Organization: Argus Consulting, Tucson, AZ
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Wed, 20 Jan 1993 13:25:46 -0700
From:         "Gordon C. Zaft" <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Homosexual acts

On Jan 19,  3:28pm, Raymond Lang wrote:
} Subject: Re: Homosexual acts
} In article <199301172219.AA25666@caritas.cotdazr.org> "Gordon C. Zaft"
} <zaft@CARITAS.COTDAZR.ORG> writes:
} >On Jan 15,  5:01pm, Raymond Lang wrote:
} >} The Church is the complete body of Christ's followers, not just a
} >} relative handful of Vatican officials.  Those officials are promoting
} >} a teaching on homosexuality which is contrary to the Gospel of Christ.
} >} Thankfully, a growing number of priests, religious men and women, and
} >} even Roman Catholic bishops are starting to realize this and are
} >} quietly teaching that the Vatican's line is just so much hot air.
} >
} >        The Church is the complete body of Christ's followers,
} >those presently on Earth, those in Heaven, those in Purgatory.
} >Your judgment that the Church's teaching on homosexuality is contrary
} >to the Gospel is not, I think, shared by the majority of them.
}
} What did you do?  Go to Heaven and ask for a show of hands?  or perhaps
} you got a look at the latest Gallup poll of Purgatory?  exactly how did
} you arrive at your opinion about what the faithful departed think?

        I stated my opinion as just that, an opinion.  It's certainly as
justified as your claim that 'Vatican officials' (like who?) are
promoting a teaching on homosexuality which is contrary to the Gospel
of Christ.  Just out of curiosity, if the Church's teaching on homosexuality
is contrary to the Gospel, why wasn't it pointed out 500 years ago? A
thousand years ago?  Were people just too dumb back then to understand?
}
} >                                                                The
} >Church's teaching has been consistent for 2 millenia yet you seek
} >to change it.
}
} This argument certainly supports a teaching, but it is not definitive.
} For example, up until the middle of this century, it had also been the
} constant teaching of the Church that Moses was the actual author of the
} first five books of the Old Testament.  Today, when the Church speaks
} of the inerrancy of scripture, she means something rather different
} than what was intended 90 years ago, when the phrase was understood
} to entail the literal, factual truth of scripture.

        I disagree, but the whole point is (IMHO) irrelevant.
}
} >        I also submit that those who are 'quietly teaching' doctrines
} >that are contrary to accepted Church teachings are doing so because
} >1) they are trying to subvert and undermine the Church, and 2) they
} >are too cowardly to come out in the open and bear the consequences
} >of their actions.
}
} You know, dialog between liberals and conservatives in the Church
} would probably go a lot smoother if you "Catholic-truth-squad" types
} would stop accusing more forward-thinking Church members of trying
} to "subvert and undermine the Church."  If anything's being undermined,
} it's the Vatican's credibility on sexual ethics; furthermore, they're
} the ones undermining it by ignoring developments in our understanding
} of human sexuality.

        Since when is being 'forward-thinking' required of us?  I would
think the requirement would be to follow Christ.  If that is 'forward-
thinking', fine.  IF not, too bad.
}
} >} Since the beginning of the Church, there has been no lack of people
} >} desperate to place Christ's followers back under the yoke of some law.
} >} Christ lived, suffered, and died to free us from such slavery.  I, for
} >} one, have no interest in giving up the freedom won for me by Christ, and
} >} neither will I encourage anyone else to do so.
} >
} >        The freedom Christ gave us is not freedom TO sin, but freedom
} >FROM sin.  We need clear and consistent teaching so as to know what sin
} >is; if we do not know what sin is, how can we avoid it?
}
} Apparently you're of the opinion that the physical expression of love
} in a monogamous, same-sex relationship is sinful.  It is not.

        I notice you don't rebut my statement.
}
} Ray Lang
} lang@cs.tulane.edu
}-- End of excerpt from Raymond Lang



--
* Gordon Zaft     Argus Consulting  4500 E. Sunrise #N-6, Tucson, AZ 85718
* zaft@caritas.cotdazr.org | noao.edu!coyote!caritas!zaft
                 Semper fidelis Christi et Vicarii sui.