … giving us extraordinary and utterly absurd phrases like “homosexual offenders”!!! … reminds me of that bit about taking Siberian pine forests out of one’s own eye before the mote out of another’s … .)
theo on July 29th, 2011

What is the difference between same sex sexuality from the day of the old testament and to day?it is not about the word homosexuality but about same sex, sex.

leviticus 20:13
galatians 5 :19-23
1 Timothy 1:10
matthew 5:20
titus 1:9
titus 2:1

You are right in ref. to 1cor but it is not about the word homosexuality but about the act and the bible is clear on that.
theo on July 29th, 2011

By the way the accepted catholic bibles they do not use the word homosexual.
I doubt they had a definitive word for it not that I could find in any case but they knew all about the act and that they are very clear on.

Theo
Deneys on July 29th, 2011

Hi Vincent,

I saw your question above and have not ignored it. I really appreciate your fair tone and willingness to explore these issues. I am just super-busy right now but will try to give you my thoughts soon.
Deneys on July 29th, 2011

Dear PR,

Thank you for your comment. All of your posts manifest a true love and real compassion for your fellow men. You are clearly concerned for the welfare of souls – such a good example for all of us.
Katlego on July 29th, 2011

@theo, i wil give you the differencez
Katlego on July 29th, 2011

We need to remember that although the bible is inspired by the Spirit, it was written by man,and reflects what ever was g0ing on during th0se times. This other priest i went to, lets refer to him as Fr X, explained that at the time the bible was written, h0m0sexual acts were used for ritualistic purp0ses, and that is why they were so pr0hibited, and if y0u l0ok at today and c0mpare it to th0se times, there is a clear c0ntrast between the two c0ntexts. . . Now i wil make an example of an0ther factor in our beautiful faith, that wil perhaps help you to grasp the p0int im trying to get acr0ss. To prepare us for the upc0ming pilgrimage in Madrid, a very well kn0wn apologetics speaker came to speak to us to aid us in being able to defend the faith in the event that we meet anticath0lics and stuff. He made a few interesting points. . .firstly,he said the biggest destructi0n of christianity, is the interpretati0n of the bible by itself, that left me a bit shocked but then made sense after a while. You see, its because it is nearly imp0ssible to interpret it in the same way,and that is why we need to interpret it with the cathecisis and church traditi0n. He went on to talk about how we are attacked because we pray to the saints,and particularly because of our devotion to our Lady, he defended it by saying that one of the commandments is to honour your mum and dad, and in terms of our Lord, that is what we are essentially doing…that made me open my eyes, because i had never thought about it in that way. How does that link with my initial point? Well, in the same way the bible strictly prohibits the ‘queen of heaven’ religions, the ‘calling of no man father’, and so on, it also does the same for same sex relations….now we know from church history, tradition and interpretation, that although the bible prohibits these things, we do not do them in the context that they are written in, in the holy Bible. And thats the awes0meness of the faith! I mean take the assumption and coronation of our Lady, it isnt mentioned anywhere in the bible, but again we know from the writings of the church doctors and eaely fathers that those events are true, and it is pleasing to God when we honour and keep them. Now i ask you this, how different is that from the prohibitation of ‘homosexual acts’ ????think about it…..he went on to say that many anticatholics, as we know, treat the bible as though it were hand written by God Himself and He gave it leather bound to someone on earth, and that is very dangerous….also that if the bible contained everything, it wouldnt be possible for it to be just one book. I believe the church is getting there slowly, there was a time when being homosexual was seen as a sin itself, but now thats changed, and i truely believe that more change is coming.
I hope this has helped to put more light on my understanding on the issue, i put them across with sincere and christian love….there are 16 days until we leave for madrid, please pray for us.

God bless,
Katlego
theo on July 30th, 2011

Dear katkego
A lot of what you said is correct the problem lies with the interpretation if I wrote a book and gave it to ten people to interpret chances are that they will have ten different interpretations they are bound to get something right but not all because they are working on a hit and miss. If you want to get the true interpretation you have to ask the author. Now st. paul says we have to hold on to what has been handed down to us orally traditionally and scripturally and that is what we base our catholic faith on, and who put the bible together? It was the Catholics! So who better to ask? And what is the official catholic teaching on this matter?

Now to draw your own conclusions is what the protestants did and got some things right but were way of base with others and when they realized that they changed the bible to suit their own doctrine. And perverted the scriptures and that is exactly what you are trying to do.

There is no difference between the act then or now and you can try and pervert it or intellectually try and discourage it but it is still very clear and that is why so many have come before you and will come after you and will fail.

As far as Madrid goes I will pray that the truth will prevail there.
Here is a short link about 7 min long on Madrid and very interesting
http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhee#p/u/5/ySzRqDIJXgY
P.R.Margeot on July 30th, 2011

The above link is a refreshingly clear and pure Catholic message. It is admirable what is proposed to be done in Madrid to counter the satanic forces which are all out to destroy the Catholic Church , starting with its youth who need to be nurtured, protected, encouraged,guided in the right path to eternal salvation. “Blessed are the pure in heart….”
Have a great Sunday tomorrow. Catholics, courage, the struggle will be long, in the end we know where we want to be heading: to HEAVEN.
Vincent Couling on July 30th, 2011

Thank you, Katlego, for such a wise exposition. It seems that you have been fortunate to have excellent mentors in your life! Thanks be to God for the Catholic Church!

I hope and pray that your pilgrimage to Madrid brings much grace into your life … may the Lord shower you with his richest blessings!

Much love,

V
Vincent Couling on July 30th, 2011

Dear Theo,

You ask: “What is the difference between same sex sexuality from the day of the old testament and to day?it is not about the word homosexuality but about same sex, sex.”

Let me try to explain in a nutshell one strong possibility: Until the modern social sciences discovered (around the mid-1800s) that some people are intrinsically (i.e. constitutionally) homosexual – a fact even the CCC accepts (see 2357: “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an EXCLUSIVE OR PREDOMINANT sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” [emphasis mine]) – it seems to have been thought that all people were intrinsically, i.e. constitutionally, heterosexual! Now do you get it?!!! Anyone who had sex with other people of the same gender were heterosexuals getting up to depravities against their intrinsic heterosexual nature!!! Now that we know differently (thanks be to modern science), we have to re-evaluate (by the light of reason) our stance to authentically homosexual people and their same-sex relationships.

This is entirely consonant with the teaching of Benedict XVI … I have already quoted his as saying that “Not every tradition that arises in the Church is a true celebration and keeping present of the mystery of Christ. There is a distorting, as well as legitimate, tradition … Consequently tradition must not be considered only affirmatively but also critically.”

It is also entirely consonant with the document “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” presented to Pope John Paul II by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which states that “Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts … . A non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices … quite contrary to the Christian Gospel. The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory … fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.”

And it is also entirely consonant with the express wishes Conucil Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, as presented in Gaudium et Spes: “The recent studies and findings of science, history and philosophy raise new questions which effect life and which demand new theological investigations. … In pastoral care, sufficient use must be made not only of theological principles, but also of the findings of the secular sciences, especially of psychology and sociology, so that the faithful may be brought to a more adequate and mature life of faith. … May the faithful … blend new sciences and theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and the teaching of Christian doctrine, so that their religious culture and morality may keep pace with scientific knowledge and with the constantly progressing technology. Thus they will be able to interpret and evaluate all things in a truly Christian spirit.”

Has the penny finally dropped? Probably not, so indulge me a little further … (much of it repetition, but repetition is an excellent teaching tool!) …
Vincent Couling on July 30th, 2011

Firstly to illustrate that it is not my intention to discredit the teaching authority of the church … but rather to show that it can err in its moral teaching, and that it can subsequently correct itself; i.e. that there has been a definite evolution of moral teaching in Holy Mother; I will quote from someone who I’m sure you will regard as a true authority: these are the words of Pope Pelagius II (words drafted for him by the man who was to become Pope Gregory the Great):

“Dear brethren, do you think that when Peter was reversing his position, one should have replied: We refuse to hear what you are saying since you previously taught the opposite? In the matter [at hand] one position was held while the truth was being sought, and a different position was adopted after truth had been found. Why should a change of position be thought a crime … ? For what is reprehensible is not changing one’s mind, but being fickle in one’s views. If the mind remains unwavering in seeking to know what is right, why should you object when it abandons its ignorance and reformulates its views?”
Vincent Couling on July 30th, 2011

Clearly we need to distinguish between the deposit of faith (core, unchanging revealed truth) and areas where the moral teaching of the Church has changed definitively. As John T. Noonan (the renowned Catholic ethicist, historian and circuit-court judge) has argued in his scrupulously-researched book, “A Church That Can and Cannot Change”:
“change is not a thing to be ashamed of, to be whispered about, to be disguised or held from the light of day, as grave guardians sometimes think … it is a way of teaching celebrated in the Gospel itself (Mt 13:52).”

And that change in other moral spheres HAS ALREADY occurred (often!) is perhaps best illustrated by the question of slavery (yes, I’m at it again … but only as a rebuttal to those who are, oh, so boringly, at it again) …

Do you remember the notorious 1866 teaching of the Holy Office, signed by Pope Pius IX: “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.” Or the volte-face of Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor (no. 80) that asserts slavery to be intrinsically evil and objectively disordered?

There are many more quotes from the Holy Writ to justify slavery than there are to justify a ban on same-sex sex. (Bear in mind that there are no scripture verses which deal with genuine homosexuals having same-sex sex … the very notion of a constitutional homosexual was only to arrive much, much later. Also bear in mind that there is no scripture verse in the entire Bible dealing with lesbian sex!)

But Pope John Paul II, in his wisdom, was able to separate “the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations”! Is this helping, Theo? Is the penny about to drop?!!!
Vincent Couling on July 30th, 2011

Of course, Theo, you would argue that only us Catholics know how to interpret the Holy Writ … not those nasty old Protestants!!!

Well, let me illustrate how it was a Protestant power which brought about an affective end to slavery – something the Catholic world was, by and large, far from ready to relinquish! I will do this by quoting directly from Noonan’s book:

pg 102: “Slavery continued to exist in the Papal States into the early nineteenth century. From 1600 to 1800 a total of two-thousand slaves, almost all Moslem, manned the galleys of the Pope’s navy. As late as 1800-1807 in the troubled papacy of Barnaba Chiaramonti, Pius VII, four privately owned slaves and eleven slaves of the state were registered in Rome at the Casa dei Catecumi. In Lisbon, in 1808, an inquisitor-general defended the justice not only of slavery but of the trade. … ”

pp 103-109: “As early as 1814, in preparation for the Congress of Vienna, Castlereagh, the British foreign secretary, had pressed Cardinal Ercole Consalvi, the pope’s secretary of state, to obtain a papal prohibition of the international slave trade. Pius VII responded by writing personally to the monarchs of France, Portugal, and Spain deploring the trade, put published nothing. Consalvi is not recorded as speaking on the matter at the Congress of Vienna.

In 1822, the Concert of Europe met to deal with revolution in Spain. A new occasion was provided for British overtures, this time from Foreign Secretary Canning to Secretary of State Consalvi, who referred the matter to the secretary of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs for examination. The report back was not favourable. True, there was suffering caused by the trade, but abolition was a notion of the antireligious philosophers of the eighteenth century. The most competent theologians and canonists held slavery to be not contrary to natural law and to be approved in principle by the Old Testament. A Papal prohibition would please the British, who oppressed Catholics, and it would compromise the colonial interests of France, Portugal and Spain. Pius VII did nothing.

By 1839, Great Britain had extended abolition to its colonies. The country was beginning to shine as the champion of human liberty. Freetown, Sierra Leone – its foundations going back to Granville Sharp in 1787 – was now a port where the British Navy set down hundreds of slaves liberated from slavers. … Spain was pushed by Britain into a treaty outlawing the trade. Portugal remained adamant against renouncing it. The British Foreign Secretary, Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston, made suppression of the trade his personal cause. In 1839 the Palmerston Act, passed by Parliament, authorized the British navy to stop all slavers carrying the Portuguese flag, deposit their crews in Portuguese territory, and take the rescued Africans for care by British authorities. … Against this background of vigorous diplomacy and naval intervention, Palmerston thought of the pope.
Thomas Aubin, chargé d’affaires in Rome under the direction of Henry Edward Fox at the British legation in Tuscany, was directed to sound out the “court of Rome” on whether it would cooperate in a move against the slave trade.”

The convoluted diplomatic manoeuvrings that follow take several pages for Noonan to explicate. I present a few snippets from Noonan’s description:

“… the Foreign Office drafted a note for Aubin to present to Gregory XVI. It asked the pope’s aid in “suppression of the African Slave Trade, an object which the British Government is most anxious to accomplish and which is of great importance to all Christendom.” The note delicately alluded to “the Christian Church” being “mainly instrumental” in ending slavery as it once existed in the Roman Empire. Modern slavery was much worse. It began with “unprovoked Aggression upon innocent people” and was “undertaken from the cold blooded calculation of gain, the basest motive which can tempt to crime.” It inflicted “sufferings of Body and of Mind” beyond the power of tongue to describe. Unfortunately certain governments “in spiritual communion with the See of Rome” were either delaying (Spain was meant), or refusing to cooperate (Portugal) with the British government in suppression of the trade. …

On November 3, 1839, Gregory XVI issued In supremo Apostolatus fastigio … to dissuade the faithful ‘from the inhuman trade in Blacks or any other kind of men.’… No one in the papal government expressed surprise or regret that it had taken a Protestant power with a highly pragmatic foreign minister to lead the pope into repudiating a traffic that had flourished since the fifteenth century. …”

In the United States, during the 1840 presidential campaign, when the Secretary of State John Forsyth linked the Whig candidate to abolitionism and the Catholic Church, he was answered by “John England, bishop of Charleston, the leading Catholic prelate in the United States … Bishop England indignantly noted that the pope had in view only the international trade; he quoted Gregory XVI himself as telling him in person in Rome that the Southern states ‘have not engaged in the negro traffic.’ Bishop England went on in a series of articles in his newspaper, the Catholic Miscellany, to show that the Catholic Church had always accepted domestic slavery; it was ‘not incompatible with the natural law’; and, when title to a slave was justly acquired, it was lawful ‘in the eye of heaven.’ …

Gregory XVI’s letter had no obvious impact on the two nominally Catholic countries engaged in the slave trade, Portugal and Brazil, nor on seminary teaching in France. Three years later under the pressure of the effective enforcement of the Palmerston Act, Portugal by treaty with Great Britain abolished the trade. … Brazilian cooperation was so uncertain and sporadic that in 1845, Lord Aberdeen obtained a law … authorizing the royal navy to seize Brazilian slave ships, with the result that the Brazilian slave trade came to an end in 1850-1851. In supremo had taken away any claim to moral legitimacy. It was British resolution and sea power that brought a stop to the business.”
Vincent Couling on July 30th, 2011

I will conclude by quoting another indisputable authority, namely St Augustine: “The writings of bishops may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; even councils held in particular regions or provinces must without quibbling give way to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones, if as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden becomes known.”

In this instance, what was hidden? The very notion that there are such creatures as constitutional homosexuals, in the words of the Catechism, men or women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. Now that it has been revealed, are we not duty-bound to undertake fresh theological investigation, since something that was thought to be closed has been opened?!

And neither Theo nor Deneys nor John nor PR Margeot nor Cardinal Napier nor Pope Benedict XVI are able to put the genie back into the bottle. The Church – that is, the entire People of God – will have to converge toward a new consensus (and indeed, rapidly are, as surveys clearly indicate!) … Blessed John Henry Newman understood this well, as shown by the earlier reflection I posted.
Vincent Couling on July 30th, 2011

Let’s quote Newman expilicitly right here to complete the point in situ …

“I think I am right in saying that the tradition of the Apostles, committed to the whole Church … manifests itself variously at various times: sometimes by the mouth of the episcopacy, sometimes by the doctors, sometimes by the people, sometimes by liturgies … customs, disputes, movements, and all those other phenomena which are comprised under the name of history. It follows that none of these channels of tradition may be treated with disrespect.” Newman added that of all the sources, “I am accustomed to lay stress on the consensus fidelium.”
Vincent Couling on July 30th, 2011

Has the penny finally dropped, Theo?

Are you, at the very least, prepared to admit that the question of homosexuality is an open one, in need of fresh theological investigation?
theo on July 30th, 2011

congratulations Vinc you are one of the best that i have seen at perverting things to soot you and it seems that you are as good as the protestants if not better so maybe you should join them or even better start your own religion they are really good at that to, they have done it approximately 20 000 times. But call your self catholic sure as hell not. because that you are definitely not and that is very evident by your view point and what you say so please in future refrain from calling your self catholic because that you are not.
theo on July 31st, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhee#p/u/3/Jp-Wy3yBMF8
theo on July 31st, 2011

http://www.nobullinmadrid.com/
theo on July 31st, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhee#p/u/2/VbnS9ovw8QI
Vincent Couling on July 31st, 2011

Dear Theo,

Your response to my posts has been weighed, measured, and found wanting.

I will refrain from any further engagement with you.

Kindest regards,

Vincent
theo on August 1st, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV?feature=mhee#p/search/0/K0sILSapUUc
theo on August 1st, 2011

Dear bev please watch the link above I believe it might be up lifting for you

God bless you

Theo
Katlego on August 1st, 2011

They are n0t WYD appr0ved, i d0nt supp0rt that
theo on August 2nd, 2011

They might not be but they are 100% in line with catholic teaching and never asked for approval.
theo on August 2nd, 2011

They are however widely recognized.
Vincent Couling on August 4th, 2011

It was refreshing to read the letter entitled “Dogmatic definition” by Brian Gaybba (who I believe is an Emeritus Professor of Systematic Theology at Rhodes University, Grahamstown) in this week’s Southern Cross. I believe that we can all take lessons from his prudent advice (it certainly has given me sufficient reason to pause for reflection).

The letter appears online at http://www.scross.co.za/2011/08/dogmatic-definition/ , and concludes as follows:

“There is a disturbing incongruity in what is happening in the Church these days as regards certain teachings. We are in effect being asked to regard them as dogmas when it is still unclear that they are such both because of the lack of a formal dogmatic definition by council or pope and because there is a clear division amongst the people regarding their rectitude or dogmatic status.

The magisterium can easily sort it out by defining them as dogmas—or openly admitting that they are not. But it has not taken that route and the result is a mess.

In my talk I therefore proposed that the proper way for the pope to serve the Church’s unity in such a situation is to abandon the policy of “thou shalt not question or discuss the truthfulness of such teachings” and enforce the exact opposite: “thou shalt discuss in a responsible and open and prayerful way the issues that are dividing us at the moment on these beliefs”.

If done with genuine acceptance of each other’s sincerity and with as much openness to the Spirit as one can muster, we will arrive at the truth—or rather find ourselves led to it.”

I perasonally need to do much work on the “genuine acceptance of each other’s sincerity” bit, and apologise for when I have been overly strident on this thread. Little will be achieved by shouting/screaming at each other … I’m sure that much more can be achieved by genuinely listening to each other in a spirit of charity, humility and openness.

(I must say that what particularly drives me to distraction is when I am told that I am no longer a member of the Mystical Body of Christ … or when I see young and particularly vulnerable gay Catholics being made to question the integrity of a dimension of the inmost being, their very sexuality … through what I find to be such dangerous and objectionable phrases as “objective disorder”. I suppose what I’m saying is, we perhaps all need to take pause, and reflect deeply. We are, after all, family … intimately connected through Holy Communion … and are all called to love and to be loved, just as we are.)
John on August 4th, 2011

Well said Vincent and I couldn’t agree more with you.
Bev Keevill on August 4th, 2011

“When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.” ~Epitaph of Leonard P. Matlovich, 1988

I think the above demonstrates clearly the thinking of man and not God ………

God loves you completely, utterly and unconditionally Vincent as He does every single soul on this earth ………….

Take care
Love
Bev
P.R.Margeot on August 4th, 2011

Let’s discuss “Dogmatic Definition” of Mr Gaybha in its place not here where we discussed homosexuality and where everything had been said ,proved, resolved. Theo’s magistral conclusion should enlighten us and bring this unhappy debate to a conclusion. I would have thought that readers would just stop writing and allow things to evaporate from our consciousness.That ‘debate’ has been a waste of time , energy, and frankly Catholics need not ‘engage’ in this topic too much. Let’s pray for each other.
Let nobody lose face here, let’s respect each other, let’s close this chapter.
Bev Keevill on August 4th, 2011

Dear P R

How has everything been proved and resolved and for who?

Much love
Bev
Bev Keevill on August 4th, 2011

Apologies bad English – and for whom?

I am saddened at the lack of love and patience from those who comment to those who are struggling with rejection. I have always maintained that if you are not emotionally involved in a situation how on earth can you understand what the other person is feeling. Walk in their shoes for awhile and then comment much will be different!

Love
Bev
Vincent Couling on August 4th, 2011

Dear P.R. Margeot,

I think that Prof Gaybba’s point applies particularly well to the contemporary moral question of homosexuality. I.e. is the statement in CCC 2357 that “tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” to be regarded as implying a dogma?!

Like Bev, I too must respectfully disagree that anything has been proved or resolved on this thread!

Prof Gaybba calls for an attitude of “thou shalt discuss in a responsible and open and prayerful way the issues that are dividing us at the moment on these beliefs” – and not for a premature bringing of debate to a conclusion … in fact, I would argue that in the hierarchical (and even to an extent theological) circles of “Church”, the debate on matters gay and Catholic has hardly even begun!

Might I be so bold at to make a passionate request: “Let’s open this chapter!” Let us, as Church, begin a courageous conversation! In the words of Blessed John XXIII, let us “throw open the windows of the Church so that we can see out and the people can see in.”

Warmest wishes,

Vincent
Vincent Couling on August 4th, 2011

Thank you, John, for your conciliatory post … it is greatly appreciated!
Vincent Couling on August 4th, 2011

Thank you, Bev, for your reassuring words.

I think that the pithy epitaph of Leonard Matlovich speaks volumes to this very issue! Well quoted!
Vincent Couling on August 4th, 2011

A dear friend who has been following this debate recently sent me a lovely reflection by Fr Richard Rohr (from his “Richard’s Daily Meditations”). It did much to lift up my flagging, drooping spirit. I post it here, since I believe that it might be of value as we all reflect on this “unhappy debate” …

“A CONSISTENT ETHIC OF LIFE

In recent elections one would have thought that homosexuality and abortion were the new litmus tests of Christianity. Where did this come from? They never were the criteria of proper membership for the first 2000 years, but reflect very recent culture wars instead! And largely from people who think of themselves as “traditionalists”! The fundamentals were already resolved in the early Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed. Note that none of the core beliefs are about morality at all. The Creeds are more mystical, cosmological, and about aligning our lives inside of a huge sacred story. When you lose the mystical level, you always become moralistic as a cheap substitute.

Jesus is clearly much more concerned about issues of pride, injustice, hypocrisy, blindness, and what I have often called “The Three Ps,” or power, prestige, and possessions, which are probably 95% of his written teaching. We conveniently ignore this 95% to concentrate on a morality that usually has to do with human embodiment. That’s where people get righteous, judgemental, and upset, for some reason. The body seems to be where we carry our sense of shame and inferiority, and early-stage religion has never gotten much beyond these “pelvic” issues. As Jesus put it, “You ignore the weightier matters of the law—justice, mercy, and good faith. . . . [And instead] you strain out gnats and swallow camels” (Matthew 23:23-24). We worry about what people are doing in bed much more than making sure everybody has a bed to begin with. There certainly is a need for a life-giving sexual morality, but one could question whether Christian nations have found it yet.

Christianity will regain its moral authority when it starts emphasizing social sin in equal measure with individual (read “body-based”) sin and weave them both into a seamless garment of love and truth.”
P.R.Margeot on August 4th, 2011

Dear Mrs. Keevill, firstly I do feel for those whose who struggle but admittedly I may not be entirely in their shoes, in their situation. You have courageously told us about your daughter. Believe me, I suffer when I see any Catholic suffer, nobody condems her and the others.
But you know what, the problem is that many of those who are struggling have become militant, vehement, and want to change everything and they want to change the Church so to speak(to revolutionize it), to suit them and what they believe strongly in. Mrs Keevill, don’t you see that by making any concessions, whatever small, the Church will open the floodgates….Why? Because after giving in to the militant gay lobby, the Church will face unbearable pressure to ordain women etc etc etc….
You revealed that you do not go to church any more: I am sorry to hear that and hope that you will go back one day. There are also those here who said that they receive Holy Communion on sundays. I ask, I beg to know, I shudder, how can they do so? How ? Plus there would be the sin of sacrilege in receiving the Body of Christ in a state of mortal sin. Fellow Catholics, do not do it, do not , PLEASE….It is a sinner who writes these lines, yes , a sinner, I am not better than any of those writing here, but I have had the grace to realize that a Catholic should only approach the Holy table with a pure heart, without any mortal sin.
So you see, Mrs Keevill, why and how many are shocked by what they read in this Catholic Newspaper in the name of freedom of expression in these “exalted” times we live in… Think of the young people, adolescents reading these debates. They need the light, the pure light, the traditional teaching of our Holy Church.
Katlego mentioned priests who say it is o.k. to have this life. There is a young man I suppose being led astray by PRIESTS of the Holy Catholic Church. Priests who should be nurturing us on the path to Heaven by being firm and charitable. I shudder, I tremble in this situation which I suspect may be more widespread than we think.

Mrs Keevill, what is the agenda of those militants ? PLEASE, I urge you to go to this link and your eyes will be open :
http://www.cfnews.org/hm-tactics,htm

Salus animarum suprema lex.
(Have you considered meeting a priest of Tradition who will speak the Truth,and only the truth, where a “yes is yes, and a No is no”, where there would be no wishy-washy talk, and liberalism and modernism, two errors condemned by the Church? Courage, Mrs Keevill, you are not alone. We have our Rosaries and Our Lady of Fatima watches over us).
Vincent Couling on August 4th, 2011

Dear PR Margeot,

You say “There are also those here who said that they receive Holy Communion on sundays. I ask, I beg to know, I shudder, how can they do so? How ? Plus there would be the sin of sacrilege in receiving the Body of Christ in a state of mortal sin.”

I presume I am one of these “militants” who you assume/presume to be in a state of mortal sin.

I am astonished that would dare to make such a presumtion. Where does this harshest of judgements come from come from? Do you know my “internal forum” better than me?

I am quietly confident that I am in a state of grace, and have spent most of my life so. (I am careful not to say “all of my life so,” for fear that your trembling and shuddering might rise to a crescendo, and cause some sort of physical harm … I would never wish that upon you. But, in truth, I have wracked my conscience, and can never recall being in a state of mortal sin … choosing in full knowledge of the fact to completely cut myself off from God!)

I think that it might help to again remind those who post here of the document “Called to be Catholic: Church in a time of peril” [ http://www.nplc.org/commonground/calledcatholic.htm ] which was released by the much-loved Joseph Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago some three months before he died of pancreatic cancer in 1997. This gifted prelate believed that hierarchs risked alienating many believers by ignoring awkward issues such as the role of women, and questions about human sexuality and church governance. The document urges Catholics to pursue disagreements in a spirit of dialogue, and to be guided by working principles such as “We should recognize that no single group or viewpoint in the church has a complete monopoly on the truth. While the bishops united with the Pope have been specially endowed by God with the power to preserve the true faith, they too exercise their office by taking counsel with one another and with the experience of the whole church, past and present. Solutions to the church’s problems will almost inevitably emerge from a variety of sources”; “We should not envision ourselves or any one part of the church a saving remnant. No group within the church should judge itself alone to be possessed of enlightenment or spurn the mass of Catholics, their leaders, or their institutions as unfaithful”; “We should presume that those with whom we differ are acting in good faith. They deserve civility, charity, and a good-faith effort to understand their concerns. We should not substitute labels, abstractions, or blanketing terms–”radical feminism,” “the hierarchy,” “the Vatican”–for living, complicated realities”; “We should put the best possible construction on differing positions, addressing their strongest points rather than seizing upon the most vulnerable aspects in order to discredit them. We should detect the valid insights and legitimate worries that may underlie even questionable arguments”; and “We should be cautious in ascribing motives. We should not impugn another’s love of the church and loyalty to it. We should not rush to interpret disagreements as conflicts of starkly opposing principles rather than as differences in degree or in prudential pastoral judgments about the relevant facts.”

Pax et Bonum,

V
Vincent Couling on August 4th, 2011

PS my boyfriend, who has read my posts here, has reminded me quite pointedly that the Bishops are not “the enemy”, or words to that effect! I humbly took his correction to heart!

Cardinal Bernardin makes much the same point!

But, then, none of us are really to be regarded as “the enemy”! We are family, even if we are having a bit of a row.

I wonder, dear PRM, whether you might have made some prurient assumptions about me and my beau? Be careful to wade into those waters, dear man, for they are infested with crocodiles, piranha, sharks and other such predators!

Best,

V
Bev Keevill on August 4th, 2011

Take heart Vince without change there is no growth – change will come.

My daughter got married to her partner in February this year and they are expecting a child in March next year, so much joy and happiness has come out of this union! Sadly she also no longer goes to Church, but acknowledgement of Gay brothers and sister will come!

Much love
Bev
P.R.Margeot on August 4th, 2011

I could only assume from what you wrote : did you not write that you are a praticing homosexual, that you are a praticing Catholic, you mentioned Holy Communion, did you not write that the priest who advised Katlego was right? What else does one need to conclude that you go to receive the sacrament in a casual manner? As if nothing. Look, if I am wrong here, and that you do receive Holy Communion in a pure state, then I would ask you : did your confessor instruct you to abandon the life you are leading now? Did he not tell you not to place yourself in situations of temptation? That would be his duty.
I re-iterate : I am a sinner, I need the sacraments, the priests who give GOOD advice, I am no better than anyone in this forum. I will end by urging the militants to consider changing their militancy. The church will change her stance when she decides that the time has arrived to be eclipsed. It has not quite arrived. And we know that the gates of Hell will not prevail.
Bev Keevill on August 4th, 2011

P R please can you not be filled with a bit of love and compassion for your fellow man! From everything that Vince has written and the fact that he is writing all of this means he cares about the Church and loves Our Lord without question. This is not a fear for our souls but a criticism thereof!

Love
Bev
Vincent Couling on August 4th, 2011

My darling PRM,

Please point out where I have said that I’m a “praticing homosexual” … I wait with bated breath. (I’m actually rather careful with what I say (you have to be when you’re on my side of the argument! Though, without having walked in my shoes, you probably don’t realise this!) … and I am deliberately teasing much of the time, but well within the limits of suitable ambiguity to get away with it even if grilled by the Grand Inquisitor himself!),

Love you lots,

V

PS the moral of the story … never make unnecessary presumptions!
P.R.Margeot on August 4th, 2011

Mrs Keevill, I do care for my fellow men and I do have compassion for those who suffer. I have always protected the under-dog since I was a child. I do also care and love the Holy Church, and in this time of turmoil, chaos, and where abortion, prostitution, sex before marriage, fornication are rampant , where Human Rights(straight from the French Revolution)come before God’s Rights, and the abdication of the Holy Church when it comes to the social Reign of Jesus on Earth, in this time of disorientation, in this time when the smoke of Satan has entered the Vatican(Pope Paul VI in 1972), when there are fewer and fewer priests to forgive sins and to say the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, and when I see people pushing the Church to her limits, demanding and demanding more and more things which they know cannot
be given, and when these people assume a huge responsibility in influencing weaker souls(young ones in particular), I say : THAT’s what makes me tremble and shake for the future, for the salvation of souls.
Mrs Keevill, I wish you well, I wish Mr Couling well, I am now saying goodbye to both of you, this time it is for good. I however appeal to those who are better equipped than me to protect and defend our Holy Church.
Mr Couling, I have told you once that I consider you as an extremely intelligent man, a redoubtable debater, a superior intellect.These words were said sincerely. I mean them. Do not think I am being sarcastic. Use those faculties for the good of our Holy Church. Finally, finally, if I have offended you, I ask for your forgiveness. Adieu Mr Couling.
Vincent Couling on August 4th, 2011

Dear Bev,

Thank you for sharing your wondeful news with us!!! What a delightful, hope-filled, happy situation! Much strength to you and to your entire family,

God bless,

Vincent
Katlego on August 4th, 2011

Dear PRM, thank you, i think we are finally on the same page. . .please pray that the time for the church to change Her stance to hasten,as many l0st soulz are c0unting on it.

Best wishes,
Katlego
Katlego on August 4th, 2011

Okay i just n0ticed my err0r, h0pe you get what i mean.

Lotsa l0ve,
Kat
Douglas on September 5th, 2011

You are perceptual beings with different vantage points and — it does not matter how much information is given — you cannot see beyond the vibrational limits of where you are standing. You cannot live or see or experience outside of your own individual beliefs.
Douglas on September 7th, 2011

You don’t have to walk around evangelizing. You don’t have to walk around giving anyone a book or passage from one. You don’t have to say anything. The light that you carry shows itself by how you treat others, how you treat your family, and what you do in situations that are typically Human. It’s how you mirror the love of God.
Rose on October 15th, 2011

To observe these things, to affirm their truth, is not to oppose the Church, but to hope in it, to believe in it as a human institution that is yet the eternal vessel of God’s love. It is to say that such lives as those of countless gay men and lesbians must ultimately affect the Church not because our lives are perfect, or without contradiction, or without sin, but because our lives are in some sense also the life of the Church.”

The Church has often been on the wrong side of history (its condemnation of Jews as Christ killers, support of slavery, etc.), at least for a time. But it is also true that it is quite capable of evolving its own understanding. This will happen with our collective understanding of homosexuality too. Fear will be replaced by understanding. What I really appreciated most here were these words by Vincent. Simply beautiful…
David Blackbeard on December 1st, 2011

As an Anglican (Anglicanism having been mentioned I therefore feel bound to respond but not pontificate) I feel that we should all be friends and that the primate should have tea with the Queen, Our Defender of the Faith and Ulster. Noting that the term “queen” in common parlance, reflects a transgressive homo-eroticism that may indeed have been approved by our Courageous Founder and King, Henry VIII but most certainly by the Three Musketeers.
John on January 20th, 2012

Here’s a link to an interesting article that can add great value titled “Confessions of a Recovering Lesbian”:

http://www.catholicsistas.com/2012/01/19/confessions-of-a-recovering-lesbian/

Leave a Reply

Search Our Site

This Weeks Issue

The Headlines

» Catholic ethos in education
» Positive upbringing, positive sounds – Zolani Mahola of Freshlyground
» Tradition: How Vatican II was conservative
» Fr Ron Rolheiser: Purity of heart and intention
» THIS WEEK’S EDITORIAL: The Catholic School
Read More | Archives

Online Articles

FREE e-Newsletter

Homosexuality and the Bible

Comments

Search Our Site

This Weeks Issue

The Headlines

Recent Perspectives

Popular Posts

Series - Pilgrimage 2010