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: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:26:35 GMT

In article <930112110117.2e008a57@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>"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.

   I never said anything about it being literally correct.  We must
rely on the Church's interpretations when she has made them.

>>   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.

   No, I'm just making that point that Jesus didn't enumerate every
possible type of sin.  You seem to be trying to assert that anything
Jesus didn't explicitly mention as a sin is therefore not a sin.  To
try to claim that since something was written by St. Paul rather than
Jesus it does not have authority, looks like a rejection of both
Scripture and the Church's teaching authority.

>>   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.

   J.J., I think you are using incorrect terminology here.  I think
what you mean to say is that some homosexual acts have less
_culpability_ to them.  In other words, although homosexual acts,
within "a loving relationship" are still sinful, being against natural
law, they are not as bad as, say, an anonymous fling.  Can you perhaps
agree more if it is put into these terms?

>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)

   What if that relationship is adulterous?  What if that relationship
breaks his mother's heart?

>>   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:-)

   Well, as a priest who also said, "There are many roads to Heaven,"
said, "There are a set of beliefs, which if one doesn't hold, it
doesn't make much sense to be Catholic."

>>   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?

   But if it is truly sin, then it is harming both persons'
relationships with God.  I'd call that hurting someone, wouldn't you?

>"morally disordered"? come on Steve, quit mincing words:-) - J.J.

   It's a technical term that's been explained here before.  As you
said, you know what I mean 8-).

--Steve

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu