My email to the one-man "Catholic Action League"

[rayvaillancourt]

Mr. Doyle,

I find your comments in today's Globe troubling.

C.J. Doyle, executive director of Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, called upon the archdiocese to “vigorously defend’’ the school’s decision to revoke admission to the youngster.

“The real question here is why two people who radically repudiate the moral teachings of Catholicism

Comments

[valancy_s]

Obviously the Archdiocese made the right call and exclusion is always a bad practice. The issue the man's raising, though - the moral teachings of the Catholic Church on this subject - is one I have thought about, and looked for answers in scripture, catechism, and church practice.

The only place I have found what seemed to be clear direction was in the passage from Acts which was - coincidentally - the first reading this past Sunday at Mass. If you recall, there's major dissent in the early Church about which Jewish practices, if any, Christians should be required to follow. The disciples choose a group to pray and discern a decision about this issue, and this is the declaration of their conclusions:

"It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right."

To me, that spoke pretty clearly. They didn't care about anything in the entire Mosaic law, except this business with the meat - and marriage law. That's it. Nothing else. I would say that means they found it pretty darn important. A "necessity" in fact. I don't know why that is, but I don't feel justified in rejecting a clear-cut tenet of my faith just because I personally don't understand it. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.

[rayvaillancourt]

The following is from the notes in my NAB regarding the Acts passage you quote.

Unlawful marriage seems to refer to degrees of consanguinity. Here, and in a few other places, reference is made to a Greek practice of marrying cousins/aunts/uncles in order to keep inheritances within the family. Of course, gay marriage was not known at the time.

"Some scholars think that this apostolic decree suggested by James, the immediate leader of the Jerusalem community, derives from another historical occasion than the meeting in question. This seems to be the case if the meeting is the same as the one related in Gal 2:1-10. According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law; whereas the decree instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from blood-meats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity (Lev 18), all of which practices were especially abhorrent to Jews. Luke seems to have telescoped two originally independent incidents here: the first a Jerusalem "Council" that dealt with the question of circumcision, and the second a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (see Acts 21:25 where Paul seems to be learning of the decree for the first time)."

[valancy_s]

That is interesting. But the note in my NAB directs me to Leviticus 17-18, where the restrictions on sacrificed meat and unlawful marriage are spelled out explicitly. It's obvious that this is the part of the law the disciples are referring to in Acts, and it's not just about consanguinity - it forbids four things: incest, adultery, homosexual sex, and bestiality. Homosexuality wasn't "unknown at the time," and it's clear these were all "practices... especially abhorrent to Jews." I don't see how we can cross 1 off the 4 things of the forbidden list just because the trend of our culture has swung in favor of it.

I'd love to be convinced. It would make it a lot easier to live in an uberliberal community (as I do) if I could see my way around this. But I can't yet, so bring on the counter-arguments!

[rayvaillancourt]

As for the dietary restrictions, why do Catholics not keep Kosher? In the early church, it was decided that those laws no longer applied in the New Covenant. It is a theme in Hebrews and Galatians, and made explicit in 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10: 25-26.

As to the sexual sins, WHY were they so abhorrent? Because they were pagan customs and rituals. Look especially at the beginning and end of Leviticus 18, and it should be clear that the context of forbidding the sexual sins is idolatry. This also comes through in Romans 1.

There are also prohibitions against certain grooming practices and tattooing in the same context of forbidding pagan customs. Some modern Christian monks shave the crown of their heads (tonsure), a practice that is expressly forbidden in Lev 21:5. There are plenty of other prohibitions in the Mosaic law to which we no longer bind ourselves: charging interest, weaving two kinds of thread into a cloth, working on the Sabbath, etc.

Further, we certainly disregard today many Biblical rules pertaining to the role of women. Leave aside the OT laws about putting rape victims to death, allowing the rape of women captured in war, and specifically allowing fathers to sell their daughters as sex slaves. Women fare only a little better in the NT. cf. 1 Cor 14: 34-35, 1 Tim 2: 11-12.

The question becomes whether the Bible passages about homosexuality reflect the culture of the time, in the same category as the role of women or the Bible's acceptance of slavery and polygamy; or a universal moral truth for all time, like "Love your neighbor as yourself."

The Gospels give us no clarification. Jesus spoke out against fornication and adultery in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, and very strongly against divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. But nothing about homosexuality. And it's important to contrast the way he treated *sinners* with the way he spoke about the *sins*: consider the woman caught in adultery, the Samaritan woman at the well, etc.

The bottom line on homosexuality in the Bible is that it is as clear or as fuzzy as one wants it to be.