The following comes from an Oct. 17 story in psmag.com.
In a New York magazine piece, “The Science of Gaydar,” writer David France looks at the growing scientific evidence for innate differences between gay and straight people. France ends by gazing toward the future, and asks the question, “What if prenatal tests were able to show a predisposition to gayness?” Well, France reports, “[Northwestern University psychological professor] Michael Bailey, for one, isn’t troubled by the moral implications any more than he would oppose fetal screens for potential birth defects, though he quickly adds his personal belief that homosexuality is ‘a good’ on par with heterosexuality.”
Bailey espouses a definite Seinfeldian “not that there’s anything wrong with that” attitude toward homosexuality. In a paper he published on the subject with lawyer Aaron Greenberg in 2001, he wrote: “Because homosexuality causes no direct harm to others (other than those who take offense at it on irrational and/or inhumane grounds) and because homosexual behavior is crucial to the ability of homosexual people to enjoy their lives (as heterosexual behavior is to heterosexuals), homosexuality should not be morally condemned or proscribed.” But, Greenberg and Bailey say, it’s wrong to tell parents they can’t select for (or against) a heterosexual or homosexual predisposition in their children.
Greenberg and Bailey take a libertarian view of the matter—they believe the right of parents to make these kinds of decisions is paramount, “even assuming, as we do, that homosexuality is entirely acceptable morally.” Their point is that, “allowing parents, by means morally unproblematic in themselves, to select for heterosexuality would be morally acceptable” because “allowing parents to select their children’s sexual orientation would further parents’ freedom to raise the sort of children they wish to raise and because selection for heterosexuality may benefit parents and children and is unlikely to cause significant harm.”
….Greenberg and Bailey’s paper is quite interesting—interesting enough that, when my class of smart, thoughtful, and generally progressive Medical Humanities and Bioethics masters students discussed it with the authors earlier this year, many of the students who began in agreement with the paper ended up disagreeing with it, and vice versa. I admit I wavered, but I didn’t ultimately flip; I started with, and still have, several problems with the paper.
The first is, I suppose, a general problem I have with libertarianism: It’s selfish. And I don’t like selfish philosophies. (I guess I’m selfish that way.) Greenberg and Bailey seem to assume that the larger social effects of individual decisions like the ones they are supporting are not really a pertinent moral issue, because we should just take care of our own individual needs, the neighbors be damned.
What happens to gay strangers once we offer “selection” against more people like them is not the issue when I’m deciding whether to professionally justify or even personally use this theoretic technology—unless that happens to be what I feel like troubling myself about. Greenberg and Bailey just don’t spend much energy worrying actively (in their paper or in follow-up discussions) about what effect defending the right to use this technology could have on queer people and their rights.
Now, to be fair, they may not worry about that in part because they just disagree with me that they are effectively undermining queer people and their rights by arguing that this technology would be morally acceptable. In an email to a sex research discussion group, Bailey argued against me: “I think it is possible both to support the message that homosexual people are as good as heterosexual people and to support parents’ freedom to disagree with that message and to act on their disagreement.” But I think he’s naïve here.
Sure, it ought to be the case that defending the rights of parents to use this technology doesn’t ultimately undermine queer rights, but it seems hard to believe that in practice it won’t lead to support of the idea that one ought to try not to have a gay child—just as in practice the prenatal test for trisomy 21 (Down’s syndrome) has led to a general attitude (at least among the vast majority of my very “progressive” childbearing acquaintances) that one ought to try not to have a child with trisomy 21….
To read the entire story, click here.
If abortion is OK, then abortion for any reason is OK too.
If anything, there should be more concern about aborting girls because they are girls.
Maybe it is better not to find a gay gene and stick with the nuture, not nature, argument afterall.
Of course you do not want to find a gay gene! You would prefer that gayness is a fault of the individual and therefore not a choice. If it were genetic, it would not be a choice! We’ve heard tall that before, and we who are gay know that it is not a choice, REGARDLESS whether it is genetic or not. It is simply not a choice. Who would choose to be ostracized by society as much as we have been? Who would CHOOSE to be gay-beaten and killed as we have? Who would choose to work so hard as we have to have our relationships recognized in law as we have? Who would CHOOSE this path which society and Church has made so difficult for us?
I agree with you about the choice issue. I don’t believe a gay person actively chooses to be gay. However, I submit that like alcoholism which after a certain point it is almost impossible to stop drinking, that we can turn our lives over to God and choose not to act on it. We all are born with original sin therefore we have to actively make a choose to reject sin whether that inclination is strong or not. We have to choose not to do evil. Sometimes the inclination is very strong, but with God all things are possible….
Nurture from earliest childhood is not a choice for a child anymore than nature, in this case, a “gay gene’ is. If being gay is due to nurture rather than nature, an individual’s effective choice may well be gone within days of birth for all we know. Calm down, fellow Catholic.
There is no Shashster gene.
No female chooses to be female either, and think how many have been persecuted, beaten, raped, rejected, ridiculed, and killed, to say nothing of objectified and discriminated against, and some murdered in their mother’s wombs or shortly after birth for the mere crime of femininity.
The crimes against women, large and small, are enormous compared to the crimes against gays, and yet no one is alarmed that it is up to the parents to choose whether or not to abort a child once they find out the gender. If the child is aborted for gender reasons, or killed upon birth in backward areas for gender reasons, it is almost always because that child is a girl.
How much more innocent is a child of being a certain gender than an adult is of being gay, assuming of course that this is chosen behavior rather than biological. If it ever if proven beyond doubt that there is a homosexual gene, I would imagine that the Catholic Church would revisit the view that to act upon sexual desires outside of marriage would be a sin for homosexuals, or perhaps it would examine the possibility of marriage for homosexuals.
In the meantime, the difference between the actual problem of girls being aborted and murdered at birth and the hypothetical problem of babies being aborted or murdered upon birth if they are proven to be biologically homosexual is enormous. One is a worldwide problem, even in the United States, and another is 100% academic at this point.
Why get worked up over babies that might get aborted when we have had more than 50 million babies who have been aborted in this country alone since Roe vs. Wade?
Interesting. The homosexual lobby is known as extremely pro-abortion.
Could the circle be working its way around? If you promote the killing of others, it may come back around to killing you and those you hold dear.
hank, that is silly and plain dumb, most abortuions are done by women who have been msrganilzed, next you will believe that it is better to never bring a girl into this world, man, find some other group to pick on millions of good gay people are in this world and our lord nrver said a word that bein gay is wrong people are people period believe me i am 75 and have lived thru a bumber of wars, i sopport same sex love it bis a fact of life
Since there is no biological basis for homosexuality, gays can rest assured that no gay baby will ever be aborted. I’m sured that’s a load off their minds. :)
And you know this how?
Head of the genome project said it doesn’t exist, for one. Recent twin studies for two – only found like a 31% concordance rate forward gays and 18% for lesbians. This is in most psych textbooks. so his statement is correct. Most of the behavior is environmental. Even when it appears biological (like the small brain differences), that could be because of environment – everyone knows that environment affects neurological development.
For me, it’s knowing gay people who are living heterosexual lives now…
Abeca Christian and Ronnie, there are many people who have changed I am sure. It is a known fact that young women whose parents do not approve of living together with the opposite sex without marriage, especially if the mother disapproves, will seldom live with a man permanently outside of marriage if she knows her parents or parent disapproves. Eventually she usually insists upon marriage or leaves the guy. It could be the same with families that have a lot of homosexuality and/or lesbianism in the family. If the parents are too tolerant, such as letting an adult child bring their lover home or sleep there, it could influence others in the family. In other words, they see their parents approval and make the choice to engage in homosexual acts instead of marrying the opposite sex, even if they do have an attraction to the opposite sex. Some lack maturity also and do not want the responsibility that a heterosexual marriage brings. As Abeca Christian has said, there are many issues involved.
As a scientist I do not have to explain the absence of evidence. It is sufficient to declare it.
Tom Byrne says: “Since there is no biological basis for homosexuality”
Since when is there no biological basis for homosexuality?? Even the church acknowledges that the number of homosexuals is not negligible, which is, after all, an acknowledgment that homosexuality exists in humanity, and therefore, has SOME biological basis, albeit the mechanism is as yet unelucidated. So what is YOUR data, Tom byrne, to say that there is no biological basis for homosexuality. And I’m ignoring that the correct word in your sentence would have been “biologic” had you paid attention in grammar class!
YFC…I agree the Church does acknowledge that this trait might exist in a person at birth. However there is no genetic basis for being born gay. I was probably born with traits which orient me towards a particular inclination but that doesn’t necessarily mean I should act on them if they are harmful to my welfare and spiritual life.
YFC: See my response above. “Biological” a valid word used among us scientists, just like “chemical” and “physical”. I need not offer data to explain the absence of data. Theft and arson have existed since the beginning of humanity, too. What biological evidence would you cite for them?
Tom, if you were interested in the science of homosexuality, and competent in the interpretation of scientific data, you would not make such sweeping claims that there is no evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality. There is actually a lot of evidence, including the twins studies cited above. Lack of perfect concordance is not an absence of data. It simply means that the genes are either incompletely penetrant or there are multiple genes involved. I suggest you study up.
This article is stupid and wicked. It is offensive to our Lord ……to use abortion to further the “gay” ideologies is pure evil and sick! It’s sick! People have free will…..this article doesn’t even reason well nor have any smarts about it….babies are innocent, how are they choosing a same sex attraction? Its stupid to even assume this. Research shows that homosexuality is complex. Common cases come from drug use, lack of a father relationship, molestation, abuse etc etc…..a fresh born baby hasn’t been through those complex situations to have lead them to reason as such a young age and decide it is attracted to the same sex. Not gonna happen. Children are innocent.
Dear Abeca, and I hope your health is improving!
children do not choose their sexuality and their sexual orientation, as you correctly point out. And yes, as you point out, children ARE innocent. However, it is quite clear that NO ONE chooses their sexual orientation or their sexual identity. And THAT is the point of the article. Since we do not choose our sexual orientation, it must come from somewhere else. It might be ‘apparent’ in the fetus, by whaterver genetic, ultrasound or Who Knows What Technology Comes ALong. The questions is, if you could identify a gay fetus, would YOU choose to abort it?
Abeca, First off, I agree with Anton’s comment “No Catholic can ever, in good conscience, advocate the killing of an unborn person. Period.” As a gay person, this possibility has a special horror.
The Catechism says the causes of gayness are unknown. However, at least for me the things you list arn’t factors. My drug use consisted of smoking pot in college. If that caused it, most Americans under 80 would be gay!
I have a close, loving relationship to my dad as do all of us. Ditto for mom.
In fourth grade some of the “bad boys” on the school bus tried to take my skirt off. The older “good boys” stopped them and reported them to the principal. Somehow I don’t think that counts as “molestation.” Anyway I pray for an end of abortion, for whatever reason.
Continued: “Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, “De malo”, 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. God has endowed us with reason and free-will, and a sense of responsibility; He has made us subject to His law, which is known to us by the dictates of conscience, and our acts must conform with these dictates, otherwise we sin (Romans 14:23). In every sinful act two things must be considered, the substance of the act and the want of rectitude or conformity (St. Thomas, I-II:72:1). The act is something positive. The sinner intends here and now to act in some determined matter, inordinately electing that particular good in defiance of God’s law and the dictates of right reason. The deformity is not directly intended, nor is it involved in the act so far as this is physical, but in the act as coming from the will which has power over its acts and is capable of choosing this or that particular good contained within the scope of its adequate object, i.e. universal good (St. Thomas, “De malo”, Q. 3, a. 2, ad 2um). God, the first cause of all reality, is the cause of the physical act as such, the free-will of the deformity (St. Thomas I-II:89:2; “De malo”, 3:2). The evil act adequately considered has for its cause the free-will defectively electing some mutable good in place of the eternal good, God, and thus deviating from its true last end. “
In New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia states ” Internal sins
That sin may be committed not only by outward deeds but also by the inner activity of the mind apart from any external manifestation, is plain from the precept of the Decalogue: “Thou shalt not covet”, and from Christ’s rebuke of the scribes and pharisees whom he likens to “whited sepulchres… full of all filthiness” (Matthew 23:27). Hence the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. v), in declaring that all mortal sins must be confessed, makes special mention of those that are most secret and that violate only the last two precepts of the Decalogue, adding that they “sometimes more grievously wound the soul and are more dangerous than sins which are openly committed”. Three kinds of internal sin are usually distinguished:
delectatio morosa, i.e. the pleasure taken in a sinful thought or imagination even without desiring it;
gaudium, i.e. dwelling with complacency on sins already committed; and
desiderium, i.e. the desire for what is sinful.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
That kind of puritanical futility is probably responsible for more people rejecting a Catholic upbringing than any other factor. Try making it through three days of adolescence without being awash in desire for all that’s sinful. Here is the progression of thoughts this kind of attitude had on my own adolescent mind:
1. Does it matter whether you’re coveting males or females? Acting on your desires or merely having them? Engaging in partnered sex, or unnatural solitary acts? Or merely imagining them?
2. Are you really going to confess your deepest personal thoughts, or maybe a sin of equal value? The priest is someone you’re going to encounter regularly, and God knows anyway.
3. You can only go to hell once, right? And you’re already going there, so what does any of it matter?
oops. This was in response to Abeca’s quote from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (which is republishing more or less verbatim from the turn of the Century print edition, I take it…)
Barnet I will keep you in my prayers so the real interpretation will enlighten….
Barnett, this was your adolescence? Didn’t anyone teach you to take a cold shower and run around the block a couple of times? This is why people used to get married at 15, I guess. (As an aside, you don’t confess you deepest personal thoughts, you confess “I had impure thoughts” and say how many times.) If you are too ashamed to confess, I will tell you that a priest told me that they really don’t remember people’s sins after confession (and they have heard it all a hundred times). And you don’t have to go face to face. God does know all your sins but it is his remedy to have your speak them to His priest and receive the surety of having your sins absolved. No one has to go to hell. God’s mercy is boundless.
Cont…. “Usually, however, such desires are dangerous and therefore to be repressed. If, on the other hand, the condition does not remove the sinfulness of the action, the desire is also sinful. This is clearly the case where the action is intrinsically and absolutely evil, e.g. blasphemy: one cannot without committing sin, have the desire — I would blaspheme God if it were not wrong; the condition is an impossible one and therefore does not affect the desire itself. The pleasure taken in a sinful thought (delectatio, gaudium) is, generally speaking, a sin of the same kind and gravity as the action which is thought of. Much, however, depends on the motive for which one thinks of sinful actions. The pleasure, e.g. which one may experience in studying the nature of murder or any other crime, in getting clear ideas on the subject, tracing its causes, determining the guilt etc., is not a sin; on the contrary, it is often both necessary and useful. The case is different of course where the pleasure means gratification in the sinful object or action itself. And it is evidently a sin when one boasts of his evil deeds, the more so because of the scandal that is given. “
No Catholic can ever, in good conscience, advocate the killing of an unborn person. Period. SO true C&H then why do you admit giving money to an organization (the national lesbians right group) that vehemently supports abortion….
I get NCLR’s e-mail newsletter, check out the website and have gone to a few of their events. To my knowledge, they have never taken a position on abortion. If you have information otherwise, please let me know.
C&H are you that naive … it does not a genius to know that any group that promotes so called “lesbian rights” would also support the killing of the unborn in the name of “reproductive rights”… since its your money and conscience on the line why do you call them and ask,..
Its not completely unknown…we know that sin complicates things.
The CCC states that homosexuality is a disorder too…and the Bible states that lust, sodomy etc etc are immoral sins! Also the church teaches the truth on the Natural Law in which our Lord has implemented on mankind to live a happy life
but mankind has chosen to go against it due to sin, pride bad will etc.
I think that this website needs improvements, I only had less than 10 comments yesterday and a few did not go threw, and they made a mess of what i was trying to convey by not allowing the complete version of my communication. Again this website has lost my support and over this weekend, many good devout Catholics kept saying that is why they do not visit this website. They had various reasons and again I ask this “what is really their purpose?”
In Catholic Encyclopedia on the nature of sin:(quoted from)
Since sin is a moral evil, it is necessary in the first place to determine what
is meant by evil, and in particular by moral evil. Evil is defined by St. Thomas
(De malo, 2:2) as a privation of form or order or due measure. In the physical
order a thing is good in proportion as it possesses being. God alone is
essentially being, and He alone is essentially and perfectly good.
In Catholic Encyclopedia on the nature of sin:(quoted from) “Everything
else possesses but a limited being, and, in so far as it possesses being, it is
good. When it has its due proportion of form and order and measure it is, in its
own order and degree, good. (See GOOD.) Evil implies a deficiency in perfection,
hence it cannot exist in God who is essentially and by nature good; it is found
only in finite beings which, because of their origin from nothing, are subject
to the privation of form or order or measure due them, and, through the
opposition they encounter, are liable to an increase or decrease of the
perfection they have: “for evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum
of opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe, to the desires
and needs of individuals; whence arises, among human beings at least, the
suffering in which life abounds”
No Catholic can ever, in good conscience, advocate the killing of an unborn person. Period.
Anton, on this I am glad we agree. And thank you for standing up and saying it!
I have to say that being on this board for about a year now, I have often wondered whether those supposedly “faithful” catholics opine so vociferously against homosexuality, I have to wonder whether, if they were my mother, would they have aborted me?
No well formed human being would advocate for the taking of the life of another person. Your Fellow Catholic, I can love you, but I cannot love your sins. You need to think of yourself as God thinks of you. You have been here for 1 year demanding that the Holy Church approve of your sinful inclinations. That will never happen. Its never approved of any of my sinful inclinations, it never will.
As pope Francis says, If a person is gay and is of good will who seeks our Lord, Who is he to judge? But then again, if a person joins a gay lobby, that is a problem. Do you belong to a gay lobby?
I would say yes. though it might be just you in this Cal Catholic Lobby. The Holy Father says, you are a serious problem.
Yes, this is all very sick. No child should be ripped apart or burned to death by saline in the womb, and that is what an abortion is. It is all done without anesthetics, too, when physicians who operate on children in the womb use anesthetics.
C & H, I am not knocking your parents. I have regrets about some things I allowed my children to do in the past. Some times it was done out of a lack of maturity on my part and some times misguided compassion. All parents but the Holy Mother and God, of course, make mistakes.
If such a test was possible and available, the irony is that faithful Catholics would be one of the few groups raising homosexual. I’d guess that most liberal types, that is, the pro-homosexual everythng crew, would choose abortion without a second thought.
Yep .. with or without this test, my faithful Catholic mom and dad would have had, and loved, the same three gay and four hetro kids.
Faithful also means not supporting lifestyles that offend God.
Anyhoo abortion is pure evil no matter what and no one should advocate “gay” tones to it just to advocate gay activism. We are speaking of human beings, it is a sin to even consider the idea that they are already choosing to sin against God in the womb. That is a pure sinful ideology!
C&H, it is good that your parents love all of you, but perhaps they are being TOO tolerant. If they are more tolerant than just accepting the idea that you and your brothers have that orientation then you or some of your siblings could have been influenced in the wrong way. I do not know your situation, but it does happen. See my post to Abeca and Ronnie at 9:22 pm today.
I put a reply to this in the wrong place at 11:08 am today, October 20. I should make one thing clear about the reply. Although I made mistakes in the upbringing of my children at times, I never ever let them sleep with a lover in our home. They had to be and are married to someone of the opposite sex.
Ann – Good for you! Just so you know, I never had a girlfriend sleep over at my parent’s home. However, if I ever do find my true love, I’m sure she would be welcomed into the family, just as my brothers’ girlfriends and wives have been, eating my mom’s delicious cooking (where do you think I learned it?) Going to midnight masses, listening politely to my father’s long winded stories about Vietnam and joining in our silly attempts to play soccer in the back yard.
Anne T your comments to C&H are charitable..God bless you
Well, I made a mess of them — putting them in the wrong place and all, but I tried, Abeca. Thank you.
If you make the argument to homosexual “escorts” at an abortion mill, that 10% of the babies aborted are their own brothers and sisters, you will get no response. It’s just one of those truths they cannot face — have no answer for — ignore.
Since there is no genetic evidence for homosexuality, this point is moot. Abortion is always wrong. Each child conceived deserves a chance at life directed by God and nurtured by human beings, with the joys, sorrows, goods, and difficulties life brings so that this new life may be redeemed by Baptism, nourished by Eucharist, filled with the Holy Spirit to abandon sin, live in goodness, and enjoy eternal life with the Most Holy and Immortal Trinity, the very reason Jesus died and rose again.
There is evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality, and if there is a biological basis then there will one day be a genetic means to detect it and quite possibly bring about that outcome or prevent it. My guess is most couples have no interest in a gay child and if prescreening prevents gay births then so be it. Curiously, gays support abortion, even if it will someday be used with genetic selection to prevent gay births. Just like feminists trumpet abortion for any reason, while couples in India continue to kill baby girls due to culturally and economically inferior status…..and feminists stay silent on this slaughter of girls. Huh?
“Fr. Richard Perozich” is correct: Abortion is an abomination and is intolerable regardless of the genetic makeup of the child (except to save the actual life of the Mother). Homosexual sex is also an abomination and is intolerable to any practising Catholic. No one can argue that avoiding acting on a “natural” sexual impulse is easy. And, accepting, arguendo, that homosexuals do not choose their orientation, it is likely that failing in this mortal sin of hmosexual sex will happen throughout a lifetime. But that is what the Church is for, to offer the solace of repentance and the promise of salvation; true Catholic “charity.” What the Church is not for, and can never be for, is to give the appearance that homosexula sex is ever acceptable, is ever tolerable, to the Church and to God. The priest or bishop or pope that says, or intimates, otherwise is guilty of a heavy sin. There are no exceptions. And there can be Catholic bishops like Gary Gordon the Whitehorse Diocese, who is more afraid of offending the State that demands he no longer say that homosexuality is a sin (to Catholic school children), than he is afraid of offending God.
This is my favorite St. C post EVER. Except the last sentence was written ambiguously-because homosexuality as an orientation or inclination is not a sin. St. C is referring to Bishop Gorden amending the Diocese of Whitehorse Canada Catholic schools policy on pastoral care of gay students from one which included the teachings of the Church on the immorality of homosexual genital acts to one which just refers the reader to the CCC paragraphs and bishop’s document and makes no mention of the immorality of those acts.
AMEN St. Christopher, very well said!
Arguendo, I suppose the church will never condemn slavery, or condone the loaning of money (usury), or permit that the earth is not the center of the universe. Because the moral teaching of the Catholic Church can never ever change. Until it does.
YFC? If charging of interest is exorbitant the Church has always been against this and still is. Homosexual acts are always wrong in Scripture and in Church teaching. However, the charging of interest was permitted in the Old Testament, but only when dealing with non-Jews. It was not an absolute wrong as homosexual actions are.
YFC? Slavery – Note the following differences between the Bible’s stance on slavery and the Bible’s stance on homosexual practice:
No mandate. There is no scriptural mandate to enslave others, nor does one incur a penalty for releasing slaves. No noble values ever ‘rode’ on the preservation of the institution of slavery. Selling oneself into slavery was seen as a last-ditch measure to avoid starvation—at best a necessary evil in a state with limited welfare resources (Lev 25:39). There is, however, a scriptural mandate to limit sexual unions to heterosexual ones, with a severe penalty (in this life or the next) imposed on violators.
Not pre-Fall. Unlike the opposite-sex prerequisite, Scripture does not ground slavery in pre-Fall structures. Even if one were to contend that this is a de-historicizing argument, based on myth, the creation story still tells us that the biblical writers viewed heterosexual unions, unlike slavery, as normative and transcultural.
YFC? The Bible’s critical edge toward slavery. One can discern within the Bible a significant critical edge toward slavery. Front and center in Israelite memory was its remembrance of God’s liberation from slavery in Egypt (e.g., Exod 22:21; 23:9; Lev 25:42, 55; Deut 15:15). Christian memory adds the paradigmatic event of Christ’s redemption of believers from slavery to sin and people (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; and often). Israelite law put various restrictions on enslaving fellow Israelites—mandatory release dates, the right of near-kin redemption, not returning runaway slaves, and insisting that Israelites not be treated as slaves.
The “undisputed Paul” in 1 Cor 7:21 and Phlm 16 regarded liberation from slavery as at least a penultimate good. The ultimate good, of course, was freedom of moral purpose, something that not even slavery could deprive someone of. First Corinthians 7:21 is best translated as: “Were you, a slave, called? Don’t let it trouble you. But if also (or: even if, if indeed) you are able to become free, all the more (or: rather) use (it, i.e. your freedom),” that is, to redouble your efforts to serve God. As regards Philemon, Thorp inaccurately characterizes Paul’s message as: “And, of course, the whole of the letter to Philemon is about the return to him of his runaway slave Onesimus, whom Paul had encountered in prison” (p. 8). No, the whole of the letter is about Paul getting Philemon to look at Onesimus in an entirely new light, including as a person who should be treated “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord” (i.e., in the sphere of both society and church; v. 16).
YFC? Some other thoughts on slavery: (1) how it could be accomplished without massive violence (they did not live in democratic states and lacked political power); (2) how some particularly destitute persons would survive (they did not live in welfare states so some people might face starvation); and (3) how the disciples of Jesus would survive if it made emancipation a cornerstone (they would confirm for authorities suspicions that Christian faith was a seditious threat to the Roman Empire). What the authors of Scripture, and Jesus, meant by “slavery” was also something significantly different from what we Americans normally mean by slavery. Slavery in the ancient world was not predominantly race-based, often did not mean lifelong servitude, often served as a form of criminal justice (in the absence of long-term prison facilities), often allowed private enterprise, sometimes led to social advancement, and operated in a social and political economy that made complete abolition of the institution problematic (totalitarian states that disallowed such political reform; no welfare net).
YFC? Nicolaus Copernicus, before Galileo, proposed that the earth revolved around the sun. But Copernicus proposed it as a theory not as a fact. In fact, he dedicated his work On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs to Pope Paul III. The Church did not have a problem with Copernicus’ theory because he did not proclaim it as fact. At the time it was not an established fact, it was a theory. There were also a number of Jesuit priest who held that the earth may revolve about the sun and they were in good standing with the Church. However, Galileo did proclaim a sun-centered solar system as fact. When Galileo was given the opportunity to prove his assertions, he was unable to. He could not counter the observations that stars did not shift position as the earth revolved around the sun. Yet Galileo insisted his heliocentric view was a fact. He had a lot of hubris to insist his theory was fact given that he failed to prove his idea and was being quite unscientific calling it a fact rather than a theory.
Galileo, in Dialogue on the Two World Systems made fun of one of his best friends who later became Pope Urban VIII by betraying him as a simpleton. The pope was hurt and felt betrayed by Galileo. Galileo was not as innocent as some would have you believe.
Good post, Kaves. The truth is that Galileo was very arrogant at times, and he was never tortured and his imprisonment was probably in a house far better than yours or mine for his time, more like a mansion and among relatives. Ah, poor Galileo. So mistreated. (Lots of laughs.)
YFC, :The Church on Slavery
“For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27-28; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13).
From this principle St. Paul draws no political conclusions. It was not his wish, as it was not in his power, to realize Christian equality either by force or by revolt. Such revolutions are not effected of a sudden.
Christianity accepts society as it is, influencing it for its transformation through, and only through, individual souls. What it demands in the first place from masters and from slaves is, to live as brethren — commanding with equity, without threatening, remembering that God is the master of all – obeying with fear, but without servile flattery, in simplicity of heart, as they would obey Christ (cf. Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:22-4; 4:1).
Let me translate:
The Church does not seek to change society, but to reform and conform souls to Christ. So if you are babtized, at that point you are to get converted and treat your slaves as Christ would have them treat you.
If you are a shashster, after your babtism, you drop the rainbow, pick up your Cross and follow Christ. You stop being a practicing Shashster and become a practicing Catholic.
I have a feeling you do not care. The Sodomy Demons will not let go of you easily.
The pro-abortion sodomites can’t have it both ways. If it’s only tissue and can be removed by the woman, then it can’t be homosexual. And if it’s homosexual, it’s human, and can’t be killed. Which is it, Democrats?
Do you know that gay people are any more likely to be pro-abortion than straight people.
Sodomites are in bed with the Democratic/abortionist/sodomite machine. So, yes, I do know.
Sorry, but your “logic” simply does not flow.
Let me spell it out for you. Sodomites vote 90-95% abortionist Democrat. Heterosexuals vote only about about 50-55% abortionist Democrat. That makes sodomites almost 100% “more likely” to be pro-abortion than heterosexuals. Thanks for playing!
Sodom does vote reliably Abortionist Democrat. 90-95%. Huge margins.
Gomorrah leans slightly Libertarian Republican. Zeboim and Bela are still feudal kingdoms. Admah really puts them all to shame with a prosperous model of European Socialist Capitalism. Admah is the Denmark of Canaan.
The word Sodomite sounds so backward. I’m sure the appeal is that it’s a pejorative that expresses your contempt. But it’s akin to once-common, not highly offensive terms for race. You should know that using it makes you sound like a bigot from 1922.
Barnie,
Buy yourself a Merriam-Webster: “sod·om·ite noun \-ˌmīt\ : a person who has anal sex with another person : someone who practices sodomy”
By that M-W definition, “Sodomite” would refer overwhelmingly to heterosexuals, by virtue of sheer numbers, 90-95% of the population.
Does your definition of Sodomite discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?
The inflected meaning is “category of person I despise”. It is never used otherwise in contemporary language. Pretty much textbook definition of bigotry.
It would be wrong of course to abort a child for being. God made me gay. I know this the truth. I am now open to many co-worrkers.
Welcome back PA.
PA, God made you; Original Sin corrupted you. Homosexuality is a corruption of heterosexuality. If you are correct, why does God call homosexual actions immoral in both the Old and New Testament. Stop your false teaching. You may also interested in reading following: https://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115
God also made Adolph Hitler, Charles Manson, and the boy-raping sodomite members of NAMBLA.
You point is?
Most posters here assume Shashsters are rational human beings. They are not. They are self-absorbed inner gratification types that talk endlessly about themselves.
Shashsters I have observed tend to be the most self-absorbed depraved souls. This love of self leads them to all sorts of deviant behavior and also causes them to reject everything that calls them to account on their unhealthy self-love.
This is how we are to think of Sex? Sleeping with your wife for example, not only involves you and her, but your children’s future. Marriage is complex, it ties families and peoples together. The notion that a human being can be happy spreading seeds alone wherever and with whomever deny’s a greater deeper truth about a person. Just as access of eggs to all sorts of seed planters down the alley hurts every person that loves that woman, including herself. Sexuality even on a natural level is the way the human race propagates itself, therefore its always a serious matter. That is basic and any rational person can see that.