What Does St. Paul Say — No. 5

In 2009 and 2010, I started a series, "What Does St. Paul Say," in response to another blogger. Although that blogger's basic contention was that St. Paul says that the Law does not apply to those who live in the Spirit — so that what he writes about homosexuality does not apply to those in the Spirit — I felt I needed to establish what St. Paul says about homosexuality before I took on the blogger's underlying argument. So I looked at three passages which seem to deal specifically with homosexual conduct and tried to explain why I understand them to refer to all homosexual conduct, not just that by heterosexuals, and why I don't think the modern realization that there is a homosexual orientation — something St. Paul probably had no idea of — does not change the meaning of the passages.

Three years later, although I have seen other statements of the argument that when St. Paul says "against nature" he should now be understood to mean "against the one's personal nature," I still find the argument unconvincing. So I still see the passages in St. Paul as applying to all homosexual conduct, regardless of an individual's orientation. BTW, because it seems to me that St. Paul is clear on the subject — even just because he wrote about it — arguments about Leviticus are irrelevant. The Old Testament passages do not establish the case, and refuting them is irrelevant because the refutation leaves St. Paul's writings untouched.

My previous posts are all available under the tag St. Paul, and all have a title that begins, "What Does St. Paul Say."

There is a post in the series that covers what I originally projected as Nos. 3 and 4, the one dated August 11, 2009. Therefore, I come now to the final part of the series, No. 5, where I explicitly consider the argument that none of these moral rules apply to those who live in the Spirit.

The blogger feetxl, asserted that homosexual marriages were approved by Christ because, "gay believing marriages are filled with the fruit of the spirit in the same way as heterosexual marriages." He added, "in fact how do support the magisterium creating new regulations or affirming old ones to be under, in the new covenant, when the tearing of the curtain at the cruxifiction indicated that we no longer have a relationship to god thru regulation as in deut. 28, but instead directly to the one who lives in each believer.

paul said all things are permissible but not all things are beneficial.

paul also said(romans) that we are to be led by and serve of the spirit.

jesus said we would recognize them by their fruit(fruit of the spirit(gal5). a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.

can murder,thievery, adultery, produce the fruit of the spirit? then why is it that believing homosexual marriages can if it is a sin?"

So I think we need to consider what are the fruits of the Spirit that he alludes to. He seems to be referring to Galatians 5:18-23. More specifically: "18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. … 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." (New International Version). He concludes that since in Christians' gay marriages such things are found, gay marriage for Christians is approved by Christ — a way of being led by the Spirit.

In response, I'd point out the context of those verses, including not only the rest of the passage, but also verses 16-17 and 24-25. There we are told that we are not to "gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature." (The original Greek word which is the NIV translates "sinful nature" is σαρς/sarx, which most others translate literally, as "flesh.") If we belong to Christ we "have crucified the sinful nature with its passions," and need to live by the Spirit.

In other words, there is no license for specifically immoral conduct intended in this passage. In fact, at verse 19 "sexual immorality" is included among the things that are acts of the sinful nature and hence contrary to living by the Spirit.

But my argument has been that homosexual acts are included in the category of sexual immorality. If I'm right, this passage does not condone homosexual conduct. On the other hand, if Christians in gay marriages experience the fruit of the Spirit, then how can homosexual conduct belong to sinful nature?

I think the answer is that our life isn't an absolute either/or. We do not live entirely by the Spirit — which is why St. Paul concludes by saying, "Since we live by the Spirit let us also keep in step with [walk in] the Spirit." Even those who live by the Spirit do not always walk as they should. Our sanctification is, for most of us, a work in progress.

It must be acknowledged that we can see much in the life of many sexually active gay couples which corresponds to what St. Paul calls the fruit of the Spirit. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that they are being sanctified. But it must also be acknowledged that there are many atheists whose lives seem similarly characterized by the fruit of the Spirit. Yet a Christian would not say that the atheist is right about the existence of God. So one can be mistaken about something and still be someone who is in the Spirit. I think this is true whether the mistake pertains to a matter of faith in God or to a particular question of morality.

To summarize the series, then, as I see it

1. being justified by faith rather than by the works of the law is not the same as being free to commit immoral acts;
2. homosexual acts are among those St. Paul says are immoral; and
3. the realization that there is a homosexual orientation does not invalidate St. Paul's teaching on the matter.

A final note: all of this is to be read and understood in the context of Pope Francis' famous line, "Who am I to judge" one who seeks God and tries to do what is right according to his own conscience and in the context of the line in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says that homosexuals must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. I have tried to explain my beliefs and my understanding of scripture both respectfully and persuasively, in the hope that those who think I am wrong will see that there is at least some rational basis for my position — it's not simple bigotry — and that those who are still undecided or open to changing their mind will see the reasonableness of my view of the issue.