It has always been my impression that human sexuality (animal sexuality, too is a gift from god.

Being straight or gay or bisexual or asexual does not have any moral value in my view. None are somehow right or wrong or better or worse. Morality enters the picture in how we use our sexuality and the sexual relationships we create and how we treat those with whom we are in relation.

Gay people and straight people can equally misuse or abuse themselves or others in their sexual relationships. And likewise, can well use and bless themselves and others through their relationships.

So while I see the gift of sexuality as being from god, and being a good thing, I also see that it can be used in ways that upbuild or teardown, that benifit or injure, and even in ways that do both at the same time.

It does not seem to me that one can make a moral evaluation of homosexuality (or heterosexuality or bisexuality or celibacy or marriage or... ), but only of the ways that particular individuals have expressed the same in their lives and relationships.

-- W.T. (letusgo2@webtv.net), May 07, 2002

Answers

My Lord and my God, we are getting some strange posts here these days. I suppose you've never read the Old Testament, where God condems homosexuality time and time again; or the New Testament, where he speaks of it as an abomination. Yes, I have had friends and co-workers who were homosexual; this is where " Love the sinner-hate the sin comes in." I try to treat everyone as a person first, but I've never read anything in Holy Scripture that condones the gay lifestyle.

-- Judy in IN (whileaway3@cs.com), May 07, 2002.

In other word Judy, alot like the koran where it says to kill all non believers ?

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), May 07, 2002.

yeah, Leviticus 24:16 suggest stoning blasphemers - shall we take this literally, too? Leviticus also suggests (20:10) that we ought to put adulterers to death - shall we take this literally? And how about owning slaves, which the OT takes no issue with? Let us always be mindful of the Vatican's instruction on reading the bible: "the interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance in with the situation in his own time and culture." We are further advised by our Holy Father to remember that "The discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo made Christians aware that Genesis I is not a sacred lesson in science but a poem on creation." We are not to take the Bible literally. If you don't like this teaching of the Church, that's fine, but that is what our Pope is teaching us. You may disregard the Pope's teaching - that is your choice - and many Catholics choose to do just that. But you then must bear the title "Cafeteria Catholic." I'm tired of reading posts by people who think that their only teacher is Jesus Christ, and then substitute their own opinion for what they think Jesus taught. Our Church is our teacher - if you don't like it, that's okay - but don't pretend that you can take the Bible literally and still call yourself a Catholic. We are explicitly taught otherwise by Christ's Vicar on Earth - Pope John Paul II.

-- Sean (rougan@rcn.com), May 08, 2002.

Tony, perhaps you could go back and read my post again. I said "LOVE THE SINNER, AND HATE THE SIN." I said nothing about killing each other, and I do not equate The Faith with writings from Mohammedism. On a practical note, God put us here, saying be fruitful and multiply. How, pray tell, does the homosexual do that? Aids is only one of the diseases passed around by the male homosexual. God wants everything good for us, and there is always a practical side to his commandments. As for the slavery, THAT is a very inefficient form of production. God addresses treatment of slaves in Holy Scripture. He tolerated polygamy too, but Jesus himself told us that was not what he wanted for us. May God Bless You with wisdom.

-- Judy in IN (whileaway3@cs.com), May 08, 2002.

Hmmmmmm, Now we have some misuse of the scriptures taking place here.

Judy is correct in what she said in the first place. "Love the sinner- But- Hate the sin is a full Christian ideal. Please don't miss use the Scriptural truths of the New Testament writers. THANKS.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 08, 2002.

Sorry, Fred. How's this? "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matt.22:39). And, the first work of mercy is to admonish the sinner. The second work of mercy would be to instruct the ignorant. Thank you for your observation. May God Bless you and your family.

-- Judy in IN (whileaway3@cs.com), May 08, 2002.

Judy

Tolerate is an Old Testament ideal. If you go into the Mosaic writings you will see that Moses did indeed with misgivings dure to the fact of the ignorance of the people and their hard heartedness towards GOD, made certain provisions in Mosaic law to tolerate some bends in the laws. For example he did allow divorces to occur as long as the human laws were obeyed in the eyes of God. Christ later on denied this provision by saying that God will no longer accept what he joined to be separated. The spiritual nature is still bond to us by GOD. Only God can truly break a bond and men and women when they break their bonds also break their bond with GOD too.

I know my writing is not perfect, but I believe that Christ did say what God has joined only HE -GOD- can break. NOT MAN. That is why Peter was given his role as Pope and the powers to do what he does by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 08, 2002.

Fred, May God Bless you and keep you, and I agree fully with your last post. However, I was trying to help the first poster, who seems to think that homosexuality is just peachy-keen. Could you address that issue also?

-- Judy in IN (whileaway3@cs.com), May 08, 2002.

Your words, Sean:

'' --don't pretend that you can take the Bible literally and still call yourself a Catholic. We are explicitly taught otherwise by Christ's Vicar on Earth - Pope John Paul II. - Sean (rougan@rcn.com), May 08, 2002.

''

By this reasoning, Sean, there is no sense in the commandments. We have no way of knowing if they're to be taken literally. We have no reason, according to your understanding of the Pope's words, to believe in heaven, nor in hell. We don't even have to believe in sin, literally. We can construct our own gospel, entirely metaphorical and relative.

There are some who think just like you-- who deny Christ was raised from the dead. They think His body was eaten by dogs.

No one claims all homosexuals are evil. The Holy Bible condemns homosexual activity; and the sin of men who make love to other men. If they don't stop sinning and repent, they are damned. Make what you want of it. Love whomever you please. But God didn't give us His Holy Word for nothing. When you say:

''[We]. . .then substitute their own opinion for what they think Jesus taught,'' tell us why He warned, ''If your eye causes you to sin, pluck out your eye; it's better to enter the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than to be cast into hell with both your eyes.''

Jesus wants all of us to be saved and live eternally with Him after this life, Sean. But if we cling to our sins, and concoct deliberate lies out of the Holy Bible itself; which you think you can do-- we will not be saved. Please think on this some more before you post here again.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 08, 2002.

It has always been my impression that human sexuality (animal sexuality, too is a gift from god.

What do you mean when you talk about animal sexuality? Beastiality, or animals that mate? Being straight or gay or bisexual or asexual does not have any moral value in my view. None are somehow right or wrong or better or worse. Morality enters the picture in how we use our sexuality and the sexual relationships we create and how we treat those with whom we are in relation.

So, being a homosexual or bisexual has no moral application to it? You mean that an act that is intrinsically contrary to the natural law has no moral bearing whatsoever? So, you mean God erred when he created Adam and Eve, he should have created Adam and Steve or Eve and Joan?

I don't think you seem to understand the inherent responsibility given to a heterosexual, married couple when they engage in intercourse. Do you not realize that God actually gives us a share in the act of creation? He actually allows us to engage in an act, unlike any of its kind, in order for that couple to create life. Does this same thing even remotely occur when two homosexuals, male or female take part in their sexual acts? Of course not, it only frustrates that plan of life, as do many other illicit sexual acts.

Gay people and straight people can equally misuse or abuse themselves or others in their sexual relationships. And likewise, can well use and bless themselves and others through their relationships.

How do they "bless themselves?"

So while I see the gift of sexuality as being from god, and being a good thing, I also see that it can be used in ways that upbuild or teardown, that benifit or injure, and even in ways that do both at the same time.

Don't you mean godde? I don't deny that the gift of sexuality is a gift from God, I actually agree with you, however, as you said, that gift can and does get abused more often than not I am afraid.

It does not seem to me that one can make a moral evaluation of homosexuality (or heterosexuality or bisexuality or celibacy or marriage or... ), but only of the ways that particular individuals have expressed the same in their lives and relationships.

ahhhh, moral relativism, as long as it doesn't hurt myself or anyone else, it is fine. Who cares if it kills my soul, if it feels good, do it. Since when did God become our personal "feelings" and repective to my own individual opinion? "I am the Lord your God, you shall have not have strange Gods before me." I guess this is the mantra of the new religion, the religion of the individual, which is all relative anyway, making the individual a god unto themself.

You are in my prayers

-- Brian (sacerdos@hotpop.com), May 08, 2002.

Brian, I like your messages very much. But may I ask a favor?

Please put quotation marks around the previous person's words (or make 'em bold or italics), so that we can tell what he/she has said and what you are saying in response. It is easy to get confused without those quotation marks.
Danke. @@@.@

-- (@@@.@), May 09, 2002.

I would like to know if as in the so many situations - shotgun wedding - take place among young people who are Catholics due to hormone explosions - are these " marriages of God's will or not.

How many times have we heard of a marriage that is sad and painful having to be maintined due to so called Church laws. Are the couple meant to suffer through life due to a mistake in youth?

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 09, 2002.

Um, Jean... I don't think there are any shotgun Catholic weddings that are done by genuinely ordained Catholic priests. At the very least, such a union would be very easy to anul. I'll bet the anullment office in the Vatican has a dedicated inbox labelled "Las Vegas."

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), May 09, 2002.

People

As far as "Shotgun" weddings go I have seen one actually happen. My former brother in law was coerced to marry the girl whom he got pregnant when she was 15 and he was 19. I have no idea as to the direct circumstances but threads were made towards him to marry her or else. They are now divorced today after about a 20+ year marriage. It was never a true marriage for many years and it finally broke due to circumstances that would take to much time to convey here. He became lazy and had a heart problem and she wanted to keep herself in "RICHES" as a result of her real estate brokerage job. She chosed to support herself only. She even abandonded her youngest child to boot and left him with his father. She is Catholic and he is not. So I guess you may say that "Shotgun" weddings DO occur sometimes. Not forced by the Church, but by families.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 09, 2002.

Thank you Fred. I guess I must be out of touch with aspects of relaity on this matter. Are you saying in this day age a modern priest would not perform the marriage? I am getting very confused here.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 09, 2002.

I would say that a Priest would indeed perform the marriage if the family requested it. If the life of the child is at stake, YES. I cannot speak for ALL priests, but if the request is made of him and the formulas of the situation is in order then he may marry them. Today the shotgun weeddings are obviously more rare but we are not told of them simply due to the privacy and secrecy that prevails at such cases. I have known some others who have suffered the same fate in my lifetime. And their lives were terribly miserable. Seems Satan has all of the tools at his disposal for sure.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 09, 2002.

Jean,

Shot-gun weddings are typically performed immediately after a woman becomes pregnant (her family "holds the shotgun," so to speak). Considering that I have yet to find a diocese that will allow a couple to marry with less than 6 months' notice, the Catholic Church is an unlikely place for a "shot-gun wedding."

A civil (government) wedding or a "Vegas Wedding" would be more practical.

My $0.02,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 09, 2002.

Mateo

The pastor can get a "disposition" from the Bishop to wave the 6 month requirement. That is how it was done.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 09, 2002.

Fred,

Agreed. The "six month" rule is simply a rule. It's sole purpose is to protect couples from prematurely (and invalidly) jumping into a marriage. Exceptions can be made to the rule; but typically, priests are reluctant to hurry a wedding because the family is pushing the couple to marry. :-)

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 09, 2002.

DISPENSATION, Fred.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 09, 2002.

Gene

Hah. You beat me on that one. I realized it as I was taking a shower. Thanks. I never said I was perfect. I goofed that one royally. Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 09, 2002.

@@@@,

Sorry about that, I will remember to do that in the future :)

-- Brian (sacerdos@hotpop.com), May 09, 2002.