Fr Casey Cole: Repent of your false teaching!
Fr. Jason Charron | 31 janv. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwychGLfFfg
Primum bonum matrimonii proles.
Would you agree that:
- a homosexual, that is a person with same sex attraction, is sometimes living the punishment for idolatry (Romans 1)
- that to repent, he would need to renounce the same sex relationship he has already entered in or to avoid getting into one, if he isn't already
- to do that there are two options:
- 1) marrying someone of the opposite sex
- 2) remaining celibate
- and the idea that only option 2 is correctly Catholic is dangerous, both because of homosexuals deprived of the easier way out of sin (which it would be for some) and because once you go there, you can prevent a heterosexual from marrying by stamping him as homosexual
or would you disagree on some point?
No fashionable sin ...
- like seducing a peasant's daughter among some knights of the Middle Ages (and then not marrying her)
- like duelling in the Renaissance to well into the 19th C
- like homosexuality today
Fr. Casey Reads Mean Tweets
Breaking In The Habit | 9 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0pphsUctm8
Speaking of things you actually believe, have you are have you not stated that the Bible doesn't adress monogamous homosexual relations?
I think Fr. Jason Charron deserves somewhat more credibility than an anonymous tweeter ...
[See above]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwychGLfFfg
Why Fr. Casey Cole is WRONG About the Bible and Homosexuality
The Counsel of Trent | 29 Jan. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOKiWvXVO3U
1:46 Well, actually, the Bible doesn't mention alcoholism.
It mentions drunkenness. That's an act. Alcoholism is a real or supposed medical condition. A somewhat objective measure of alcoholism is, you are alcoholic when after your tolerance has gone up it has plummeted, so you get soak drunk on the first glass.
If you have that condition, sure, don't drink alcohol.
Apart from that, "alcoholism" is just a red herring in deciding whether someone is a drunkard or not, especially like some Saudis would prefer to define alcoholism.
4:20 St. Thomas is very clear.
The sin of Sodom had three steps:
1) gluttony
2) pride and inhospitality
3) abomination. (Lev. 20:13)
Note, it does not say that everyone who committed the abomination was a homosexual. It is very probable that heterosexual men of Sodom (or predominantly such) committed it because it was a fashionable sin, a kind of rite of passage. I have a suspicion, Ishtar priests from Mesopotamia could have come to Sodom between Genesis 14, 19 years earlier, and the destruction. The male priests of Ishtar dressed up as women. As Sodom is destroyed, it may not be possible to get archaeological evidence for this, but it's not impossible.
Abraham foiled the military expansion of Mesopotamia, God punished the religious and depraved one, if this is true.
4:50 Speaking of Romans 1:
"and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them"
Does that mean I deserve death if I find a lesbian even in couple attractive, or does it mean I
would deserve death if I
had consented to ... well, being the passive partner?
6:18 You may have misconstrued what Casey Cole means.
As I see it, what the word homosexuality
as such refers to is, as far as I know, mentioned one or two verses in the Bible. "Shameful affections", possibly "lust". Romans 1:26,27 actually mention the most voluntary and personal kind of motivation behind the act of sodomy and tribadic sex. He's simply right that the homosexual act is equally sinful whether entertained by a homosexual inclination or not (or the inclination can make it either better or worse depending on the case, as in prevenient and consequent passion).
However, the psychological use of the word "homosexual" would categorise someone as homosexual even if the desires or passions were very sublimated and well mastered, and in that case, not even Romans 1 directly adresses that. The word "homosexual" is coined 1886, in the German form "homosexuell" as "homosexuality" would in the same work be "Homosexualität" ... the intent of Krafft-Ebings work was not to serve as a manual for spiritual directors, but rather to help psychologists police diverse inclinations which, left to their full, could lead to things that in 1886 were illegal and punishable in Austria, and probably also to provide some kind of enforced treatment for people who had behaved criminally but [had] been handed over to psychiatrists instead of to what the law would normally have prescribed.
In other words, it is possible, and it is also not my case, it is however the case of one man I respect and another I respected more earlier, to describe oneself as "homosexual" and NOT mean sodomite, and even NOT mean burning with shameful passions.
I think he heavily overdoes it in glossing over that abomination is in fact worse than just adultery. God destroyed a city for the abomination, God made a child die before circumcision for an adultery. But while he overdoes it, he has a real point. The man I still respect is celibate and chaste. The man I used to respect more was married and had four daughters with his wife. Before he,
being a psychologist, overanalysed his own relation to his own wife and decided he was inadequate and diverced and got ... well, decidedly sinful.
6:28 Looked up John Boswell.
He was most certainly wrong about the meaning of adelphopoiesis, and probably so is a Dominican in France, in good standing with your Church. He's obviously not practising that himself, but I hope he isn't too encouraging for wannabe "adelphoi" in the Boswell sense.
Hope he died in peace with God, RIP.
7:10 So, Boswell claimed going against one's nature by acts of sodomy was going against an
individually heterosexual inclination.
He confuses what the French call
nature (like being a human person) with what the French call
naturel (like having a propensity for making friends with people less serious than oneself).
This idea of Boswell was prefuted by the condempnations of Bishop Tempier.
XX:1 (in Arundels reissue = 166 in Tempier's original).
Quod peccatum contra naturam, utpote abusus in coitu, licet sit contra naturam speciei, non tamen est contra naturam indiuidui.
I think Tempier may have misunderstood someone he condemned, or someone may have introduced an abusive sense à la Boswell.
It is true that the good of procreation is primarily for the preservation of the species, the mankind, and not for the preservation of the individual, and this is the good of nature that these sins (including but not limited to sodomy) go against.
But what Tempier certainly intended to condempn was the idea that the sin would be sinful overall in mankind most of the time, but there could be individual exceptions, since the sin was not against their "natural" inclination.
Condempned it is. The form of Tempier's document is a Syllabus errorum, it was refined by Arundel who divided it into chapters (XX = Errores de uitiis et uirtutibus), and reused by Pope Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X.
And as to Boswell's position, I'll cite Groucho Marx: I'm against that.
11:02 I would consider that this was in fact not rape in the moral sense (it could be qualified as rape legally in order to exonerate victims from death penalty), I think some of them consented.
I am not sure there were any known pairings of adult male to adult male apart from Sparta. In a custom that was no longer there in St. Paul's day, presumably, since Sparta no longer had an army of its own.
The homosexual relations were often part of mentorship. Alcibiades wanted Socrates to attend to him that way, but Socrates was not seduced. (Conspiracy theory: Alcibiades cried his eyes out before a family member who decided to get Socrates out of the way).
In Rome, mentorships were supposed to be morally clean. In Athens, it's more like this was the ideal, turning it to sodomy was kind of shameful, but still pretty often done, so people doing it were not ostracised (in a city where ostracism was literally a legal procedure).
Now, the point Casey could be making is, it was not entirely optional for young men of a certain standing to have a mentor. This means, they could get one of the mentors who could ... well, "fall for" the beauty of the protégé. So, even if this was not a case of abuse of slavery, and when it was actually not always abuse of an age which in some US jurisdictions would be under age of consent, it was still an abuse of power.
In this connection. St. Paul has talked of the God known because, very presumably, inter alia at least, He turns the world around Earth each day, which unlike the complexity of DNA or irreduceable complexity of the flagellum of the bacterium was visible and known since Creation, and then some guys thought it fit to admire with adoration a man who had some problems killing a mere giant, and who, having two protégés, his nephew and Hylas, was considered as having abused at least the latter of them. I think even if Iolaus was never sexually abused, the relation was still not quite healthy. Well, if you worship Hercules, this extreme machism can turn you homosexual. And God allowed it.
In 1950, some priests took opportunity for one option Pius XII said one could discuss. They speculated on how God had been kind of mentoring Adam while getting him out of his ape origins. Some such priests also abused mentoring positions. Not least in at least one or two of the countries with episcopates on the winning side of Vatican II. Netherlands and France.
Now, with all that said for Casey, there is actually a parallel to Sodom, in the sense talked of in "abusus in coitu" in the 13th C. discussions where Bishop Tempier made a condemnation just cited. This proves that this context doesn't totally determine the meaning of St. Paul. Namely why God killed Onan. And no, contrary to what John Boswell might have argued, the thing Onan was killed for was his antiprocreative act, not the inclination of not wanting to raise a son for a dead brother.
15:11 Juvenal was writing decades after St. Paul.
Here it is a question whether:
- Juvenal was telling the truth or making an overdone exaggeration
- and whether what Juvenal depicts was already the case in the day of St. Paul or whether things had gone down since the pervert Nero martyred St. Paul.
15:17 The clearest evidence of lesbian sex among equals in the Roman Empire would come from Seneca the Elder (who was a tragedian, not the moral philosopher who was a Stoic) and from Apocalypse of St. Peter. In the latter case, it's about their punishment in Hell, and in the former of a husband killing a wife caught in lesbian adultery and calling it even more monstruous.
If you meant Alcman and Sappho, partly that was centuries earlier, partly Sappho deals with her passion for protégées (or mock passion for one, the poem is reprised in a heterosexual way by Catullus, and there his passion is genuine, he was never mentor, rather unsuccessful suitor to the one he pined for), and Alcman seems to be dealing with thirteen year old girls or sth. Which you presumably wouldn't classify as adult.
So, the actual evidence that Lesbian sex existed among Romans comes from Christians. One evidence for Christianity being true is, if no women had been lesbians, why would the Romans and especially women at all have joined a religion that insulted them by bringing this up?
Or perhaps Juvenal again ... I must admit, he was not my top priority when reading Latin. I was grossed out by Cena Trimalchionis. Petronius, unlike Juvenal, actually was on an exam.
16:52 Totally agree with the three of you.
1) Inclination not chosen is not mortally sinful, meaning "homosexual" is a bad translation
2) Grace and forgiveness are open.
Now, some want to make it a "scientific question" (and often on their view answered with no) whether a man with such attractions can manage to marry a woman and stay faithful (the psychologist I mentioned didn't), or whether a woman with such attractions can marry a man and stay faithful (one female pastor, I think, recently interviewed by Ru-Ru-Ru-Ruslan, did, so far). I'd say it is more like a question of the person's self estimate.
This being so, I'd probably also be adressed by St. Paul's words, if I married. "such some of you were" ... I note killers aren't mentioned, but railers are. People who want to a) stamp me as homosexual and b) therefrom conclude I couldn't or at least shouldn't marry, make me want to kill. They also make me rail, depending on the meaning St. Paul gave that word.
