A little while ago, I wrote a sermon on a very controversial topic. It was well received within the ministerial community as well as among the general public. A few months later, however, I encountered some information that I left out. With this added information and that which I have been using for several months, I hope to be able to show that neither homosexuality as an attraction, nor loving, committed responsible homosexual relationships are sinful. When we think of homosexuality, what comes to mind? Oftentimes, the thoughts we have of what homosexuality means and what homosexuals do is quite wrong.

For instance, in the 1980's HIV/AIDS existed but under the name GRIDS (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome). Does this ignorant former belief mean that all homosexuals have HIV/AIDS, or that only homosexuals can transmit the virus?

The same idiocy can be seen in other peoples' pre-defined ideas of other words, such as "Catholic." I once told a girl that I was Catholic, and her immediate response was, "Oh, so you like little boys?" At face-value, this statement may appear to be a simple ignorant joke, or even an attempt at insult, but if you looked further into the root of her statement, you could see quite easily that she was serious. She literally believed that all Catholics, not just a small number of ordained priests that made it to the 6 o' clock news, were sexually interested in small children.

The media forms a mold, so to speak, of what we should believe. In the 1980's, the media made people believe that gays were the sole cause of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. In the 1990's and early 21st century, the media influenced the public to believe that all priests are pedophiles, and to some, all Catholics were too.

When I say media, I don't just mean the news. I mean any type of media, such as books, newspapers, and television, radio, and yes, Church sermons. The media also has most Christians today believing that God condemns homosexuals. They have people believing that the Bible specifically states that homosexuality is a sin, and like the instances above, this is idiocy, based on the ignorance of biblical context and language transition over time.

In terms of homosexuality as a sin, this concept wasn't really understood until more recent times (possibly until even the 16th century). The basis of this argument often comes from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, I Corinthians 6:9,10, and Romans 1:26-27. These verses are as follows:

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor "homosexual offenders" nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

To explain these, I'll start with Leviticus. The Laws in Leviticus are part of what is called the Holiness Code, a part of the Book of Leviticus, between chapters 17-26, that explains the moral guidelines for the Jewish people in preservation of their covenant with God. In Leviticus 18, verses 1 – 5 introduce the subsequent laws. Verses 6 – 20 discuss sexual relations, mainly those of incestuous origin. Verses 21 – 23 pertain to idolatry. In 18:21, the Law forbids the sacrifice of children to the Pagan god, Molech.

In the original context, Leviticus 18:22 was referring to a practice known as shrine prostitution. In this practice, men, and sometimes women, would dress in honor of the goddesses Ashera, the companion of Ba’al, and Ashtoreth (Astarte), the goddess of fertility, and engage in sexual actions with members of both the same and opposite sexes. These priests, called “Qedeshim,” would dance, and at times engage in sadomasochistic activities such as self-mutilation and scourging. It was believed that intercourse with these Qedeshim would bring one closer to the gods.

Furthermore, in Ugaritic mythology, Ba’al procreates a young bull-god by impregnating a cow. The Canaanites, in reverence of this act, would engage in acts with animals, representing the procreation of this bull-god. For this reason, 18:23 addresses the matter of bestiality, similarly to the sexual acts condemned in 18:22, because it concerns idolatry.

How do we know that this was in fact the context that was being spoken of? Chapter 18, Verse 22 does not explain all this in detail. From where do we draw these conclusions? The answer is a simple grade-school answer: context clues.

When Leviticus 18:22 is read all by itself, it is hard to deny that it sounds like a defense against homosexuality. As we have already stated, the rest of the chapter deals with sexual sin until verse 21. It is highly unlikely that God, a perfectly omniscient being who executes his plans systematically, would have mixed one idolatrous sin with a group of sexual sins, without any introduction in the preface. Therefore, we can reasonably assume that verse 21 is, at the very least, the beginning of a three-verse section on idolatry. After verse 23, the chapter closes with a 10-verse conclusion.

The only other place in the Torah, or the whole Tanakh for that matter, that restates Leviticus 18:22, is chapter 20, verse 13. Again, when verse 13 is read alone, it sounds like a compelling argument against homosexuality. However, if we read the preface of chapter 20, we will see that God is addressing only those sins which are committed in the name of Molech. Verses 1 – 8 form the introduction, wherein God states that he will cut off from his own people, anyone who sacrifices his child to Molech, or prostitutes themselves in his name.

Using this we can begin to see a clearer picture. God has clearly stated that the verses pertained to sacrificial and sexual sin committed in the name of Molech. The rest of the details about these activities are not mentioned in scripture, and therefore, extra-biblical sources must be used. We are given the clues; it is up to us to decipher what the text says. It is important to remember that when the Bible was written, it was not done so with numbers next to the verses. Therefore, it should be understood that once cannot understand the context of a verse without reading other verses, or in some cases, other chapters. Chapter 20 explains chapter 18.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul lists many things that will prevent someone from entering heaven. As you can see, the editor of this version of the Bible used the term "homosexual offenders," but when the Bible was written, the term "homosexual" didn't even exist. In fact, when Paul makes his list, he uses two distinct terms in Greek; "aresenokoites" and "malakos."

The root, "arseno" has been traditionally understood as "man," and "koites" as "bed." Malakos translates to soft, or effeminate. When combined by multiple Bible "scholars," it is often assumed that the terms apply to homosexuals, who are stereotypically effeminate; "Malakos" is translated as "male prostitute," and "arsenokoites" is translated as "homosexual offenders." Because of the effeminacy implied by the word "malakos," it is believed that it must refer to the submissive partner in a homosexual relationship, whereas "arsenokoites" must refer to the dominant one. In actuality, it is a very different scenario.

"Effeminate," as used in this context is not the typical form of effeminacy that is understood today; rather, it referred to weak, morally-challenged men. It is likely that Paul, especially with his restatement of Leviticus in I Timothy 1:10, was referring to the same offense mentioned by the author of the Book of Leviticus.

Another possible scenario, given credence by the statements of many early Church Fathers, is that “malakos” referred to those involved in pederasty. As young boys typically lack the masculinity of an adult male, effeminacy could be applied to them. In this case, “arsenokoites” could refer to the adult male pederast. Regardless of which of these scenarios is true, one thing is certain: homosexuality was not the primary concern of Paul when he wrote his first letter to the Corinthians. The context was, once again, lust. (It is worth noting that "arsenokoites" had such a wide range of meanings throughout the first few centuries of Christianity that it was applied to pederasty, theft, fraud, and dishonesty.)

Romans 1:27 is very clear. It says, "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another...." It mentions men leaving women and engaging in sexual action with one another. If it weren't for the use of one word, this would be a great defense against homosexuality; however, Paul says they, "burned in their lust one toward another." Further, if the context is understood, we can see that Paul was talking specifically about idolatry and sexual perversions which occured therein shortly before referencing these acts. Since he is speaking of the same people, it is quite possible his statements are a reference to those who committed the act forbidden in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; that is, idolatrous prostitution. This is no longer an argument against homosexuality, but lust, just as are Leviticus and I Corinthians.

What is the basis of lust as a sin? It first appears in the Torah (Pentateuch), or the first five books of the Old Testament (Tanakh). Lust appears in some form, in both the seventh and the tenth commandments; "You shall not commit adultery" and "You shall not covet," respectively. Adultery has an obvious meaning, as it is one of the most oft-committed sins in modern society. Covetousness is most commonly considered as greed, but in Romans 7:7, Paul explains, "...for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." The fact of the matter is that God gave us 10 simple rules. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, I Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:27 all lay out laws that, if broken, violate the second, tenth, and possibly the seventh commandments.

No where did God say, however, that love was something only to be had between a man and a woman. Yes, God created Adam and Eve. Yes, he instituted the first marriage as a bond between them, but he never said that marriages could only be instituted between a man and a woman. It was necessity, for the continuity of humanity, that God created a man and a woman. It was necessary, for our sake, that the first marriage was heterosexual. But for the sake of those around the world who are homosexual, for those who feel neglected, hated, sick, or damned; for the sake of those who are considering ending their lives because they feel rejected by God; for the sake of those who have lost all hope in salvation in Our Lord, we need to understand that God never said, “Thou shall not love.”

Sincerely, in Christ.

“Take this, all of you, and drink of it; for this is the cup of my blood: the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all for the forgiveness of sin; do this in memory of me.”

We all know the words. At Mass on Sunday, the priest says these Words of Institution, displaying a narrative of the Last Supper. Most of us never think twice about these words, but unknown to many, there is a battle behind the scenes as to whether Christ really did die for all.

It has been continuously argued that “for all” and “for many” could never mean the same thing. Many argue the invalidity of the Novus Ordo because it proclaims a universal sacrifice, that is, a sacrifice made for all, rather than just an exclusive group. William Most, a Jesuit scholar has asserted that the Greek word used, "polloi," actually means “all who are many.” Because of this, he claims, there is truly no difference between ‘for all’ and ‘for many.’

Some continue and say that the Novus Ordo actually says, “for all men,” and can therefore not be considered equivalent to “all who are many.” They claim that the latter refers only to a large, yet exclusive group. This is simply a failure to grasp the grammatical structure of a basic clause. No matter what the context may be, “all” is always “many.” Otherwise put, there are many people on the earth and the many people on the earth are all the people on the earth. Therefore, “for all men” and “for all who are many” are synonymous.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent actually attempts to explain why “for many” must be used instead of “for all.” It reads;

“Looking to the efficacy of the Passion, we believe that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all men; but looking to the advantages which mankind derive from its efficacy, we find, at once, that they are not extended to the whole, but to a large proportion of the human race... With great propriety, therefore, were the words, ‘for all,’ not used, because here (in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist) the fruit of the Passion is alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.”

Ironically, it misses the point completely. The first sentence states clearly, “…the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all men.” It continues, however, to state that the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist speaks only of the fruits of this sacrifice, and as not all men will turn to Christ, the proper translation should be “for many.” However, the Words of Institution read, “…which will be shed for all, for the forgiveness of sin.” The above excerpt from the Catechism unintentionally validates the usage of “for all.”

It is even further claimed, based on this excerpt from the CCT that it is invalidated in much the same way a Baptism would be if the priest said “I baptize all” instead of “I baptize you.” Again, this is a completely different scenario. The priest is not saying that all will receive the sacrament of the Eucharist. He is, instead, saying that the Eucharist is available to all because Christ died for all. Baptism is a single act of dedication and rebirth in the name of God. It is also available for all, though all will not seek it. This does not invalidate the Novus Ordo Mass; it simply invalidates the arguments against it.

Simply put: Christ died for all, including you, whoever you are. He died so that your sins may be forgiven. The choice to take of the fruits of this sacrifice rests with you, the individual, not with a priest.

This article was written for all, not just for many, so feel free to distribute it as freely as you wish. May God bless you.

Hey guys. Thanks for coming. This is just a blog I started to replace the website I had. Here I will post sermons, articles, speeches, and other thoughts that pass through my mind. My mind never sleeps, so expect a lot.

I am an Old Catholic Seminarian at St. Wolbodo Seminary, the primary Theological and Vocational Institution of the North American Old Catholic Church. Before I write anything else here, I will sing the praises of the NAOCC. It is an amazing Church, with amazing clergy, amazing atmospheres and unbelievable 'catholic' mindsets.

You can see our website here.

The name for this blog was inspired by John 1:1; "In principio erat verbum et verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat verbum." This is Latin, meaning, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and God was the word."

Off to the right you will see a brief introduction to me as well as some news updates and daily saints and readings from the Catholic News Agency. If you have any questions, or want something posted, my email is fr_andrew@ymail.com.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy! God bless.