I’m not quite sure what the beef about Leviticus 20:13 is.  Is it the fact that it’s in the Old Testament, a “mishmash of archaic nonsense” or is the claim translations are “messed up?” Or is it the idea that it somehow contradicts the Church’s stance on the death penalty? 

O.k., so I clicked on your name, LDTS, but the page wouldn’t load for some reason.  Maybe you think the King James Version is an unfair translation.  O.k., so name a version that’s fair.  (Note: that was basically my original question, “How, for example, does your translation treat Leviticus 20:13?") I’m sorry you experience Church teaching on homosexual activity as “slanderous misconceptions.” Since the Church is only trying to interpret the Judeo Christian tradition on this topic as best it can, perhaps you would explain first whether you disagree with the tradition or with the interpretation.  Then, perhaps we can discuss it.

David, are you equally dismissive of the New Testament?  If so, you’re in fine company.  Isaac Asimov, as you probably know, wrote an extensive critique on this subject.  As a biblical scholar, he was a truly innovative science fiction writer.  Now, if you would like to be more specific, perhaps our discussion can be more productive.

Incidentally, David, your comment on free will is intriguing.  Do your realize that free will (in the sense of autonomous moral agency) is not an emergent property of matter, as Existentialists tend to believe?  Having gotten a doctorate in mathematics, and having studied the subject of stochastic partial differential equations in some depth, I can state that unequivocally, and you can take that to any expert in mathematical physics for verification.

That does not demonstrate, however, that free will is an illusion, only that purely material assumptions about the makeup of reality demand that it be such.  My own background convinces me that reality is not merely material, but also spiritual.

I’m sure that LDTS will answer you as well as I can, or better, but I will put in my two cents. I think the Catholic Church recognizes the endless contradictions in the Bible. Wasn’t it to prevent this stuff from getting out to the public that they burned Jan Hus at the stake? Wasn’t he the first to translate the Bible into a language that could be generally understood? If you accept the Bible as the unfiltered Word then Leviticus 20 does contradict the Churches teachings on the death penalty. I suppose you could reasonably say that Leviticus 20 only applies to the Israelites. It starts with with the phrase ‘Tell the Israelites’. In that case what’s your beef with homosexuality?

Fr. Gearhart said: “David, are you equally dismissive of the New Testament?  If so, you’re in fine company.  Isaac Asimov, as you probably know, wrote an extensive critique on this subject.”

I’m dismissive of most of the new testament. I met Isaac Asimov in London some years ago. I didn’t like him. He hasn’t influenced me in any way. There is little to be specific about. An extraordinary man lived in Israel 2,000 years ago. Ever since then people have been conspiring to misunderstand him. I don’t believe all the words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament were actually spoken by him. Lots of Biblical scholars agree with me. I’m sure you’ve heard of the Jesus Project. By the way, I try to answer your questions directly and honestly. You seem to attack small bits of what I say like a guerrilla warrior. You leave other questions completely alone. That’s what the Existentialists call bad faith. I’m tired now. I’ll answer the free will question tomorrow.

Fr. Gearhart, free will is a difficult subject. You’ve got to define what you mean by it. You used the term ‘autonomous moral agency’. I prefer autonomous consciousness. If you believe in demons, which I don’t, you would accept, I assume, that a demon is an autonomous consciousness with no moral component. Caprice has no moral component.

Fr. Gearhart said: “Do your realize that free will (in the sense of autonomous moral agency) is not an emergent property of matter, as Existentialists tend to believe?”
Could you tell me which Existentialists believe that? Anyway, I don’t label myself as an Existentialist, although I tend to agree with a lot of what some of them say. As far as Stochastic Theory is concerned, I never said that I thought mathematics was the discipline suitable for the study of free will.

You can examine and measure the engine that gives rise to consciousness, the brain, but you can’t measure consciousness itself. Sartre would say that consciousness aware of itself was not in the world, but separated from it by nothingness. It is an interesting idea for many reasons. We see beauty in nature. Animals don’t see beauty in nature in nature, they are nature. We are not. By we I mean our consciousness aware of itself. We are not of the world but we can, through our will, command things in it. Our bodies are in the world. We sense that separateness. We know we are both mortal and alone. We long for connection. Hermann Hesse said that all religious longing is homesickness. I think he has a point. The only thing that allows us to cross that barrier is love. Nothing else counts for much.
Nothing I’ve said either proves or disproves the existence of God. It’s not a question I need to, or can, answer.

David, as you said, you don’t put much stock in the bible.  Nevertheless, it sounds to me like you do realize there is something more than material reality, and that some aspect of this transcendent reality is needed to explain free will.  Here’s a question for you.  Why should human beings have this higher nature and animals not?  Here’s another question.  Given that knowledge of this higher reality requires some sort of revelation, whether public or private, how do you decide what to trust, and what not to trust?

Not being an expert on Jan Hus, I checked the Wikipedia article to try to understand his story a little better.  The article is sadly ambiguous on which of three popes of the time (one pope and two anti-popes) were officially in charge of his case.  It does, however, suggest that his immediate captor, under whom he was burned at the stake, was the Archbishop of Constance, and that his death penalty was imposed by a majority of the voting prelates at the Council of Constance, a council whose authority is under serious question by the Catholic Church.  There’s no mention in the article about Hus’ critique of the bible.  In fact, the article says he insisted at his trial that he would recant if his claims could be refuted by the bible.  It also says Pope John Paul II specifically and deeply regretted the “the cruel death inflicted” on Hus.  I find the whole case intriguing.  Do you have any suggestions where I might learn more, especially about his critique of the bible?

David Page I have been bemused by your style of making statements that imply questions for which you presume the answer such as:

With respect to Fr. Gearharts comments regarding homosexuality and your response:

Friday, 26 October 2007 at 10:57 am
“You hold them to a standard that Catholic priests seem singularly unable to live up to.
You argue for the right to demean gay children in front of their classmates.
You help to maintain a climate where gay children think that suicide is a viable option.
You help to create an environment where violence against gay people is common.
I can’t find Jesus in any of that. Can You?”

To each of these statements/questions I think most Catholics would rightfully and definitively answer No.  Yet I fear you presume or imply that the answer from Catholics would be yes.  Do you really find this style to be helpful in dialogue?

Sunday, 28 October 2007 at 1:16 pm you wrote:
“I think the Catholic Church recognizes the endless contradictions in the Bible.”
I’m curious as to how one would one go about substantiating this claim from “Catholic Church” sources?

“Wasn’t it to prevent this stuff from getting out to the public that they burned Jan Hus at the stake?  Wasn’t he the first to translate the Bible into a language that could be generally understood? “
The answer to both of these questions is .. No.  If Hus was trying to get anything out to the public it was likely with regard to interpretation(s) of the New Testament not interpretation(s) of passages regarding homosexuality in the Old Testament.  Jan Hus also didn’t translate the scriptures or the Bible. 

I find it is difficult to know where to respond in this befuddlement.  Somehow I get the idea that you already “know” the answers you want?

Fr. Gearhart, I’ll answer your other questions later
on tonight.
My understanding of Jan Hus is that his problem with the Church wasn’t just his interpretation of the Bible but that he translated it into the vernacular. He was influenced by Wycliffe and so was an early reformer on the path to the Reformation. Hus declared neutrality in the schism. I guess that came back to haunt him. Your post mentions that the church was in turmoil at the time. We know that there was corruption in the priesthood as well. There was power in the Church being the sole conduit for the word of God. For whatever reason, the Church didn’t look kindly to the Bible being easily available to the general public. Look what happened with Luther a few years later. I think, having read further, that his refusal to denounce Wycliffe was what finally got him killed. When he was charged he appealed to John XXIII who, I think, was on the wrong side of the schism. He is said to have prayed while the flames consumed him. I checked Wikipedia as well and wasn’t entirely happy with the amount of information there. I was pleased to see that the pope had apologized for his death. I have a 1929 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It’s a great reference and a time capsule as well.

Thanks, David.  I’m sure you know the folks at Wikipedia are always interested in enhancing their entries, given credible primary and secondary sources.  If you know more about the Hus case, they might view an edit of the Hus entry in a positive light.

David Page wrote:

“My understanding of Jan Hus is that his problem with the Church wasn’t just his interpretation of the Bible but that he translated it into the vernacular. “

David, I think that Jan Hus got into trouble with the Church for his teaching/preaching of the positions of John Wycliffe which the Church had declared as heresy.  I have not beeen able to find a reference to Jan Hus having translated scripture.  Is there a source you can give for his having done and scriptural translations?  The Church to this day does not take lightly “personal” interpretation of the scriptures with regard to Church doctrine.

Jim, I’m from Boston. The sexual foibles of Catholic priests have been headlines here for 10 years now. You may argue that it was a small minority of the priests but almost all of them knew. I left the Church when I was 12 but I can relate 8 incidents that I know about. One, a childhood friend, was quite tragic. Cardinal Law, who repeatedly put children in harms way from priests he knew to be pedophiles, refused to give up information on these priests to the police until forced to do so by court order. So much for substantiating anything from Church sources.

In their opposition to gay rights, the Catholic Church is in open partnership with some of the vilest right wing Protestant groups in America. By doing so they have become complicit in a group every bit as hateful as those who opposed equal rights for black Americans during the Civil Rights Movement. So, yes, the Catholic Church helps to maintain a very unpleasant environment for gay children. When an anti-gay Initiative Petition was circulated here in Massachusetts many Catholic priests were happy to have the petitions in their churches to be signed by members of the parish. Some brave priests openly refused to do so. The Church in America is deeply involved in the politics of hate. I believe they have lost the right to the expectation not to be openly criticized. 

Jim, you’re right. Hus never translated any of the Bible into Chezk, Wycliffe did. Hus did do work on phonetics. Hus preached in the vernacular. The Church took steps to keep him from doing so. They limited, for instance, the places where any preaching could be done at all. His refusal to denounce Wycliffe was what eventually got him killed. I’m not defending the Protestants. They went on to commit atrocities of their own.

I can truthfully express my sadness and beg forgiveness for the few and tell you of the shame that I have felt at just hearing of these events.  Of that I am sure.  I’m rather uncertain that it is of any tangible help to those effected, especially yourself.

Visualize as I now turn the other cheek.

David, I find a cruel irony in your comments about Priest pedophiles and gay rights when it is well known that the overwhelming majority of those Priest pedophiles are gay.  Does that in any significant way cause you pain?

Fr. Gearhart said: “David, as you said, you don’t put much stock in the bible.  Nevertheless, it sounds to me like you do realize there is something more than material reality, and that some aspect of this transcendent reality is needed to explain free will.”

Of course. Another thought that drives me nuts is, why is there something instead of nothing. Even postulating God doesn’t make the question any easier.

FR. Gearhart said: “Here’s a question for you.  Why should human beings have this higher nature and animals not?  Here’s another question.  Given that knowledge of this higher reality requires some sort of revelation, whether public or private, how do you decide what to trust, and what not to trust?”

I don’t think we have a higher nature than animals. I think we have a superior kind of consciousness. I think that consciousness, if we accept it fully, allows us to experience things like empathy, compassion and love. I think the dimmest human consciousness is superior to animal consciousness.

I have to think things through before I continue this post. If I get sloppy someone will call me on it, as Jim did. I have a question for you. What’s the difference between revelation and insight?

David, I am very sorry about your Boston experience.  I certainly do not condone the pedophilia of Catholic priests in Boston, nor Cardinal Law’s negligence.  I sympathize with your revulsion over this problem.  It revolts me, too.

I respectfully submit, however, that the Church’s stand on homosexuality is neither ignorant nor means spirited, whatever the errors of individual prelates or lay people in this regard.  I am happy to discuss the specifics with you, if you are interested.