A Roman Catholic priest attempts to defend homosexuality
Question:
I found your article concerning homosexuality and the Bible, under the title "Is homosexuality condemned in the Scriptures?" I would like to clarify something, and perhaps provide a new perspective. You stated that "the reason that the Bible doesn't mention "gay love" is that such a thing does not exist." You are incorrect. By the definition of love you gave, from Paul, love between two homosexuals can exist.
Love thinks no evil. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not an act of injustice. Evil does not find its way into that which is good, and I've known many homosexuals (including family) who never think a single evil thought.
Love does not rejoice in iniquity. "Iniquity" is a synonym for "sin." Even if homosexual sex was a sin, the sinner is to be loved. If homosexual sex is the sin, then a sexless relationship between two men is not sinful (the Bible never mentions sexless, emotional relationships between men). Therefore, love can exist in such a situation, even IF homosexual sex was a sin.
Love rejoices in the truth. This is what is taught by so many evangelical Christian ministers, yet they possess the highest rates of infidelity. I have seen many committed, honest homosexual couples live in love for years, and on the flip-side, I have seen many lying, cheating heterosexual couples destroy the sanctity of marriage by divorcing. Who has the more valid relationship, the heterosexual couple whose attraction is based on superficiality, or the homosexual couple whose attraction is based on love and truth?
You should also consider science. Remember, modern science was created by a God-loving society hoping to find biological, chemical, geological, and astrological proof of God. According to science, homosexuality is a biologically predisposed alternative lifestyle that results from various stimuli during gestation. This explains the argument "homosexuality is not a choice" and it explains it with proof.
You should also consider that most scholars today agree that the sin of the sodomites had nothing to do with homosexuality, but covetousness. In Leviticus, homosexual behavior (non-loving, non-committed homosexual sex) was an abomination. It says the same about sleeping with a woman during her period and about eating shell-fish. How many men do you know that sleep with their wives during menstruation? How many people do you know who eat shrimp, lobster, or crab? Does this mean that we should make signs that say, "God hates homosexuals and shellfish?"
An abomination is not the same as a sin. An abomination was something that was considered unclean by Jewish society. A sin is something God himself finds detestable. You also state that sins like lying are not mentioned as sin by the Pentateuch, but you are wrong. "You shall not bear false witness," means "You shall not lie." It was there from the start.
In terms of sexual sin, God covers it in #7 and #10, or "You shall not commit adultery" and "You shall not covet," respectively. Covetousness includes lust. If you are unsure about this, see Romans 7:7. Paul says "...for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." This eliminates all sexual activity not done in love.
I am not writing this to judge you, or to undermine your ministry. I am only offering this as a different viewpoint that you may have not considered. Remember, it is not up to us to judge (Luke 6:37). We will be judged in the end for how we treat one another (Matthew 25:31-46). Rather than spending so much time condemning certain groups of people, we should spend that time loving them. WWJD?
Signed by a Roman Catholic Priest
Answer:
I find your response telling as it completely violates your own church's stance on homosexuality. "Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law." There seems no doubt that officially the Roman Catholic denomination believes homosexuality to be a sin. They do distinguish temptation from the behavior, but the point I wish to point out is that you are going against your own profession of faith and condemn your own religious organization by your stance. In fact, the style of your argument is even mentioned in the article I pull this quote from and is condemned as a falsehood. [Catholic Answers, "Homosexuality"]
You end your article by asking what would Jesus do. Jesus does refer to the destruction of Sodom (Matthew 10:15; 11:23-24; Luke 10:12; 17:29). He states that those in that city were justly destroyed and that they would face condemnation in the final Judgment. The reason for their condemnation is clearly stated by Jude: "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 6-7).
I'm sorry that you rather not take a stand for righteousness, but you see, I must obey the Lord, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24). Since the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality and your admitted religion condemns homosexuality, I can draw the conclusion that your contradiction of God condemns you, unless you repent. "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD" (Proverbs 17:15).
Since homosexuality is a sin (see "Homosexuality" for a list of verses), your argument concerning love falls apart because you based it on the assumption that homosexuality was not a sin and therefore could not be called "evil" or "iniquity."
Playing word games doesn't work with me, nor most people in the world. A sexless, but emotional, tie between two men is called a friendship -- not homosexuality. If in that "emotional" tie you want to claim there is a lust to commit sexual acts, then that is condemned by Jesus, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man." A contemplation of sin is just as wrong as the committing of sin. "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 7:28). Thus, two men thinking about homosexual acts, but not acting on them is still just as wrong as men who actually have sex with each other.
To argue that sin doesn't exist because people don't perfectly keep God's law is a falsehood. The existence of sin doesn't depend on man avoiding it. But your "facts" aren't supported by reality. Homosexuals have a far higher degree of multiple partners than heterosexuals.
"A major study by Bell and Weinberg revealed that 78% of male homosexual "affairs" (relationships entered into with an intent of commitment) lasted less than three years. Only 12% lasted five years or longer. Study by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, “Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women”, (New York, Simon and Shuster, 1978) p.314 ... David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison conducted a non-random study of 156 stable committed male homosexual couples. They found that none of the over 100 couple that had been together for more than 5 years had been sexually monogamous or exclusive. The authors, themselves a gay couple, argued that for male couples, sexual monogamy is a passing stage of homophobia and that many homosexuals separate emotional fidelity and sexual exclusivity. What matters for male couples is emotional, not physical faithfulness. D McWhirter and A Mattison, “The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop”, (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall)." ["Is Homosexuality Healthy?"]
Regarding "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22) and "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13), you added an assumption that this act of copulation between two males was "non-loving, non-committed homosexual sex." Such is not stated, nor does the context demand such an assumption. By adding it, you violated another law of God: "Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar" (Proverbs 30:6).
No, modern science has nothing to do with proving God. That is wishful thinking on your part. Nor has science proven that there is a genetic cause of homosexuality. The closest that they have gotten is the possibility of a tendency toward homosexuality. But even these studies have failed to be replicated. At the current time, there is no scientific proof that homosexuality has a genetic cause. The gestation theory was an earlier attempt that was disproved several decades ago. I'm surprised you are even citing it.
Since you obviously don't understand the laws of uncleanness, I suggest you study "Uncleanness" before you making further arguments along this line. But I do thank you for supporting my point regarding that sins don't have to be worded precisely as a person wants to be said to be condemned in the Law.
By your foolish definition, you state that fornication and adultery are justified so long as the participants in these sins claim to be in love while doing the acts. Love is not an excuse to commit sin. See "Using Love as an Excuse" for details. A claim of "love" doesn't make homosexuality acceptable.
