I had a debate with a guy who claims to be a Catholic, but says (bold face) that homosexualism isn't sinful.

As perhaps you can find yourselves in this kind of debate, I'm sending the msgs exchanged in the body of this looong msg:

===================

===========================

Someone answered, and he answered back (the morally orthodox position starts with ">"; the pro-sodomite position still is in boldface):

>However, your argument seems faulty, in that it radically equates

>all

>the norms set down in the Pentateuch. But this is not the case with homosexual

>behaviour, because it is directly condemned in the NT as well (by Paul),

> whereas

>the

>dietary laws and polygamy are abrogated by Christ.

> Slavery was not condemned

>because it is not intrinsically evil or contrary to the will of God.

>> The story of Sodom is contained in Genesis. For this passage to have

>> anything to do with consensual homosexual activity you would have to

>> believe that God has created homosexual angels who were ready and

>> willing to engage in sexual activity with the men of Sodom. Otherwise

>> the interpretation makes no sense at all. If the story of Sodom has

>> anything to do with sexual crime it is to do with abusive behaviour or

>> rape.

>>

>> More clearly it has to do with treating strangers and visitors cruelly

>> and with no respect or charity. Which I think takes us back to the

>> Monsignor's original letter...

>

>THIS is a disturbingly novel interpretation of chapter 19, Ian. Care to

>explain

>yourself a bit better?

>Being no Scriptural scholar (yet) I would defer to another's competence (Fr.

>Devillers?), but in making even a cursory reading of the pertinent chapters of

>Genesis, the "wickedness" referred to therein doesn't strike me as referring to

>simple cruelty or a lack of charity.

> You seem to be working hard to absolve homosexual behaviour.

Just trying to find the truth.

> It

>is

>fundamentally disordered and sinful;

> and in fact constitutes one of the seven

>deadly

>sins.

> In fact, one does not actually need the Bible at all to condemn

>homosexual

>behaviour.

========================

So I joined the debate (Pro-homosexual position starting with ">", and still in bold face):

Pax Christi!

>> You seem to be working hard to absolve homosexual behaviour.

>Just trying to find the truth.

>> It is fundamentally disordered and sinful;

All of our acts should be directed to God to have God as their final end, as their final objective. A sin an act that is not ordered to Go (a disordered act). Some things can be sinful on some ocasions and even heroic on others (killing someone can be sinful or heroic - in a just war, for instance, or to protect someone against a mad terrorist). The homosexual act is fundamentally disordered; it is something that is always sinful and never leads to God.

Drinking wine can be disordered (if you drink to have courage to approach someone in a bar to commit adultery or fornication, for instance) or not (if you drink wine on the table with your friends it is not disordered.

Playing the piano can also be a disordered act (if, for instance you start playing when there should be silence - a piano player playing a Samba during Consecration would be very much disordered...), or not (a piano concert is not disordered).

>> and in fact constitutes one of the seven

>>deadly

>>sins.

Yes it does: Pride and Lust.

Besides, sodomy is one of the four sins that cries to the Heavens for revenge, along with exploitation of the poor (specially widows and orphans), denial of payment for a work done and killing of innocents (like abortions).

Besides (that was in another of your oh-so-strange posts), moral laws from the OT are always valid; only ritual laws (that were a preparation - a pedagogy, says St. Paul - for the NT) have been abrogated, for He Who they prepared for has arrived.

Your brother in Christ,

Carlos

===================

He answered, and I answered back (from now on, I'll post only my msgs, because I always kept the portion of his msg I was answering in boldface):

Pax Christi!

That's precisely the problem. :)

This Portuguese common greeting means "lots of pleasure". Nowadays "lots of pleasure" is all people seek, even if it is contrary to nature. :)

No, it is not meaningless.

Virtually everything can be used in an ordered or in a disordered manner.

Human sexuality too. When is it used in an ordered manner? When it is used for the proper end, that leads eventually to God. The proper immediate end of human sexuality is having children and, mediately, raising them in the Faith.

The pleasure we have in that act is more or less like the pleasure we have when we eat good food. It's good to have it, but it cannot be the end of our eating. That's why you can't subsist on candy bars. They give you the pleasure of the taste, but they won't feed you.

If you have sex outside of marriage, you'll have the pleasure, and perhaps even the kids, but not the family that will raise them in the Faith. If you have sex carefully avoiding the fertile days or using chemical or surgical means to avoid fertility, you won't even have the kids. You are, therefore, misusing something that could and should be used in an ordered way. It's a disordered (hence sinful) way of using a neutral act.

BUT if you have sex in an unnatural way, you won't have even the slightest possibility of having children, of forming a family, etc. Thus unnatural sex is, unlike natural (a man and a woman) sex, intrinsically disordered. There is no way, there is no accident that could ever happen, that could ever bring it to have God as its final end.

It is therefore an intrinsically disordered use of a creature (human sexuality) that is neutral by itself.

Besides, men are ugly. :)

>>Besides, sodomy is one of the four sins that cries to the Heavens for revenge,

>>along with exploitation of the poor (specially widows and orphans), denial of

>>payment for a work done and killing of innocents (like abortions).

No it doesn't.

Sodomy means homossexual intercourse - that is unnatural, hence disordered: "Nam feminae eorum immutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum _qui est contra naturam_. Similiter autem et masculi, _relicto naturali usu feminae,_ exarserunt in desideriir suis in invicem, masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes, et mercedem, quam oportuit, erroris sui in semetipsus recipientes." (Romans, I, 27-28 - if there is someone who could send me the e-text of a good English-language Bible, - Douay-Rheims? - I'd be glad...). Im my own ugly translation: "because their own women changed the natural use into another use, _that is against nature_. In a similar manner, also the man, _abandoning the natural use of the woman_, burned in desires for each other, commiting man wit man the dirt action, and receiving in each other the due pay for their error".

There is no question about that. The crazy notion that Sodomy has nothing to do with homosexuality is a very recent invention and cannot be used to discret what the Church was already teaching a loooong time before the first time this idea came to some pervert's mind.

Besides, sodomy (homosexual intercourse) has to do with all the "alternatives" you provided:

Lack of justice: justice means rewarding the good and punishing the wicked. Homosexual intercourse is getting a "reward" (sexual pleasure) for a wicked and unnatural act.

Pride: both in the sense of pretending to be above the Law of God, or distorting it to avoid listening to one's conscience and in the psycological sense of seeking someone who is "like you" (because, it's implicit, you could only love yourself).

Bitter hatred of strangers: what is more of a stranger? A woman, totally different from you, or a man, that feels the same thing in the same situation?

Refusal to listen to the Apostles: hey, the Church has been telling everybody it's a sin, and one of the most grievous sins, for almost two thousand years. If it is not a refusal to listen, what would be?

>>Besides (that was in another of your oh-so-strange posts), moral laws from the

>>OT are always valid; only ritual laws (that were a preparation - a pedagogy,

>>says St. Paul - for the NT) have been abrogated, for He Who they prepared for

>>has arrived.

Is St. Thomas Aquinas of enough authority for you? Check specially the reply to objection 1.

-----------------------------

Summa Theologica, FS Q[103] A[3] Thes. Whether the ceremonies of the Old Law ceased at the coming of Christ?

FS Q[103] A[3] Obj. 1

OBJ 1: It would seem that the ceremonies of the Old Law did not cease at the coming of Christ. For it is written (Bar 4:1): "This is the book of the commandments of God, and the law that is for ever." But the legal ceremonies were part of the Law. Therefore the legal ceremonies were to last for ever.

FS Q[103] A[3] Obj. 2

OBJ 2: Further, the offering made by a leper after being cleansed was a ceremony of the Law. But the Gospel commands the leper, who has been cleansed, to make this offering (Mt. 8:4). Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law did not cease at Christ's coming.

FS Q[103] A[3] Obj. 3

OBJ 3: Further, as long as the cause remains, the effect remains. But the ceremonies of the Old Law had certain reasonable causes, inasmuch as they were ordained to the worship of God, besides the fact that they were intended to be figures of Christ. Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law should not have ceased.

FS Q[103] A[3] Obj. 4

OBJ 4: Further, circumcision was instituted as a sign of Abraham's faith: the observance of the sabbath, to recall the blessing of creation: and other solemnities, in memory of other Divine favors, as state above (Q[102], A[4], ad 10; A[5], ad 1). But Abraham's faith is ever to be imitated even by us: and the blessing of creation and other Divine favors should never be forgotten. Therefore at least circumcision and the other legal solemnities should not have ceased.

FS Q[103] A[3] OTC

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Col. 2:16,17): "Let no man . . . judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come": and (Heb. 8:13): "In saying a new (testament), he hath made the former old: and that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end."

FS Q[103] A[3] Body

I answer that, All the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law were ordained to the worship of God as stated above (Q[101], AA[1],2). Now external worship should be in proportion to the internal worship, which consists in faith, hope and charity. Consequently exterior worship had to be subject to variations according to the variations in the internal worship, in which a threefold state may be distinguished. One state was in respect of faith and hope, both in heavenly goods, and in the means of obtaining them---in both of these considered as things to come. Such was the state of faith and hope in the Old Law. Another state of interior worship is that in which we have faith and hope in heavenly goods as things to come; but in the means of obtaining heavenly goods, as in things present or past. Such is the state of the New Law. The third state is that in which both are possessed as present; wherein nothing is believed in as lacking, nothing hoped for as being yet to come. Such is the state of the Blessed.

FS Q[103] A[3] Body

In this state of the Blessed, then, nothing in regard to worship of God will be figurative; there will be naught but "thanksgiving and voice of praise" (Is. 51:3). Hence it is written concerning the city of the Blessed (Apoc. 21:22): "I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb." Proportionately, therefore, the ceremonies of the first-mentioned state which foreshadowed the second and third states, had need to cease at the advent of the second state; and other ceremonies had to be introduced which would be in keeping with the state of divine worship for that particular time, wherein heavenly goods are a thing of the future, but the Divine favors whereby we obtain the heavenly boons are a thing of the present.

FS Q[103] A[3] R.O. 1

Reply OBJ 1: The Old Law is said to be "for ever" simply and absolutely, as regards its moral precepts; but as regards the ceremonial precepts it lasts for even in respect of the reality which those ceremonies foreshadowed.

FS Q[103] A[3] R.O. 2

Reply OBJ 2: The mystery of the redemption of the human race was fulfilled in Christ's Passion: hence Our Lord said then: "It is consummated" (Jn. 19:30). Consequently the prescriptions of the Law must have ceased then altogether through their reality being fulfilled. As a sign of this, we read that at the Passion of Christ "the veil of the temple was rent" (Mt. 27:51). Hence, before Christ's Passion, while Christ was preaching and working miracles, the Law and the Gospel were concurrent, since the mystery of Christ had already begun, but was not as yet consummated. And for this reason Our Lord, before His Passion, commanded the leper to observe the legal ceremonies.

FS Q[103] A[3] R.O. 3

Reply OBJ 3: The literal reasons already given (Q[102]) for the ceremonies refer to the divine worship, which was founded on faith in that which was to come. Hence, at the advent of Him Who was to come, both that worship ceased, and all the reasons referring thereto.

FS Q[103] A[3] R.O. 4

Reply OBJ 4: The faith of Abraham was commended in that he believed in God's promise concerning his seed to come, in which all nations were to blessed. Wherefore, as long as this seed was yet to come, it was necessary to make profession of Abraham's faith by means of circumcision. But now that it is consummated, the same thing needs to be declared by means of another sign, viz. Baptism, which, in this respect, took the place of circumcision, according to the saying of the Apostle (Col. 2:11, 12): "You are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in Baptism."

FS Q[103] A[3] R.O. 4

As to the sabbath, which was a sign recalling the first creation, its place is taken by the "Lord's Day," which recalls the beginning of the new creature in the Resurrection of Christ. In like manner other solemnities of the Old Law are supplanted by new solemnities: because the blessings vouchsafed to that people, foreshadowed the favors granted us by Christ. Hence the feast of the Passover gave place to the feast of Christ's Passion and Resurrection: the feast of Pentecost when the Old Law was given, to the feast of Pentecost on which was given the Law of the living spirit: the feast of the New Moon, to Lady Day, when appeared the first rays of the sun, i.e. Christ, by the fulness of grace: the feast of Trumpets, to the feasts of the Apostles: the feast of Expiation, to the feasts of Martyrs and Confessors: the feast of Tabernacles, to the feast of the Church Dedication: the feast of the Assembly and Collection, to feast of the Angels, or else to the feast of All Hallows.

----------------------------

If St. Thomas is not enough, the Council of Florence, under the authority of Eugene IV, in 1442, declared that:

"[The Church] believes, professes and teaches that the laws of the Old Testament (from the Law of Moses) that are divided in cerimonies, sacred objects, sacrifices and sacramentals [therefore not the moral laws], as were instituted to symbolize something that was to come, even if they were at that age convenient to divine worship, ceased when Our Lord Jesus Christ, Whom was symbolized by them, came and the Sacraments of the New Testament started." (Dz 712).

I hope it helped, and, more than all, I hope you're writing all of this just for debate's sake. Pleeeease, tell me you don't believe what you have been writing...

Your brother in Christ,

Carlos

======================

He answered back, and here's my final reply (the list moderator asked him to stop):

Pax Christi!

>carlos <carlos@compuland.com.br> writes

>>Virtually everything can be used in an ordered or in a disordered manner.

>>

>>Human sexuality too. When is it used in an ordered manner? When it is used for

>>the proper end, that leads eventually to God. The proper immediate end of human

>>sexuality is having children and, mediately, raising them in the Faith.

Because the others are closer to the act on itself, and are an encouragement we have to fulfill the act, not its end. If you're on the road to point C from point A throught point B (which has a beautiful view), you cannot think point B is the end of the trip, although its beautiful view is an encouragement to take the road.

See above. We're talking about ends, not about enticements.

I don't see why.

You can love someone and not to have the slightest sexual attraction towards this person (a father and a son, for instance); you can have a lot of pleasure having sex with someone you hate.

It's sort of funny to quote Charles Bukowsky after quoting St. Thomas, but Bukowsky said he prefered to fornicate with dumb women, for he got so mad at them he enjoyed sex better. :(

Besides, it's not "the expression of love between two people", but _an_ expression of love between husband and wife.

What homosexuals call "love" usually would be better expressed by calling it unnatural lust.

It depends on what you mean by "incapable of conceiving". If a person is sterile, it is not, for it can happen that conception occurs. If he is impotent (castrated, for instance) it is disordered and he can't be validly married.

Indeed? :)

There is no procreation without sexual act (of course I'm not talking about cientists playing God). No theory here, just facts of life.

Yes, they would have had lots of connection. :)

How could they know beforehand in which intercourse would they conceive?

Let's listen to St. Paul:

"propter fornicationem autem unusquisque suam uxorem habeat, eu unaquaeque suum virum habeat. Uxori vir debitum reddat: similiter autem et uxor viro. Mulier sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed vir. Similiter autem et vir sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed mulier. Nolite fraudare invicem, nisi forte ex consensu ad tempus ut vacetis orationi: et iterum revertimini in idipsum, ne tentet vos Satanas propter incontinentiam vestram." (1 Cor VII, 1-5)

In my own ugly translation (check it out in a good Bible):

"because of fornication, let each man have his wife, and each wife her man. The husband shall give the woman what he owes her, and the woman likewise towards her husband. The woman has no power over her body; her husband does. Similarly the man has no power over his own body, but the woman. Do not defraud one each other, except if it is for just some time, with mutual consent, for the puurpose of praying: and come back again to cohabitation, for that Satan does not tempt you because of your incontinence".

It is a lot easier to avoid sexual intercourse if you never have it than if you have to avoid it just for some time. A pregnant woman cannot conceive (she already did!), but her body is her husband's property (and his is hers...), and if they fear it would be too hard for him to avoid the temptation of fornication, they can have intercourse.

The problem is avoiding children, not having licit (intramarital) sex when they cannot be conceived. If a couple has sexual intercourse in a non-fertile day it is not sinful. If they have sexual intercourse _only_ when the wife is not fertile and avoid fertile days, it is sinful.

It's quite the opposite: unnatural acts are disordered, because they prevent a final ordination to God.

Music is not disordered, for all beauty is a reflexion of God's infinite Beauty. I know people who would say Rock music is disordered, though.

Listening to Satanist "hard-rock" is certainly a disordered act.

The problem is not if an act is necessary or not for our survival, but if you are preventing it from being ordered to God. The beauty of a song is a reflection of its first origin (God), and it shall lead towards its origin as its end. If you prevent it from happening (using the beauty of the music to preach heresy or Satanism, for instance, or using the rhythm of the music to lead listeners to a lustful mood), it is a disordered act. We must not prevent ordering relative good towards Absolute Good.

To wilfully do it is a sin.

>>>>Besides, sodomy is one of the four sins that cries to the Heavens for revenge,

>>>>along with exploitation of the poor (specially widows and orphans), denial of

>>>>payment for a work done and killing of innocents (like abortions).

>>>This takes us back to the basic question: what was the sin of Sodom?

>>>Was it lack of justice, as Abraham suggests to God during their plea-

>>>bargain before the destruction of Sodom? Was it pride, surfeit of food

>>>and prosperous ease combined with failure to aid the poor and needy, as

>>>is stated by Ezekiel? Was it bitter hatred of strangers and making

>>>slaves of guests, as the Book of Wisdom states? Was it a refusal to

>>>welcome or listen to apostles as Christ himself suggests in Matthew's

>>>Gospel?

>>

>>No it doesn't.

>>

>>Sodomy means homossexual intercourse

You are taking a position that would fit well a Protestant, but that is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

Sodomy is the word used by the Church to define unnatural intercourse. If you decide by yourself what you think sodomy means, you are doing precisely what Protestants do. It's not an etymological matter, but a moral issue already dealt with by the Church many many centuries ago.

The other day I was listening to a radio interview of the "pastor" of the "Rio de Janeiro Gay Christian Community" (a sodomite-oriented protestant sect). Many protestants were calling the radio station, reading passages of the Bible that said that men who went to bed with other men as if they were women should be killed, and so on. You can imagine.

The "pastor" answered them by reading another Bible passage that stated that the (aaronic) priests could not be handicapped or have any kind of physical deformity. He said that it was necessary to make a "responsible" interpretation of the Bible, for this passage could be used to express prejudice against handicapped people.

They couldn't answer back. Why? Because none of them had authority to contest his interpretation of the Bible, and they don't accept Tradition and Magistery. Of course there is an anormous difference between a special charge (aaronic priesthood) for which certain aspects were needed (it is a figure of the perfect sacrifice of the perfect man, so they couldn't be handicapped; Herod bit out the ears of a guy he didn't want to be High Priest...), and a moral law that is valid to everyone, but how could they prove it?

That's what you are doing. Sodomy is the word that has been used for at least 2000 years to mention unnatural intercourse, and a different private etymological interpretation of the Bible won't change it.

Let's see anyway if your private interpretation could be made to fit:

>> The crazy notion that Sodomy has nothing to do

>>with homosexuality is a very recent invention and cannot be used to discret what

>>the Church was already teaching a loooong time before the first time this idea

>>came to some pervert's mind.

Because he didn't need to. Everybody knew it.

He tells us what led them there, and it's interesting to notice that it is more or less the same situation that leads our society to this kind of immorality.

There is a Brazilian politician who was a marxist guerilla during the military dictatorship. He even kidnapped an American Ambassador (there is a movie about it that ran for an Academy Award). He has been traded for other prisioners and sent to Sweden. He came back a "gay militant". Why? Too much good food, too many luxuries... His former marxist faith, although completely wrong, could be seen as a sort of distorted good-will towards the por. When he got to a place with no poor to be worried about, he became a "gay militant"...

What Ezekiel does is like when we tell a child he got burned because he has been disobedient, or too curious. We don't need to say that because he was too curious, or disobedient, he found himself a chair, stood over it and put his hands in a hot pan (ouch!). It's understood, he remembers it. What matters is his disobedience. The same thing happens in Ezekiel: he states that Sodom was in a certain situation (not caring for the poor and leading a too comfortable life - 16:49), and it led them to commit abominations against the Lord (fecerunt abominationes coram Me - 16:50). The problem is not just the easy life they were leading; the problem is that it led to a worse sin.

Check out also Jude 4 and 7:

"Dei nostri gratiam transferentes in luxuriam (...) Sicut Sodoma, et Gomorrha, et finitimae civitates simili modo exfornicatae, et abeuntes post carnam alteram, factae sunt exemplum, ignis aeterni poenam sustinentes. Similiter et hi carnem quidem maculant, dominationem autem spernunt maiestatem autem blasphemant"

(Don't you have a good English Bible e-text to send me, please? Here's my translation, check it out please. it wouldn't deserve an Imprimatur...): "They substitute lust for the Grace of Our Lord (...) As Sodoma and Gomorra, and the neighboring towns, who fornicated with them, and abandoned themselves to another flesh, were, as an example, put to suffer the punishment of eternal fire. Similarly those maculate their flesh, ignore the Domination and blaspheme the Majesty."

You can clearly see it is a sin related to sex (lust; fornicated; flesh...), as the Tradition of the Church has kept repeating for the following 2000 years...

>>moral laws from the

>>>>OT are always valid; only ritual laws (that were a preparation - a pedagogy,

>>>>says St. Paul - for the NT) have been abrogated, for He Who they prepared for

>>>>has arrived.

It's not that hard, come on...

No it doesn't. Matrimony is a sacrament; a man that is married to a woman cannot marry another.

Yes it does. Slavery is not recommendable, but it is not such a grievous sin. To mistreat slaves sure is, as it is already stated in the OT and corroborated by St. Paul. The Church has always helped releasing the enslaved, buying them from their masters and rewarding those who freed their slaves, but it is not explicity forbidden to own slaves.

Death penalty is also something allowed under the New Law.

>>I hope it helped, and, more than all, I hope you're writing all of this just for

>>debate's sake. Pleeeease, tell me you don't believe what you have been

>>writing...

Until they find out they cannot hide from the Truth. There has always been sinners, and sinners always hated to be reminded they were sinning.

The Church has the munus of preserving the Deposit of Faith and teaching it. If people won't listen, it is not and cannot be considered correct to abandon the Deposit just to please sinners who don't ant to see they are sinning.

Either you accept all of the Faith (including the notion that homosexuality is a sin) or you are not accepting any of it. Being Catholic is like being pregnant: you either are or are not.

You also say that the "homosexual community" has only come into being in the last thirty years, and that they "increasingly see the Church as just part of the enemy". Both assertions are right. There was no such a thing as an organized lobby for perversion a few years ago. Does it mean human nature changed? No. It just means society as a whole is listening less to the Church. That's why we had homosexual lobbies, "legal" abortion in many countries, divorce, etc.

The problem is not that the Church is not listening to these people: the problem is that they are not listening to the Church.

That is why, thanks be to God, we are "part of the enemy" of the "gay mov't". As a matter of fact, we are THE enemy of this kind of thing. It exists because society is no longer listening to the Church. The Church is always right; society, in this case, is wrong.

If they want to kill children, if they want to abandon themselves to lust, if they want to fornicate and yet depopulate the world, it they want to..., they will do it. The Church, nevertheless, will keep telling them they are on the wrong road, but the doors of the House of the Father are wide open, waiting for them to come back.

To abandom Moral and "support" perversion would be a crime the Church cannot commit. No souls would be saved in that manner.

Your brother in Christ,

Carlos