With respect to Old Testament, pre-Christ teachings, yes. His commands were simply that: commands. Do this. Don’t do that. Some commands seem eminently reasonable and common-sense; others are, so far as I can see, utterly arbitrary. They were to be obeyed because they came from God, not because we could discern an extrinsic reason for doing so.
(premature post end - sorry)
But then along came a time in which God became flesh, and lived among us as man, and from his words and actions we were given new tools from which to draw our understanding of God’s will henceforth. For example, we knew from the Old Testament that adultery was sinful. Christ taught that there was sin even in the desire for adultery - though not as severe as the sin accompanying the actual action.
Chief among these new tools and guides was His institution of His Church on Earth, and his investing the leadership of that Church in Peter. To that Church and Her Apostles was given the Holy Spirit’s direction and guidance, so that the essential truths of the Gospel might be expanded upon and taught as the times require.
The Church’s condemnation of homosexual acts today arises from several sources, not the least of which is Scripture’s command and the fact that they close the sex act to the possibility of the gift of life.
I appreciate the information, Bricker. Thanks.
I guess I’ll always see the wiggle room that the RCC gives to usurers to be entirely self-serving. In other words, pews would be pretty empty on Sundays if the strict biblical proscriptions against usury were enforced.
I mean, if the RCC can be accommodating to the subjects of *this * Ezekial verse
then why won’t it budge an inch on the homosexuality = sin idea?
The Ezekial verse seems pretty clear to me … and the harsh words in it clearly indicate that this was not a casual afterthought by God, but that He was pretty darn serious about this. Yet, the RCC, in my opinion (and most other churches, BTW) treat this as a minor deal and have found a way to work around it.
Yet, the verses condemning homosexual behavior, which are equally harsh, are treated as untouchable, unmodifiable. It’s the word of God, and that’s that.
As an outsider, I view the situation and I see blatant hypocrisy.
You, as a believer, seem satisfied with the Church’s explanations.
I don’t think we’ll ever see eye to eye on this one.
But was there anything about the explanation that struck you as inaccurate?
In other words, it seems to me that you are starting with the position that because the Church benefits from the interpretation, because it’s self-serving, that must be the true rationale behind it.
I would point out, though, that if the Church relaxed its rules concerning marriage, and recognized divorce and remarriage as valid, undoubtedly they would fill even more pews. If the Church removed their stance on contraception, I feel sure that, too, would result in a net increase in attendance. Yet they don’t.
I guess I’m asking you why your interpretation of the Church’s motives rings so true to you, in light of evidence to the contrary?
I find the Church’s explanation to be very convoluted. It creates distinctions that I don’t think are that important.
And when I see that these same distinctions allow the RCC to move usury from the “grave sin” camp and put it into the “perfectly O.K.” camp, then yes, I become very suspicious of the Church’s motives.
As for your examples of relaxing other Church rules that would increase attendance, I submit to you that these examples do not prove your point.
What would happen to the RCC if its leaders strictly enforced the “usury = sin” biblical injunction? It would **severely **reduce the size of its flock. (Who **hasn’t ** been involved with an interest-bearing loan, either as a lender or borrower?) In these modern times it would be, to say the least, a **very bad **marketing move.
What are the costs to the RCC of playing hardball on the usury question? Clearly disastrous.
What are the benefits to the RCC of relaxing the rules on contraception? More difficult to determine.
On the one hand, the RCC would probably gain some converts. On the other hand, Church leaders would have to come up with some mighty, mighty, difficult explanations to justify such a complete about-face. That would be a major blow to the Church’s credibility, and it may lose members because of it. More members lost than what might be gained, perhaps.
So, what you hold out as an example of a case where the Church does **not ** act in its best self interest is not clearly the case at all. It’s muddy waters, at best.
I’m sure that Church leaders **do ** make cost-benefit calculations in these cases. The Church leaders may not believe that they are making such calculations at all, and they may not indeed be making them at the conscious level, but they are there nevertheless.
Church leaders are human, after all, and they can fool themselves.
I think you’re right - we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
Bricker can do a lot more justice to this than I can, but basically the idea is that there is a complementarity in the natural order created by God (“man and woman He created them”) which is reflected in the union of man and woman. This is the relationship between married men and women, Jesus the bridegroom and His bride the Church, etc. In most cases, the complementarity creates life.
Disclaimer: I am a traditional Catholic and abide by the tenets of the Church regarding chastity outside of marriage regardless of sexual orientation. That being said, it’s hard given that gender is not so clear-cut that “complementarity” is strictly on physically male-female lines.
As far as the comment above that “inner freedom” sounds Orwellian 
The idea is that you are not mastered by your desires but seek strength to be faithful to God and His Word regardless of them. That “if it feels good, do it” isn’t always morally supportable, and that you won’t self-destruct or be in chaos if you don’t do it.
I have not seen this in any diocesan Church. This strikes me as a publicity stunt that may be practiced in some city-center Churches in large cities, in view of the cameras, but not necessarily at the grassroots.
The bolded portion below strikes me as perhaps un-self-aware, at best.
http://www.rainbowsashmovement.com/New_Web_Site_12_18_04/Letters/Ltr_Bishops_Pentecost_2005.htm