# Will gay acceptance erode the Bible's authority? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2014, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414 "2014-02-27T14:10:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/221 "2014-03-12T19:00:56Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Thanks. > > So it’s option b - millions (my estimate, without backup, but most people would roll their eyes if you said it wasn’t a good guess) of Catholics routinely ignore church teachings on sex because they know they are stupid. > > This is, not surprisingly, leading to people noticing that church teachings can be stupid, and feeling courageous enough to ignore them. > > Not a good trend for the church. What evidence is there that this is a ‘trend’? In other words, that more people are ignoring church teachings on sex (or for that matter anything else) than in the past? Catholic sexual ethics have always been unpopular (ignoring the question for the moment of whether they are, you know, _true_ or not. Premarital sex is nothing new. There were points in history where most brides were pregnant at their weddings, and there have been other points in history where prostitution was ubiquitous. Various forms of contraception are nothing new either. Nor is homosexuality (the great Catholic theologian St. Anselm, who may have been gay himself, famously argued against strict ecclesiastical penalties for homosexuality on the grounds that ‘it’s a sin, but it’s too common a sin to take very seriously’). Oral sex isn’t a new invention either. Traditionally, the Catholic Church has been much more interested in enforcing conformity of _belief_ than in conformity of _behaviour_. The Spanish Inquisition, for example, executed people for expressing the theological opinion that premarital sex was OK, they didn’t execute people for sexual sins per se (as far as I know, I’d welcome correction). What’s new nowadays is that the Catholic church can no longer enforce conformity of belief, either, so people feel more free to be vocal about their disagreements and, in many cases, to leave the church. I don’t really think that there was ever an age when most people, in their heart of hearts, really accepted or followed Catholic sexual morality, though. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/222 "2014-03-12T19:02:33Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Don’t ask for a cite because I’ll likely not be able to find it, but I recall some years ago a self-identified Catholic here on the SDMB was actually _offended_ at the idea that he or she followed everything the Catholic Church (or maybe the Pope) said. Not just denying it, but literally found the idea offensive that we would think that a Catholic would follow the Catholic Church or the Catholic leader entirely. Truthfully, I don’t understand why someone like that wouldn’t become Episcopalian or Lutheran. Those churches, unlike Rome, don’t make the same kind of demands or authority claims. I don’t believe the authority claims that Rome makes for herself, which is why I’m not Catholic. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/223 "2014-03-12T19:06:16Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > What evidence is there that this is a ‘trend’? In other words, that more people are ignoring church teachings on sex (or for that matter anything else) than in the past? You know, the Reformation on up to modernity. > [@](#): > > Premarital sex is nothing new. There were points in history where most brides were pregnant at their weddings, and there have been other points in history where prostitution was ubiquitous. Various forms of contraception are nothing new either. Nor is homosexuality (the great Catholic theologian St. Anselm, who may have been gay himself, famously argued against strict ecclesiastical penalties for homosexuality on the grounds that ‘it’s a sin, but it’s too common a sin to take very seriously’). Oral sex isn’t a new invention either. Traditionally, the Catholic Church has been much more interested in enforcing conformity of _belief_ than in conformity of _behaviour_. The Spanish Inquisition, for example, executed people for expressing the theological opinion that premarital sex was OK, they didn’t execute people for sexual sins per se (as far as I know, I’d welcome correction). The difference is that back then, most of the sinners actually felt guilty about it, or faced consequences, or tried to hide it. Now Catholics and other religious folks routinely do what they want and don’t give it a second thought. Heck, they form organizations to openly oppose and try to change church teachings. Or they leave the church. Which is similar to what you say here: > [@](#): > > What’s new nowadays is that the Catholic church can no longer enforce conformity of belief, either, so people feel more free to be vocal about their disagreements and, in many cases, to leave the church. I don’t really think that there was ever an age when most people, in their heart of hearts, really accepted or followed Catholic sexual morality, though. Fair enough. So it comes down to the church no longer being able to force people to do things they don’t want to do and aren’t convinced are worth doing anyway, and are free to follow their own conscience instead. Works for me. The only thing left to do is be honest about it and either leave the church formally or de facto (stop going to Mass, or only go on holidays, or otherwise become a “lapsed” Catholic). ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/224 "2014-03-14T11:54:24Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > The moral premise that the Catholic Church is using here, which comes from Aristotle, that it’s immoral to use things, or processes, contrary to their intended purpose. (This is also the heart of why the Catholic Church thinks that _lying_ is always a venial sin, even when it’s for the best of intentions like avoiding a murder: because it uses the faculty of speech contrary to its intended purpose). They also believe that the _purpose_ of the sex act is first, deposition of semen in the vagina, and second, to serve both procreative and unitive goals. > > Again, I’m not an Aristotelian, I just don’t think their argument is blatantly silly. > > **Frank** the text says ‘divorce’ and ‘marriage’. What do you think it was referring to? There’s certainly room for exegesis around the text, but I think it’s pretty clear that Jesus thought remarriage after divorce was adultery. Churches do disagree about _what to do with that_, of course. Then in this sense, an older couple shouldn’t get married because they can’t conceive a Child, or a infertile couple should also stay single? To me it is mind control and a person can’t think their own thoughts. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/225 "2014-03-15T20:49:24Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > What evidence is there that this is a ‘trend’? In other words, that more people are ignoring church teachings on sex (or for that matter anything else) than in the past? > > Catholic sexual ethics have always been unpopular (ignoring the question for the moment of whether they are, you know, _true_ or not. Premarital sex is nothing new. There were points in history where most brides were pregnant at their weddings, and there have been other points in history where prostitution was ubiquitous. Various forms of contraception are nothing new either. Nor is homosexuality (the great Catholic theologian St. Anselm, who may have been gay himself, famously argued against strict ecclesiastical penalties for homosexuality on the grounds that ‘it’s a sin, but it’s too common a sin to take very seriously’). Oral sex isn’t a new invention either. Traditionally, the Catholic Church has been much more interested in enforcing conformity of _belief_ than in conformity of _behaviour_. The Spanish Inquisition, for example, executed people for expressing the theological opinion that premarital sex was OK, they didn’t execute people for sexual sins per se (as far as I know, I’d welcome correction). > > What’s new nowadays is that the Catholic church can no longer enforce conformity of belief, either, so people feel more free to be vocal about their disagreements and, in many cases, to leave the church. I don’t really think that there was ever an age when most people, in their heart of hearts, really accepted or followed Catholic sexual morality, though. Could it be they are brain washed and led by fear or guilt? Some Catholics I know believe the Church is the voice of God and one cannot go against its teachings. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/226 "2014-03-15T21:01:09Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Could it be they are brain washed and led by fear or guilt? Some Catholics I know believe the Church is the voice of God and one cannot go against its teachings. It’s insulting to say someone is “brainwashed.” It’s also really bad logic, since they could just as easily say YOU are brainwashed to believe what you believe. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/227 "2014-03-15T21:35:22Z")
**lance strongarm** The Reformation didn’t represent anything new _in principle_. Luther was very, very far from the first person to rebel against church authority, or to propose a different understanding of Christianity. The later epistles in the New Testament are full of polemics against rival Christian schools who appear to have proposed some form of proto-gnosticism. Just about every century that I can think of included some major controversies about what Christianity meant (and that includes controversies over sex). In the thirteenth century, for example, the Catholic Church was constantly trying to wipe out one heresy or another- the majority of Southern France was Cathar at one point, and people like the followers of Joachim of Flora and the Waldensians were also a big threat. The unique thing about the Protestant Reformation was not theological, but rather political- it was the first major heretical movement that the church lacked the power to wipe out. I’m not exactly sure why that is- but regardless, it is not the case that no one before Luther ever had trhe idea of questioning the church. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/228 "2014-03-15T21:56:10Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > The unique thing about the Protestant Reformation was not theological, but rather political- it was the first major heretical movement that the church lacked the power to wipe out. I’m not exactly sure why that is- Me neither, but the point is that it did succeed. It corresponds roughly with the Age of Enlightenment, in which the church, and religion in general, lost its luster as people had more and more trust in rationality - outside the bounds of religious doctrine. For whatever reason, people aren’t afraid to question religious doctrine. And questionable it is. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/229 "2014-03-15T23:22:04Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Don’t ask for a cite because I’ll likely not be able to find it, but I recall some years ago a self-identified Catholic here on the SDMB was actually _offended_ at the idea that he or she followed everything the Catholic Church (or maybe the Pope) said. Not just denying it, but literally found the idea offensive that we would think that a Catholic would follow the Catholic Church or the Catholic leader entirely. IANAC but it’s my understanding that some of the things the Catholic Church teaches fall into the category of “you _have_ to accept/affirm/believe this in order to be a Catholic,” while other stuff falls into the category of “this is our best understanding of the issue, but it could be mistaken or incomplete.” (I do know that “[Papal infallibility](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility)” only applies in certain special circumstances, not to everything the Pope ever says.) It makes sense that a Catholic might resent the idea that he agrees with all the Church’s teachings in both categories, since it implies he doesn’t have a mind of his own. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/230 "2014-03-16T10:49:59Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > It’s insulting to say someone is “brainwashed.” It’s also really bad logic, since they could just as easily say YOU are brainwashed to believe what you believe. I would have to brainwash myself. I don’t believe all that people tell me, I check it out and use my own mind. When things don’t add up I ingore them. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/231 "2014-03-16T16:08:56Z")
**lance strongarm** It’s interesting, though, that Protestantism has as yet only lasted five centuries. Manichaeanism, which was in its day considered the greatest intellectual threat to the Catholic Church, and was in some ways fought more bitterly than almost any other heresy, lasted about a thousand years. Although there’s considerable disagreement about wheter Manichaeanism was a Christian heresy or a new religion of its own. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414.md?page=11)