Catholicism and Homosexual Marriage (Part 1)
Periodically, we report on current trends, problems, or notes of interest concerning events that happen in the religious world around us. Usually, these observations are made in connection with what the Scriptures teach. We do not believe in denominationalism. Like Roman Catholicism, it exists outside the authority of God. Jesus only built one church, the kingdom of heaven the Jews had been anticipating (Matt. 16:18-19). He did not establish hundreds of churches—all with different doctrines claiming to belong to Him. He died for only one church—His (Acts 20:28).
We make no effort to imitate other religious groups; we are simply grateful to be Christians trying to follow our Lord, who prayed for the unity of all His disciples (John 17:20-21). The Roman Catholic Church has a pope; neither the word nor the concept appears anywhere in the New Testament; therefore, when we discuss him, no one should think that we agree with their ideology or their system. We simply describe it the way it is—and appeal to the Scriptures for the way things ought to be.
On March 15, 2021, the pope in Rome made a pronouncement concerning same-sex unions, which has sparked written protests from Catholics. We will consider three articles published since he made the comments. The first is a “news story” from the Washington Post. Of course, journalism as we once knew it has been dead for more than a decade. The bias of the “reporters” is clearly seen in the manner of the way the news is delivered. This particular news item was reported by Chico Harlan and Sarah Pulliam Bailey.
They begin by mentioning that the pope has met with LGBT representatives in the Vatican and has called “for national laws for same-sex civil unions.” On March 15th, however, he endorsed a decree “that reaffirms old church teaching and bars priests from blessing same-sex unions.” Notice the way in which the facts are couched. The reporters did not write that the pope acted in accordance with the Scriptures. No, he upheld “old church teaching.” Obviously, if it is old, it should be replaced (that’s the implication).
They do actually go so far as to record that the pope said of same-sex unions that they are “not ordered to the Creator’s plan,” that such unions are “illicit,” and that God “cannot bless sin”—all of which are true statements. However, they probably don’t care what the Scriptures actually teach, or they would have included what the Bible says on the matter. After all, Catholics and non-Catholics alike should ask, “Is what the pope said on this issue true?” And the answer is, “On this issue, his comments were valid.” How do we know? (They are not true because he said them; he spoke consistently with what the Scriptures teach). On a different issue (namely, divorce), Jesus was asked if a man could put away his wife for just any reason.
Our Lord answered, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matt. 19:4-5). He then made application to the question by adding, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (v. 6). In other words, God designed marriage to be permanent; it should not involve dissolving one marriage in order to enter another.
Although Jesus answered a question concerning divorce, He cited a principle which bears on marriage, period. In the beginning God made one male and one female—not two males or two females. God designed procreation to involve one of each gender. God could have, had He so desired, created a unisex society in which a person could reproduce in some other fashion and means that would have precluded any intimacy. He chose, however, the involvement of one male and one female.
Men have attempted to change God’s original design since practically from the very beginning. One of Cain’s descendants, Lamech, took two wives, thus introducing polygamy (Gen. 4:23-24). Centuries later, Muhammad would allow a Muslim man four wives, although he himself had more. More than a millennia after that, Joseph Smith would have more than 50 wives, and his successor, Brigham Young would accumulate at least 27. But polygamy was not the original design of God. Neither was one woman having two or more husbands.
God never intended for a man and a woman to cohabitate without being married, either. He did not authorize group marriages, open marriages, homosexual marriages, bestiality combinations, or any other illicit concoction that man might dream up. By appealing to the original plan and pattern from Genesis 2, Jesus taught God’s will in the matter. This is not “old church teaching.” It is the way God designed marriage from the beginning. Man does not have the right to change it because he thinks it is old and outdated. As long as the world stands, the original design will be in force. Truth never grows old, becomes obsolete, or needs to be redesigned.
Contradictory Positions?
The main point of the article seems to be to show the inconsistencies of this pope, and the writers are correct in this observation. Francis has signaled (prior to March 15th) that Catholicism is ready for changes regarding homosexual couples, but this newest position heads back to one more compatible with what the Bible teaches. Clearly, Paul teaches in the New Testament that homosexuality itself is a “vile passion” and “against nature.” He does not even refer to “marriage.”
If something is illicit in and of itself, why bother to take it a step farther? An example from civics might prove helpful. Suppose a person was born in another country. After living here five years, he decides to run for president. But, wait, he cannot run for president because one of the qualifications is that he must be a citizen. It makes no sense to talk about running for president unless one is first a citizen. However, even if he becomes a citizen, he still cannot run because he was not a naturally-born citizen. Since God does not approve of homosexuality, it therefore does no good to discuss homosexual marriages.
Confusion for Catholics persists. It was not long ago that the same pope said, “Who am I to judge?” with respect to homosexuals. This was a different approach than the Catholic Catechism takes; they refer to homosexual acts as “disordered.” Reportedly, the pope had previously told the parents of homosexual children: “Let them express themselves.” That doesn’t sound like the apostle Paul, does it? And would we say such a thing to a 14-year-old boy and girl who fancy themselves “in love”? Would we say that to a pedophile? No. An action is either sinful or not. A sin does not become innocuous just because society no longer cares about it.
The article continues to its conclusion showing why Catholics have a right to be confused. After declaring that homosexual unions could not be blessed by priests, they nevertheless called on priests to welcome those with “homosexual inclinations” and to treat them with respect and sensitivity. Can they, therefore, be members in good standing while committing the sin Paul condemned?
The Second Article
A few days later the Chicago Sun Times published a lament by Laura Washington, in which she claims that the pope had let Catholics down. She rejoiced when Francis endorsed same-sex civil unions last fall. She quotes him as having said, “Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God.” She concludes: “That gave every child of God hope.”
Now, that’s not true. Genuine children of God have repented and given up such sins as homosexuality and sodomy (1 Cor. 6:9-11). We do not hope God will change His mind on His definition of sin. What she means is that the pope’s seeming friendliness toward the LGBTQ community gave Catholic homosexuals hope.
In the above text, other types of sinners are listed—namely fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners. How about if we take others in this list and make a mournful plea on their behalf? “Idolaters and adulterers have the right to be in a family.” “We drunkards and extortioners were on the verge of being accepted for who we are. Now our hopes are dashed.”
The problem with most homosexuals is that they refuse to acknowledge that what they are doing is sin—which means they will never be able to repent of it. How can someone repent unless they comprehend that such behavior is wrong? For that reason alone, society needs to quit telling homosexuals that they are fine and normal. They will have no motivation to change as long as people are cheering them on.
The decree that came forth on March 15th stated that God “never ceases to bless” individuals, but “He does not and cannot bless sin; he [sic] blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his [sic] plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him [sic].” God does not withhold physical blessings from those continually committing sin. But He will not forgive them in their rebellion or bless them spiritually. Probably, most people understand this concept—but not Laura. She was “shocked and disheartened.”
Who Has the Authority?
Laura continues to plead her case by acknowledging, “I believe in a merciful, all-loving God.” Fine, but is He a merciful all-loving God because Laura believes that, or is He a merciful, all-loving God because the Scriptures teach that He is? This is a critical point that people need to understand. Who has all authority—God or man? Is God the way He is because I think so, or does He define Himself clearly in the Scriptures? God is love (1 John 4:8) because He says so—not because I think so. Some might protest that God is love, but His character would remain the same. He would be love if no one on earth thought so. Humans don’t make the determination. God alone has the right to declare Himself to be merciful and loving—along with defining what He means by those terms.
Laura adds: “I also believe that my LGBTQ friends, family, and allies possess the basic human right to love and marry whomever they want, and before that God.”
What Laura is actually saying here is, “I believe that I have the right to create God the way I want Him to be—in my own image.” Yet Jesus said, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). Notice that He did not say, “All authority has been given to Laura or Oprah or the Supreme Court.” How foolish man—or woman—is to think she can change the Bible to make it say what she wants it to say instead of abiding by what it actually teaches!
Now we know why Jesus rules as King over the universe instead of having a democratically elected constituency. He would eventually not be able to define a single action as sin because men and women endorse each of them. “Oh, no,” some may protest. Decent men and women would never approve of sin fully. What does Genesis 6:5 say about mankind before the Flood? That’s right. Every “intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” How many of them said, “My God is merciful and all-loving; He will let us love and marry whomever we want—and do whatever we want”?