Posted on 10/17/2023 11:14:34 AM PDT by ebb tide
The newest version of the pro-homosexual third edition of The Jerome Biblical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, which includes a forward by Pope Francis, has drawn the condemnation and mockery of Protestant voices, who have highlighted the “woke” agenda of so-called “Catholic” academic biblical scholarship.
Arguing that the scriptural texts condemning sodomy do not apply to today’s “modern concept of homosexuality” as a “possible sexual orientation,” the Jerome Biblical Commentary claims categorically that “the Bible does not speak about same–sex love [sic] as one does today.”
“Leviticus 18:22 does not speak about the modern concept of homosexuality or homoeroticism which in general was not known as a possible sexual orientation in antiquity,” the heterodox commentary states. “The penetration of a male by a male was a way to denigrate the penetrated one to humiliate strangers or the inferior party in warfare.”
“The major interest of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is to assure that males procreate offspring for the community. Hence it is hermeneutically inappropriate to use these verses and similar passages in the Bible to ostracize homosexual males,” it continues, in contradiction to Catholic teaching.
READ: Synod on Synodality discusses ‘pastoral’ approach to ‘love among gay couples’
Protestant apologist and podcaster Dr. James White roundly mocked and denounced the commentary. “This has nothing to do with exegesis,” he said. “This is woke propaganda masquerading as biblical commentary and scholarship.”
“Are we just going to say the Pope didn’t read this part or is there a consistency in the Pope supporting those who are seeking LGBTQ inclusion and having just released a letter giving pastoral freedom in certain circumstances to bless same-sex unions?” White asked.
The scholars of the commentary further “warn” against using the first chapter of St. Paul’s letter to the Romans as a “‘clobber text’ to denigrate persons with same-sex orientation.” In reference to Romans 1:24–27 – in which the Apostle declares that God handed over the pagans to the unnatural lusts of homosexuality in punishment for the sin of idolatry – the Jerome commentary states, “Whatever contemporary moral arguments one wants to mount about same-sex relations, it is ethically irresponsible to use this passage in Romans 1 to close off contemporary explorations of the issues.”
The commentary goes on to claim that “such a use strips the text of its social and historical context and brings it to bear on an issue Paul’s own audience would never have imagined or understood.”
“Paul’s contemporaries would have been familiar with multiple types of exploitative sexual relationships including pedophilia, prostitution, and slavery. In each case such relationships revealed and describe abusive power structures. They have nothing to do loving sexual relationships between consenting adults,” the commentary claims.
The biblical scholars strangely argue that because the context to the Apostles’ harsh judgment would have been “pornographic” parties hosted at Roman palaces, therefore, “there is no indication that private behavior is in view anywhere in this passage.”
“This is as woke as the day is long, it’s as leftist as the day is long, and Pope Francis says this is one you need to be reading,” White decried, charging the Pope with “plainly, purposefully, intentionally changing the moral and ethical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on the subject of the LGBTQ revolution.”
READ: Archbishop Cordileone, Oakland Bishop Barber issue pastoral letter condemning gender ideology
In his forward to the third edition of the Jerome Biblical Commentary, Pope Francis praised the work and the “service” its scholarship offers the Church. “The word of God unites believers and makes them one people,” the Pope said. “This is the importance and mission of biblical scholarship at the service of the community of faith, the type of scholarship exhibited in this volume of biblical commentaries.”
Unsurprisingly, the commentary received official ecclesiastical approval from the Archdiocese of Chicago under pro-LGBT Cardinal Blase Cupich. In 2020, the nihil obstat (meaning “nothing stands in the way”) was granted by Deacon Daniel Welter, then chancellor of the Archdiocese of Chicago, and the imprimatur (meaning “let it be printed”) was granted by Bishop Ronald Hicks, then vicar general of the Archdiocese of Chicago. The nihil obstat and imprimatur are supposed to indicate that the work to be published is free of any doctrinal error. In many instances, such as The Jerome Biblical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century: Third Edition, the seals of approval have become meaningless.
In contrast to the present edition’s “woke agenda,” the first two editions of the Jerome Biblical Commentary referred to homosexual acts under the biblical term “sodomy,” the name taken from the city of Sodom, which God destroyed by fire for the sin of homosexuality. The second edition states that the wording of the first chapter of Romans “shows that the sexual perversion of which Paul speaks is homosexuality.”
The claim that Scripture does not, in fact, condemn homosexuality as envisioned today as a “possible sexual orientation” is not a new argument. It is merely the logical alternative to the outright rejection of the biblical condemnation of sodomy, which is the other option for the homosexual lobby within the Church that seeks to impose at all costs the acceptance of homosexuality as a normative and morally acceptable option upon the whole Church.
READ: Pro-LGBT Kentucky bishop affirms support for ‘blessings’ of same-sex ‘couples’
Already in 1986, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), condemned any interpretation of Scripture that sought to justify homosexual acts and lifestyles or that claimed the Bible had nothing to say on the matter.
“Increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity,” he wrote in a letter of the CDF to bishops on the pastoral care of homosexual persons, which Pope John Paul II approved.
Identifying one of the “causes of confusion regarding the Church’s teaching,” Cardinal Ratzinger condemned “a new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life.”
“These views are gravely erroneous,” he declared.
Instead, he wrote, Scripture has “a clear consistency … on the moral issue of homosexual behaviour. The Church’s doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony.”
The prefect of the CDF further expounded the Catholic teaching on the intrinsic harmony between Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. “The Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church’s living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.”
That Tradition, he affirmed, has clearly and constantly held that “It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.”
READ: No room for ‘inclusion’: Homosexuality and transgenderism are sins against nature itself
Against those who call the homosexual inclination “neutral, or even good,” he insisted that “although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder,” so that “when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.”
Insisting that “the Church’s teaching today is in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition,” Cardinal Ratzinger reminded the faithful that “as in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.”
On the other hand, he warned, “the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.”
Those within the Church who argue in favor of homosexuality “often have close ties with those with similar views outside it,” the letter states. “These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.”
Decrying this “deceitful propaganda” as “profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church,” Cardinal Ratzinger went on to warn that “there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.”
“The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.”
“Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.”
RELATED:
Synod officials waffle when asked about following Catholic norms on ‘pastoral’ care for homosexuals
Kenyan bishop condemns homosexual unions after Pope Francis promotes same-sex ‘blessings’
Pope Francis to clergy: Decide for yourselves whether to ‘bless’ homosexual unions
Priest to Pope Francis: ‘You are hurting my parish’ by promoting homosexuality
The Pope just set up Catholic priests for hate crime charges – Here’s how
Jesuit Refugee Service pushes contraception, LGBT agenda, and Planned Parenthood sex-ed
Ping
So?
FRomans here on FR do the same all the time.
This Pope may be the spiritual sidekick of the antichrist
From what I'm seeing of number 3, I wouldn't use it to line my cat box.
Do you not agree with them?
James White is right less often than a broken clock, but he’s right on this.
You’ve been doing nothing but condemning your pope from the get go.
Why is a Protestant doing the same thing such an issue that you posted this flame bait thread as if you actually DO support your pope?
NOT the pope. Squatting in the seat. ANTI pope, tool of the devil.
Why do you FRotestants consider this to be a flame bait thread?
Or do y’all agree with the blessing of sodomite unions?
Exactly correct ... this junk is so bad it even scandalizes the Protestants.
But let someone from outside the FRoman Catholic Church say one word.
The Jerome Biblical Commentary has always been Modernist crap from Raymond Brown(who didn’t believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and claimed that Barabbas and his release instead of Jesus never happened). How wonderful that Frankie made it much slimier.
It’s an open thread. Go for it! He’s fair game and deserves it.
Name one Catholic on Free Republic who supports this pope.
Then why are you posting this as if in condemnation of a Protestant who has the same position as you?
You just can’t help yourself, can you?
What condemnation?
You’re imagining things.
We were warning them about Frank from the very first day he was installed.
All we got was criticism that whatever he said was *misunderstood*, *mistranslated*, *misquoted*, *misinterpreted*, *mis-anything* but acknowledge that he actually said what he said.
It took at least months, if not a couple years, for the pope bashing by Catholics to begin.
You weren't "warning us" in any way different from the things Protestants usually say about any Pope.
Again, not true.
I posted this article the day (March 13, 2013) it came out:
Which is the same perverse polemic that prohomosexuals attempt, among others. While also asserting that David and Jonathan was an example of today's homoerotic love (yet the sacrificial brotherly love btwn him and his fellow-solider was what David expressed was better than the erotic love of women: 2 Samuel 1:26)
“Leviticus 18:22 does not speak about the modern concept of homosexuality or homoeroticism which in general was not known as a possible sexual orientation in antiquity,” the heterodox commentary states. “The penetration of a male by a male was a way to denigrate the penetrated one to humiliate strangers or the inferior party in warfare.”
More sophistry. Nothing in the list of condemned sexual unions in Lev. 18 is based upon motive.
God made man and women distinctively different yet uniquely compatible and complementary, and only joined them together in marriage - as the Lord Jesus Himself specified (Mt. 19:4–6) - and Scripture only condemns homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with.
And homosexual relations have been tragically primarily responsible for approx. 80% of new HIV cases among men and over 700,000 American deaths, though such is not even the decisive reason why homosexual relations are wrong.
Yet there is still room at the cross for all who will come to God in repentance and faith, and trust in the Divine Son of God sent by the Father, the risen Lord Jesus, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and thus be baptized and live for Him. Acts 10:36-47
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.