Since We've Been Talking About Lgbtq Stuff A Lot Lately...

[Apotheoun]

. . . it seems totally crazy to describe homosexual sex as crying to heaven for vengeance that way, I'd need much more convincing of why exactly that is?  why would homosexual sex call to heaven for vengeance for being an attack on God, but other sins are not?  for example: not honoring the sabbath or using the Lord's name in vain are grave sins that are much more clearly seen for their motives as identifiable attacks on God, but they don't "call to heaven for vengeance". 

That may be what you think, but the Church's Tradition has always emphasized the fact that sodomy - as an act that is contrary to nature - is a direct attack upon God, the creator of nature. Taking the Lord's name in vain and failing to worship God are terrible sins - i.e. sins that are gravely immoral - but the Church's Tradition has not described them as sins that "cry to heaven for vengeance." Instead, the Church's theological and devotional tradition enumerated the four sins that "Cry to Heaven for Vengeance" as:

 

(1) Willful murder,

(2) The act of sodomy,

(3) Oppression of the poor,

and (4) Defrauding a laborer of his just wages.

 

That is the enumeration of the sins that "Cry to Heaven for Vengeance" whether one likes it or not. It is sad that ever since Vatican II many Catholics seem to think that the Church's Tradition should take a back seat to their own personal interpretations of the moral and dogmatic kerygma.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Apotheoun

[KnightofChrist]

Hey, I'm the one saying it's not exclusively homosexual! But for real, does no one want to humor my question? Is prostate stimulation sinful? I really don't want to start a full topic about this...

Sodomy between a man and another man or between a man and a woman is a grave offence against nature and a sin that crys up to heaven. All unnatural sexual perversions of the natural order of the marriage act are sins.

[Apotheoun]

The whole idea that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah concerned "consent," and not the unnatural vice of homosexual sex, really falls flat when reading the biblical pericope about the destruction from Heaven of those two cities, because Lot offers his daughters to the men of Sodom in the place of his angelic visitors, but that is not what the men of Sodom wanted; instead, they wanted to participate in unnatural sexual relations. It is clear from the text that - for the inspired biblical author - Lot was concerned about the unnatural sex itself, a form of sex that cried to heaven for vengeance, and which led to God's raining fire and brimstone down from Heaven in order to destroy the cities for the evil and unnatural vices performed in them.

 

The CDF in the 1980s reaffirmed the Church's traditional exegesis of the passages in the Old Testament on homosexual activity, for as it put it:

 

"Providing a basic plan for understanding this entire discussion of homosexuality is the theology of creation we find in Genesis. God, in his infinite wisdom and love, brings into existence all of reality as a reflection of his goodness. He fashions mankind, male and female, in his own image and likeness. Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their cooperation with him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of the self to the other.

 

In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its 'spousal significance' but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.

 

Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

 

In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts."

 

It is important to note in the CDF document quoted above that it refuses to limit the evil of sodomy to sodomitic rape. Instead, the Traditional interpretation of the texts of scripture is that sodomy - as an act that is contrary to nature - is an attack upon the very order of creation established by God, and in attacking the natural order it is a direct attack upon God Himself, who created nature. Moreover, St. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, goes so far as to say that those who participate in this kind of unnatural vice shall not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9), and nowhere does he make an exception for "consent" or the lack thereof, as if that would lessen the unnatural character of the act in question.

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2013 by Apotheoun

[arfink]

OK Apoth and KoC, that's been beaten to death by now.

 

So, anal sex is a sin that cries to God for vengeance. How does asserting that help people who are inclined to that sin stop doing it? Last time I checked, the people who are really into this kind of thing have years of this built up through exposure to porn and so on, and this becomes compulsive and extremely difficult to move away from. How is asserting this sin is exceptionally grave beyond any other help them stop sinning?

 

Because I have struggled with sexual sin before, and let me tell you, having someone tell me it's gravely immoral and give me a treatise were absolutely worthless to me in overcoming it. And I know that is the case for literally every single person I have talked to about this. Telling them their actions will put them in hell may prick their conscience a little, but ultimately, this kind of sin takes more than that to overcome. Have you got a better, more pastoral kind of approach?

[Apotheoun]

OK Apoth and KoC, that's been beaten to death by now.

 

So, anal sex is a sin that cries to God for vengeance. How does asserting that help people who are inclined to that sin stop doing it? Last time I checked, the people who are really into this kind of thing have years of this built up through exposure to porn and so on, and this becomes compulsive and extremely difficult to move away from. How is asserting this sin is exceptionally grave beyond any other help them stop sinning?

 

Because I have struggled with sexual sin before, and let me tell you, having someone tell me it's gravely immoral and give me a treatise were absolutely worthless to me in overcoming it. And I know that is the case for literally every single person I have talked to about this. Telling them their actions will put them in hell may prick their conscience a little, but ultimately, this kind of sin takes more than that to overcome. Have you got a better, more pastoral kind of approach?

Evidently it has not been beaten to death since some people continue to minimize the gravity of the unnatural vice of sodomy. It may be your opinion that Catholics should simply ignore sins that are not only gravely immoral but which have the added evil of being contrary to nature, but I do not agree with you.

 

Struggling with sin isn't the problem, because everyone has to do that. The problem is embracing evil and unnatural passions and turning them into an identifying personal characteristic.

[arfink]

Evidently it has not been beaten to death since some people continue to minimize the gravity of the unnatural vice of sodomy. It may be your opinion that Catholics should simply ignore sins that are not only gravely immoral but which have the added evil of being contrary to nature, but I do not agree with you.

 

Struggling with sin isn't the problem, because everyone has to do that. The problem is embracing evil and unnatural passions and turning them into an identifying personal characteristic.

 

Reading skills. You lack them.

 

I did not say I disagreed with you, nor am I minimizing the gravity of the situation. I take this VERY seriously, and I want to know what you have to say about how this can be dealt with! Stop dodging and answer.

[Ice_nine]

I can't even

[Apotheoun]

OK Apoth and KoC, that's been beaten to death by now.

 

. . . Telling them their actions will put them in hell may prick their conscience a little, but ultimately, this kind of sin takes more than that to overcome. Have you got a better, more pastoral kind of approach?

No, if by pastoral approach you mean to water down the truth by not telling people that a particular sin is a direct attack upon God Himself. It is sad that the word "pastoral" has become a common catch all word for watering down the truth, but I can tell you for a fact that the Holy Fathers would never go along with the modernist "pastoral" approach of the last forty years. Quite frankly, based upon the state of Western culture and the ongoing decline of the Catholic Church in Western countries over the past generation, the modern "pastoral" approach has been a complete failure.

[Apotheoun]

Reading skills. You lack them.

 

I did not say I disagreed with you, nor am I minimizing the gravity of the situation. I take this VERY seriously, and I want to know what you have to say about how this can be dealt with! Stop dodging and answer.

No, you simply started your post with a comment that pushed the notion that people who hold to the Church's Traditional viewpoint on this matter should be quiet and move on.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Apotheoun

[arfink]

No, if by pastoral approach you mean to water down the truth by not telling people that a particular sin is a direct attack upon God Himself. It is sad that the word "pastoral" has become a common catch all word for watering down the truth, but I can tell you for a fact that the Holy Fathers would never go along with the modernist "pastoral" approach of the last forty years. Quite frankly, based upon the state of Western culture and the ongoing decline of the Catholic Church in Western countries over the past generation, the modern "pastoral" approach has been a complete failure.

 

You keep assuming I am a modernist, that I am here to attack you, and that I want you to water down your approach. Stop it.

 

I agree it's gravely sinful, what part of that don't you get? I just don't care about that proclamation in a vacuum, you can't just say something is really horrifyingly wrong and not be able to provide a battle plan to people who are living with that sin. Once again I ask you, what have you got?

[Apotheoun]

You keep assuming I am a modernist, that I am here to attack you, and that I want you to water down your approach. Stop it.

 

I agree it's gravely sinful, what part of that don't you get? I just don't care about that proclamation in a vacuum, you can't just say something is really horrifyingly wrong and not be able to provide a battle plan to people who are living with that sin. Once again I ask you, what have you got?

Well, your posts come off as weak. What can I say.

[arfink]

No, you simply started your post with a comment that pushed the notion that people who hold to the Church's Traditional viewpoint on this matter should be quiet and move on.

 

You have been going for PAGES now on this topic. That's what I call beating it to death. I say we need to move on because your point has been conceded by most everyone here, simply because of the exhausting treatises you have bestowed on us.

[Aloysius]

Apo, you appear to be trying to convince me that homosexuality is a grave sin (which I've affirmed and have not in any way sought to minimize) and that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom, not just homosexual rape (which I also affirmed, I just suggested that the sin was in both factors and that it was particularly the rape aspect which cried out for vengeance).  I am not limiting the sin of Sodom to being only rape, I am saying that it was this portion of the sin that cried for vengeance particularly and that it's generally inappropriate and inaccurate to suggest homosexual acts in and of themselves cry for vengeance from heaven.

 

KofC, it is not the cry part, but the vengeance part that I have taken issue with.  Vengeance in this context is vengeance on earth, not eternal damnation.  What exactly is this vengeance that needs to be enacted?  Should homosexuals be stoned, imprisoned?  What is the earthly vengeance that is demanded by their sins when nature cries out for it as you assert?  It makes very little sense to me.  I understand that there is hell as punishment, but what exactly is the earthly vengeance being cried for?

[Apotheoun]

I agree it's gravely sinful, what part of that don't you get? I just don't care about that proclamation in a vacuum, you can't just say something is really horrifyingly wrong and not be able to provide a battle plan to people who are living with that sin. Once again I ask you, what have you got?

I am glad that you agree that homosexual acts are gravely immoral and unnatural. More power to you. But alas your posts mix in the same old tripe of how we need to be more "pastoral," as if the modern approach has had any great success over the course of the last generation. Good Lord I have seen people with "Church Militant" flags on this forum support "gay marriage." The Catholic Church really does seem to have a lot of problems at the present time.

[Apotheoun]

Apo, you appear to be trying to convince me that homosexuality is a grave sin (which I've affirmed and have not in any way sought to minimize) and that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom, not just homosexual rape (which I also affirmed, I just suggested that the sin was in both factors and that it was particularly the rape aspect which cried out for vengeance).  I am not limiting the sin of Sodom to being only rape, I am saying that it was this portion of the sin that cried for vengeance particularly and that it's generally inappropriate and inaccurate to suggest homosexual acts in and of themselves cry for vengeance from heaven.

Not at all Al, I am just pointing out that you "consensual" approach - as if consent makes sodomy less vile - is not traditional. Please, support your viewpoint by showing that the consensus of the Fathers makes the distinction that you are promoting.