Catholic Church and Gays

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/common_ground_homosexuality_and_the_church?id=4692434&pageNo=0 makes me miss Elder Forlife. [/quote]

I don’t get it?[/quote]That’s a thread. Don’t play dumb, I’ve seen you in some. You remember dear Elder Forlife I hope. He’s gay. Ex Mormon. Was married with kids. You remember. He’s been in threads too. I was lookin around and saw that one. It made me miss the guy. That’s where you haven’t seen somebody in a while who’s company you enjoy. What else can I help you with Chris =]

Oh yeah. So what does your church do if two men or women show up arm in arm heralding their arrival as God’s will for the parish? What is the procedure by which the body is kept pure?[/quote]

By which the body is kept pure? Draw and quartering I suppose, I’m not sure what procedure you’re looking for and what it is supposed to do when you say, “by which the body is kept pure?”[/quote]
The 5th chapter of Paul’s 1st letter to the church at Corinth comes to mind. That’s where you actually DO what the scriptures say. PRAISE GOD!!!, we’re on a roll!! What Else? Come on. I can’t wait to help ya with sumthin else now Chris.[/quote]

So, you’re purposefully being vague? Glad, I wasn’t disappointed in my ability to comprehend clear and concise English. Listen, I’m a business guy. You gotta shoot it to me straight, I can’t keep up with this vague allusions to stuff. You want to bring my attention to something please make it so I don’t have to guess so much.[/quote]

Chris, your statements above clearly demonstrate your general insensitivity to issues of context. You DON’T understand clear and concise English. All you had to do was read his statements in context. Tirib said, “so what does your church do if two men or women show up arm in arm heralding their arrival as God’s will for the parish?” His next question, written immediately after and in the same paragraph, is “what is the procedure by which the body is kept pure?” Logic would dictate that, since Tirib is a smart guy and understands how PARAGRAPHS work, his second question was a continuation of the first. The catchword “body,” which you constantly remind us in your posts is the church, would most likely refer to the church .

If you show no sensitivity to meaning at the level of discourse, how in the world can you possibly serve your church as a faithful interpreter of Scripture?

42

I’ve been known to dabble in a bit of translation myself:

[quote]Alex Good wrote:
Blegh, not worth the effort. And mistranslations occur quite frequently when you try to streamline text.
[/quote]

Translation: I just got my ass handed to me on an internet forum but I refuse to admit I had no idea what I was talking about.

How’d I do?

43

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Oh yeah. So what does your church do if two men or women show up arm in arm heralding their arrival as God’s will for the parish? What is the procedure by which the body is kept pure?[/quote]

Uh, what does your Church do when two men, openly living in sin and blatantly rubbing it in your face, show up arm in arm heralding their arrival as God’s will for the parish?

And when does this even happen?

44

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’ve been known to dabble in a bit of translation myself:

[quote]Alex Good wrote:
Blegh, not worth the effort. And mistranslations occur quite frequently when you try to streamline text.
[/quote]Translation: I just got my ass handed to me on an internet forum but I refuse to admit I had no idea what I was talking about.

How’d I do?[/quote]Not bad dude. I knew ya had it in ya.

[quote]Cortes wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Oh yeah. So what does your church do if two men or women show up arm in arm heralding their arrival as God’s will for the parish? What is the procedure by which the body is kept pure?[/quote]Uh, what does your Church do when two men, openly living in sin and blatantly rubbing it in your face, show up arm in arm heralding their arrival as God’s will for the parish? And when does this even happen? [/quote]I sent Chris to the 5th Chapter of 1st Corinthians. There’s a principle spelled out there with absurd clarity. That was just an example. Take a look.

A principle that had it been applied to me by my then church I may have avoided years of backslidden misery. However God used those years to teach me about stuff like my own helplessness and His faithful love toward His children that I would never have learned as well any other way.

45

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’ve been known to dabble in a bit of translation myself:

[quote]Alex Good wrote:
Blegh, not worth the effort. And mistranslations occur quite frequently when you try to streamline text.
[/quote]

Translation: I just got my ass handed to me on an internet forum but I refuse to admit I had no idea what I was talking about.

How’d I do?[/quote]

Not bad but you forgot to take the context into account. It should’ve read something like this:
“It’s 1:30 in the morning and there is no way in hell I’m turning greek symbols into latin ones just for an argument.”

46

[quote]Alex Good wrote:<<< just for an argument."[/quote]NNNOO!!! Whoulda ever thunk that?

47

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’ve been known to dabble in a bit of translation myself:

[quote]Alex Good wrote:
Blegh, not worth the effort. And mistranslations occur quite frequently when you try to streamline text.
[/quote]

Translation: I just got my ass handed to me on an internet forum but I refuse to admit I had no idea what I was talking about.

How’d I do?[/quote]

Lol precisely

48

Well all you need to do is punch romans 1:27 into google, what’s stopping you? I’m not going to retype the entire thing when you can find it by just looking it up.

49

[quote]Alex Good wrote:
Blegh, not worth the effort. And mistranslations occur quite frequently when you try to streamline text.

“Voulez vous couchez avec mois, ce soir?” is directly translated as “Want you sleep with me this night?” but everyone translates it as “Would you like to sleep with me tonight?”.

That’s just an example. The reality is our attempts to make translations a more enjoyable read often obscure the meaning of the text. I found this so annoying that I painstakingly translated the entire text of Beowulf to make sure that the story was portrayed in other translations properly. Of course I then went and got the pages soaking wet. Worst waste of a week ever.[/quote]

That’s a cute theory, Mr. Pseudo-Scholar, but one that is not particularly applicable to translations of Scripture.

First of all, “would you like to sleep with me tonight” is an appropriate rendering of “voulez-vous coucher avec moi ce soir” into idiomatic English. It’s NOT a mistranslation, as it does not communicate something different than what the sentence is meant to communicate in French. It’s almost as if you just grabbed a french dictionary and inserted the basic English meaning of the lexical forms into the words “voulez-vous coucher avec moi ce sour.” Frankly, I’m not convinced you know French any better than Old English. If that’s how you “translated” Beowulf, then you didn’t translate squat.

Secondly, biblical scholars don’t seek to make Scripture “a more enjoyable read.” This isn’t Homer or Shakespeare; it’s the Word of God. Consequently, bible translators slave to make Scriptural translations clear, accurate, and understandable at a given time and place. Your claims about the meaning of arsenokoites were simply inaccurate; that inaccuracy cannot be justified on the basis of “scholarly attempts to make translations more interesting.”

50

[quote]Alex Good wrote: Actually I just know french. Profound scholar is taking that a bit far. >>>[/quote] I was being lightheartedly sarcastic dude. You didn’t really think I thought “voulez-vous coucher avec moi ce soir” was high French or that it’s translation was profound scholarship? I don’t know what you know, but I am certain of what you don’t.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< an appropriate rendering of “voulez-vous coucher avec moi ce soir” into idiomatic English. It’s NOT a mistranslation, as it does not communicate something different than what the sentence is meant to communicate in French. >>>[/quote]Dynamic equivalency in French now? Dr. Ryken is gonna retroactively flunk you after the fact =D

51

My entire point was that direct translations only get you so far and the meaning we derive from them varies. And by enjoyable I meant a smoother read. Like turning the direct translation of “voulez vous couchez avec mois ce soir?” into “would you like to sleep with me tonight?”. In order to do this you need to assume that you know exactly what the passage is about which becomes less and less likely with larger manuscripts.

Example: Same thing with the earlier french tanslation but now we have a new sentence before it. “Mercredi est trop ennuyeux.” Now is when someone comes in and translates it into “Want to sleep with me wednesday night? There’s never anything to do.” Even though the direct translation is “Wednesday is too boring. Want you sleep with me this night?”.
So now we have somebody thinking that I want them to sleep with me wednesday night when in reality wednesdays bore me and I want sex now.

And this is how to completely lose your train of thought at 3 in the morning. Sleeping now.

52

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Alex Good wrote: Actually I just know french. Profound scholar is taking that a bit far. >>>[/quote] I was being lightheartedly sarcastic dude. You didn’t really think I thought “voulez-vous coucher avec moi ce soir” was high French or that it’s translation was profound scholarship? I don’t know what you know, but I am certain of what you don’t.

I actually thought that you were mistaking Beowulf for a french text. Doing so could give one the impression that they’re dealing with a scholar of the french language.

Okay bed this time for sure. Damn my internet addiction.

53

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Alex Good wrote: Actually I just know french. Profound scholar is taking that a bit far. >>>[/quote] I was being lightheartedly sarcastic dude. You didn’t really think I thought “voulez-vous coucher avec moi ce soir” was high French or that it’s translation was profound scholarship? I don’t know what you know, but I am certain of what you don’t.

LOL As much as I love old Lele, I need to go with my gut.

54

[quote]Alex Good wrote:
My entire point was that direct translations only get you so far and the meaning we derive from them varies. And by enjoyable I meant a smoother read. Like turning the direct translation of “voulez vous couchez avec mois ce soir?” into “would you like to sleep with me tonight?”. In order to do this you need to assume that you know exactly what the passage is about which becomes less and less likely with larger manuscripts.
[/quote]

Again, it’s not about a “smoother reading.” It’s about idioms. Basic grammatical structures can vary significantly between languages. The way you say something in french is different from the way you say the same thing in English. This is about INTELLIGIBILITY, not SMOOTHNESS. “Voulez-vous coucher avec mois ce soir” is, grammatically speaking, appropriate in French; your “literal” rendering of it into English was NOT proper English. It wasn’t a real English sentence. We are talking about the difference between nonsense and coherence here, not “smooth” and “rough” readings.

55

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You can’t read the 5th chapter of 1st Corinthians? One of the most ignored passages and principles in all the bible. Non existent in Catholicism (practically) and barely a gurgle in protestant churches either. [/quote]

No, it exists very much in the Catholic Church. A good chunk of Canon Law delves into this very thing. But since Protestants ecclesiastical communities don’t have the Eucharist I’m not sure why they would even need to worry about it since it’s nothing but crackers and grape juice.

56

Thou knowest not what thou sayest dearest Christopher. Saying that real live enforcement of anything vaguely resembling biblical holiness as commanded in the 5th of 1st Corinthians exists in the Catholic chucrh is deserving of HeadHunter’s Bert stare. Truly dear brother. Elvis at the mall is more credible. Like I say, before you go off on me, it ain’t too much better in most protestants communions either. I agree btw. Of course there’s only one body of Christ His church. Though I really did know it was inevitable, I am heavy hearted by this great gulf that is now fixed between us Chris.

57

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Chris, your statements above clearly demonstrate your general insensitivity to issues of context.[/quote]

Probably.

That could probably be the issue as well.

And, I said someone would probably tell them to stop heralding in a sacred place since we observe what is called “holy silence.” So no yelling in the church. Tirib is notorious for being vague and obtuse in his writing so I am trying to make it clear for me. If he’s referring to a homosexual couple saying they are God’s will for the parish? Then I’d agree with them, they came to the right place. We like sinners in the Catholic Church, I’m not sure about your local ecclesiastical community. Though they’d probably have to stop the arm in arm thing, because we don’t have hoe downs in our churches. But, there should be some fraternal correction. Some catechesis, baptism, confirmation, and first communion. If they don’t want to change, they are welcome to stay for mass and even go to confession (though they won’t get absolution if they aren’t contrite) and some grace will be received that will hopefully lead to a conversion of heart and will lead them to being brought into the Church.

There is one body in the Catholic Church, but Tirib knowing more about Catholicism and every other religion more than anyone in that religion themselves knows I was curious to which part of the mystical body he is referring to.

I also refer to the body of Christ, which is par excellence present in the bread and wine along with Jesus’ blood, soul, and divinity. So, what we do to keep the body, the Church, pure is different than what we do with keeping the body of Jesus pure. So, you can see how I could be confused and wanting clarifications on what he was referring to. Sorry for my ignorance.

I thought this was known. Only the Church can be a faithful interpreter of Scripture. I can point to the Church and produce arguments, but myself am never guaranteed to produce a valid interpretation unless I was to become a bishop in union with the Pope (this is why Brent said that if he has made error, he defers to the Church…that is not protecting oneself, that is being Catholic because we are not so prideful to consider ourselves an authority even if others see us as such) and I speak ex cathedra. I’m not at all smart (as you have pointed out here), so I doubt that will ever be the case (I’m sure there are a few people who give thanks to the Lord for that because I’m highly intolerant of heresy and unorthodoxy).

Now, if as you pointed out that Tirib was talking about the Church. Then this is my answer: They’d be welcome to come to Mass, if they are in mortal sin (merely being arm in arm with someone or stating your gay doesn’t qualify as mortal sin, if it was I have a few sins to confess tomorrow) they would be asked to refrain from consuming the Body and Blood and if they so wish they can go up front to be blessed during communion (as are all people), though the whole blessing thing is sort of an orthopraxy faux paus since at the time of communion it is time for communion not blessings by the priest (they can get the same blessing before or after Mass and they get it during, with everyone else, Mass.

If they are not Catholics or not faithful Catholics they’d also be asked to refrain from taking the Body and Blood, as well. They could also go to confession (though if they are not Catholic and not contrite they receive no absolution) and even talk to the priest.

There was an instance of something similar to this about a year ago up in the North East. Big fuss about it, actually. I’ll look into it, my good buddy (a Canon Lawyer) wrote some stuff on it, I’ll dig it up and I’ll see if I can’t show how to properly deal with such a situation.

But, basically if they are actual persons with Same Sex Attraction (assuming they are Catholic) that are not struggling to deal with it properly, they have ex communicate themselves and are not part of the body (if they partake in the communion they eat and drink condemnation upon themselves). If they are not Catholic, but baptized they have still removed themselves from the Church the same as anyone in heresy has removed themselves from the Church. If they are not baptized they were never part of the Church, so… The fact that they go to Mass does not really say much. If it does, there is an atheist that goes to daily Mass with me to listen to Father’s homilies (he’s a PhD in Philosophy and Theology) because he’s a pretty bright guy. The fact that he is from Nigeria and studied in Rome is a bonus.

58

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thou knowest not what thou sayest dearest Christopher. Saying that real live enforcement of anything vaguely resembling biblical holiness as commanded in the 5th of 1st Corinthians exists in the Catholic chucrh is deserving of HeadHunter’s Bert stare. Truly dear brother. Elvis at the mall is more credible. Like I say, before you go off on me, it ain’t too much better in most protestants communions either. I agree btw. Of course there’s only one body of Christ His church. Though I really did know it was inevitable, I am heavy hearted by this great gulf that is now fixed between us Chris. [/quote]

You just said existed, now we’re talking about it being enforced. Two different things, what exists in the Church is different than what people do or believe. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty. That exists in the Catholic Church, the fact that people may or may not believe that has no indicator of if it exists in the Catholic Church.

Now, if you meant by existed in the Catholic Church that it is enforced. I don’t know how often it is enforced. Your asking me for something that is not really possible to know. Neither by you or me. I’ll explain, if someone is given a Canon 915 (no Body and Blood for you) this is done with care. Why? It deals with grace and salvation. If someone is in mortal sin and eats and drinks the Body and Blood, they drink and eat condemnation on themselves (whether others are going to bring damnation on themselves is an adjacent subject but I’ll post something from the Office of Readings I read yesterday about it).

However, if they are not in mortal sin and are in good standing with the Church and the priest is confronted with two men holding hands and refuses to give communion to them…they will be lacking Grace from the Body and Blood…which is a serious offense by the priest (though understandable, but since you know…we’ve been around for 2000 years and aren’t prone to being persuaded by sentimentalism we’ve come up with laws that dictate when and how to give and refuse communion to people). There is also a certain level of evidence that needs to be presented to the priest. Holding hands or being arm in arm is not qualification enough. Saying “I’m gay” is not qualification enough even. I could go into the reasons why, I’ll save that for later if you wish for me to explain those certain circumstances and why they are not qualification enough.

If a priest is to give a Canon 915, the sin has to be manifest. Manifest needs more distinctions that I will try and get to tomorrow. Night.

59

95% of Catholics I’ve ever met wouldn’t be mistaken for Christians by anybody. They talk, act and live just like any other unconverted heathen and yet have their cheeks in a pew every week. It’s real simple. Paul says a person who is living in known unrepentant sin or heresy (in essence) is to be put out of communion with the body lest their presence corrupt the church. This is so unmistakeably set forth as to render it’s misunderstanding clearly intentional.

And what is this psychedelic semantics you’re playing with me? Existence without enforcement is like faith without works. Give me a truthful real life example of where you know personally that Canon 915 has been applied.

60

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
95% of Catholics I’ve ever met wouldn’t be mistaken for Christians by anybody.[/quote]

Welcome to America. It’s a phenomena of civilized Western Culture and anonymity.

Hopefully they’ll receive the grace to let the Holy Ghost convert their heart.

Interesting.

Yet, I was chastised for saying scripture is clear the other day. Yes, they should be refused communion. I agree. As they likely are (I talked to my step-father who is in Germany right now and they have a big deal with Canon 915 that the bishops have enacted against German Catholics who renounce their membership of the Catholic faith to Caesar. His brother being one who learned of this after telling the government that he wasn’t Catholic for tax purposes.

As we do, but Catholics aren’t known for carrying around confession cards anymore so it be a tough sale to question every person coming up to receive communion whether they are faithful Catholics or not.

But, what you’re pointing out is a matter of logistics and some ill misunderstood concepts of charity and love. Pope Benedict in his interview book, “Light of the World,” goes into some depth of the issue of ignoring Canon Law and has recently written to seminarians (and all those in the clergy who deal with Canon Law) the importance of learning and adhering to Canon Law. The gist of his comments were this: Catholics and the world at large had misconstrued the concept of love to remove the element of punishment and rebuke. Thus, in doing this they ignored Canon Law and several issues arose, largely revolving around: Clerical abuse of sacraments including confession and the eucharist. The largest of the two issues being the abuse of children and the other not giving the otherwise medicinal punishment of excommunication for those who would benefit from it and witholding sacraments until a confession and public renunciation of their error has come forth from the repentent.

However, back to logistics. Explain to me how a priest (or, an extra-ordinary minister giving communion) who runs a parish with 500+, 1000+, 2000+, or 5000+ families (who have an average of 2-3 people in each family) in it is supposed to know that some man in the back pew of the Church he sees once a week on Sunday for an hour is living in sin (versus, having sinned and being contrite for his sins and has gone to confession)? If it’s not manifest first off, the priest won’t know, which is mostly the case. Now if it is manifest within the congregation, how is the priest going to know unless someone tells him? The laity have this misconstrued notion of love in which we keep secret grave sin of another (which is fine up to a point, unless the person is unrepentant), and do not give the sinner fraternal correction in the three fold manner (one to one, with a small group, with the Church at large). There is personal accountability and that is spelled out in Canon 916:

Basically this spells out in Latin, if you eat and drink unworthily you eat and drink condemnation on yourself.

The Sister who worked with St. Joseph’s hospital down in Phoenix who authorized an abortion was publicly given an anathema (after the Bishop had counseled her with fraternal correction, which it seems people tend to forget when it comes to Canon 915 and other related matters). All priests were supposed to forbid her communion until she repented both in the Sacrament of Confession and in a letter renouncing her actions to the Bishop (I’m not sure how that went down it has been a few years and haven’t stayed in the loop).

Also, in Germany they are giving out Canon 915’s all over the place: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-the-german-bishops-just-greedy