Ah, ok. That makes sense. By "quick google search" I was referring to the collection of Bible quotes one could acquire on this subject. Just that.
Originally Posted by laserlight
But in fact I did a google search for that quote because I needed to know what would be the first reference to homosexuality on the bible and it would be a lengthy process searching for this on the book itself.
Well, no. But close.
No, that the bible speaks of murder is too well known for it to bother me. What bothers me, and which I thought would have been more obvious, is the phrase "convenient interpretations". In other words, it seems to me that you were trying to say that by not requiring that those who engage in homosexual acts be put to death, the Catholic Church has invalidated its own position.
I mean, I do not presume by changing the penalty, the church invalidated their position. Quite on the contrary. The references in the bible are very revealing of why the church thinks of homosexuality the way it does. The "convenient interpretation" speaks however of how the word of God on that verse had to be dealt with in this day and age where a death penalty for homosexuality is out of the question in the minds of all. That verse cannot apply. But it's impossible to ignore either.
You cannot ignore the dramatic changes between Leviticus book and the current Catechism.
The first bible I picked after you first commented on this matter reads "they will be punished by death and they will take their blame with them". This I read as a divine punishment. The bible is the Portuguese edition from Almeida, 1995 edition revised, Catholic Version.
By "Roman Catholic Bible" you mean the Jerusalem Bible? My Catholic edition NRSV reads "they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them". In all three translations it seems to me that the written meaning is the same, so I see no fault in the re-wording.
Then I picked an english Bible (John Nelson Darby, 1980 edition) I got way back in Canada offered to me by a friend who thought it would annoy me on account of my constant rants on the catholic church. It reads "they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them." Which to me seems to indicate the punishment shall be executed by men.
Finally I went to Young's Literal edition of 1862 (this one shamefully stolen from an hotel room), which also reads (and which I quoted) "They should surely die and their blood be upon them".
Now, being this the old testament I'm more inclined to accept the Almeida version as being closer to the true meaning of the punishment. I cannot conceived the idea that God passed on to the Israelis an order to execute homosexuals caught in the act. It feels more correct to assume He would punish them Himself.
Admittedly I made a big mess of the quotes. It's the Almeida quote I wished to make just the post before this.
Precisely my point. I only wished I had your skills at summing it up.
Ah, but if your point is that there is scriptural support for the church's position on homosexuality, albeit toned down from what it inherited, then yes, I certainly agree that that is relevant for the discussion of homosexuality. It indicates that it is more difficult for the pro-homosexual camp within the Catholic Church to argue against the doctrine.
There's is nothing to argue about concerning the doctrine itself. The church position is consistent and well supported, albeit toned down during the years.
But here lies the problem with the church. It's incapacity to change their doctrine, even when supported by dogma, is slowly revealing it's dark nature of intolerance as societies around it slowly evolve morally towards an higher level of tolerance and acceptance.
No longer the Church champions ethical and moral values. Governments compete with it, as do human rights institutions in their several forms. The church is being left behind and as these organizations prove themselves far more adaptable and capable at understanding and reacting to intolerance and injustice, the church own intolerance is revealed.
It's my view that it will eventually happen. The church will eventually adopt Dogma as the sole source of its doctrine. And this will open the doors for the acceptance of homosexuality. I do not expect however this to happen anytime soon. It's a revolution. It needs the right pope, the right college of cardinals and a lot of social pressure and convoluted times for the church. None of which are a reality still.
Unless... your point is that it may be possible for the position to be toned down to the point where homosexuality is accepted? It seems possible to me if they had come to such a conclusion earlier, but now it may be too late... unless the pope admits that papal infallability was a bad idea (i.e., if I remember correctly the bishops have never collectively affirmed that homosexuality is 100% wrong), or that it was never actually exercised in this case (i.e., despite the statements by the Catechism, the pope never actually spoke ex cathedra on this topic).
And since you speak of it, do notice that papal infallibility not only will be protected by, but actually strengthened by the adoption of Dogma as the sole source of doctrine.