Roman Catholic attitudes toward gay people have made headlines this week after the Vatican issued a decree on Monday stating priests could not bless same-sex unions. The statement, made with the approval of Pope Francis, said the church “does not and cannot bless sin.”
A former Orthodox priest turned civil rights activist disagrees. He has seen one of his social media postings go viral, in which he says there is no condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible and says it’s all down to mistranslations.
Related: The Catholic Church is trending and you know that can’t be good for the gays
Nathan Monk lives in Tennessee with his wife and three children. He is the author of the memoir Chasing The Mouse: A Memoir About Childhood Homelessness, Charity Means Love, and a novel, The Miracle.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
In his Facebook posting Monk said, “Because of the recent ruling of the Vatican, many have asked me what the Bible really says about same-sex relationships. Others have questioned if it is even possible for the Church to evolve on the issue of marriage equality.
“I believe that it can. More importantly, I believe the Church has devolved on the issue and has allowed malicious translations of scripture to marginalize the LGBTQ+ communities around the world. The Church must repent of this grave error that has spanned centuries and, instead, become fully and utterly inclusive as God intended.
“The Bible does not condemn same-sex relationships. The word homosexual wasn’t added to the Bible until the 1940s. You read that right, the word didn’t appear until the 20th century. The issue officially became foggy when the scriptures were being translated from the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin into German, French, and English. But the real issue boils down to the Apostle Paul.
“Paul literally invented a word, arsenokoitai, which is a compound word derived from two Greek words meaning male (arsén) and bed (koité.) The word was an anomaly for Biblical translators and it took different forms from translation to translation. Eventually, scholars began to believe that Paul was harkening back to Leviticus 20:13 which parallels Leviticus 18:22. A simple reading of the text would imply that same-sex relationships are against the customs of God, but like most things in life, context matters.
“In Leviticus chapter 18 the verses begin with God commanding the people not to, ‘do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you.’ and in chapter 20, the preamble warns not to practice the religious customs of Molek.
“It was widely believed that Molek required child sacrifices and temple sex, specifically with temple prostitutes that were enslaved. The holiness code in Leviticus 18 and 20 is condemning of the Molek temple practices. It was not a wholesale condemnation of same-sex relationships.
“The reason that Paul was attempting to recall the verses from Leviticus the two times he used the word arsenokoitai, found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10, is because in his first letter to the Corinthians he was drawing parallels as the body as a Temple and in 1 Timothy he was discussing being lured away by false teachings. These verses were meant to mirror the dangers of falling into a type of false temple worship, similar to the warnings about Molek in the Old Testament.
“The other verses that are misused to condemn the LGBTQ+ community is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. This verse has nothing to do with consensual same-sex relationships.
“The reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was clearly defined in Ezekiel 26:49, ‘Behold, this was the guilt of Sodom: pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.’ The reason that Lot was spared is because he kept the custom of hospitality and invited the angels into his home and protected them from the assault of the mob. But the sin of Sodom was not consensual same-sex relationships, but their violence, greed, and inhospitable nature.
“The Bible does not, and has not, condemned same-sex relationships. What has happened is that the scriptures have been weaponized over time against the LGBTQ+ community. It is time for the Church to acknowledge these grave translational errors and step into the light of love and truth.”
View this post on Instagram
His posting has been shared over a thousand times and prompted hundreds of comments.
“Thank you for posting this very concise explanation. It out a heartbreaking what the church has done to LGBTQ people,” said one commentator.
Related: Pope says Catholic Church can’t bless same-sex relationships because they’re “sin”
The Vatican’s statement on Monday has upset many LGBTQ Catholics and divided many in the church. It has been criticized by some hoping the church might adopt a more welcoming approach, including Belgian Bishop Johan Bonny. He wrote an opinion piece on Wednesday saying he felt “shame for my Church” and “intellectual and moral incomprehension” at the Vatican’s statement.
Priests of the progressive, Europe-based Pfarrer-Initiative (Priests’ Initiative) released a statement on Wednesday expressing similar disappointment, saying they were “deeply appalled” and vowing they would “not reject any loving couple in the future who wants to celebrate God’s blessing.”
Meanwhile, in the Pope’s homeland of Argentina, a former priest turned LGBTQ campaigner announced he was leaving the Roman Catholic church because of the statement. Andrés Gioeni wrote in a letter to the church, “I do not want to continue being an accomplice to this institution, because I realize the harm they are doing to people.”
View this post on Instagram
James (controversial2019)
I was always taught that there was a bit in the Bible which said something like: Thou shalt not lie with a man as thou liest with a woman.
And I think that’s what people have interpreted as meaning “Man and Man = Bad”.
My interpretation has always been different:
A man “lies” with a woman via va.ginal sex
A man “lies” with a man without va.ginal sex (often an.al)
THUS man does not lie with a man as he does with a woman and THUS gayness is A-okay and permitted 🙂
Liquid Silver
I always thought it means you shouldn’t lie to a man and tell him that dress doesn’t make him look fat.
justwannaleaveonecomment
I interpret it as a condemnation of bisexuality, not homosexuality. I don’t lie with women, only men, or rather if I would lie with a woman as in need to share a bed I would not have sex with her, so I am not at all breaking this rule. I do not lie with women as I do with men. Similarly, a heterosexual person, or any person who prefers just one gender, would not lie with the unpreferred gender in the same way. It seems the commandment more says to stay in your lane, pick one, don’t lie with both genders. Hey, it’s still not a great lesson, but it doesn’t explicitly condemn homosexuality like people think it does, and if people are arrogant enough to say that’s not what that means, who are they to say what God means? It’s his words for us to interpret. My interpretation seems more valid because it’s more literal. The homophobic interpretation is an incredibly narrow reading.
Openminded
@James. Since a man has no vagina and therefore it would be impossible to “lie with a man as he does a woman” why would the bible even contain that scripture if your interpretation is what God was trying to say? Not meaning to argue with you, but I can’t reconcile your point of view on this scripture.
roiboihoutx
Operation YAAASS MA’AM! I 100% totally love it!
Chrisk
If we were to go back with what the Bible says about everything then we’d need to start with killing disobedient kids, adulterers, worshippers of other faiths, go back to slavery, etc. It’s all very much endorsed by the Bible too.
At any rate, good on the Priest to show them their hypocrisy. I’ve given up on those arguments a long time ago when it comes to religion and it’s followers though. Like that saying goes. ..if you could reason with religion people. There would be no religious people.
yah_sure_youbetcha
It literally doesn’t matter. Christian supremacists won’t change no matter what arguments you use. They worship a book most of them have never read all the way through, and, just like republicans, they are not moved by demonstrations of hypocrisy no matter how well researched and documented. Let it go, work through the secular courts (or what’s left of them), and stop giving them and their book the attention and deference they crave.
RickHeathen
Absolutely. And in my opinion, the Bible should end up in the trash heap along with the slavery it never once condemned.
BaltoSteve
It’s well and good to try and bring what is and isn’t in the bible. However, in this case, it is irrelevant. In the Catholic church, Papal Teachings are considered to be infallible and at time divinely directed and inspired.
Mister P
We should not be using the Bible for guidance to create and kind, compassionate and just society.
CNXman
BaltoSteve
The last part of your statement is incorrect and a common misunderstanding of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. All Papal Teachings are not considered infallible. The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is infallible in all that he says. Certain conditions have to be met in order for a matter to be considered an infallible statement. What the Pope said in this matter is not an infallible statement. It’s an ordinary teaching on what the church says in regards to homosexuality. Your incorrectly stating that it is is misguided and perpetuates misunderstandings. You might want to read up on the subject matter before making such a dogmatic statement.
Jimmyhowcome
Thanks for posting. Infallibility is probably the most misunderstood “doctrine” of the Catholic Church. It has only been invoked twice: The Assumption of the Virgin Mary and the Immaculate Conception. The doctrine of “infallibility” was not even declared until 1870. People like Baltosteve perpetuate the misinterpretation. That’s why I don’t pay much attention to what the “Holy Father” says.
tjack47
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, paraphrasing, is more a statement about the position and oppression of women at the time. Women were property used to enrich the males. Women were traded or sold like goats. Lot’s daughters were raped in the mountains after Sodom fell. For a man to lie with a man was to be like a woman. It’s about the feminine, and it’s about the ultimate misogyny to me.
Den
Actually, as the article makes very clear, within its context it was simply forbidding the practices of the idolators who surrounded the followers of what was at the time the only monotheistic faith which did not bow down to idols.
Tacapollo
I’ve always read it as Lot’s daughters, thinking they were the last people alive, purposely got their father drunk and took advantage of him to repopulate the earth. Either way, the Bible doesn’t punish anyone for incest. They were too busy worrying in Leviticus about the evils of wearing different kinds of fabrics being worn at the same time, and deciding we could eat shrimp, lobster and other seafood, as well as, eating porkchops and (gasp) BACON! Also, women would not be allowed to teach. Why do these haters pick and choose which passages to keep and which can be overlooked? The Bible is a mess in many ways. Witches could not tell futures, but if you were lucky, you could be a prophet and be allowed to do it.
BoomerMyles
I once read that the word “abomination” in man lying with man was a mistranslation and only implemented in the King James version to criticize the same named Stuart king was was openly bisexual.
zunelander
Jesus actually indirectly reference homosexuality in Matthew 19:12, where He brings up the subject of eunuchs. This subject comes up after His disciple seem to dislike what Jesus had to say about divorce. In response to what Jesus said about divorce, the disciples were like (paraphrasing), “If that’s the case for a man with his wife, then it’s not good to take a wife!” To which Jesus responds by bringing up men who won’t take a wife. Homosexuals would fall into the first group Jesus mentions: eunuchs born so from their mother’s womb. A great book on this is by Sandra Turnbull called “God’s Gay Agenda”. Jesus knows about us. It’s humanity who is behind and believing today’s bibles are perfect.
Joshooeerr
Lot’s notion of “hospitality” also included inviting the angels to rape his wife and daughters. Which just goes to show that trying to clarify what the authors of The Bible meant with more context doesn’t really get you anywhere. Far better to just accept that is the superstitious ravings of a primitive people, and no longer in any way relevant to life in the 21st century.
hansniemeijer
Translations can be tricky especially if you have a hidden agenda. Most religions do not add up when it comes to the principle of love. (I am not religious at all) If one believes that an omnipotent god made everything condemning parts of everything means denying everything that omnipotent god made! This is why religions are so sick. You can’t do cherry picking, full stop.
humble charlie
If this interpretation of the Bible excerpts is true, it is revelatory. If only people were as sensible in their hatred.
wikidBSTN
“Thou shalt not lie with a man as thou liest with a woman.” –
Well, gay men don’t lie with women do they? I think this directive was to heterosexual men not to violate THEIR nature. It says nothing about a gay person’s nature.