[net.religion] morals debate

david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (11/24/83)

> It is for this
> reason that most Catholic couples in the U.S. practice contraception
> despite the official teaching of the Church, and, in fact, are supported
> by their confessors.  Likewise, the Party Line against masturbation is
> considerably toned down these days, simply because a more strident
> approach would appear ridiculous.  Of course, homosexuality is still an
> acceptable whipping boy, simply because the majority of the Congregation
> of the Faith has not measured the teaching against this reality.
> I am not saying that public opinion does (or should) drive dogma.
> Rather, I am saying that many people have grappled with official
> teaching, and have resolved the issue with their conscience.  What does
> one do with the argument that David Hawley presents, if you cannot
> accept his premises?  What about a Protestant who agrees, in general,
> but does not accept the inclusion of contraception and divorce?  What
> about the homosexual who perseveres in both his membership in the Church
> and his lifestyle?  Who sets up these axioms, and who will judge?

	As a side discussion in the ongoing homosexuality debate, I felt
some response should be made on this subject.  All too often, non-Christians
confuse official Church doctrine with true moral law.  Religions are created
and maintained by men, and men make mistakes.  The Holy Catholic Church, of
which I am a part, should not be confused with the Roman Catholic Church or
the Church of England, etc.  There are no buildings, no offices, and you
won't find it in the phone book.  A true Christian understands that he 
belongs to this special family, united by the Holy Spirit of God, whether he is
a Baptist, Presbyterian, Seventh-Day Adventist, or professes no "religion" at
all.
	God has placed his law in our hearts; we basically know what is
right and wrong.  Our decisions, however, can be clouded by many things
which obscure this law;  some men have ignored the law for so long they can
no longer feel guilt when they break it.  There is an easy answer to the last
question:  Since God alone knows our hearts, he will be the final judge.  It
is not for any man to say whether this person or that person has broken the
law.

	One last note:  be careful with the last statement.  Observing that
something is good or bad is not the same as telling a person that he is good
or bad.  An old Christian cliche: "Hate the sin but love the sinner."

	-- David Norris

sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (12/01/83)

My response to David Hawley was precisely in reaction against the kind
of arguments which try to link logical deduction with moral standards
and behavior.  It just happened that his arguments, presumably deduced
ex nihilo, coincided with the official teaching of the Roman
Catholic Church, and so my response was based on its more established
tenets.  I agree with your main point, the Church as a community of believers,
and not as some official organization.  (But the Roman Catholic Church
affirmed this, too, at its Second Vatican Council.)

I merely wished to put to rest the argument "Homosexuality is bad for the
following reasons, blah, blah blah, blah blah blah, QED."  It is as
ethereal an exercise as the medieval discussion of angels and pins,
except that the victims of its analysis are real corporeal beings.
Yes, perhaps it's more like the old question of whether Jews or women
or blacks have souls.  It serves no purpose except to further cement the
tenacious preconceptions of its proponents.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca