Director, Research Center for Religion in Society and Culture
"On Faith" panelist Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo is Professor Emeritus of Puerto Rican and Latino Studies at Brooklyn College and Distinguished Scholar of the City University of New York. He has written more than 40 scholarly articles and authored nine books, including the four-volume PARAL series on religion among Latinos. His book Prophets Denied Honor (1980) is considered a landmark in Catholic literature. With his spouse, Ana María Díaz-Stevens, he authored Recognizing the Latino Religious Resurgence , which was named an Outstanding Academic Book for 1998 by Choice magazine. A spokesperson for civil and human rights, he has testified before the U.S. Congress and the United Nations and was named by President Jimmy Carter to the Advisory Board of the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights for two terms. Presently, he directs the Research Center for Religion In Society and Culture (RISC).
Close.
Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo
Director, Research Center for Religion in Society and Culture
"On Faith" panelist Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo is Professor Emeritus of Puerto Rican and Latino Studies at Brooklyn College and Distinguished Scholar of the City University of New York. He has written more than 40 scholarly articles and authored nine books, including the four-volume PARAL series on religion among Latinos.
more »
Since you did not respond to my request to give a little more information about your person, let me explain why I asked you those questions as background to your post in question in the first place. It would have been helpful for me to know where you come from, to gauge your empathy for the plight of homosexuals. I wondered if you were for instance a heterosexual who enjoys the satisfaction of a sexual relationship and companionship yourself but denies it to a homosexual because you believe that you are saving them a trip to hell. I wondered too if you were a celibate homo/heterosexual by choice who is convinced that your free choice in life should be imposed on a homosexual by force against their free will.
You emphasise that God meant sex only for procreation. Would that imply that if a couple wanted to have only two children they would have to restrict having sex to the number of times it takes the woman to get pregnant twice, and live like siblings for the rest of their lives? Where exactly in the Bible does it mention that sex is meant only for procreation? I have not come across any such passage. God made Eve as a companion for Adam because He found it was not good for Adam to be alone. Are you suggesting that the companionship does not automatically include physical intimacy between them, and God wanted them to have physical intimacy only to have children and live like siblings the rest of their lives?
Do I want to "create a trumped up evil church dispensing trips to hell for homosexuals?" When I read the Gospels and about the life of Jesus Christ, I cannot help noticing at how vastly different the Catholic Church is today to the life of early Christians described in the New Testament. The Church has undergone changes in its teachings and structure throughout its history based on prayer and revelation of its members – much of it has been very good, some of it not so good, and some of it has been really bad. The Vatican Council II is a terrific jump in consciousness compared to the earlier teachings of the church! I’m proud of be a part of the Catholic Church. Whatever may have been its mistakes in the past, and whatever maybe its limitations now, I’m a part of the church, but does not mean that I refuse to use my God given capacities and am afraid to express my honest opinions and disagreements. The Catholic Church is a living Church which is open to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Why should it not change again, if reason, science and prayer of Catholics within the church propose changes which are in keeping with the command of Jesus to love as He did?
You accuse me of maligning the church and you say that respect is in order. Since you make a serious flase allegation, could you elaborate on that? What makes you think that I as a member of the Catholic Church have no right to express the insights I have gained through the leading of the Holy Spirit I seek through prayer, reflection and knowledge?
You ask if I think people who don’t engage in sex live a life of misery, and name as examples to the contrary - catholic priests, celibate heterosexuals, elderly and Mother Theresa. From your chosen examples, it is important to distinguish those who chose celibacy freely, eg catholic priests, and nuns like Mother Theresa; and those who had celibacy imposed on them due to life circumstances eg celibate heterosexuals and the elderly. As for the elderly you do not mention whether they are among those who had a normal sexual life until they became elderly, and sex was no longer a part of their lives either due to illness, loss of a partner or decrease in libido.
The only point I tried to make is that the need for physical intimacy and companionship is a LEGITIMATE human need. Celibacy is NOT a prerequisite for a life of prayer and to lead a holy life. Celibacy is FREELY chosen very RARELY, it is NOT automatically chosen by all who would like to live a life pleasing in God’s sight. Celibacy should NEVER be imposed from outside on anyone precisely because it is contrary to a legitimate human need. It was that legitimate human need of a homosexual that I was defending. But you imply that there are only two choices: celibacy or promiscuity, and for the heterosexuals who are married there is no choice at all besides sex for procreation. I do not “elevate non-procreative sex to some ultimate pedestal”, I merely say that because God created sex it is good, and He meant it to serve as physical expression of love between man and woman in a companionship, as source pleasure for themselves not merely for the purpose of pro-creation.
Celibacy in catholic priests: Mandatory celibacy for parish priests was introduced only 1139 AD and it is no secret that the reasons were political rather than religious. Do you think that married priests in other denominations of Christianity are not real Christians and do not do their job just as well? I'm sure that you have noticed as I have that celibate vocations in the Catholic Church are not just dwindling but almost disappearing. Most people think that mandatory celibacy is probably too high a price to pay for serving in the Church, despite one's desire to serve the Church as a committed Christian.
You say “Things are not necessarily good because God creates them.” That is a terrible thing to say about an infallible God and His creation of homosexuals in His image and likeness, when you imply at the same time that everything the church run by human beings teaches in regard to how the God created homosexuals are to be treated is infallible. Read the Gospel of John chapters 14-17 and you will notice that Jesus promised to guide His disciples through the Holy Spirit and teach them even after He was gone physically. The Catholic Church has lived up to that and hence has teachings in addition to the Bible and has amassed spiritual wealth over the centuries due to the work of many dedicated Catholics. The Catholic Church is also proof that human beings who run the church being human beings can also make mistakes. Remember that Pope John Paul II apologised for the mistakes made by the Catholic Church in the name of Jesus Christ? There is no shame in recognising one’s mistake and changing course. It is fully in keeping with our Christian knowledge that human beings are sinful. Until thirty four years ago sufficient scientific evidence didn't exist that homosexuality was not a disease and could not be cured. But now that we know that homosexuality is prevalent in nature and homosexuals do not choose it, would it not be proper for us to reexamine our attitudes towards the issue and give them the rights that were long denied to them? Why would Jesus Christ, who identified with all the suffering segments of humanity be against such a humane change in the teaching of the church?
You wrote “You seem to think that a life without sex is a worthless life.” It might be worthwhile in this context to remember that until about hundred years ago the world over marriages was arranged. People married when they reached puberty, and the family and society protected the relationship. There was strict segregation of the sexes to prevent sexual misconduct. That is how the sex instinct was catered to early enough and kept within safe limits, NOT through imposing celibacy. But you advocate celibacy in an age where there are no early marriages and no segregation of sexes and none of the emotional security provided by families and communities. I wish to emphasise that I do not advocate promiscuity, sexual orgies, and divorces (except in cases where the marriage is destructive to one or both partners) – not for heterosexuals, not for homosexuals. I wish the homosexuals the same joy, privileges and responsibilities that comes with a partnership in a heterosexual relationship - nothing more, nothing less.
Soja John Thaikattil, first let me say concerning your accident, it is indeed a miracle that you recovered as you did, because any head injury can be serious in such an impact. May I say I'm very sincerely grateful you had the strength in which to endure. I know many who did not get such a chance.
I'm am not affiliated with any organized church or religion whatsoever, but I have through the last 45 years been associated with plenty of them.
I am a freelance Biblical historian using a secular chronological history reference as a platform in order to study prophecies in our time.
As matthew 24 is concerned, I'm very aware of those verses you have given as an example. Finding discrepancies in religions throughout the years was a tedious job at the best of times, but being persistant and having a vigorous drive to seek truth, I managed to do just that using the holy scriptures and asking for divine assistance.
What I learned was short of miraculous also, right down to accurate knowledge to interpet scriptures according to God's will, not man's.
I learned God only accepts one faith that he is using today. I know what that faith is. I understand his purpose for us on earth here and it does not include its destruction. The end of the world is not a literal destruction, it is referring to the system of things that support the corruption, the false religion and all of rebellious mankind who suppresses truth.
I understand the days we live in today are coincided in date when God's representation on earth came to an end in 607 BCE when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians the first time and I'm aware that those 7 Bible times in human history had to pass before the signs of the end would be near. That happened in the early part of the 20th century and those days of events have progressively taken place where almost all prophecies Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24 have been fulfilled. Aside from events that are to take place shortly to trigger the tribulation in Matt. 24: 21, I also see the signs of the Scarlet Coloured Wild Beast beginning its destruction on Babylon the Great.
Revelation is a very simple chapter to understand when one has the conscientious heart required by God to vision it.
If your church is not teaching you the end times, then perhaps maybe it would be wise to question your leaders, because Jesus did not warn against informing the population about the coming tribulation and the day of Armageddon, but he did warn about religions paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons 1 Timothy 4: 1-4.
I wish to respond more meaningfully to your post of 4 March 2007 12:37 PM because you raise important issues. Since there seems to be more than one anonymous on this thread, would it be possible for you to give me a little more information about you? It does not intrude on your privacy because you are "anonymous," but it would help differentiate you from the other anonymouses.
Since it is relevant to the topic we are discussing and the points you have raised:
1. Are you male/female?
2. Young/middle aged/elderly?
3. Homosexual/heterosexual?
4. Celibate/Married/de facto relationship/other?
5. If celibate - then by your choice/forced by others/by circumstances/temporary?
Looking forward to hearing from you so that I can respond to your post. Please feel free to ignore any or all my questions, but do give me some kind of identification that tells you apart from other anonymi.
I read Matthew 24 for description of the end times, since you mentioned my church is supposedly not warning us of end times as your church is. I take it that your church expects you to believe that we are living in the end times now. The following verses struck me: 11, 36, 44.
"Many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.
"No-one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
"So you must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."
----------------------
As far as I'm concerned the end of my life on this earth is the end of time for me. It doesn't make a difference to me, as far as my fate and eternity is concerned, whether the world comes to an end in a million years or fifty or a hundred. I must be prepared for death at any time, not because the world might come to an end, but my world might come to an end suddenly in an accident without any time to prepare for my end. I was caught completely unprepared four years ago. I was hit by a car on the highway. I escaped with closed internal head injury, torn knee ligament and small scraping on my knee although the accident could have killed me instantly. I recovered completely from the closed internal head injury, which led to short term loss of memory for 24 hours, within four weeks, and my knee is intact despite a torn ligament. In memory of that accident all I have, literally, is a barely visible little scar on my right knee, like one could get by scraping one's knee on something harsh accidently. I'm literally a walking miracle!
If my church is not teaching about end times as yours supposedly is, it is simply because Jesus warned against such teaching. We are all supposed to do our best as Christians at all times, the end of our lives is the end of the world for us, and the timing of the end of the world doesn't matter at all. If Jesus and the angels don't know when the end is going to be, I'm not about to believe that the pastor in your church does. Sorry! But I wish you comfort in whatever and in whomever you choose to believe.
Does I Corinthians 6:9,10 say something different, in your version? I believe the spirit will be the same. No one asks God. My post was to bring His words into rememberance, because all I read were the positions of man, of man's institutions, or man's experience. It seemed like He was being left out. God can't be found in the mind - He is SPIRIT and truth.
God,
Please save the world from stupid people who procreate like rabbits.
So Catholics are against divorce. Guess what state has the lowest divorce rate in the country -Good old liberal Mass.
Also, did you know that our early church fathers were woefully uniformed about female physiology. They believed female relations were only immoral if a foreign object was introduced. So all you sexually confused Catholic school girls the "Church" says cunnilingus is perfectly acceptable. (check out the book immodest acts)
The "Church" also believed that a woman could only become pregnant if she had an orgasm, therefore, if a woman got pregnant she couldn't possibly have been raped. God knows
the "Church" can't be wrong.
A little epistemological issue, the "Church" is an object/institution it does not have agency. The Church doesn't do, think, or say anything. Only people have agency.
Well I was going to post a few examples of the material you requested, but when I read further in your comment about who really qualifies for heaven, I realized then you have no concept of scriptural context at all, just meerily what you have been taught by your church. Being a Catholic you should know how many are qualified for heaven and you at this time should be aware of what they would be doing there.
After-all have you not been told that we indeed are living in the last days. Are you not familiar with the signs of our time in Revelation that points to Matthew 24: 21.
Trouble with your religion, they don't make you aware of God's word, they make you believe the teachings of the church. With just these three examples I gave you of scriptural reference would have given anyone who has an accurate knowledge of Bible truths cause for consideration. So read Acts 17: 24 and see what your leaders think about what God is referring to hand made temples. One thing I can gaurantee you, it won't be correct.
I'm not overly concerned about your salvation because the entire world is filled with believers of similiar faiths. The only concernment I have for anyone is how they can be so blind about what's truth in scriptures, yet follow the lies of organized religion.
Non the least, it was nice of you to comment.
I don't think the King James version of the Bible is "obsolete"...but it's not exacly the best reference when participating in a discussion regarding Catholicism. It's not the version used.
Author: Patricia H Bazemore MD, Associate Professor of Family and Community Medicine, Psychiatry and Pediatrics, University of Massachusetts Medical School; Chief, Department of Medicine, Worcester State Hospital
Co-author: William H Wilson MD, Professor of Psychiatry, Director of Inpatient Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Oregon Health and Science University
Co-author: Douglas A Bigelow PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University
“Homosexuality is not a medical or psychiatric disorder…Homosexuality has long been recognized in human and animal populations. Despite the relative frequency of homosexuality among humans and animals, homosexuality remains mysterious and controversial to much of society. Homosexual individuals who choose members of their own sex for sexual relations and domestic partnerships are often targets of individual and societal prejudice…This article provides a general overview of homosexuality and is intended as a basic guide for psychiatrists and general physicians.”
You wrote, “Soja John Thaikattil, your scientific article is in complete contrast to many medical research issues concerning homosexuality, that homosexuality can be cured. The problem that lies within the inflicted person, is the effort and the willpower to comprehend change.”
I would appreciate it if you would post a list of scientific peer reviewed articles which substantiate your claim that homosexuality can be cured, for the benefit of all who read this thread, including myself.
To my knowledge, neither the Ten Commandments nor Jesus mentioned homosexuality, although two commandments out of ten are about adultery, and Jesus was asked clarification about divorce. I think it might be a real eye opener if you were to make a COMPLETE list of all that is considered sinful in the New Testament and compare it to the standards of virtue you observe in yourself and in others around you who are NOT homosexuals. I wonder how many would really qualify for heaven by those standards, after all the Bible makes it clear that faith without works is dead and not all who say Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven if they haven’t obeyed the commands of Jesus. From the Old Testament, I would not consider anything other than the Ten Commandments because if one were to consider the whole list from Leviticus as God’s word that has to be obeyed without question and exception, we’d be in a terrible mess and the Christian population would be very small indeed since killing is the method of choice for dealing with many transgressions.
Thank you for your concern about my salvation. I am concerned about the holistic health of human beings and I consider it my moral duty to speak up and add my voice, if I’m able to do so, to any discussion that is intended to help alleviate the suffering of any human being. I believe in a living God and Risen Lord Jesus who inspires me through the Holy Spirit. I’m expected to give an account to God of only what has been revealed to my conscience, which I inform with prayers and knowledge as much as I can.
By whose authority is the King James Version of the Bible obsolete? I have, or have had several other translations of the Bible,and find The King James Version to be most compatable to Strong's Concordance, Vine's Expository Bible Dictionary, Unger's Bible Dictionary, Richard's Bible Dictionary, and the like. It is widely held by theologians to be an accurate translation, except for it's minor rabinical predjudices. I would like to own a New American Standard Version, but believe that they are rare.
I Corinthians 1:17-31 - Jewish New Testament - Translation by David H. Stern
For the Messiah did not send me to immerse, but to proclaim the Good News - and to do it without relying on "wisdom" that consists of mere rhetoric, so as not to rob the Messiah's execution-stake of its power. For the message about the execution-stake is foolishness to those in the process of being destroyed, but to us in the process of being saved, it is the power of God. Indeed, the Tanakh says,
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent."
Where does that leave the philosopher, the Torah-teacher,or any of today's thinkers? Hasn't God made this world's widom look pretty foolish? For God's wisdom ordained that the world, using its own wisdom, would would not come to know Him. Therefore God decided to use the "nonsense" of what we proclaim as His means of saving those who come to trust in it. Precisely because Jews ask for signs, and Greeks try to find wisdom, we go on proclaiming a Messiah executed on a stake as a criminal! To Jews this is an obstacle, and to Greeks it is nonsense; but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, this same Messiah is God's power and wisdom! For God's "nonsense" is wiser than humanity's "wisdom".
Soja John Thaikkattil, your scientific article is in complete contrast to many medical research issues concerning homosexuality, that homosexuality can be cured. The problem that lies within the inflicted person, is the effort and the willpower to comprehend change.
The avenues discouraging those efforts is the general acceptance of the homosexual person as normal behavour in this society.
Ironic as it is, you being a Catholic should know that God does not approve of homosexuals unless they make an effort to counteract this defilement of the flesh. Regardless whether your church leaders accept them or not, God's word does not change because man says so, he looks at homosexuals as obscene and he will make full recomphense for their errors,... not his.
Apparently you do not understand the implications of your own actions to support an issue that does not coincide with the teachings in scriptures.
The negative aspects of Revelation 18: 4 and Matthew 7: 13, 14 plus many others, should make you consider seriously about changing your faith, before you get caught up in God's coming wrath!
Religion is like a drug, a powerful addiction for many people. These people have no self confidence or are lonely.
Many people put religion before their own families, i.e. time away from home, tithe, etc.
Most religions are against dancing, alcohol, premarital sex, etc.
So, why would they not want to ban everything but prayer!
Sharon, the King James Version of the Bible with its thou, ye, thy, etc., has gone into obsoleteness.
You could get a clearer interpetation to the scriptures if you were to obtain a more accurate updated version that has restored the true writings from the original scrolls.
The most accurate copy of the Bible to date is "The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicaters, nor idolitors, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkerds, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
King James Version of the Holy Bible
Praise be to God for His Son Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, rose again and prepared the way; (through repentance and belief); so that we can be forgiven, born again, not in the desires of our
When a church for thousands of years condemns a practise that has been contrary to their teachings, suddenly compromises its traditional values and begins upholding issues that were in history, a death sentence to those who induldged into them, it would be wise as thinking people to seriously question other teachings of the Catholic religion as well.
Many religions that have accepted the way of the world are missing the concept of what Christ commanded of his followers to be "no part of the world," just as "he is no part of the world!"
This Anthony M. Stephens-Arroyo definitely is a man of the world with his philosphy of doctrines and clearly if we were to evaluate 1 John 5: 19 before we fell into his deceptive message, his god could be recognized by his works.
If you are a Catholic then you really should be able to answer this question effectively
If you claim that dignity is being violated, please inform me of the Catholic Church teaching that treats homosexuals differently than heterosexuals who have sex unhinged from the possibility of procreation. The Church loves all. Perhaps you wish to create a trumped up evil church dispensing trips to hell for homosexuals. That is not the case.
I'm not here to give you the Catholic treatment, but if you call yourself a Catholic you owe it to be able to articulate the Church's teaching accurately and not malign the Church. Respect is in order.
You seem all to happy to ask a dozen questions setting up false choices with mutually exclusive conclusions. Doesn't that seem a little untrue to you. For example:
you accept their sexual practice or you hate them.
You engage in sex or you live a life of misery... Are priests, celibate heterosexuals and the elderly miserable? Was Mother Teresa a miserable person? Surely you are wrong in this view.
God created it so it must be good...True many things God created are good, but not all. Is cancer good, is genetic predisposition to alcohol good? Is Down syndrome good? How about Natural disasters? Things are not necessarily good because God created them. That's a logical mistake.
Can one have an emotionally fulfilling life without gay or straight sex? You seem to think that a life without sex is a worthless life... I don't think that follows. Many don't think that follows. The better question is why do you elevate non-procreative sex to some ultimate pedestal? That is what you are unconsciously doing if you really peel back the layers.
" On what basis have you appointed yourself guardian of a moral that you believe comes from God" ...
So let me rephrase this since I am not originating a teaching but supporting a teaching, (a teaching that asks much thought of us as Catholics) ...why should the Church get involved in sexual questions ?
Look around you...
Look at the suffering that has come from sex outside of procreation (or the marital act as it is understood by Catholics?) Look at the Sexually transmitted Diseases, look at the human suffering both physical and emotional, all over the world. Look at the AIDS death it has caused.
If these people were adhering to the truth of Catholic Teaching on sex they would be living longer, healthier lives able to do so much more for those they love. Look at the suffering this non Catholic sexual ethics brings... It is almost too much to calculate.
Look at the western divorce rates from infidelity and the emotional suffering. Look at the falling birth rates. All this has come because we have unhinged sex from the marital act. We are lost in sex and paying a measurable price. Things are not getting better they are getting worse. These are all consequences of sex outside of the marital act.
The Church is the only organization that understands this with moral clarity. The Church understands the true natural law of sex. You should reevaluate things.. you are tossing away the truth, a truth that can heal.
But while all of this deals the negatives of sex unhinged from procreation. What are the positives of the marital act? Let's not just view this from a negative point of view...
What is the background of Genesis 9:7? Could it be the fact that Israel was in the process of becoming a nation and needed a much larger population in order to defend itself against other nations. The same can be said for not spilling "One's seed upon the ground."
I take it that you were referring to my post when you wrote, "This is not an issue of human dignity, it is an issue of sexual morality. No one is denying anyone dignity."
First of all I hope you clicked on the link and read the article I posted, the view of the medical community regarding homosexuality - that it is NOT a choice and CANNOT be "cured." Psychiatry attempted to "cure" the condition with the most desperate methods and failed. It finally removed homosexuality as a disease from the DSM in 1973.
Does the sexual expression of a homosexual come across as an issue of sexual morality to you nevertheless? Is it sexually immoral to need sexual satisfaction, the joys of a committed relationship, and the acceptance in society as a normal human being? On what moral basis do you impose celibacy on a homosexual? On what moral basis do you say that a homosexual has no right to the same sexual and emotional satisfaction as a heterosexual? On what moral basis do you deny a homosexual person the pleasures that you enjoy and take for granted? Mind you I'm NOT advocating promiscuous or criminal homosexual behaviour! Aren't you selfish at best to deny a homosexual a sexually and emotionally fulfilling life? On what moral basis do you claim that you do it out of love for the homosexual? On what basis have you appointed yourself guardian of a moral that you believe comes from God, although you have no way of knowing how God loves a homosexual and understands their human condition for He created them with as much love as He created you, and wants them to be happy just as much as He wants you to be happy? I doubt very much if God is going to say to a homosexual, "I created you with a sexual orientation towards the same sex for I wanted you to be miserable and live a celibate life without any sexual satisfaction and joy of companionship in a committed relationship; I wanted you to be hated and shunned by your Christian brothers and sisters and the society, or tolerated at best and 'loved as a sinner'." The Jesus I worship said, "I have come to give you life, and life in abundance." Your idea of abundance for the homosexual doesn't sound like the abundance of Jesus to me.
As a fellow lay woman liberal Catholic (baptised, received first Holy Communion and confirmed in the Syro-Malabar Catholic church, and long attending and being a part of the Latin Roman Catholic church), I welcome all efforts by Catholics with power to influence the Vatican to work towards giving homosexuals in the Catholic church the acceptance, dignity and love they deserve as children of God and members of the body of Christ. Your sincere effort to find wiggle room in Catholic theology to fit Catholic homosexuals is laudable. My role model for the all embracing unconditional love, which reflects the love of Christ, that can be very much a part of Catholicism is Dom Bede Griffiths, an English Benedictine monk who lived in India. ( http://www.bedegriffiths.com ) I believe he is one of the many great Catholics that the church can be truly proud of. It is my sincere prayer that the Holy Spirit may inspire many more Catholics like you to work together to bring unconditional acceptance for Catholic homosexuals.
For a scientific view on homosexuality, please read the article by Bazemore PH, Wilson WH, Bigelow DA:
The issue here is very important and very uncomfortable for many to face. It is the issue of morality in sex.
The Catholic Church has consistently held that sex must have a unitive and generative dimension. (in fact all mainline protestant churches held this position until 1930).
The Catholic Church is not playing favorites with heterosexuals. The same sin is being committed by straights when they engage in sex without possibility of procreation too.
Issues of non inclusion or bigotry or whatever are vehicles fabricated to push a change in this essential teaching on sex.
You confuse the issues. The Catholic Church is not banning gays from ministry. There is no violation of human dignity as you claim.
I am not at all surprised by your view though. It fits nicely into my profile of liberals and gay issues. You all go exactly like this:
1. Pretend violation of human dignity is at stake, instead of moral question of sexual relations.
2. Take wide, shallow trip through the Gospels and dig up a relative value (inclusion in your case) take this value and change it to an absolute for purposes of discussion.
3. Co-opt Christ to your values
4. Knock down trumped up evil conservative scarecrow.
5. Hi Five other liberals because you've remade God into your image not his.
No marriage for the impotent...
Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
If you lie about infertility and/or homosexuality...
Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.
Arroyo's not a "true Catholic" because he's a liberal? Judgmentally labeling someone with whom you disagree does not reflect well on you.
Case in point: look at the definition of "liberal", this from the AHD ...
"1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."
Let's deconstruct your high-handed self-promotion in light of the above. By your own statement, if a "true" Catholic cannot be liberal, he/she must be the following ...
"1. a. limited by ... orthodox or authoritarian values; controlled or enslaved by bigotry (antonyms of "free"). b. against reform, closed to new ideas for progress, and INTOLERANT of ideas and behavior of others; narrow-minded."
Doesn't describe my "true" Catholic friends. It does, however, describe the hateful attitudes promoted by William Donohue and a few other so-called "true" Catholics who dump on views that conflict with their own narrow -- and wrong -- interpretation of How To Lead A Good Catholic Life.
You will "only post true Catholic doctrine"? What, you're a qualified theologian? Have the experience/training to engage in something so complex? What I see in your posts is angry, judgmental sophistry disturbingly similar to the self-anointed crackpots on the Religious Right. That's not good theology, just self-righteous behavior.
Howzabout following a more Christ-like path instead of getting hung up on what the "Church" dictates?
Jesus did say "Judge not, that ye be not judged." (KJV -- Protestant, but the point is clear).
Learn it, know it, live it. At least you have something interesting for the confessional this weekend.
As a Catholic, I am disheartened to hear so much reference to various interpretations of the teachings of "the Church," and virtually no reference to the life and teaching of Christ. While Catholics are certainly required to know and give serious consideration to Church teachings, in the end, we are ultimately responsible for the formation of our own consciences. If I read correctly, the question asked was, "What does your faith lead you to believe..." My faith leads me to believe that the essential message of Christ in the scriptures is one of inclusion and justice. I cannot imagine that Christ would exclude people from ministry on the basis of sexual orientation.
Since the II Vatican Council, Catholic theology has drifted away from the hard material sense of the sacramental sign and moved towards psychological meanings.
The sign value of matrimony, as now taught, is not so much a material union in the sexual act, but the loving and affective relationship that brings two people together for life. But can’t people of the same sex have just such a “loving and affective relationship”? "
Okay so this is where he goes for the heresy. 1) Vatican II did nothing to change the sacrament of marriage. He imagines it being softened around the edges but this is not found anywhere that can be backed up. He is misleading, but he needs this for the set up to his later argument...
2)Matrimony is always taught as a loving and affective relationship... so he states the obvious but then he leaves it at that without explaining the Church's clear teaching on the COMPLEMENTARY nature of the one flesh union. So he is tricky and if you didn't know better you'd believe him.
True Catholics should know when they are getting half baked or even false Catholic theology.
Get off your high horse! The professor clearly distinguishes between physical and psychological meanings, why do you overlook what is there in black and white? Is this your effort to look self-important? By the way, infertility is a cause for annulment in the current code of canon law. So what church's teaching are you talking about? I'm afraid you are living proof that people who can't go beyond the rote catechism answers shouldn't pretend to be theologians.
I would criticize Arroyo for being too nice about Catholicism -- there are more people like you making decisions than thoughtful people like him.
No being childless does not invalidate a marriage. Marriages are not valid or invalid based on the birthing of children. In fact, nothing invalidates a marriage in Catholicism as catholics believe marriage is a sacrament from God delivered through a priest. As such, no person(s) anywhere can destroy it. Ever.
I don't blame you for being confused by this false doctrine the author is presenting. Here is the issue, Catholics must be OPEN to procreation in every sexual act. Meaning they cannot intentionally abort or prevent pregnancy. If for some reason, any reason, they cannot bring forth life because of disorder or disease that is not a sin. At all. Ever.
The Author purposefully is misleading you with the "be fruitful and multiply" quote. He knows full well that this is not the basis of sexual morality in Catholicism. However, he is a liberal (not a true Catholic) and as such is willfully pretending that there is wiggle room when there actually is not. He claims like most 1960s Catholics that Vatican II allows them to shirk morality and reduce doctrine to "guidelines". Its all crap and you should know it. Thanks for asking your question.
Regards,
Papal
Robert B,
You are dead wrong. You know nothing about Catholic theology or the classic moral conviction that the Church follows with regards to contraception. Please educate yourself on Catholic Theology first and then post. I'm not angry, but you really need to learn this stuff.
Papal
ps. I will only post true Catholic doctrine. I will not offer opinion, interpretation or confuse it with political questions.
The author is giving a false representation of Catholic teaching on marriage. He purposefully leaves out the unitive dimension of man and woman and twists the generative dimension of sex to be something about bearing children. He claims Vatican II gives him wiggle room. He is wrong as Vatican II did nothing of the sort.
Believe me, its too much to go into right now but believe this:
RE: Catholic fertility treatments... There's something called Natural Procreation Technology (NaPro) that claims to get better results than IVF. http://www.naprotechnology.com/ . I'd take their claims with a giant hunk of salt, though.
You must be in deep despair over the defeat of former Senator Macaca.
Given another term, he could have gotten rid of all those undesirables in Virginia: minorities, gay people, liberals, immigrants, and all the other threats to real Muricans.
The Vatican officially disapproves of all infertility treatments which involve the "artificial" creation of embryos.
I know this because I once inquired about this on an official Catholic information site and was told what I wrote above.
Here's an interesting point:
The Church trumpets it's opposition to contraception, abortion and everything gay, at every opportunity.
But it never mentions its official condemnation of the creation of embryos for fertility purposes.
Why? I imagine the Church is afraid that if its opposition to embryo-creation was widely known,
it might seem to contradict its other pro-birth sexual policies.
And, if obeyed, its edict of disapproval would certainly result in fewer Catholic babies, something the Church would not like to see.
I'm a lawyer. For me and for our legal system the final decision of a final court is as much "law" as any piece of legislation. In many American states and in the Federal system judges are appointed, not elected. The Founding Fathers determined that was the better system. Elected judges are likely to bend or break in the face of public pressure, make bad decisions, and discriminate against minorities.
If Brown vs. Board of Education (the no-segregation decision) wasn't incontestable, I'm sure your wonderful Virginia legislature, or a popular referendum there, would have voted to continue school segregation.
It's too bad that the conscience of the Virginia electorate tells its voters that it's fine to hurt gays. The same electorate would have voted to continue slavery in 1865 if it had been able to.
The point I made in the earlier post was that the Roman Church in Massachusetts is working hard to overturn the Supreme Judicial Court's decision for gay marriage. I said if I lived in Mass. I'd oppose the Church on that. Fortunately the Church no longer has the power to decree such things!
I don't believe the "Church" is responsible for overriding any laws involving gay marriage. As I understand it, the whole issue of gay marriage came center stage when a bunch of non-elected, left wing appointed, activist judges decided to make a name for themselves. Fortunately, most state legislatures have stepped in and offered "gay marriage" bills to the citizens of the state fo vote on. In VA, we recently had the "no to gay marriage" bill that was overwhelmingly passed by the citizens of the state. That enabled Catholics, Christians, Atheists, and every other person under the sun to vote their conscience.
The short answer to your question is "Yes". Though in the Middle Ages, infertility was grounds for an annulment of the marriage. However, I'm not sure if that is still the case.
As for "infertility treatments that are not Papally sanctioned," could you perhaps provide me with some examples of such treatments?
Michelangelo's poetry is certainly one part of the puzzle. Another is his refusal to use female models for his works (which is why on the Sistine Chapel, Eve has biceps that Arnold Schwartzenegger would envy...)
It would seem that Florence was a haven for homosexuality in the late medieval/Renaissance era. When Dante wrote the Inferno, for example, most of the people that the pilgrim talks to amongst the Sodomites (7th Circle) are Florentines...
A man and a woman are both Catholics, and are married in a Catholic marriage ceremony. After they are married, they discover that one or both of them are infertile. They do not have any children, and choose to remain childless rather than undergo infertility treatments that are not Papally sanctioned. If the couple is not "fruitful" and has not "multiplied", are they still considered to be married under Catholic doctrine?
"It doesn’t seem fair to celebrate the beauty created by the gay Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, for instance, but reject the accompanying genetic trait that facilitates their art."
Let me get this straight (no pun intended): being gay made Michelangelo and Leonardo great artists? Oh please! There isn't even any proof that they were gay. Don't believe the hype!
Norrie: On another matter you wrote: "I would consider it unseemly for outsiders to pontificate about what Catholicism should or should not do."
I think that the good professor is more concerned about non-Catholics who prefer to bash Catholicism because of its seeming "backwardness" without understanding (or even trying to understand) *why* Catholicism teaches what it teaches. In this, I agree with him. It's frustrating, for example, when evangelicals refer to Catholics as "idolators" because of the Catholic veneration of saints because they seem to willfully misunderstand the theological concept of intercession.
Luckily for me, neither of you are like these people. Though we stand on different sides of the discussion, you both have always approached the debate with both a desire to understand and a willingness to accept the explanation. For that, I would like to thank you.
Far bet it for an outsider like me to ask much about theological niceties since the necessary convolutions make my head spin. However, is it obvious what is meant by the “fruitful” union of Christ with the Church? Is it "spiritual" fruit or does it refer only to some form of procreation? Is it of necessity to be coupled to the line out of Genesis?
Perhaps this could provide a means to accommodate gay people who are being oppressed in part on the basis of religious justifications (as is obvious from reading the comment threads).
All Comments (53)
To Anonymous (Ref post 4 March 2007 12:37 PM):
Since you did not respond to my request to give a little more information about your person, let me explain why I asked you those questions as background to your post in question in the first place. It would have been helpful for me to know where you come from, to gauge your empathy for the plight of homosexuals. I wondered if you were for instance a heterosexual who enjoys the satisfaction of a sexual relationship and companionship yourself but denies it to a homosexual because you believe that you are saving them a trip to hell. I wondered too if you were a celibate homo/heterosexual by choice who is convinced that your free choice in life should be imposed on a homosexual by force against their free will.
You emphasise that God meant sex only for procreation. Would that imply that if a couple wanted to have only two children they would have to restrict having sex to the number of times it takes the woman to get pregnant twice, and live like siblings for the rest of their lives? Where exactly in the Bible does it mention that sex is meant only for procreation? I have not come across any such passage. God made Eve as a companion for Adam because He found it was not good for Adam to be alone. Are you suggesting that the companionship does not automatically include physical intimacy between them, and God wanted them to have physical intimacy only to have children and live like siblings the rest of their lives?
Do I want to "create a trumped up evil church dispensing trips to hell for homosexuals?" When I read the Gospels and about the life of Jesus Christ, I cannot help noticing at how vastly different the Catholic Church is today to the life of early Christians described in the New Testament. The Church has undergone changes in its teachings and structure throughout its history based on prayer and revelation of its members – much of it has been very good, some of it not so good, and some of it has been really bad. The Vatican Council II is a terrific jump in consciousness compared to the earlier teachings of the church! I’m proud of be a part of the Catholic Church. Whatever may have been its mistakes in the past, and whatever maybe its limitations now, I’m a part of the church, but does not mean that I refuse to use my God given capacities and am afraid to express my honest opinions and disagreements. The Catholic Church is a living Church which is open to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Why should it not change again, if reason, science and prayer of Catholics within the church propose changes which are in keeping with the command of Jesus to love as He did?
You accuse me of maligning the church and you say that respect is in order. Since you make a serious flase allegation, could you elaborate on that? What makes you think that I as a member of the Catholic Church have no right to express the insights I have gained through the leading of the Holy Spirit I seek through prayer, reflection and knowledge?
You ask if I think people who don’t engage in sex live a life of misery, and name as examples to the contrary - catholic priests, celibate heterosexuals, elderly and Mother Theresa. From your chosen examples, it is important to distinguish those who chose celibacy freely, eg catholic priests, and nuns like Mother Theresa; and those who had celibacy imposed on them due to life circumstances eg celibate heterosexuals and the elderly. As for the elderly you do not mention whether they are among those who had a normal sexual life until they became elderly, and sex was no longer a part of their lives either due to illness, loss of a partner or decrease in libido.
The only point I tried to make is that the need for physical intimacy and companionship is a LEGITIMATE human need. Celibacy is NOT a prerequisite for a life of prayer and to lead a holy life. Celibacy is FREELY chosen very RARELY, it is NOT automatically chosen by all who would like to live a life pleasing in God’s sight. Celibacy should NEVER be imposed from outside on anyone precisely because it is contrary to a legitimate human need. It was that legitimate human need of a homosexual that I was defending. But you imply that there are only two choices: celibacy or promiscuity, and for the heterosexuals who are married there is no choice at all besides sex for procreation. I do not “elevate non-procreative sex to some ultimate pedestal”, I merely say that because God created sex it is good, and He meant it to serve as physical expression of love between man and woman in a companionship, as source pleasure for themselves not merely for the purpose of pro-creation.
Celibacy in catholic priests: Mandatory celibacy for parish priests was introduced only 1139 AD and it is no secret that the reasons were political rather than religious. Do you think that married priests in other denominations of Christianity are not real Christians and do not do their job just as well? I'm sure that you have noticed as I have that celibate vocations in the Catholic Church are not just dwindling but almost disappearing. Most people think that mandatory celibacy is probably too high a price to pay for serving in the Church, despite one's desire to serve the Church as a committed Christian.
You say “Things are not necessarily good because God creates them.” That is a terrible thing to say about an infallible God and His creation of homosexuals in His image and likeness, when you imply at the same time that everything the church run by human beings teaches in regard to how the God created homosexuals are to be treated is infallible. Read the Gospel of John chapters 14-17 and you will notice that Jesus promised to guide His disciples through the Holy Spirit and teach them even after He was gone physically. The Catholic Church has lived up to that and hence has teachings in addition to the Bible and has amassed spiritual wealth over the centuries due to the work of many dedicated Catholics. The Catholic Church is also proof that human beings who run the church being human beings can also make mistakes. Remember that Pope John Paul II apologised for the mistakes made by the Catholic Church in the name of Jesus Christ? There is no shame in recognising one’s mistake and changing course. It is fully in keeping with our Christian knowledge that human beings are sinful. Until thirty four years ago sufficient scientific evidence didn't exist that homosexuality was not a disease and could not be cured. But now that we know that homosexuality is prevalent in nature and homosexuals do not choose it, would it not be proper for us to reexamine our attitudes towards the issue and give them the rights that were long denied to them? Why would Jesus Christ, who identified with all the suffering segments of humanity be against such a humane change in the teaching of the church?
You wrote “You seem to think that a life without sex is a worthless life.” It might be worthwhile in this context to remember that until about hundred years ago the world over marriages was arranged. People married when they reached puberty, and the family and society protected the relationship. There was strict segregation of the sexes to prevent sexual misconduct. That is how the sex instinct was catered to early enough and kept within safe limits, NOT through imposing celibacy. But you advocate celibacy in an age where there are no early marriages and no segregation of sexes and none of the emotional security provided by families and communities. I wish to emphasise that I do not advocate promiscuity, sexual orgies, and divorces (except in cases where the marriage is destructive to one or both partners) – not for heterosexuals, not for homosexuals. I wish the homosexuals the same joy, privileges and responsibilities that comes with a partnership in a heterosexual relationship - nothing more, nothing less.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
March 8, 2007 11:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 8, 2007 23:25
Soja John Thaikattil, first let me say concerning your accident, it is indeed a miracle that you recovered as you did, because any head injury can be serious in such an impact. May I say I'm very sincerely grateful you had the strength in which to endure. I know many who did not get such a chance.
I'm am not affiliated with any organized church or religion whatsoever, but I have through the last 45 years been associated with plenty of them.
I am a freelance Biblical historian using a secular chronological history reference as a platform in order to study prophecies in our time.
As matthew 24 is concerned, I'm very aware of those verses you have given as an example. Finding discrepancies in religions throughout the years was a tedious job at the best of times, but being persistant and having a vigorous drive to seek truth, I managed to do just that using the holy scriptures and asking for divine assistance.
What I learned was short of miraculous also, right down to accurate knowledge to interpet scriptures according to God's will, not man's.
I learned God only accepts one faith that he is using today. I know what that faith is. I understand his purpose for us on earth here and it does not include its destruction. The end of the world is not a literal destruction, it is referring to the system of things that support the corruption, the false religion and all of rebellious mankind who suppresses truth.
I understand the days we live in today are coincided in date when God's representation on earth came to an end in 607 BCE when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians the first time and I'm aware that those 7 Bible times in human history had to pass before the signs of the end would be near. That happened in the early part of the 20th century and those days of events have progressively taken place where almost all prophecies Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24 have been fulfilled. Aside from events that are to take place shortly to trigger the tribulation in Matt. 24: 21, I also see the signs of the Scarlet Coloured Wild Beast beginning its destruction on Babylon the Great.
Revelation is a very simple chapter to understand when one has the conscientious heart required by God to vision it.
If your church is not teaching you the end times, then perhaps maybe it would be wise to question your leaders, because Jesus did not warn against informing the population about the coming tribulation and the day of Armageddon, but he did warn about religions paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons 1 Timothy 4: 1-4.
March 6, 2007 6:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 18:47
To ANONYMOUS:
I wish to respond more meaningfully to your post of 4 March 2007 12:37 PM because you raise important issues. Since there seems to be more than one anonymous on this thread, would it be possible for you to give me a little more information about you? It does not intrude on your privacy because you are "anonymous," but it would help differentiate you from the other anonymouses.
Since it is relevant to the topic we are discussing and the points you have raised:
1. Are you male/female?
2. Young/middle aged/elderly?
3. Homosexual/heterosexual?
4. Celibate/Married/de facto relationship/other?
5. If celibate - then by your choice/forced by others/by circumstances/temporary?
Looking forward to hearing from you so that I can respond to your post. Please feel free to ignore any or all my questions, but do give me some kind of identification that tells you apart from other anonymi.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
March 6, 2007 2:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 02:01
To Ronald Fleming:
I read Matthew 24 for description of the end times, since you mentioned my church is supposedly not warning us of end times as your church is. I take it that your church expects you to believe that we are living in the end times now. The following verses struck me: 11, 36, 44.
"Many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.
"No-one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
"So you must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."
----------------------
As far as I'm concerned the end of my life on this earth is the end of time for me. It doesn't make a difference to me, as far as my fate and eternity is concerned, whether the world comes to an end in a million years or fifty or a hundred. I must be prepared for death at any time, not because the world might come to an end, but my world might come to an end suddenly in an accident without any time to prepare for my end. I was caught completely unprepared four years ago. I was hit by a car on the highway. I escaped with closed internal head injury, torn knee ligament and small scraping on my knee although the accident could have killed me instantly. I recovered completely from the closed internal head injury, which led to short term loss of memory for 24 hours, within four weeks, and my knee is intact despite a torn ligament. In memory of that accident all I have, literally, is a barely visible little scar on my right knee, like one could get by scraping one's knee on something harsh accidently. I'm literally a walking miracle!
If my church is not teaching about end times as yours supposedly is, it is simply because Jesus warned against such teaching. We are all supposed to do our best as Christians at all times, the end of our lives is the end of the world for us, and the timing of the end of the world doesn't matter at all. If Jesus and the angels don't know when the end is going to be, I'm not about to believe that the pastor in your church does. Sorry! But I wish you comfort in whatever and in whomever you choose to believe.
March 6, 2007 1:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 6, 2007 01:45
Danny B
Does I Corinthians 6:9,10 say something different, in your version? I believe the spirit will be the same. No one asks God. My post was to bring His words into rememberance, because all I read were the positions of man, of man's institutions, or man's experience. It seemed like He was being left out. God can't be found in the mind - He is SPIRIT and truth.
March 5, 2007 6:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 18:19
God,
Please save the world from stupid people who procreate like rabbits.
So Catholics are against divorce. Guess what state has the lowest divorce rate in the country -Good old liberal Mass.
Also, did you know that our early church fathers were woefully uniformed about female physiology. They believed female relations were only immoral if a foreign object was introduced. So all you sexually confused Catholic school girls the "Church" says cunnilingus is perfectly acceptable. (check out the book immodest acts)
The "Church" also believed that a woman could only become pregnant if she had an orgasm, therefore, if a woman got pregnant she couldn't possibly have been raped. God knows
the "Church" can't be wrong.
A little epistemological issue, the "Church" is an object/institution it does not have agency. The Church doesn't do, think, or say anything. Only people have agency.
March 5, 2007 12:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 12:28
Jonathan, you and Karl Marx have something in common!
March 5, 2007 10:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 10:17
Well I was going to post a few examples of the material you requested, but when I read further in your comment about who really qualifies for heaven, I realized then you have no concept of scriptural context at all, just meerily what you have been taught by your church. Being a Catholic you should know how many are qualified for heaven and you at this time should be aware of what they would be doing there.
After-all have you not been told that we indeed are living in the last days. Are you not familiar with the signs of our time in Revelation that points to Matthew 24: 21.
Trouble with your religion, they don't make you aware of God's word, they make you believe the teachings of the church. With just these three examples I gave you of scriptural reference would have given anyone who has an accurate knowledge of Bible truths cause for consideration. So read Acts 17: 24 and see what your leaders think about what God is referring to hand made temples. One thing I can gaurantee you, it won't be correct.
I'm not overly concerned about your salvation because the entire world is filled with believers of similiar faiths. The only concernment I have for anyone is how they can be so blind about what's truth in scriptures, yet follow the lies of organized religion.
Non the least, it was nice of you to comment.
March 5, 2007 2:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 02:17
To Sharon:
I don't think the King James version of the Bible is "obsolete"...but it's not exacly the best reference when participating in a discussion regarding Catholicism. It's not the version used.
March 5, 2007 1:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 01:55
To RONALD FLEMING (Ref post 4 March 2007 5:11PM):
From the article I posted titled “Homosexuality,” last updated 19 Dec 2005
( http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3359.htm ) written by:
Author: Patricia H Bazemore MD, Associate Professor of Family and Community Medicine, Psychiatry and Pediatrics, University of Massachusetts Medical School; Chief, Department of Medicine, Worcester State Hospital
Co-author: William H Wilson MD, Professor of Psychiatry, Director of Inpatient Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Oregon Health and Science University
Co-author: Douglas A Bigelow PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University
“Homosexuality is not a medical or psychiatric disorder…Homosexuality has long been recognized in human and animal populations. Despite the relative frequency of homosexuality among humans and animals, homosexuality remains mysterious and controversial to much of society. Homosexual individuals who choose members of their own sex for sexual relations and domestic partnerships are often targets of individual and societal prejudice…This article provides a general overview of homosexuality and is intended as a basic guide for psychiatrists and general physicians.”
You wrote, “Soja John Thaikattil, your scientific article is in complete contrast to many medical research issues concerning homosexuality, that homosexuality can be cured. The problem that lies within the inflicted person, is the effort and the willpower to comprehend change.”
I would appreciate it if you would post a list of scientific peer reviewed articles which substantiate your claim that homosexuality can be cured, for the benefit of all who read this thread, including myself.
To my knowledge, neither the Ten Commandments nor Jesus mentioned homosexuality, although two commandments out of ten are about adultery, and Jesus was asked clarification about divorce. I think it might be a real eye opener if you were to make a COMPLETE list of all that is considered sinful in the New Testament and compare it to the standards of virtue you observe in yourself and in others around you who are NOT homosexuals. I wonder how many would really qualify for heaven by those standards, after all the Bible makes it clear that faith without works is dead and not all who say Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven if they haven’t obeyed the commands of Jesus. From the Old Testament, I would not consider anything other than the Ten Commandments because if one were to consider the whole list from Leviticus as God’s word that has to be obeyed without question and exception, we’d be in a terrible mess and the Christian population would be very small indeed since killing is the method of choice for dealing with many transgressions.
Thank you for your concern about my salvation. I am concerned about the holistic health of human beings and I consider it my moral duty to speak up and add my voice, if I’m able to do so, to any discussion that is intended to help alleviate the suffering of any human being. I believe in a living God and Risen Lord Jesus who inspires me through the Holy Spirit. I’m expected to give an account to God of only what has been revealed to my conscience, which I inform with prayers and knowledge as much as I can.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
March 5, 2007 1:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 01:17
Theological Wiggle Room?
Anthony,why are you putting New Wine into Old Wineskins?
Vaya con Dios Hermano.
March 4, 2007 11:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 23:18
Ronald,
By whose authority is the King James Version of the Bible obsolete? I have, or have had several other translations of the Bible,and find The King James Version to be most compatable to Strong's Concordance, Vine's Expository Bible Dictionary, Unger's Bible Dictionary, Richard's Bible Dictionary, and the like. It is widely held by theologians to be an accurate translation, except for it's minor rabinical predjudices. I would like to own a New American Standard Version, but believe that they are rare.
I Corinthians 1:17-31 - Jewish New Testament - Translation by David H. Stern
For the Messiah did not send me to immerse, but to proclaim the Good News - and to do it without relying on "wisdom" that consists of mere rhetoric, so as not to rob the Messiah's execution-stake of its power. For the message about the execution-stake is foolishness to those in the process of being destroyed, but to us in the process of being saved, it is the power of God. Indeed, the Tanakh says,
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent."
Where does that leave the philosopher, the Torah-teacher,or any of today's thinkers? Hasn't God made this world's widom look pretty foolish? For God's wisdom ordained that the world, using its own wisdom, would would not come to know Him. Therefore God decided to use the "nonsense" of what we proclaim as His means of saving those who come to trust in it. Precisely because Jews ask for signs, and Greeks try to find wisdom, we go on proclaiming a Messiah executed on a stake as a criminal! To Jews this is an obstacle, and to Greeks it is nonsense; but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, this same Messiah is God's power and wisdom! For God's "nonsense" is wiser than humanity's "wisdom".
March 4, 2007 5:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 17:49
Soja John Thaikkattil, your scientific article is in complete contrast to many medical research issues concerning homosexuality, that homosexuality can be cured. The problem that lies within the inflicted person, is the effort and the willpower to comprehend change.
The avenues discouraging those efforts is the general acceptance of the homosexual person as normal behavour in this society.
Ironic as it is, you being a Catholic should know that God does not approve of homosexuals unless they make an effort to counteract this defilement of the flesh. Regardless whether your church leaders accept them or not, God's word does not change because man says so, he looks at homosexuals as obscene and he will make full recomphense for their errors,... not his.
Apparently you do not understand the implications of your own actions to support an issue that does not coincide with the teachings in scriptures.
The negative aspects of Revelation 18: 4 and Matthew 7: 13, 14 plus many others, should make you consider seriously about changing your faith, before you get caught up in God's coming wrath!
March 4, 2007 5:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 17:11
Religion is like a drug, a powerful addiction for many people. These people have no self confidence or are lonely.
Many people put religion before their own families, i.e. time away from home, tithe, etc.
Most religions are against dancing, alcohol, premarital sex, etc.
So, why would they not want to ban everything but prayer!
I say ban religion!
March 4, 2007 5:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 17:01
Sharon, the King James Version of the Bible with its thou, ye, thy, etc., has gone into obsoleteness.
You could get a clearer interpetation to the scriptures if you were to obtain a more accurate updated version that has restored the true writings from the original scrolls.
The most accurate copy of the Bible to date is "The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
March 4, 2007 4:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 16:47
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicaters, nor idolitors, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkerds, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
King James Version of the Holy Bible
Praise be to God for His Son Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, rose again and prepared the way; (through repentance and belief); so that we can be forgiven, born again, not in the desires of our
March 4, 2007 2:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 14:24
When a church for thousands of years condemns a practise that has been contrary to their teachings, suddenly compromises its traditional values and begins upholding issues that were in history, a death sentence to those who induldged into them, it would be wise as thinking people to seriously question other teachings of the Catholic religion as well.
Many religions that have accepted the way of the world are missing the concept of what Christ commanded of his followers to be "no part of the world," just as "he is no part of the world!"
This Anthony M. Stephens-Arroyo definitely is a man of the world with his philosphy of doctrines and clearly if we were to evaluate 1 John 5: 19 before we fell into his deceptive message, his god could be recognized by his works.
March 4, 2007 2:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 14:16
Soja John Thaikattil,
the above post was in response to your questions. Thank you.
March 4, 2007 12:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 12:39
If you are a Catholic then you really should be able to answer this question effectively
If you claim that dignity is being violated, please inform me of the Catholic Church teaching that treats homosexuals differently than heterosexuals who have sex unhinged from the possibility of procreation. The Church loves all. Perhaps you wish to create a trumped up evil church dispensing trips to hell for homosexuals. That is not the case.
I'm not here to give you the Catholic treatment, but if you call yourself a Catholic you owe it to be able to articulate the Church's teaching accurately and not malign the Church. Respect is in order.
You seem all to happy to ask a dozen questions setting up false choices with mutually exclusive conclusions. Doesn't that seem a little untrue to you. For example:
you accept their sexual practice or you hate them.
You engage in sex or you live a life of misery... Are priests, celibate heterosexuals and the elderly miserable? Was Mother Teresa a miserable person? Surely you are wrong in this view.
God created it so it must be good...True many things God created are good, but not all. Is cancer good, is genetic predisposition to alcohol good? Is Down syndrome good? How about Natural disasters? Things are not necessarily good because God created them. That's a logical mistake.
Can one have an emotionally fulfilling life without gay or straight sex? You seem to think that a life without sex is a worthless life... I don't think that follows. Many don't think that follows. The better question is why do you elevate non-procreative sex to some ultimate pedestal? That is what you are unconsciously doing if you really peel back the layers.
" On what basis have you appointed yourself guardian of a moral that you believe comes from God" ...
So let me rephrase this since I am not originating a teaching but supporting a teaching, (a teaching that asks much thought of us as Catholics) ...why should the Church get involved in sexual questions ?
Look around you...
Look at the suffering that has come from sex outside of procreation (or the marital act as it is understood by Catholics?) Look at the Sexually transmitted Diseases, look at the human suffering both physical and emotional, all over the world. Look at the AIDS death it has caused.
If these people were adhering to the truth of Catholic Teaching on sex they would be living longer, healthier lives able to do so much more for those they love. Look at the suffering this non Catholic sexual ethics brings... It is almost too much to calculate.
Look at the western divorce rates from infidelity and the emotional suffering. Look at the falling birth rates. All this has come because we have unhinged sex from the marital act. We are lost in sex and paying a measurable price. Things are not getting better they are getting worse. These are all consequences of sex outside of the marital act.
The Church is the only organization that understands this with moral clarity. The Church understands the true natural law of sex. You should reevaluate things.. you are tossing away the truth, a truth that can heal.
But while all of this deals the negatives of sex unhinged from procreation. What are the positives of the marital act? Let's not just view this from a negative point of view...
March 4, 2007 12:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 12:37
What is the background of Genesis 9:7? Could it be the fact that Israel was in the process of becoming a nation and needed a much larger population in order to defend itself against other nations. The same can be said for not spilling "One's seed upon the ground."
March 4, 2007 12:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 12:35
To anonymous (ref post 4 March 2007 1:28 AM):
I take it that you were referring to my post when you wrote, "This is not an issue of human dignity, it is an issue of sexual morality. No one is denying anyone dignity."
First of all I hope you clicked on the link and read the article I posted, the view of the medical community regarding homosexuality - that it is NOT a choice and CANNOT be "cured." Psychiatry attempted to "cure" the condition with the most desperate methods and failed. It finally removed homosexuality as a disease from the DSM in 1973.
Does the sexual expression of a homosexual come across as an issue of sexual morality to you nevertheless? Is it sexually immoral to need sexual satisfaction, the joys of a committed relationship, and the acceptance in society as a normal human being? On what moral basis do you impose celibacy on a homosexual? On what moral basis do you say that a homosexual has no right to the same sexual and emotional satisfaction as a heterosexual? On what moral basis do you deny a homosexual person the pleasures that you enjoy and take for granted? Mind you I'm NOT advocating promiscuous or criminal homosexual behaviour! Aren't you selfish at best to deny a homosexual a sexually and emotionally fulfilling life? On what moral basis do you claim that you do it out of love for the homosexual? On what basis have you appointed yourself guardian of a moral that you believe comes from God, although you have no way of knowing how God loves a homosexual and understands their human condition for He created them with as much love as He created you, and wants them to be happy just as much as He wants you to be happy? I doubt very much if God is going to say to a homosexual, "I created you with a sexual orientation towards the same sex for I wanted you to be miserable and live a celibate life without any sexual satisfaction and joy of companionship in a committed relationship; I wanted you to be hated and shunned by your Christian brothers and sisters and the society, or tolerated at best and 'loved as a sinner'." The Jesus I worship said, "I have come to give you life, and life in abundance." Your idea of abundance for the homosexual doesn't sound like the abundance of Jesus to me.
BTW I'm a heterosexual woman and a Catholic.
March 4, 2007 3:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 03:29
This is not an issue of human dignity, it is an issue of sexual morality. No one is denying anyone dignity.
March 4, 2007 1:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 01:28
Dear Professor Stevens-Arroyo
As a fellow lay woman liberal Catholic (baptised, received first Holy Communion and confirmed in the Syro-Malabar Catholic church, and long attending and being a part of the Latin Roman Catholic church), I welcome all efforts by Catholics with power to influence the Vatican to work towards giving homosexuals in the Catholic church the acceptance, dignity and love they deserve as children of God and members of the body of Christ. Your sincere effort to find wiggle room in Catholic theology to fit Catholic homosexuals is laudable. My role model for the all embracing unconditional love, which reflects the love of Christ, that can be very much a part of Catholicism is Dom Bede Griffiths, an English Benedictine monk who lived in India. ( http://www.bedegriffiths.com ) I believe he is one of the many great Catholics that the church can be truly proud of. It is my sincere prayer that the Holy Spirit may inspire many more Catholics like you to work together to bring unconditional acceptance for Catholic homosexuals.
For a scientific view on homosexuality, please read the article by Bazemore PH, Wilson WH, Bigelow DA:
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3359.htm
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
March 4, 2007 12:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 4, 2007 00:38
Eloist sorry to put your name on my post above regarding deception and malice.
March 3, 2007 9:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 21:53
The issue here is very important and very uncomfortable for many to face. It is the issue of morality in sex.
The Catholic Church has consistently held that sex must have a unitive and generative dimension. (in fact all mainline protestant churches held this position until 1930).
The Catholic Church is not playing favorites with heterosexuals. The same sin is being committed by straights when they engage in sex without possibility of procreation too.
Issues of non inclusion or bigotry or whatever are vehicles fabricated to push a change in this essential teaching on sex.
March 3, 2007 9:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 21:52
Eloist,
You are a tricky one. You know those both deal with malice or deception prior to marriage! Not at all what Athena and I were talking about.
March 3, 2007 9:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 21:42
Margaret Costello,
You confuse the issues. The Catholic Church is not banning gays from ministry. There is no violation of human dignity as you claim.
I am not at all surprised by your view though. It fits nicely into my profile of liberals and gay issues. You all go exactly like this:
1. Pretend violation of human dignity is at stake, instead of moral question of sexual relations.
2. Take wide, shallow trip through the Gospels and dig up a relative value (inclusion in your case) take this value and change it to an absolute for purposes of discussion.
3. Co-opt Christ to your values
4. Knock down trumped up evil conservative scarecrow.
5. Hi Five other liberals because you've remade God into your image not his.
Easy as pie to figure you guys out.
March 3, 2007 9:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 21:31
Dear Papal:
You want canon law? You can't stand canon law.
No marriage for the impotent...
Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
If you lie about infertility and/or homosexuality...
Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.
March 3, 2007 9:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 21:27
Any world you can't wiggle in has nothing to do with sex for me. :)
March 3, 2007 8:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 20:49
Papal,
Arroyo's not a "true Catholic" because he's a liberal? Judgmentally labeling someone with whom you disagree does not reflect well on you.
Case in point: look at the definition of "liberal", this from the AHD ...
"1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."
Let's deconstruct your high-handed self-promotion in light of the above. By your own statement, if a "true" Catholic cannot be liberal, he/she must be the following ...
"1. a. limited by ... orthodox or authoritarian values; controlled or enslaved by bigotry (antonyms of "free"). b. against reform, closed to new ideas for progress, and INTOLERANT of ideas and behavior of others; narrow-minded."
Doesn't describe my "true" Catholic friends. It does, however, describe the hateful attitudes promoted by William Donohue and a few other so-called "true" Catholics who dump on views that conflict with their own narrow -- and wrong -- interpretation of How To Lead A Good Catholic Life.
You will "only post true Catholic doctrine"? What, you're a qualified theologian? Have the experience/training to engage in something so complex? What I see in your posts is angry, judgmental sophistry disturbingly similar to the self-anointed crackpots on the Religious Right. That's not good theology, just self-righteous behavior.
Howzabout following a more Christ-like path instead of getting hung up on what the "Church" dictates?
Jesus did say "Judge not, that ye be not judged." (KJV -- Protestant, but the point is clear).
Learn it, know it, live it. At least you have something interesting for the confessional this weekend.
March 3, 2007 3:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 15:23
As a Catholic, I am disheartened to hear so much reference to various interpretations of the teachings of "the Church," and virtually no reference to the life and teaching of Christ. While Catholics are certainly required to know and give serious consideration to Church teachings, in the end, we are ultimately responsible for the formation of our own consciences. If I read correctly, the question asked was, "What does your faith lead you to believe..." My faith leads me to believe that the essential message of Christ in the scriptures is one of inclusion and justice. I cannot imagine that Christ would exclude people from ministry on the basis of sexual orientation.
March 3, 2007 2:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 14:21
Below I will Zero in on Arroyo's deception...
He writes "
Since the II Vatican Council, Catholic theology has drifted away from the hard material sense of the sacramental sign and moved towards psychological meanings.
The sign value of matrimony, as now taught, is not so much a material union in the sexual act, but the loving and affective relationship that brings two people together for life. But can’t people of the same sex have just such a “loving and affective relationship”? "
Okay so this is where he goes for the heresy. 1) Vatican II did nothing to change the sacrament of marriage. He imagines it being softened around the edges but this is not found anywhere that can be backed up. He is misleading, but he needs this for the set up to his later argument...
2)Matrimony is always taught as a loving and affective relationship... so he states the obvious but then he leaves it at that without explaining the Church's clear teaching on the COMPLEMENTARY nature of the one flesh union. So he is tricky and if you didn't know better you'd believe him.
True Catholics should know when they are getting half baked or even false Catholic theology.
Mr. Arroyo, tell the whole truth next time.
March 3, 2007 1:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 13:14
Eloist,
Cite for us the Canon Law (1095-1106) that states that infertility or disease invalidates marriage.
I won't hold my breath...
March 3, 2007 12:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 12:41
To Papal:
Get off your high horse! The professor clearly distinguishes between physical and psychological meanings, why do you overlook what is there in black and white? Is this your effort to look self-important? By the way, infertility is a cause for annulment in the current code of canon law. So what church's teaching are you talking about? I'm afraid you are living proof that people who can't go beyond the rote catechism answers shouldn't pretend to be theologians.
I would criticize Arroyo for being too nice about Catholicism -- there are more people like you making decisions than thoughtful people like him.
March 3, 2007 11:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 11:48
True Catholicism below:
Athena,
No being childless does not invalidate a marriage. Marriages are not valid or invalid based on the birthing of children. In fact, nothing invalidates a marriage in Catholicism as catholics believe marriage is a sacrament from God delivered through a priest. As such, no person(s) anywhere can destroy it. Ever.
I don't blame you for being confused by this false doctrine the author is presenting. Here is the issue, Catholics must be OPEN to procreation in every sexual act. Meaning they cannot intentionally abort or prevent pregnancy. If for some reason, any reason, they cannot bring forth life because of disorder or disease that is not a sin. At all. Ever.
The Author purposefully is misleading you with the "be fruitful and multiply" quote. He knows full well that this is not the basis of sexual morality in Catholicism. However, he is a liberal (not a true Catholic) and as such is willfully pretending that there is wiggle room when there actually is not. He claims like most 1960s Catholics that Vatican II allows them to shirk morality and reduce doctrine to "guidelines". Its all crap and you should know it. Thanks for asking your question.
Regards,
Papal
Robert B,
You are dead wrong. You know nothing about Catholic theology or the classic moral conviction that the Church follows with regards to contraception. Please educate yourself on Catholic Theology first and then post. I'm not angry, but you really need to learn this stuff.
Papal
ps. I will only post true Catholic doctrine. I will not offer opinion, interpretation or confuse it with political questions.
March 2, 2007 11:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 23:18
The author is giving a false representation of Catholic teaching on marriage. He purposefully leaves out the unitive dimension of man and woman and twists the generative dimension of sex to be something about bearing children. He claims Vatican II gives him wiggle room. He is wrong as Vatican II did nothing of the sort.
Believe me, its too much to go into right now but believe this:
He is misleading. This is NOT catholicism.
March 2, 2007 11:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 23:03
RE: Catholic fertility treatments... There's something called Natural Procreation Technology (NaPro) that claims to get better results than IVF. http://www.naprotechnology.com/ . I'd take their claims with a giant hunk of salt, though.
March 2, 2007 10:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 22:04
Dear Brambleton,
You must be in deep despair over the defeat of former Senator Macaca.
Given another term, he could have gotten rid of all those undesirables in Virginia: minorities, gay people, liberals, immigrants, and all the other threats to real Muricans.
March 2, 2007 9:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 21:46
Robert B.,
The Vatican officially disapproves of all infertility treatments which involve the "artificial" creation of embryos.
I know this because I once inquired about this on an official Catholic information site and was told what I wrote above.
Here's an interesting point:
The Church trumpets it's opposition to contraception, abortion and everything gay, at every opportunity.
But it never mentions its official condemnation of the creation of embryos for fertility purposes.
Why? I imagine the Church is afraid that if its opposition to embryo-creation was widely known,
it might seem to contradict its other pro-birth sexual policies.
And, if obeyed, its edict of disapproval would certainly result in fewer Catholic babies, something the Church would not like to see.
March 2, 2007 9:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 21:20
John Conolley,
Thank you!
March 2, 2007 9:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 21:03
Brambleton,
I'm a lawyer. For me and for our legal system the final decision of a final court is as much "law" as any piece of legislation. In many American states and in the Federal system judges are appointed, not elected. The Founding Fathers determined that was the better system. Elected judges are likely to bend or break in the face of public pressure, make bad decisions, and discriminate against minorities.
If Brown vs. Board of Education (the no-segregation decision) wasn't incontestable, I'm sure your wonderful Virginia legislature, or a popular referendum there, would have voted to continue school segregation.
It's too bad that the conscience of the Virginia electorate tells its voters that it's fine to hurt gays. The same electorate would have voted to continue slavery in 1865 if it had been able to.
The point I made in the earlier post was that the Roman Church in Massachusetts is working hard to overturn the Supreme Judicial Court's decision for gay marriage. I said if I lived in Mass. I'd oppose the Church on that. Fortunately the Church no longer has the power to decree such things!
Regards.
March 2, 2007 8:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 20:56
Norrie,
I don't believe the "Church" is responsible for overriding any laws involving gay marriage. As I understand it, the whole issue of gay marriage came center stage when a bunch of non-elected, left wing appointed, activist judges decided to make a name for themselves. Fortunately, most state legislatures have stepped in and offered "gay marriage" bills to the citizens of the state fo vote on. In VA, we recently had the "no to gay marriage" bill that was overwhelmingly passed by the citizens of the state. That enabled Catholics, Christians, Atheists, and every other person under the sun to vote their conscience.
March 2, 2007 5:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 17:04
To Athena --
The short answer to your question is "Yes". Though in the Middle Ages, infertility was grounds for an annulment of the marriage. However, I'm not sure if that is still the case.
As for "infertility treatments that are not Papally sanctioned," could you perhaps provide me with some examples of such treatments?
March 2, 2007 5:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 17:02
To John C.
Michelangelo's poetry is certainly one part of the puzzle. Another is his refusal to use female models for his works (which is why on the Sistine Chapel, Eve has biceps that Arnold Schwartzenegger would envy...)
It would seem that Florence was a haven for homosexuality in the late medieval/Renaissance era. When Dante wrote the Inferno, for example, most of the people that the pilgrim talks to amongst the Sodomites (7th Circle) are Florentines...
March 2, 2007 4:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 16:55
John Conolley,
Proof, I need proof!
March 2, 2007 4:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 16:22
Norrie Hoyt:
Damned well said!
Anonymous:
I don't know about Da Vinci, but anyone who has read Michelangelo's poetry can tell you: gay as a red hat.
March 2, 2007 3:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 15:56
Robert B.,
Thank you very much for your kind words.
Best wishes to you.
March 2, 2007 3:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 15:19
A question:
A man and a woman are both Catholics, and are married in a Catholic marriage ceremony. After they are married, they discover that one or both of them are infertile. They do not have any children, and choose to remain childless rather than undergo infertility treatments that are not Papally sanctioned. If the couple is not "fruitful" and has not "multiplied", are they still considered to be married under Catholic doctrine?
Just askin'...
March 2, 2007 3:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 15:11
"It doesn’t seem fair to celebrate the beauty created by the gay Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, for instance, but reject the accompanying genetic trait that facilitates their art."
Let me get this straight (no pun intended): being gay made Michelangelo and Leonardo great artists? Oh please! There isn't even any proof that they were gay. Don't believe the hype!
March 2, 2007 2:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 14:58
To Norrie and Ba'al --
Norrie: On another matter you wrote: "I would consider it unseemly for outsiders to pontificate about what Catholicism should or should not do."
I think that the good professor is more concerned about non-Catholics who prefer to bash Catholicism because of its seeming "backwardness" without understanding (or even trying to understand) *why* Catholicism teaches what it teaches. In this, I agree with him. It's frustrating, for example, when evangelicals refer to Catholics as "idolators" because of the Catholic veneration of saints because they seem to willfully misunderstand the theological concept of intercession.
Luckily for me, neither of you are like these people. Though we stand on different sides of the discussion, you both have always approached the debate with both a desire to understand and a willingness to accept the explanation. For that, I would like to thank you.
March 2, 2007 2:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 14:56
Far bet it for an outsider like me to ask much about theological niceties since the necessary convolutions make my head spin. However, is it obvious what is meant by the “fruitful” union of Christ with the Church? Is it "spiritual" fruit or does it refer only to some form of procreation? Is it of necessity to be coupled to the line out of Genesis?
Perhaps this could provide a means to accommodate gay people who are being oppressed in part on the basis of religious justifications (as is obvious from reading the comment threads).
March 2, 2007 2:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 14:30
Theological wiggle room, Mr. Arroyo? Nice try! St John an homosexual? I stoped reading from that point on!
March 2, 2007 10:05 AM |