My apologies.
We’re not arguing at all.
I’ll preview more often. I promise. :smack:
“Decide?”
I’m not sure if you were speaking hyperbolically, but the Church recognizes that it’s not a choice:
Sounds like denial of homosexuality to me. Homosexuality is the condition whereby it’s right and proper to engage in sexual relationships with other homosexuals of the same gender.
“Inner freedom”? That’s chillingly Orwellian.
That’s like saying being a pilot is not a sin, but flying an airplane is a sin. What sort of acts do you expect homosexuals to engage in? It’s makes more sense to say that being Catholic is not a sin, but going to mass and obeying church teaching and customs is a sin, because it includes believing lies and acquiescing to injustices. Engaging in homosexual acts is not a sin because it causes no harm. It’s that simple. Enforcing Church teaching on homosexuality is a sin because it can’t fail to cause psychological and spiritual harm to the targeted individuals. And it’s not fair.
Who’s facetiously speaking for God now?
Last I checked, the debate was over whether it was right for individual members of a congregation (or under what circumstances the Catholic Church/this particular church) was justified in denying communion to people wearing a sash.
There are plenty of threads on the “rightness” of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is not the debate here, the jackassery of people kneeling in the aisles to block people wearing sashes is.
I must be facetious today…because the first thing I thought of when I saw the title was:“whiskers on kittens; warmn woolen mittens” etc
These are some of my favorite things!
(it was funny to me, anyway)
Except,
-
The Catholic Church doesn’t take the position that a sin is defined by doing harm to others…there can be actions that don’t harm other people that are still sinful.
-
Being a pilot is defined by one’s actions…a pilot is a person who flies a plane. Being homosexual isn’t defined by actions, but by desires. A homosexual is sexually attracted to people of the same sex. Someone is still homosexual even if he never has sex with anyone of the same sex. On the other hand, there are people who have sex with people of the same sex who aren’t homosexual. So, it’s not exactly the same.
Sounds like you have the basis of Sqweelism. That’s absolutely your right.
Just as it’s the right of the Roman Catholic Church to define sin as they please.
Absolutely.
And Pope Benedict XIV’s *Vix Pervenit * of 1745 clearly forbids usury.
Fifteen verses in the Bible also prohibit usury, including Ezekiel 18:13: “Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? He shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.”
So, why doesn’t the Catholic Church deny Holy Communion to bankers and mortgage loan officers?
(In case anyone is confused, biblical “usury” is different from today’s legal definition of charging excessive interest rates. Usury in the Bible means charging *any * interest on loans.)
Oh, and since the biblical definition of usury also includes people who* take out * loans with interest, why doesn’t the Catholic Church deny communion to anyone who has ever paid credit card fees? (I think we know the answer to **THAT ** question!)
Can anyone speculate on why the Catholic Church is so adament about denying Holy Communion to sexually active homosexuals but completely down with allowing usurers to receive it?
I’m sure it’s **NOT ** because the Catholic Church is selectively using the Bible to justify nasty prejudices, right?
Right?
If you’re looking for a serious, theological answer I’ll be happy to provide it.
I suspect that you’re not, so I’ll simply say that it’s the right of the Church to give communion to whom they please, for whatever reason they please. But if you are truly curious about the distinction, I will be happy to answer that question.
I’m curious about the answer myself. (Presumably it doesn’t involve the ancient-vs-modern definition of “usury” – the Church doesn’t seem to target even practitioners of the latter, such as loan sharks or the executives of abusive credit-card firms, for this treatment, ergo, relying upon this distinction is to invoke an explanation that doesn’t explain.)
I"m actually curious about the distinction (and if another thread is needed, I’d be happy to follow).
Agreed.
And I’m sure the Catholic Church has many reasons why one group receives Holy Communion and the other does not.
Again, the Church has the right to make these distinctions: Their house, their rules.
My point is this. The Ezekiel verse that I quoted is **really ** harsh, what with the “abominations” and the “he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.”
Pretty heavy stuff, right?
One would think, then, that this harsh biblical condemnation of usury would be a big deal to the Catholic Church.
But, apparently it is not.
My point is, why is that the case?
I’m sure that there are theological justifications for this distinction, and I appreciate that in your post you say that you are willing to to cite them.
But I’m more interested figuring out **why ** the Catholic Church has seen fit to let usurers off the hook … and I wonder whether there is anything *other * than Godly influence (such as human prejudices, or a desire not to have empty pews) *behind * that decision.
On the surface, it seems to me that there are other non-Godly factors at work.
You will likely disagree.
In the absence of the ability to proove that God thinks something is a sin, we have to rely on real-world assesments on the impact of behavior.
Last I checked, the debate was over whether it was right for individual members of a congregation (or under what circumstances the Catholic Church/this particular church) was justified in denying communion to people wearing a sash.
OK, so my posts are hijacks. I’ll withdraw after this one.
But I’m defining sin in terms of a particular cultural tradition. I’m defining it according to the best facts and logic available. If you can’t explain the mechanism justifying considering something immoral or a sin, it’s not morality, it’s superstition.
So two lesbians performing cunnilingus on each other is an abomination after all?
And who’s got better logic? Arguing that they have the right to be wrong–about right and wrong–doesn’t exactly blow me away.
The RCC is essentially blackmailing people into either supporting the violation of certain people’s civil rights, or having their own civil rights violated by being forced to reject their cultural heritage. But I guess at the end of the day might makes right, like Jesus said.
Actually, it’s both. Now, under Bricker’s definition, something is wrong, because god, as seen in an ancient book, says it is. You say something is moral, because of common sense. Bricker’s is a true definition of morality, as is yours. However, Bricker’s conception is all so stupid. Wonder why I am an atheist? It is because, when so one can point to a book, and state “Certain things are wrong, just because god says they are” and then uses circular logic to prove the book really is god’s word, I start to suspect these people are simply interpreting facts to suite an old legend, and they can use it to justify any prejudice they want to. There is no value in, or reason to follow a system of morality that is like that.
Here, you are mistaken: the charging of exploitative interest is still condemned by the Church as wrong. It is the charging of any interest at all that has changed over time… and the nature of the change is not so much in the Church’s teaching as it is in the vast evolution of economics.
Back in the day, the Church condemned usuary in its original sense: the amoount lost by the borrower to a lender; the price paid for the use of money.
Even in those days, the Church did not forbid the taking of all interest on all loans. The principle of damnum emergens - the emerging loss - was always recognized. For example, a man lends money rather than pay laborers to harvest olives from his olive orchard. He was always lawfully entitled to the recompense for his olives rotting on the ground instead of picking and selling them.
This was justified not as interest, but as a separate transaction: compensation for damages occuring to the lender as a result of the loan.
This is a critical point: interest on a loan was considered usury - and sin - if it was intended to be a gain for the use of the money – but not if it was intended to comepnsate for a loss on the part of the lender. (See The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas for a good discussion on this distinction).
As the world grew, and the economy began to expand beyond simple village agriculture, it became clear that many more opportunities for investment existed. If I could buy someone else’s olive orchard with my money, I would make a profit – by the same reasoning, then, if I lent money instead of buying the olive trees, I would be entitled to be recompensed the profit I would have made on my olive trees.
This principle (lucrum cessans - loss of profit) is what today causes interest to be generally acceptable. These collateral issues are called “titles” and there are, IIRC, a total of 13 of them, with lucrum cessans and damnum emergens being the most well-known.
With all that in mind, let’s see what spiff meant when he quoted Pope Benedict XIV:
If you focus simply on that, then your case is made. But if you read the WHOLE document, you find:
Modern economics now understands and teaches that there is an opportunity cost for lending out your money that may be reliably quantified - a lender now does not have to show a specific emergent loss or loss of profit in order to justifiably claim that he has suffered economic harm by lending his money rather than buying something with it. This change ecists because of the relatively modenr innovation of a capital market, and the advance of economics as a science.
The basic teaching of the Church remains unchanged – even though its application has done a complete about-face in the modern world.
Hope that helps!
- Rick
I’m aware of the distinctions pointed out by Bricker. The terms “productive” and “non-productive” loans have also been used to describe this distinction.
I just find it suspicious that the RCC sees fit, as **Bricker **has pointed out, to clarify biblical tenets on usury based on advances in modern economics, but not budge an inch on the homosexuality issue based on advances in biology.
BTW, if people think this discussion on usury is too tangential to the OP, we could start a new GD thread and move it there.
I defer to the judgment of **Douglas Quaid **on whether this is a hijack of his thread…
Because with respect to the issue of usury, the advent of modern economics changed the understanding of an issue that was basic to the discussion. Interest charged simply to enrich the lender was wrong, and is wrong. A recompense of the money lost by the lender in making the loan was always permissible. Modern economic analysis changed the understanding of how to calculate the harm suffered by the lender; the advent of a capitalized economy changed the opportunity cost for a lender, and so the ground rules changed – not the underlying principle.
Your question assumes that the original objection to homosexual behavior was somehow grounded in a biological misunderstanding… because homosexuality was thought to be a choice, it was prohibited; now that we understand it’s an innate characteristic, it should no longer be prohibited.
But that assumption is wrong. Homosexual behavior was characterized as sinful for reasons that had nothing to do with whether it was a choice. Biology’s modern lessons thus do not impinge on that teaching, except perhaps with the change that the Church now teaches that homosexual DESIRES are not a matter of mortal sin… precisely because it’s now clear that homosexual desires are not a matter of choice.
I guess, but who cares? It’s interesting.
I am not a biblical scholar, so could you briefly explain why homosexual behavior is sinful (according to the Bible)?
I thought I was clear enough the first time, but I’ll try again. Stipulating the modern understanding of “usury” (the charging of excessive and exploitative interest, as opposed to the charging of any interest at all), the Church hasn’t shown any detectable interest in keeping an eye out for usurers (again, by the modern definition) barging in upon the Communion rail where they have no legitimate place.