tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-876502085465766394.post5284346191189131298..comments2024-01-17T03:08:25.317-06:00Comments on The Progressive Catholic Voice: Open Letter to Archbishop Nienstedt – #4PCV Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12519134580470262558noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-876502085465766394.post-14644368547647717452012-11-02T17:26:35.375-05:002012-11-02T17:26:35.375-05:00Michael J. Bayly,
Scripture is clear and nothing ...Michael J. Bayly,<br /><br />Scripture is clear and nothing in the your link suggests otherwise. <br /><br />The article in your link states, "Likewise males, whether animal or human, should mate with females. Moreover, heterosexual intercourse was considered unnatural in any position other than face to face with the male on top. (This may well be what Paul is referring to in Romans 1.26 when he says: “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural . . . .” Almost certainly Paul is not referring to lesbian relationships.)" This is a completely gratuitous claim. First, it is simply not the case that Paul was referring to the position that women adopt in coitus. Paul, following stoic natural law theory,argues would consider lesbian intercourse unnatural. Moreover, the next verse states "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." This passage clearly rejects homosexual relations between men but notice it begins "in the same way" So Paul is drawing a parrell between men exchanging relations with women for men and what women are doing, i.e. exchanging relations with men for relations with women. Therefore Roman 1:26 does refer to lesbian relations.<br /><br />Your link is engaged in isogesis.<br /><br />-BrunoBrunonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-876502085465766394.post-66425256497841792182012-10-25T14:52:51.108-05:002012-10-25T14:52:51.108-05:00Sorry, Bruno, but it's not a "clear posit...Sorry, Bruno, but it's not a "clear position of sacred scripture." See <a href="http://theprogressivecatholicvoice.blogspot.com/2012/09/homosexual-relationships-another-look.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> for what I mean.<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-876502085465766394.post-52692935913033815592012-10-25T10:26:11.552-05:002012-10-25T10:26:11.552-05:00If this were simply a matter for the social "...If this were simply a matter for the social "sciences" could resolve this letter might be persuasive to a Catholic. The issue is already resolved from a dogmatic standpoint. The social sciences cannot overturn what is the clear position of sacred scripture.Brunonoreply@blogger.com