26 January 2007

Renckens' wrenching idea

A Catholic priest in Singapore wrote an article suggesting a rethink of the Church's position on homosexuality. A flood of negative responses ensued. What do they show about the respondents' state of mind? Full essay.

4 comments:

Teck Soon said...

I took note that Renckens is originally from the Netherlands, and presumably the Chuas and his other critics are Singaporeans. It's not so easy to find Europeans who are both intolerant to homosexuality and intolerant to printing dissenting views in a newsletter, but it is easy to find Singaporeans in both categories. The latter type of intolerance is a unique feature of Singapore's culture, inculcated by a system that does not tolerate dissent. To make myself clear, I am directly criticising the culture of Singapore, and I am saying that Dutch culture is superior in almost every way.

Rajan said...

The thing Renckens ignore is that no where in the Bible is homosexuality endorsed, but quite the contrary: in the Old Testament, homosexual sex is a capital crime.

While under the New Covenant, homosexuality was never allowed, tolerated or endorsed in the New Testament - quite the contrary, again; in Acts concerning the conversion of Gentiles into the faith, one of the requirements is sexual morality. Under the OT, homosexuality goes against the grain of sexual morality.

So why *should* the Catholic church accept homosexuality? If anything, it would go against absolutism of the Bible. So if homosexuality is to be accepted by the church on the basis that it is socially accepted, what's the point of being Catholic (or Christian, for that matter)?

After all, if such a tenet can be put aside in contradiction with the faith's foundation, what about other tenets?

Is it that important for homosexuals to seek validation from the Church?

Anonymous said...

Evonne Lee said, "There has been tremendous debate on whether homosexuality is nature or nurtured, but there has been no conclusive scientific evidence to date."

In addition to the many points of rebuttal already given by Yawning Bread, I'd like everybody to also consider the proof of negation. I'm sure you are puzzled, but let me explain.

There had been many, many attempts over the centuries to brainwash homosexuals to reverse their sexuality to conform with mainstream heterosexuality. Barbaric techniques had been applied such as electroshock, chemical treatment, physio-psycho treatment from eg. sleep deprivation right up to actual torture itself. By and large, the medical profession now acknowledge that all these treatments fail. There is no way to change homosexual attraction to heterosexual. I submit that this constitutes proof in the negative. It is proof that homosexuality is inherrent in those individuals' brains.

Robert L

Nelson said...

"The thing Renckens ignore is that no where in the Bible is homosexuality endorsed, but quite the contrary: in the Old Testament, homosexual sex is a capital crime. "

That's true. So is adultery, working during the sabbath and cursing your parents. The bible also considers eating shellfish an abomination.

If the reason the Catholic Church no longer condemns adulterers, sabbath-breakers and parent-cursers to death is to keep up with Englightenment era values, then why the double standard when it comes to evaluating whether homosexuality is a sin?