From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:42:20 GMT

In article <930111102121.2e005b57@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>"Stephen A. Creps" <creps@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU> writes:
>>>Traditional errors are still errors:-)
>>   Are you saying that what was taught to the Apostles by Jesus was in
>>error;
>
>No, but the way the apostles transcribed the message could have been.
>If you could perhaps point out specific examples of Jesus condemning
>homosexuality (as opposed to endorsing heterosexuality), it may help
>clear things up.

   So you are instead denying the infallibility of Sacred Scripture?
The inspiration and infallibility of Scripture are a basic Catholic
belief.

   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.

>>or do you deny the Apostolic nature of the Church, that what
>>has been handed down as Sacred Tradition comes through the Apostles
>>from Christ?
>
>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?
Your comment about women is both inaccurate and irrelevant.

>>>What is natural and what is unnatural is the question, it appears
>>>to me that homosexuality is a naturally occurring trait in a
>>>certain percentage of the population and always has been.
>
>>   The Church teaches that because our human natures are damaged by
>>the sin of Adam and Eve, we are subject to sin.
>
>Yes, the Adam and Eve myth aside, we must come to understand our prejudices.

   ... 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?

   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.

>> Are you saying that
>>since sin comes natural to all humans (except Jesus and Mary), that
>>there is nothing wrong with it;
>
>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.

>...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.

>>or do you deny the Church's teaching on Original Sin?
>
>Is this a trick question, Steve:-)? - J.J.

   Could be.  Is this a trick answer, J.J.? 8-)

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU