Jelle Vaes wrote: |
|
Hi, guys!
I'm an 18-year-old male who has been a Catholic for my whole life but only recently I took the time to look up some things and questions about my belief, with the most controversial subjects we see in the news nowadays as so many people argue against our belief.
We know that homosexuality is forbidden in Leviticus. Also, if we dive deeper, we know that not all parts of Leviticus should be followed as there's a difference between ceremonial, judicial, and moral law.
- How do we know that the passage about homosexuality is moral law and not judicial law?
In the Catholic Answers podcast:
"Why Care What Leviticus Says About Homosexuality?"
by Joe Heschmeyer • (1/26/2023)
they use as an argument the definition "reproductive system." That "reproductive" is in the definition; thus, sex should only be used reproductively (in Marriage, of course.)
My problem with this is that it's too simple. One could disprove this with the synonym "sexual organs": God simply intended us to have sex, regardless of the gender (still, in a loving Marriage). This way, they could also argue that homosexual marriage should be allowed.
- What are your thoughts on this?
- Do you have any advice or arguments?
Thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Jelle |
| { Can you help on some disputed topics and how do we know the passage about homosexuality is moral law and not judicial law? } |
Paul replied:
|
Dear Jelle,
There is an answer from authority and from reason.
We know homosexual acts are of the moral law and are not simply ceremonial or disciplinary judicial law because the sacred Magisterium of the Church teaches it. This is the authority of Christ, established by Christ, that has the promise that the Holy Spirit will not allow error on matters of faith and morals.
We also know that all matters of sexual activity are of the unchanging moral law because it is of the natural law. If you hypothetically take away all the conditioning and brainwashing modern culture has accrued from the sexual revolution, which has inundated us with a snowball effect of lies to this day, it is easy to see the meaning and purpose of sex as God designed it. It is for spouses to unite and potentially procreate when they are fertile. It renews the covenant they made on the wedding day. This is why Aquinas taught that the greatest sins against lust are the acts that, by their nature, pervert the sex act to be completed outside the female reproductive tract - i.e., homosexual acts, bestiality, and masturbation. They violate human nature in a profound way.
Therefore, through the aid of Scripture, Tradition, right reason, and the Holy Spirit, the Church infallibly teaches that misuses of sexuality outside the Marriage covenant between husband and wife are objectively gravely sinful.
Peace,
Paul |
Bob replied:
|
Dear Jelle,
Keep in mind that the New Testament fundamentally echoes what is taught in Leviticus, especially c.f., 1 Corinthians 6:9, where St Paul warns the Church not to be deceived. It is easy to be deceived by all the clever arguments and snares of the devil, who even tried to use twisted Scripture to tempt Christ.
Lastly, just think how in Genesis, God made them "male and female" and that the two should "become one flesh." (Genesis 1:27, 2:24) The complementarity of the sexes is by design for reproduction and the forming of families, and sex is the vehicle for that.
It is purposeful and beautiful, but Satan has been trying to disfigure it ever since. It is so obvious that a child can understand it, but the clever always seem to miss the forest for the trees.
Don't buy the modern scholars. They will throw you off every time.
It is simple.
Peace,
Robert Kirby |
Jelle replied:
|
Hi guys,
Thanks for responding so fast and giving me a lot of different answers.
As you said, Paul, the sacred Magisterium of the Church indeed can decide that. Also, thanks, Robert, for reminding me to look in other places as well.
My friends and I like discussing philosophical concepts and the laws around them, but when you're deep-diving into a subject, it's indeed easy to forget to look in breadth and not just in-depth, so thanks for that.
If I've any other questions, I'll let you know.
Peace,
Jelle |
|
|
