Studied theology, and as part of that New Testament Greek and Biblical exegesis. But I'm not going on my own qualifications, I'm going on universally-accepted translations, all of which - regardless of version - convey the same meanings, eg Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10.
To what level, it is important as to what level I would discuss this at....especially with regard to the translations, (particularly with regard to the linguistics and interpretation of the context) you spoke of (but did not expand on) my email is in trust.....if you wish to discuss it further.
For The thread as an example and I will keep it brief as to not derail the thread too much and I have discussed this in SC at length before, if we take Romans 1...it is simply not as straight forward as stating that the consensus is that Paul was Condemning Homosexuality......The passage discusses how a group of Christians converted to Paganism (presumably Roman) and engaged in heterosexual Orgies and Idolatry and so on as was common in Roman Fertility Religions at the time...this hedonism then led to Homosexual behaviour, there is a valid theological justification that Paul is not stating that Homosexuals are a perversion or the homosexual behaviour is shameful or unnatural, (remember that homosexuality or to be more precise bisexuality was common in Roman Culture) ...he is however stating that as the Christians were Heterosexuals they were acting against their own nature and that this in itself was inherently sinful.
So there is a solid theological argument that the passage Roman 1 is actually unrelated to homosexuality and is actually about hedonistic lifestyles that are contrary to the natural basic nature of the individual.....in short you can legitimately interpret Romans 1 as making the judgement that for Heterosexual individuals it is sinful or indecent to engage in homosexual activity, and for homosexual individuals it would be indecent to engage in heterosexual activities as they are both contrary to the respective individuals true god-given nature. I could give you the linguistic basis for the interpretations, but as you have studied Koine Greek and how it relates to the context I am refering to and as a result I am sure you are aware of the original texts and don't need me to make this post any longer than it need be to make the point
Obviously Romans refers to Homo-genital acts, but from a historical-critical perspective Romans doesn't make an ethical or moral judgements, merely a social disapproval based on the nature of the Individual rather than the acts themselves.
This is quite a standard theological perspective.
Yes it certainly is
But St Augustine, while a great Father of the Church, does not equate to the totality of the Church's Magisterium or Tradition. However, since you bring him up, I refer you to "De Spiritu et Littera" in which he reflects on the words of St Paul which he takes as the title for his letter. Far from abolishing the Old Law, the New Law is what gives it life. Again, St Paul speaks of the Old Law as a "tutor" showing what must be done; grace comes with the New Law. It's a recurring theme. I won't prolong this mini-debate any further
I think you are missing the point I was making, and that is not what the words are literally stating or that those words are authoritative in themselves...even Augustinian...but that the principles are followed when attributing interpretation to scripture and the evidence both natural and spiritual is followed......much of which is outlined in various works such as
De Genesi ad litteram and specifically
De doctrina Christiana.......not to mention that with using anything by Augustine as authoritative it is always pertinent to peruse his
Retractationes for any clarification or revisitations on a subject he discussed earlier in his life.
This was my original premise with regard current doctrine, and is not only pursuant to homosexuality, but to other issues, such as Contraception and Aids, whereby the social, cultural and scientific evidence is such that it shows the Church to be anachronistic and out of touch with current morality and thinking.....The basic idea is that Scripture is both broad and specific enough and that the authors were divinely inspired to create a text that can interpreted to account for changes in Human knowledge and it should not be limited by dogmatic approaches that ignore or seek to subvert what is actually known, in fact he went so far as to say that the nature of Scripture is that it is able to support more than a single interpretation....such is the divine nature of it.
I should make it clear, as I don't recognise your name, that I am not a Catholic or Religious....I am simply have an academic and professional interest in religions, specifically Christianity and Islam so I am not trying to argue you out of a position, but explaining that there are many other equally valid positions with regard to theology and interpretation with Christianity, including Catholicism despite it's adherence to a dogmatic infallibility (another topic of contention....but for another time) as you say we have probably derailed this thread a little too far.....
Of course as you know the Bible wasn't written in Latin firstly; it wasn't even translated officially into Latin for a good while, for the same reason it took a while to be translated officially into any other language, ie the preoccupation that it shouldn't be inaccurately translated and twisted around. However you'll find that a number of bishops, priests, missionaries, etc are well known for their work in translating Bible and other Church texts for the use of those who they were bringing the Gospel message to. The Cyrillic alphabet was invented by a couple of Catholic missionary brothers precisely so that they could present the Scriptures in the slavic tongues.
