GAY TRUTH

In a January 16, 2018 “ Commentary ” for “The National Catholic Reporter ,” Creighton University Professor Todd A. Salzman, chair of the Department of Theology at Creighton, and Michael G. Lawler, professor emeritus, disagreed with the decision by certain US Bishops to possibly deny a Catholic funeral for someone who died while in a same-sex “married” relationship. They single out Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield for specific criticism. From of a “ Decree ” issued by Paprocki, Salzman and Lawler are especially troubled with the following directive: Unless they have given some signs of repentance before their death, deceased persons who have lived openly in a same-sex marriage giving public scandal to the faithful are to be deprived of ecclesiastical funeral rites. In the case of doubt, the proper pastor or parochial administrator is to consult the local ordinary, whose judgment is to be followed. Concerning those individuals in a same-sex “marriag

The Distinction Between the Ceremonial and Moral Law As Necessary for Biblical Interpretation Recognizing this distinction between the ceremonial and moral law is vitally important in properly understanding such passages as 1 Samuel 15:22: “Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams.” The Lord has commanded of His covenant people adherence to both His moral and His ceremonial law ; however, in this passage, obedience “is better than sacrifice.”  How can this be since God has commanded both? The answer is that, even for the children of Israel who were commanded to offer sacrifices in accordance with the ceremonial law that regulated their lives and worship, loyalty to the Lord by obeying His moral law came first. Persons who disregarded the commandments of God’s moral law were not welcome to present their offerings. This fact is clearly seen

THE MORAL AND CEREMONIAL LAWS DISTINGUISHED The chief failure of those who reduce the book of Leviticus to a non-applicable status is in not recognizing the proper biblical distinctions between that which God intended to be temporary and that which is permanent and applicable to all persons.  The Bible does make distinctions between what was temporary, solely intended for the children of Israel , and that which is universal, unchanging, and obligatory upon all peoples in all places. We have not denied that parts of the book of Leviticus offer temporary instruction. Some regulations are no longer observed due to divine amendment. We have already seen this to be the case with regard to the dietary laws and the ordinances that pertained to the priesthood. Bible scholars and theologians have recognized these distinctions and categorized them as the ceremonial and moral law. God’s moral law refers to those precepts that are perpetually binding upon all peoples in all time (

Returning the Challenge—Leviticus, Bestiality , and Pedophilia Those who propose that we no longer consider the Leviticus prohibitions of homosexuality as binding must tell us what is to be done with the rest of the book.   They are left in the inconsistent position of either rejecting it all (which Jesus did not do, as seen in Matthew 22:39—Jesus citing Leviticus 19:18) or revealing their true colors and showing their own subjectively selective approach to biblical interpretation.  We can discern what is permanent and what is temporary in God ’s Word.  If God has not repealed His Law at any given point, His Law stands, which poses a problem for those advocating the acceptability of homosexuality with the Bible , for they must answer why bestiality and pedophilia are moral evils.   Such practices are sinful because God declares them so. Specifically, bestiality is condemned in Leviticus 18:23, just one verse after the first Leviticus prohibition of homosexuality, and yet n

ANSWERING THE EVASIONS AND REVISIONS Even professing Christians encounter difficulties when they consider the book of Leviticus . Few people understand this third book of the Bible. Discussions become bogged down due to a lack of Bible reading and knowledge. Some people will make grandiose claims and bold assertions about the Law of God , about the book of Leviticus, and about “Holiness Codes” despite the fact that they are woefully misrepresenting the truth of God ’s Word (1 Timothy 1:7). A great deal of confusion could be avoided if those who bear the name of the Lord would spend more time reading the Bible. Often, this is enough to refute the revisionists’ contentions. Leviticus Only for the Jews? A Case of Geographical Morality Rabbi Jacob Milgrom has taught that the laws against homosexuality in the Old Testament were exclusively Jewish in scope and application. He has attempted to prove his point by going to the text of Leviticus and making reference to the land. He

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. ( Leviticus 18:22 ) If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13) These passages in the book of Leviticus are abundantly clear in their rejection of homosexuality as a practice or a proclivity. Homosexuality then and now is not compatible with biblical morality; it is not acceptable to God. Both sides of the same-sex controversy readily admit the clarity of these passages; therefore, those who advocate the acceptability of homosexuality in either deed or in desire must do something with these passages. They must answer the searing indictment from this portion of God’s Word. The first and most common approach to these passages by those who advocate the consistency of homosexuality with biblical morality is to present them as irrelevant to the

REJECTED: THE LEVITICUS PASSAGES DO NOT APPLY TO US This approach recognizes the prohibitions against homosexuality that are found in the book of Leviticus and does not deny them, but these prohibitions, we are told, do not apply to the present day or current situation. Such claims are made because these prohibitions supposedly only applied to the Jewish people of the Old Testament . By restricting the Leviticus prohibitions in this way, this revision honestly admits the presence of the prohibition and so presents itself as “faithful” to the Bible . Those who take this approach admit that at some time, for some people, homosexuality was prohibited. Stated even more simply, homosexuality was forbidden then and for them. This view speaks voluminously of matters that pertained to the external worship of the God of the Bible—the ceremonies of the Old Testament (sacrifices, the priesthood, the promised land, purity and cleanliness distinctions, dietary laws, etc.). These ceremoni