X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:01:17 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)

"Stephen A. Creps" <creps@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU> writes:
>   So you are instead denying the infallibility of Sacred Scripture?
>The inspiration and infallibility of Scripture are a basic Catholic
>belief.

Fortunately, I'm not your "basic Catholic", but then, you knew that:-)
Being inspired doesn't imply correct transcription, nor does it mean
that it is literally correct.

>   While I'm looking for verses in which Jesus condemns homosexuality,
>perhaps you could look for some in which He condemns rape.  The Church
>tells us both are wrong, as should our consciences, even if Jesus
>never mentioned them explicitly.

I sense that you apparently know that this is a wild goose chase.
But it is interesting to note that that while I'm considering a loving
homosexual relationship in this discussion, you somehow try to connect
it with a violent relationship like rape.

>>Well, I didn't know our prejudice against homosexuality was a Sacred
>>Tradition. I guess that's not surprising since it's only human nature
>>(original sin, if you will) to treat as inferior those who are
>>different (women come to mind also:-).

>   Why should there not be prejudice against actions that are sinful?

It's a bit circular. You say *all* homosexual acts are sinful, never
even considering that *some* may not be.

>Your comment about women is both inaccurate and irrelevant.

Cute, but you know what I meant.

>   ... and accept _all_ sinfulness?  To accept your premise that
>nonacceptance of homosexuality is merely prejudice, would be the same
>as accepting your (apparent) argument that there is nothing wrong with
>it.  Have you considered that perhaps you are wrong, and it _is_ in
>fact sinful?

Yes, I have. Yet I find very few actions which I'd classify as sinful
in _all_ instances. A loving, caring relationship between two people
drops out of consideration very early. (love that touchy-feely stuff)

>   Back to Adam and Eve, a Catholic doesn't have to accept the fact
>there there were a real Adam and Eve, but does have to accept that the
>first people sinned in such a way that we all inherit a state of
>sinfulness on account of it.

Isn't it nice to have such black and white rules... makes it so much
easier to tell the "real" Catholics from the sinners:-)

>>No, but since I know you love moral relativism:-), let's consider that
>>for me to make love to my wife is not a sin, while for you to make love
>>to my wife would be a sin (not an invitation:-). So, for two homosexuals
>>to make love may not be a sin, while if you or I were to make love to one of
>>them, it would be a sin. (I'm assuming you're heterosexual.)

>   Bad analogy.  Would it be more OK for you to do something to hurt
>your wife, than for me to do the same thing to hurt your wife, just
>because she's your wife?  Besides, homosexual activity is not the same
>as heterosexual activity, for obvious reasons.

There you go again, I say making love, you connect it with hurting someone.
I could potentially see the love in a homosexual relationship, could you?

>>...or do you consider just being homosexual to be a sin?

>   I never said that.  Homosexual acts are sinful.  Homosexual
>tendencies are not sinful, although they are morally disordered.

"morally disordered"? come on Steve, quit mincing words:-) - J.J.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic