Religious opposition to homosexuality increasingly a question of law
Print Friendly Version| All Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr. | |
| Friday, Feb. 2, 2006 - Vol. 6, No. 22 | |
A political decision in England this week marks a further step toward what can only be called the criminalization of religious opposition to homosexuality, a trend that poses deep challenges to the Catholic church -- not only in terms of legal exposure, but its capacity to articulate a positive message on sexuality and the family.
In a nutshell, Catholic adoption agencies in England have been told that they cannot bar services to gay couples. At a minimum, it means agencies that refuse to serve gays will not receive public funding. Under the English system, private agencies are reimbursed roughly £20,000 for their effort when they place a child with a couple, meaning a little over U.S. $39,000. Catholic agencies place perhaps 230 children annually, meaning they receive as much as $9 million from the state.
By way of background, the United Kingdom adopted an "Equality Act" in 2006 that bars discrimination against gays. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster, with the backing of other spiritual leaders such as the archbishop of Canterbury, requested an exemption for church-run adoption agencies on the basis of freedom of religion. Though Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Communities Secretary, a Catholic and member of Opus Dei named Ruth Kelly, were sympathetic, opposition within the Labor Party forced them to back down. In the end, Catholic agencies will not be exempt, but they have been given 20 months to make the transition.
Parliament still has to approve the regulations, and there's a court challenge to the law itself that will be heard in March. If things stand as they are, however, it's possible that the seven adoption agencies run by the Catholic church in England may have to close.
The story illustrates a cultural "mega-trend" in the affluent North -- a collision between the irresistible force of the gay rights movement, and the immovable object of religious commitment to traditional "family values."
Increasingly, the battle is being waged not merely on the field of ideas, but in the courts.
In 2004, a Pentecostal pastor was convicted in Sweden under laws against hate speech for declaring that homosexuality is "a deep cancerous tumor on all of society." The country's Supreme Court later set aside the conviction, under provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights concerning freedom of religion.
In British Columbia in 2005, the Knights of Columbus were taken before a Human Rights Tribunal for refusing to rent a hall to a lesbian couple for a wedding reception. Their right to refuse the rental was upheld, but the Knights were ordered to pay each woman $1,000 for offense to their "dignity, feelings and self-respect." Also in British Columbia, an Evangelical Christian teacher who wrote letters to the local newspaper opposing gay rights was suspended for three months under the local school system's policy of non-discrimination.
In France in 2004, a new law added anti-gay comments to a class of prohibited speech that already includes racist and anti-Semitic insults. Though no religious figure has yet been prosecuted, French Catholic leaders have expressed concern that the law might prevent them from opposing gay marriage.
Last March, Catholic Charities in Boston stopped providing adoption services after it failed to win an exemption from a Massachusetts anti-discrimination law that requires agencies to serve gay couples. Catholic Charities had placed 720 children in adoptive homes in the past 20 years, roughly 13 of them with same-sex couples.
Increasingly, courts may be asked to hear appeals from Christians who believe they're being discriminated against for their views on gay rights. In 2005, for example, a British bank forced an Evangelical Christian group to close its account after its leaders publicly criticized homosexuality. In the United States in 2005, an insurance agent was fired after posting critical statements about homosexuality on the Internet. In August 2006, the Minneapolis police department suspended a police psychologist because of his membership in a Christian group that promotes "traditional family values," including opposition to homosexuality.
Exactly what all this augurs is difficult to say. It's possible, for example, there may be a silver lining for Christians opposed to the expansion of gay rights. Historically, the church has usually been at its best when it's powerless, and the sight of Christians in the dock to defend their beliefs may inspire sympathy. On the other hand, many supporters of gay rights believe the churches eventually will be forced to adjust to new social realities, as happened with Enlightenment-era concepts of human rights such as freedom of the press and separation of church and state.
Lacking a crystal ball, how things will shake out over time is anyone's guess. In the short term, however, increasing acrimony seems a safe bet.
It's not much of a stretch, for example, to imagine pastors being fined or even imprisoned for statements opposing the rights of homosexuals to marry or adopt. (As noted above, this almost happened in Sweden). States might refuse to recognize the validity of any marriage carried out by a church that refuses to marry same-sex couples. Catholic schools could face investigations for what they teach on homosexuality. The potential for conflict is virtually unlimited, once the state decides that rejecting gay marriage and gay adoption is ipso facto a form of illegal discrimination.
Two other points are worth making.
First, if we narrow the focus to the Catholic church, what often gets lost is that Catholicism actually has, in at least some respects, a fairly "tolerant" stance on homosexuality. Under the rubric of "love the sinner, hate the sin," church officials routinely insist that homosexual persons have equal human dignity, and must not be the objects of violence or malicious speech. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of homosexuals, "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
Of course, the key word in that sentence is "unjust," because there are forms of differential treatment the church defends. In its July 1992 document "Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons," for example, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith upheld discrimination against gays in adoption, in hiring teachers and coaches, and in military recruiting, on the grounds that society has the right not to foster behavior that evokes "moral concern," especially with regard to the formation of young people. The congregation asserted, "There is no right to homosexuality," and hence the prerogatives of homosexuals in certain areas may be curtailed for the common good.
Obviously one can debate that proposition, but it's more nuanced than some other religious bodies, and clearly distinct from crude homophobia. The binary logic of ideological debate, however, tends to blot out such shades of gray.
Second, critics both inside and outside the Catholic church have long objected that its approach to human sexuality is excessively negative, that the church is too focused on what it's against. Pope Benedict XVI has actually been trying to strike a more affirmative tone. In his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, Benedict wrote approvingly of human erotic love, and steered clear of offering an index of forbidden acts.
When Benedict traveled to Spain last May, many expected a dramatic showdown with the Socialist government, which has legalized gay marriage, speedier divorce, and stem cell research. Instead, the pope was relentlessly non-confrontational. He was later asked about that choice on German television, and said: "Christianity, Catholicism, isn't a collection of prohibitions. It's a positive option. It's very important that we look at it again, because this idea has almost completely disappeared today. We've heard so much about what is not allowed that now it's time to say, 'We have a positive idea to offer.'"
In some ways, that style marks a "sea change," with apologies for the pun, in statements from the Holy See on issues of sexual morality.
In the court of public opinion, however, it may be difficult to project a "positive idea" when the growing threat of legal sanctions forces the church to fight defensive battles. Under these circumstances, the church spends more time defending its "no" than explaining its "yes."
Can the train-wreck of a church/state crisis be avoided? Benedict XVI is, among other things, a musician, and he has tried to strike the right tone; the question is whether he or anyone else can complete the score, while also managing to stay out of jail.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
Deacon Richard says
Deacon Richard says ,"...that the norm for human relationships is between a man and a woman in marriage. The consequence of that reasoning is that the best place for a child to grow and mature is as part of that loving relationship." First, your point of view/opinion/belief/idea, etc. is a "consequence of reasoning", as you say, claiming the Bible and tradition in support of that reasoning. I don't see your "consequence" as necessarily following from your reasoning. Your ideology is getting in the way of your logic! Second, if what you say is true, there should be empirical evidence to back it up, i.e that the traditional family as defined by you is necessarily (according to your reasoning) the BEST place to bring up kids. But to show that it is the BEST, you have to compare. So, where is the empirical evidence for that? Where is the comparative research in this matter, showing that the traditional family is the arrangement that beats any other arrangement, including a same-sex family?
In addition, history shows that the way we define the family is not all that traditional. Even today, our (Christian, western) definition of a traditional family is not recognized in many other cultures. My friend from Ghana grew up in a family of a father and two mothers. He told me that, for his people, this is a traditional family, this is normal, and that the traditional family values for him includes that the father owns the children. Consequently, when his family converted to Christianity, my friend's father had to let go of one of his two wives, while he kept that wife's children. The wife was let go without her biological children. I thought that this was horrible and unjust, but my friend thinks that this is normal and traditional. Now, this is purely anecdotal, but do look at the history of the family, and you'll see that what we call "the traditional family" has not been and still is not universally recognized as such all over the world.
Also consider the many families mentioned in the Old Testament Bible, e.g. the patriarchal families! In the New Testament we have "The Holy Family": a man Josef, married to a virgin Mary, having no sexual intercourse, yet having a son called Jesus who was "conceived by the Holy Spirit". Hardly a traditional family! And look at the patron saints of the family: an Italian couple, married with some children early on in their marriage, but living most of their life as brother and sister. Again: hardly a traditional family, an example to be followed (my Mom and Dad didn't, and they were fine catholic people).
So, what is so "traditional" about the 'traditional family" as is so often mentioned in Christian (catholic) circles? And how is this "traditional family" better than any other family, including a same-sex one? Is this arrived at by reasoning, or should there also be empirical evidence to back that up?
I think that we need a new and rather different way to look at this issue, but that's another story.
I'd like to add something to
I'd like to add something to my piece above, i.e. to start with my "other story". It seems to me that the catholic church and other christian churches define the "traditional family" essentially and basically as, what I would like to call a "reproductive unit". It then follows that it must involve a man and a woman, and the possibility, if not in actual fact, of one or more children. So, narrowly defined, a family is an actual or potential "reproductive unit". There is nothing wrong with "reproductive units": they are reponsible for the survival of the human race. But it seems to me that to equate such a "reproductive unit" with "family", excluding, by definition, any other arrangements, seems to me to be the problem in this debate. We have to broaden the definition of "family". We also have to get away from the idea that a child is best taken care of ONLY by a man called "dad" and a woman called "mom". I think that history shows that children are not exclusively brought up by dad and mom, but that there is an extended family involved, ultimately an entire "village". To regard a family only as a "reproductive unit", is too narrow a view, it doesn't encompass or acknowledge reality (just a very basic part of it). If I would be asked who brought me up, I would have to give a long list of names, in addition of the names of mom and dad. If I would be asked if I always felt safe and welcome, I would have to answer "yes", because I could always rely on my extended family if my mom and dad would "screw up" (which they didn't).
Anybody who wants to elaborate on this?
Henkgal, I think you're
Henkgal, I think you're right on target. I think that the rhetoric about family in recent years in many churches reduces the notion of family to the nuclear family, and also idolizes that one model of family in a way that was never intended by the scriptures or tradition. The term "family" is used much more broadly in many instances in both scripture and tradition.
This idolization of one model of family--a middle-class nuclear reproductive unit unique to modern times--places an inordinate burden on "the" family. It creates tremendous stress for those reproductive units who are expected uniquely to bear the weight of Christian civilization.
I am sensitive to this issue because I grew up in a very different kind of family. My family of origin was an extended family typical of the pre-modern South (and these structures persisted into my own childhood). I never thought of family as merely my brothers and my parents. It always included aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents. We interacted with all those family members regularly, went on vacations together, stayed with grandparents, aunts, and uncles through long periods of the summer, socialized with our cousins (down to the 3rd and 4th degree).
Family included many eccentric, crazy, refractory characters who widened my repertoire of human experience in a way that would not have happened, had I grown up in an exclusively nuclear family. The model of family enabled me to begin understanding diversity and inclusivity at an early age. No matter how odd or how down and out, the family member was always welcome at the dinner table and family gatherings. The only unpardonable sin was to violate the family itself, its honor and dignity. As I overheard a wonderful saleslady in a shop yesterday say, "You have to keep loving on people even when they're drunk." That was surely my family of origin's attitude.
I am grateful for the role models I received through that extended family, who would not have been available to me only with my parents. I have written on some of these threads about a wonderful maiden aunt who showed unconditional love for all family members, and who gave so much of her spirit to us children. She is one of many family members whom now, looking back, I can also recognize as gay, though no one ever named these as such. I also would not be who I am without having had the love and affirmation of two wonderful grandmothers and a wonderful grandfather, who hardly ever said a word, but whose loss I felt very keenly when he died.
In their idolization of the nuclear family, the churches are actually doing a disservice to family values, and are impoverishing the notion of family. They are placing a burden on families that it is impossible for many families to bear, and are implicitly causing the fracturing of families as reproductive units.
William D. Lindsey
Deacon Richard, I don't want
Deacon Richard,
I don't want to intrude into a very good conversation between you, Dennis, and Bob--both of whom have made excellent points, it seems to me.
I'm interested in your representation of the attitude of "most straight down the line Catholics" and other Christians in the UK who, "on the whole," agree with your position.
Can you cite some polls that back up what you're saying--that Christians in the UK generally oppose adoption by gay couples? The evidence you give is anecdotal. I'm not challenging its correctness or your veracity.
I just wonder if what you say is backed by empirical research. My conversations with friends in the UK and my travels there have led me to think that many Christians don't have the problems with gay adoptions you're reporting.
I'm also interested in your conclusion that this is an issue where the church should draw the line in the sand and finally take a stand for Jesus crucified. Why this issue, I wonder. The churches and their leaders have had so many other opportunities to do this, and the issues seem to me to be so much more crucial to Christian identity and retrieving a convincing role of the church in the public forum.
For instance, your previous PM was solidly in our President's camp re: the Iraq war. Seems to me, there would have been a choice moment for the churches to draw the line and speak out for Jesus crucified. Did they? With the same ferocity you are asking them to exhibit in speaking out about homosexuality?
William D. Lindsey
Deacon Richard, I believe
Deacon Richard,
I believe the reason you are getting disagreement with your position in virtually every response to your comment below is that only recently is yours an "uncomfortable position" to hold. I agree that your normative statement is the only proper position to take based upon both scripture and tradition in our Church.
In fact, for centuries, the position was clearly that homosexuality as "homogenital," or same-sex sexual fulfillment, were against the norm, but also against biological design and the model of sexual love presented to us by God. The uncomfortable position to hold was a favorable view of same-sex sexuality.
At the base of this discussion is the failure of some to accept the natural order as designed by God, and to change the natural order to include same-sex as normative.
The uncomfortable position, today, is that God did not design same-sex sexual fulfillment into the natural order. Even though we believe today that people can be inately homosexual, or genetically homosexual, or homosexual since birth, I believe we are not expected to accept that same-sex sexual fulfillment is from God, and blessed by the Holy Spirit.
My statement to the apparent fact of the presence of homosexuality in people engenders heterophobic responses from people who are afraid of a challenge to their position. To hold such a position for us means that you and I are homophobic. I don't deny homosexuality at all, and I imagine you don't either. We would only say that the presence of homosexuality does not affirm same-sex sexuality.
All kinds of intentional behavior by folks doing wrong, but thinking they're doing right, can be justified in some way. But, that does not make the wrong into a right.
Preaching from this position that you and I hold is quickly moving into the intolerable, and the illegal. We've certainly tipped the scale that way, anyway.
But, such a twist of truth by those unwilling to accept God's patently obvious condemnation of same-sex sexual fulfillment fits the biblical pattern of warnings about distancing ourselves from what God says in order to provide what we want. Some would say the eventual insistence upon accepting a wrong for a right is the beginning of the end. We've been doing this forever, though, with money and power. This global shift to make homosexual sexual behavior normative is simply the next separation from God that marks our insistence upon human authority over God's presence and will.
Courage, friend. Do not be afraid. Peace be with you.
"God's patently obvious
"God's patently obvious condemnation of same-sex sexual fulfillment..."
"God's patently obvious condemnation ..."
"God's ... condemnation ..."
Is this not the Pharisees' snare? Which purity laws do you keep and which do you disown?
The certainty of your righteousness in the face of human suffering condems your articulate speaking. You dare to position God against God's own Chilrdren for the sake of securing your judgement and call that courage.
Please reconsider what you are doing and try to discern what the cover of a "theological logic" and selective scriptural interpretation cannot provide you: the compassion for and love of your neighbor.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)
At last! Someone who
At last! Someone who actually agrees with what I've been saying and has expressed what I was trying to say so much clearer than I did.
Deacon Richard
Deacon Richard~
Deacon Richard~ Congratulations. But she really didn't do a better job. You did fine. I don't agree with your position but you expressed it with its good faith, good intentions, and its very obvious warts.
However, now that you feel better, you might wish to re-read your fellow posters who disagree and deal with our, what I think are largely, valid issues.
Pearring and Deacon
Pearring and Deacon Richard,
You have stated your position well. Let me ask you a couple of guestions. If a gay or lesbian couple, motivated by the love they share, wished to live together in a committed relationship and vowed that sex would not be part of that relationship, would you oppose their union? If they established a loving home, would you be oppesed to their adopting children?
If you don't mind another's
If you don't mind another's opinion:
I would no more approve than I would of an opposite sex couple (that is in theory it would be fine, but practice creates difficulties). I would object for two reasons: 1) the near occasion of sin and 2) the appearance of sin.
And I would be opposed to them raising children because of the possibility of scandal due to the appearance of sin.
Here today, Your opinion is
Here today,
Your opinion is always welcome. As for your opposition to couples, either opposite or same sex, entering into sexless unions based on the near occasion of sin, are you aware of the fact that the Chruch, under some circumstances, does allow "brother-sister" unions? Perhaps you are just a bit more restrictive than the Chruch. Don't you think near occasion should be judged on a case by case basis rather than on a blanket decision? As for the "appearance of sin", with whose problem are we dealing, the one who gives the appearance or the one who sees it? To what extent am I to allow how others will judge me be a determining factor in my personal moral decisions? Yes, we should avoid giving scaldal, but why is another scandalized? Is it because what I am doing is, in fact, scandalous or because another has adopted a value system other than mine? If I, having done my best to have a properly informed conscience, truly believe what I am doing is not only not sinful but truly moral, am I to act contrary to my conscience because another has, in conscience, come to another conclusion?
So, to what extent am I obliged to place my opinion in subjection to yours or you yours to mine? Wouldn't it be better if we recognized the fact that good people can have different opinions and we mutually have an obligation to respect one another's beliefs. We need not agree but we must avoid condemning no matter how convinced we are they are wrong. We can attempt to convince another to see things as we do while being open to hear their beliefs and the possibility, no matter how remote it may be, that we may learn something from them and that perhaps both our opinions contain truth and error.
Just as an aside, a lesbian friend assures me gays/lesbians are 100% in favor of heterosexual marriages. Where else, she asks, would more gays/lesbians come from?
I am aware that such
I am aware that such marriages have been allowed in the past. Given today's society I would strongly counsel against such an arrangement, but yes exceptions could be made on an individual basis (whether they should brings us back to the appearance of sin). St Paul counsels us to avoid the appearance of sin, lest we cause others to stumble. If someone sins because of what we do, even if what we do is blameless in itself, we are partially culpable. So if by the appearance of cohabitation inspires actual cohabitation then there is a fault with appearing to practice cohabitation.
We are obliged to reconcile our positions because we both claim to be Catholic. We do not have an obligation to respect erroneous beliefs, we have an obligation to correct them (Spiritual Works of Mercy).
Here Today, Yes, we should
Here Today,
Yes, we should make every effort to correct erroneous beliefs and that is exactly what I am trying to do.
What you have identified,
What you have identified, Bob, is exactly what the lived and taught love of Jesus would ask of anyone outside of marriage, regardless of the sexual make-up. To identify commitment and a vow of celibacy in a community of love has been practiced by religious communities for thousands of years, and un-religious same-sex couples who do not wish to exercise same-sex sexuality.
The second question does not follow, but in fact is a different matter altogether. All of us may be asked or called to step in and parent a child. Children who need loving parents may find their home with a single celibate parent, with grandparents, with two or more members of a religious vowed community, or with any foster family.
The starting point is God's call, not our brokenness. We would all desire that no home be broken, no child be separated from his birth parents, and no parent be separated from their child. But God calls us to respond in love, and to be open to the Holy Spirit's urgings when this brokenness happens.
Since lived sexuality is blessed by God between a man and a woman in marraige, or one flesh, then we as the Body of Christ must testify that all other sexual fulfillment causes a rift in the body. Our calls by the Spirit to repair those rifts could certainly be as you describe ...
Pearring, How about a direct
Pearring,
How about a direct answer to my questions?
Pearing~ You suggest that
Pearing~ You suggest that challenges to Deacon Richard's position are because "...only recently is yours an "uncomfortable position" to hold". That's sort of circular reasoning that really says "naught".
I suggest that reading Colkoch, William, Bob and even mine would warrant an acknowledgment of credible rationale for opposition, whether or not you agree.
You hold to a traditionalist (I would say "selective" traditionalist) position that is increasingly being seen as inadequate to support the conclusion that excludes same-sex adoption along with same-sex marriage, etc.
The usage of "norm" in itself to justify "absolute" is absolutely nonsense. If I have missed something essential to that leap, please enlighten me. To claim that in spite of its inherent logical flaw, the Church decided for some other reason to make that leap and that you bow down to that authority on the basis of faith or some other personal value maybe but cogency of the reason no.
Nature exhibits a great deal of consistency which can be identified as "average", "usual" and "normative" thus, "normal" but also a great deal of diversity, including homosexual behavior, same-sex (within the individual) reproduction, non-contact fertilization, sex-change within individuals. Exception to the "norm" is itself normal.
Man's application of scientific knowledge is and will present even greater and, as far as I am concerned, more challenging scenarios than same sex couples, committed to each other in love who are prepared to nurture and raise children.
That's a good point about a
That's a good point about a "no" position not being the basis for truth.
I don't believe I'm being a selective traditionalist, though. I'm not confusing the normative with truth. And, the converse is also true. Truth doesn't identify normative.
Truth, however, can be found in scripture and tradition, along with everything else in creation. We may disagree on the truth that I believe exists there, but scripture and tradition are where we study the living revelation of God. Living, meaning that God's presence lives outside of space and time but is revealed to those of us land-locked, if you will, inside space and time. God's truth permeates in everything we see, hear, taste, etc., as well as in scripture and tradition.
You are seeing a different interpretation of revelation than I am. You are cautioning me to be careful about my view of revelation in all these areas, and I appreciate your concern.
The more I find God, who has already found me, the more I discover a revelation that uncovers deceit, and lies, and presents a wonderful truth and beauty in its place. I suspect you find the same thing.
We just disagree on what we have found.
I do not cautiously move in the Spirit, but I do certainly remain cautious about my own conclusions and my own pride, and my own desires. The Holy Spirit, I trust.
I agree that your normative
I agree that your normative statement is the only proper position to take based upon both scripture and tradition in our Church.
When Jesus told the story of the good Samaritan--did He say:"Go. therefore and do likewise--unless you're gay"? In fact that was, I believe, the purpose of His choosing to make the good neighbor a Samaritan--an outcast, an outsider, not one of the 'righteous".
Also the church's position on the natural order as it applies to sexuality would likewise view contraceptors as nonnormative, but only Mother Theresa has barred them from adopting.
We would only say that the presence of homosexuality does not affirm same-sex sexuality...
Perhaps not, but the lives of gay couples certainly do. Have you ever asked yourself if your life affirms heterosexuality?
Interesting. The use of
Interesting.
The use of the Samaritan as outcast here is a recurring type in Jesus' ministry, according to the NT writers. But, I don't think the type refers to the kind of problem we have in finding references to homosexuality in the testaments.
Let me explain myself, if this isn't clear. I may be wrong, but let me explain, if I can, what I am saying.
With the Samaritan story, Jesus exploded a popular Hebrew interpretation of the Jewish people as the "only" people who could know God. Yes, he took a shot at the poor representation some Jewish leaders were making of God's people, but that's an aside. I believe Jesus told this story to establish that God chose Jewish people as a light to the world, to attest to who God was for everyone. He then blew away any notion that only Jews were loved by God, and ultimately to denounce the later idea that any Christian must first become a Jew.
The Samaritan, who in fact was "almost" Jewish, responded as the Jew should have responded, yes, but Jesus loved the Samaritan for who he was.
Homosexuality and Heterosexuality comparisons are simply clinical separations, I'm afraid, though they ultimately affect so much of whom we become. I think there's better stuff for explaining how Jesus looked at homosexuality.
I'm going to get myself in a lot of trouble, here, but this is simply an exchange of ideas, so here goes. This position is both unpopular and uncomfortable!
I believe the clinical comparisons of homosexuality to heterosexuality would be better addressed by searching out the comparisons of lepers, the lame, the blind, the slave, the barren, and the poor. Conversely, he saw the over-educated, the prideful, the powerful and the wealthy as heavy burdens. Everyone is included! Jesus loved all these people deeply, and he cried over their infirmaties and burdens, and cared for them, ate with them, and "normalized" them by healing them.
But, Jesus did not heal everyone! This he left to his disciples to do, as signs and wonders. But healing is not the mission. Redemption is the mission. Healing is only the "sign."
He compared leprosy to sin eating away, but completely separated the disease from the person. He did the same with blindness and lameness. Ultimately, he did the same with death, raising several people from the dead. But eventually those all died again, didn't they?
Jesus placed himself as our intermediary, our way, our path, and our light to the Father, and then put that light in us, both Gentile and Jew, and everyone one of us broken. Jesus called us brother, and heir. Even in our brokenness! But, Jesus never called brokenness goodness. He cried over our brokenness.
The comparisons are obvious to me, which may mean I am simple-minded. But I intend to live deeply in the scripture and traditions of the Body of Christ, and not of the world. I want love my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I want you to love both my damaged body and mind, and my sinful self. I want to love my brothers and sisters who do not know Christ, but I don't want to lie to them, and tell them that I believe God made them broken. God heals. God does not break. God loves. God does not lust. God creates. God does not destroy.
Peace be with you.
Pearring, You wrote, "I
Pearring,
You wrote, "I think there's better stuff for explaining how Jesus looked at homosexuality." Just what "stuff" would you be referring to?
When focusing on sexual sin
When focusing on sexual sin why not use a perspective that points to fornication? This seems to me to be more consistent with a biblical interpretation.
When you say that homosexual and heterosexual distinctions are merely *clinical separations* how does this inform your theological approach to human sexuality, and especially, the proper way to live a fully incarnational life-in-Christ?
Do you equate realized homosexual love (i.e., incarnate and conjugal love as sexual expression) with fornication?
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)
Pearring, I do think the
Pearring, I do think the Samaritan is as apt in this discussion as lepers are. Like lepers, Samaritans were regarded by orthodox Jews as unclean. Their bloodlines were suspect; they were thought of as being polluted in their very blood (intrinsically disordered), because they were mixed with pagan tribes.
They were also thought of as religious renegades who chose to worship on mountaintops (a "pagan" practice) rather than in the temple.
The bleeding Samaritan on the roadside would have been considered doubly unclean, since one could not contact his blood without the possibility of ritual contamination, and if he were already dead, one would be contaminated by touching a corpse.
Jesus offers us a powerful parable here, it seems to me (and I thank Frannie for noting this): our neighbor is everyone, and, in particular, those who are dirty, ritually impure, beyond conventional social lines, intrinsically disordered. It is those we must reach out and touch, he seems to me to be saying, if we really claim to be his disciples.
They must be brought into the human community through such sacramental touch, and not made even more unwelcome by our refusal to embrace their humanity and affirm it as if it is humanity just like our own humanity.
William D. Lindsey
Pearring, you say, "But,
Pearring, you say,
"But, such a twist of truth by those unwilling to accept God's patently obvious condemnation of same-sex sexual fulfillment fits the biblical pattern of warnings about distancing ourselves from what God says in order to provide what we want. Some would say the eventual insistence upon accepting a wrong for a right is the beginning of the end. We've been doing this forever, though, with money and power. This global shift to make homosexual sexual behavior normative is simply the next separation from God that marks our insistence upon human authority over God's presence and will."
I'm sorry that you imagine it's heterophobic to ask questions about "God's patently obvious condemndation of same-sex sexual fulfillment." It seems to me that one can do so without characterizing the person of whom one is asking the question as heterophobic.
For me, what is patently obvious to you is not patently obvious at all.
You speak of the patently obvious condemnation in the tradition of abuse of money and power. There, I can certainly agree with you. The scriptures are replete with condemnations of those who abuse the poor and who abuse power.
They are not replete with condemnations of same-sex sexual fulfillment.
The handful of passages to which those who speak of the patently obvious condemnation of homosexuality keep recurring are highly controverted passages. Their very paucity indicates that concern with homosexuality is not the central concern of the Judaeo-Christian moral tradition.
I think it's perfectly fair to ask why some groups now want to elevate this to a central concern, when those same groups have been rather muted in recent years in their condemnation of the abuse of money and power.
William D. Lindsey
I would disagree the
I would disagree the passages of condemnation are highly controverted. Taking the whole counsel of God view of scripture, in fact, weighs the scale 100% on the side of condemnation.
My apologies for a gross overstatement of heterophobia.
Yes, not only is it fair to ask why some groups want to elevate the normalization discussion of homosexuality, but it is incumbent upon us to answer the question.
I believe that in order to affirm same-sex sexual fulfillment as normative for Christians the legal battle must be won, and the social structure must be re-ordered. In oder to do that, religious opposition must be silenced, if it cannot be changed, and science must be silenced, if it cannot be changed.
To silence science, the presence and practice of homosexuality must be the basis for normality and order. To silence religion, the scriptural and traditional designation of homosexuality as a disorder, as an infirmity, and as a burden must be called antiquated and evil.
Preaching of self-denial on the part of homosexuals, and the condemnation of public and even private same-sex sexual fulfillment must end in order to silence religion.
Studies of gene deficiency and/or abnormalities will eventually have to change their language and their intent to repair homosexual persons. Studies of psychological and psychiatric damage will have to change both their language and their intent to repair homosexual same-sex sexual behavor.
History and sociological direction must be rewritten and re-established to make room for the acceptance and tolerance of homosexual same-sex sexual behaviors and fulfillment.
We've done this with power and money, and now we're going to do it with sexuality. The elevation of homosexuality may be just the beginning. All sexuality may be up for redefinition and redirection. I don't know if God will let us get that far again before Jesus returns (with reference to the Flood), so I won't be definitive about that.
The new and old testaments predicted and warned about this. And, since the authoritative and intentional clarity of the testaments has been soundly eliminated from the public forum, my references to the testaments is now irrelevant. Since tradition, then, has been the only gate left to stand in the way of this change, it is next. Tradition without scripture is easy to denounce. So, the war is almost won in favor of making homosexuality normative.
I do no weep over this, like the old testament prophets, because Jesus saves. Jesus heals. The Holy Spirit is alive and moving with a force impossible to stop.
I believe Christians must testify not against, but for. We must testify that God is the reason for everything, and God is the source of truth, and that Jesus is the way, and that the Holy Spirit is with us.
Peace be with you. Do not be afraid.
Pearring, I may already have
Pearring, I may already have applied to this posting. Because of the vetting system in place now, which puts our replies in a queue for consideration, I'm unsure when I've posted replies that haven't shown up (or may not do so). Please forgive me if I am replying a second time.
First, I appreciate your measured, considered responses. As is obvious to both of us, we stand on opposite sides of the line being drawn by the churches in the sand.
I'd like to draw your attention to one implication of that line. You say, "Preaching of self-denial on the part of homosexuals, and the condemnation of public and even private same-sex sexual fulfillment must end in order to silence religion."
Here's what that statement says to me: to be on the side of grace (and the side of the church), I must be on the other side of the line from love. To be in the good grace of the church, I must forego what the church itself tells me is the goal of my human existence: to love and be loved.
"Self-denial" is a term that, if you begin to think about it, comprises levels of unbelievable cruelty, when applied by the church to the real lives of real human beings who find ourselves, without any premeditation or choice on our parts, inclined to love in a "disordered" way.
We go to church, and we're told to love. We're told that at the end of our lives, we'll be judged by love/Love.
We go to church, and we're told never to love. We're told that if we give in to our disordered inclinations, we'll be forever damned and all Christian civilization will fall apart.
Can you see that there is not only lack of logical consistency in this double message, but that it cleaves human hearts, souls, psyches in an incredibly cruel way?
That is not to say the people preaching this message are cruel, or know they are practicing cruelty--any more than all the Germans who stood by in silence as Jews were shoved into cattle carts for the death chambers were guilty of personal cruelty towards the Jews.
It is to say that there is a system in place, reinforced by strong religious strictures, that is inherently, deeply cruel. And it must be challenged by love itself, by testimonies to the love that lives in the hearts and relationships of gay people. Our stories must find a way to break out of the dehumanizing prisons constructed by social structures, theological teachings, the media, which always represent our lives in less than human ways.
We have real lives. We have real stories. Those stories are often stories of love.
They are stories of a love we experience as liberating, redeeming, expanding our hearts, connecting us to others. They are stories of what the church itself calls grace and redemptive love.
I have spent today meditating on two passages that, to my gay life and gay heart, speak volumes about what I am trying to say here. One is a passage from Rumi's poem "There Is a Candle in Your Heart." Rumi says,
"Remind those who tell you otherwise that Love comes to you of its own accord, and the yearning for it cannot be learned in any school."
To me, Rumi's words seem deeply wise. When love comes into my life of its own accord, and when it has all the earmarks of what the church tells me is divine, redemptive love filling my life through my relationship with someone I deeply love, I would be mad to let any school (or any theological tradition) to tell me that this is NOT love, and I should repudiate it.
I would be untrue to my deepest self and instincts if I behaved in this way. I would be rejecting my nature as given by God, if I reject the love that enters my life through that nature. The church ought not to be in a position of telling people not to love.
The other passage that has been echoing in my heart this morning is from Sweet Honey in the Rock's wonderful, soulful ballad "Sometimes," which speaks of what love does when it enters human lives. The song says, "When shackles fall from my heart,/When the rocks seem to roll from my way,/When I find myself open to love,/You are my when."
To me, this is a ballad about how we can never justifiably decline love, steel our souls against it, turn our backs on it--as in practicing "self-denial"--if love does what this song says it does: it makes shackles fall from our hearts, it makes rocks roll from our way, and it opens us to love even more widely than the one who has had such impact in our lives.
I'm perfectly aware that there are, in human life, situations in which one may have to turn from love--as when one is married and someone else comes along who tugs at the heart-strings.
What the church is saying to gay people is quite different: it is to turn away from love always and everywhere, throughout our lives.
This is an insane message to give people. It is a cruel message to give people.
It is not consistent with what the church proclaims as its core value.
William D. Lindsey
Pearring, you say, "Taking
Pearring, you say, "Taking the whole counsel of God view of scripture, in fact, weighs the scale 100% on the side of condemnation."
Again, with all due respect, I just don't see what you see in the scriptures. What is that "whole counsel of God view of scripture" to which you're referring?
And if condemnation is so central to God's "whole counsel" in the scriptures, why is there such a paucity of references--and yes, they are highly contoversial--to "condemnations" of homosexuality in the scriptures? They can easily be counted on the fingers of both hands.
Yet the condemnations of neglect of the poor, abuse of the powerless, and so forth are everywhere. As Jim Wallis often says, if one took the bible and cut out ever passage condemning neglect of the poor, one would have a shredded text with hole after hole after hole in it.
The same cannot be said of the purported "condemnations" of homosexual behavior.
I am simply asking if one can be so confident one is on the side of the angels, in asking the churches to draw the line in the sand regarding this issue--and not the many other issues that would seem, given the preponderance of emphasis of them in the scriptures--to be such church-dividing and culture-confronting issues.
William D. Lindsey
"that the norm for human
"that the norm for human relationships is between a man and a woman in marriage. The consequence of that reasoning is that the best place for a child to grow and mature is as part of that loving relationship."
Actually the idea of a model of marriage as a loving relationship is a rather recent phenomenon in the West, stemming from the romanticism of chivalry. The reality is that marriage has been a bartered contract having nothing to do with love for millenia. I have no doubt that our idea of marriage as a 'loving relationship' would have been seen as subversive in Old Testament times. Children and wives were possessions of the male.
Colkoch~ how right you are.
Colkoch~ how right you are. Further to your post, even within the current stipulation, absolute priority is accorded to the procreative function with nurturing love relations clearly secondary.
Deacon Richard
Deacon Richard writes:"...the norm for human relations is between a man and a woman in marriage. The consequence of that reasoning is that the best place for a child to grow and mature is as part of that loving relationship".
A statistical "norm", as I understand it, is what most people do. "Deviance" in this context means variation from the norm or the average. A "social norm" is a standard of conduct, "what people are expected to do" as opposed to what people actually do. These definitions say nothing about absolutes or the necessary exclusions of "what is not of the norm", or "outside the norm".
As far as I am concerned, to escalate a norm to a universal imperative is an abuse statistically, a matter of convention socially, and/or religiously and therefore subject to abuse as well as subject to exception and even evolution and revision. I would therefore challenge your leap to universal conclusion and relatively explicit exclusion of same sex or single parent adoptions.
Agreed, traditionally, the "norm" and expectation of medieval thinking has shaped policy and practice. This same medieval thinking has also shaped the place of gays and lesbians and their relationships as perverted and even shaped some of that "behavior" as perverted (meant as we would term "promiscuity" among our hetero children and maybe even ourselves in our callow youth).
One of the problems with medieval thinking is that it stopped some centuries ago and failed to keep up with the evolution of society, science, and even religious thought. It is time for a bit of slack in the application of stereotypes, escalation of "norms" to absolutes and the proliferation of unsubstantiated conclusions derived from questionable premises.
An example of this latter would include your assumption that "loving relationships" are exclusive to opposite sex marriages.
As you say, this is not "just" a matter of "conservative" and "liberal", (as Charlie Brown was wont to say "You can't do new math with an old math mind") but in many cases it is. I would however challenge you about it not being about "bigotry". We tend to associate bigotry only with the emotional attachment to stereotype I contend that judgments about people or groups based upon unreasoned or unsubstantiated or untrue premises or generalizations constitutes bigotry.
The "norm" goes back way
The "norm" goes back way beyond the Middle Ages to the creation of men and women in the Genesis accounts of creation.
I'm not saying I'm a Creationist, believing that the world was created in six days with God resting on the seventh, but that the religious truth behind both accounts is that God created men AND women to be together.
If men and women in the marriage relationship aren't sometimes as loving as they should be it doesn't mean we have to throw out that "model" and replace it with another one that the modern world feels more comfortable with.
Having been married for 34 years to the same woman, working in a secular job for 39 years, and in pastoral ministry for 12 years, I hope I know what I'm talking about from experience not just theory.
Deacon Richard
Deacon Richard~ No one is,
Deacon Richard~ No one is, or to my knowledge has, suggested that the "model" be thrown out. That again is an unfair extrapolation from our conversation. The point is that it is not the only model and not the only model that works. And if the UK RC adoption agencies persist in requiring its exclusivity, you will get no sympathy from some of us in your loss of the $39,000US, per adoption served.
(Thus speaks a 39year marriage (to the same woman)and 30year work career, for whatever that is worth.)
Just out of curiosity, what would your ministry supervisor's reaction be if you posted that you thought the exclusion of same-sex couple adoption ruling was open to question?
"No one is, or to my
"No one is, or to my knowledge has, suggested that the "model" be thrown out."
Dennis I agree, with you that no one has suggested to model be thrown out, just that adoption agencies look at all situations in which children could be successfully placed.
I do have one problem with this discussion and this is that the model of the 'loving marriage' is a fairly recent concept in the West, stemming from the romanticism of chivalry. The reality is that marriage was a bartered contract for millenia and that love had nothing to do with it.
Deacon Richard~ You write
Deacon Richard~ You write that "The "norm" goes way back beyond the Middle Ages to the creation of men and women in the Genesis accounts of creation".
You avoid my points. First, I would not suggest that the "norm" was established in the Middle Ages. My point was that church people and "natural law" theory (as promulgated generally by the Church) largely became fossilized in the Medieval Church. Secondly, other posters have noted that "exceptions" from the norm, or (non moralistic) "deviations" from the norm populate the Old Testament as does the "norm". Third, you ignore the justification of escalating from "norm" to "absolute" and "eternal absolute" and its inappropriate application to adoption by same-sex couples.
Deacon Richard, You wrote,
Deacon Richard,
You wrote, "If men and women in the marriage relationship aren't sometimes as loving as they should be". Statistics indicate that 50% of marriages end up in divorce. If 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce, of those which don't, how many are unhappy yet stay together for the kids, for finincial reasons, for religious reasons, etc. I think the word "sometimes" is quite generous. "Often" or even "usually" may be more apt. I am not suggesting that we throw out the "model", just that we need to see it realistically.
How many gay/lesbian couples do you know personally? How many of them would be included in your circle of "friends"? Is their record any better of worse than that of those in heterosexual marriages?
It's not a question of what we are comfortable (or uncomfortable) with but of being in touch with reality as God created it. I would suggest, truth be known, that homosexuality goes as far back into human history as heterosexuality does and that people engaged in homo/heterosexual behavior without considerations of committment long before any consideration of "marriage". I would suggest that, for much of human history, it was the group rather than the individual parents who raised children. That early humans could be more accurately described as breading rather than getting married and that the one man one woman for life model of marriage, while we see it as the norm, taken in the context of human history, does not go back that far. Surely, there is Scriptural evidence that it was not the norm, especially for the rich and powerful, well after the time of Abraham.
We tend to believe that life as we experience it is life as it always was and, when we are put in a position where other experienced are presented we tend to see them as abnormal and even immoral. We also tend to interpret Scripture in terms of what we already believe rather than allowing Scripture it inform our beliefs.
Deacon Richard, You wrote,
Deacon Richard,
You wrote, "I think most straight down the line Catholics would agree that the Church believes - having reflected on this for centuries through Scripture and Traditon - that the norm for human relationships is between a man and a woman in marriage."
Yes, I think most straight down the line Catholics would agree with that. Is it true or possibly an idea which has never really been true in reality. The story of Salvation begins with Abraham and Sarah who, while having different mothers, had the same father. Abraham was guite willing to have Sarah in Pharoah's bed to save his own skin and even profited from the arrangement. He also had a child by Hagar. The Twelve Tribes of Israel were sired by one man with four women. How many wived did David or Solomon have? Just what was the relationship between David and Nathan? The Judges were a wild bunch and, if we really take a good look at this history, one man and one woman in a lifetime union of fidelity was not a reality. It may well have been the "norm" in the time of Christ and has been taught as such by the Chruch for some two thousand years. However, when we move from theory to practice, we see a very different picture. I would suggest that, at any given point in human, let alone Christian history, the lived reality has been quite different from the proposed ideal. I might also add that nowhere in Scripture were any of what we would today consider "outside the norm" marriage arrangements even commented on, let alone condemned.
That a man and a woman are married and neither is having an affair with someone else is in no way a guarantee that their home is the best place for a child to be raised. There are many single parents who are doing a very good job of bring up children. The same is true of gay/lesbian couples. That is simply the reality of life.
Would you not prefer to see a child raised by a gay couple who love each other and live in harmony and who create a loving and healthy environment than by a married man and woman who are abusive, fighting and neglece their children?
The reality is that there are many situaltions in which gay/lesbian or single parents provide a much better home for children than do "traditional" man/woman couples.
You state, "the best place for a child to grow and mature is as part of that loving relationship." I agree. To conclude that this is restricted to man/woman married couples is not logical nor is it in agreement with real life.
Yes, Christ was opposed to divorce. He made that point quite clear. Yes, he did say in the beginning God made them male and female and, in marriage, the two become one. Knowig what we do now about the beginnings of the human race, was Christ historically correct in making this statement or was he just reflecting the understanding of the time in which he lived. He too seems to have ovelooked some facts of his Jewish history. Perhaps the "one man, one woman for life marriage" was/is not so traditional after all.
Dear *pearring*, I have been
Dear *pearring*, I have been watching and learning from your posts since the original one last week starting on February 2. Your commentary is thoughtful and has prompted my own prayer and reflection on what you say so I am taking the liberty of responding to the whole brief ‘corpus’ of your posts here.
Our areas of agreement are:
* CHOICE is THE key Christian virtue; (for me: given God from the beginning as Covenant and brought to fullness in the Redemptive power of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection FOR THE WORLD);
* BELIEF and testimony are central to the way of a Christian life.
* SIN is persistent in the ‘human condition’ taken from the Christian point of view AND patterns of sinfulness no more ‘orders’ the lives of people living in same-sex relationships than it ‘orders’ the lives of any child of God in any circumstance; (for me: it is God’s holy Covenant that ‘orders’ our lives ; it is REDEMPTION);
and, given the context here:
* [Legal ‘solutions’ do indeed represent ‘tipping scales’ in our “rights-determined” system of judicial oversight; (for me: this is the determinative context of our Christian engagement with “the World” – i.e., civil society)
These four major areas of agreement seem as incontestable to me as more elaborate and complex parts of our creedal formulae, but are fundamental: CHOICE, BELIEF/TESTIMONY, and REDEMPTION-defined-SIN are the ‘navigational points’ of our action in the world, from my Christian perspective.
Here is where we disagree:
1/ ORDER and DISORDER
In your posts you try to teach about the basis of “disorder” and with particular regard to sexual conduct you focus on “biological” and psychological“ determinants of human ‘order’ and you equate these with what you call a “God-designed sexual relationship.” You counter same-sex claims to ‘legitimacy’ with the obverse of these ‘orders’. It is your presumption to limit a notion of God’s Creation and order that I most strenuously disagree with. Not only do I find this NOT ‘LOGICAL’ but I find the jump purely contemporary social convention with neither historical nor scriptural warrant.
Of course you must know that the concept of ‘homosexual’ is of twentieth century origin. There is simply NO equivalent in secular earlier history or in biblical history that captures this STILL DEVELOPING way of understanding the complexity of human sexual life. But you wish to examine ‘order’ in sexual conduct and derive, I assume, your notion of ‘order’ from a combination of Pauline proscription and primitive Church doctrine regarding ‘Natural Law.’ Both of these rich theological sources DO NOT help us with the question of contemporary homosexual conduct let alone ‘ordered’ morality because they address types of human moral and ethical conduct OUTSIDE this discourse. You are ILLOGICAL (not that I am a fan of the weak reed of logic, but to use your terms …)
I think that you and I would agree that to be ‘ordered’ one must be attempting to follow the will of God; which I take to be an ACTIVE PARTICIPANT in the continuing revelation of God’s Covenant. We would also agree, I think, that this requires intentionality and discipline. Of the latter I mean daily prayer, study of scripture, and the intentional engagement of my experience in/of the world as a Child of God. In an another way I can say that I wish to put myself in subjection to Christ.
The ORDER that comes from this is both personal and communal. I take the message of Jesus seriously in Matthew 28 and believe that our discipleship brings us into the world as Christ’s emissaries.
2/ CHOICE
I agree with you and disagree with other others with whom we are in dialogue that somehow being ‘homosexual’ exempts one from choice. ‘Homosexuals’ are no more biologically determined AS CHILDREN OF GOD than are ‘heterosexuals’ in my view. For myself, as I’ve said before, I CHOOSE to love persons rather than categories; just as I CHOOSE to love God rather than the theological concept of “God.” I also choose to take vows of obedience to my Bishop just as it seems to me that many choose to obey an institution. And I choose both the terms of my life and the style of my life. NONE OF THESE CHOICES, however, trump the continuing revelation of God in my life or in the world. For me, that revelation is given to me in love of people – real, flesh & blood people; the people who are part of the miracle of an incarnate life in Christ. As an adult that incarnate life is a praise of all the abundance of what God gives me. It is emotional and intellectual and sensual and SEXUAL. It is pleasure and pain and touch and sight and EXPERIENCE of the world. It is the present and immediate Hallelujah! And it is the hope of all that is yet to come …
CHOICE for the Children of God must always be provisional otherwise the greatest CHOICE which is to put oneself in subjection to Christ as the way of following God’s will is simply an empty gesture (bells, whistles, smoke, and all …)
Your issue, of course, is that when one chooses one may choose sin (out of ignorance; a displaced sense of what is right; or simply appetite – from the ancient Greek notion of what impairs Virtue.)
To make the practice of discernment disciplines efficacious one relies on the community of faith within which we live our Christian lives. THESE ARE DIVERSE COMMUNITIES that mirror the wonderful and holy abundance of God’s magnificent creation. I believe that God no more speaks in one voice than that God can be limited by ANY human condition or abstract thought. This brings us then to the crucial matter of HOW one’s community of faith is formed and sustained.
3/ BELIEF and TESTIMONY
This, to me is a simple matter but one that I suspect deeply divides us (you and I). BELIEF to me is NOT a declaration of prepackaged doctrine. It is always DISCOVERY. Like you I believe that Truth (as though we actually could presume ever to know what that is) is revealed and not created by consensus. Perhaps that revelation is, indeed, evolution or development or History or even TIME (as in Abraham Heschel’s wonderful notion of Sabbath time).
My simple way of understanding this crucial component of my Christian life is that my FAITHFUL (i.e., prayerful, scriptural, and communal) DISCOVER is my TESTIMONY. When I proclaim my belief I hope to follow the grace of God in God’s own Self-Revelation. I do not protect God, or guard God, or presume to impede anyone else’s way to God. I present myself (as we say in our liturgy) as a living sacrifice to honor and give thanks to the God of my salvation.
4/ SIN
And finally on the matter of sin. As I say above, we both agree that sin is a characteristic of the ‘human condition.’ Our difference is that my hermeneutic of sin is Redemption. I am redeemed! You are redeemed and the world IS redeemed. The question for me always is HOW to live into that Redemption.
You take the path of self-denial. I take the path of subjection to Christ which is not only NOT limited to self-denial (as much as I treasure the Lenten disciplines) but is an active seeking of an experience of God as abundance. You say, “we are all asked to lead a life of self-denial. When a man and woman, however, become one flesh they choose a life Christ called the model of his relationship to the Church.” WHERE IN CHRIST’S OWN TEACHING do YOU really find this? (Please don’t recite Church doctrine or Pauline misinterpretation. I am aware of that genre of discourse.) What is YOUR experience of ‘sin’ really, independent from the parameters of catechesis? My feeling is that without a genuine and deeply felt experience of sinfulness, we are so far away from Christ’s wish for our personal fulfillment that we suffer needlessly and in great pain.
In my perspective of Redemption I try to access the marvel of Christ’s saving Love by coming to terms with my own distance from that Living Water. As you say “God is in all the details.” Indeed! When I fail to acknowledge that possibility, I sin. When I fail in courage to take on what is foreign to me, I sin. When I rest on doctrinal definitions of ME, I sin. When I BECOME AN ECCLESIAL SPECTATOR IN MY OWN LIFE, I sin. God forgive me.
In short, given my perspective on sin your counsel to celibacy seems to me both ‘illogical’ and ‘unfaithful’.
I have taken the time to consider your commentary and respond as a function of my notions of choice, belief, and the practice of living into redemption. In the context of the immediate discussion regarding same-sex adoption, the case remains clear to me. Discrimination against fit and loving parents because of the domestic arrangements of their material and sexual lives is simply wrong: it is unChristian, unFaithful, and an offense against the “Natural Order” of God’s continuing revelation in Christ.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCo
Deacon Richard As I'm from
Deacon Richard
As I'm from the UK let me give my views from this side of the Atlantic.
I think most straight down the line Catholics would agree that the Church believes - having reflected on this for centuries through Scripture and Traditon - that the norm for human relationships is between a man and a woman in marriage. The consequence of that reasoning is that the best place for a child to grow and mature is as part of that loving relationship.
I've discussed this with other Christians from various traditions and they, on the whole, would agree with this, let alone other religious traditions.
This isn't a case of conservative versus liberal, bigotry versus Christian compassion. sometimes Jesus asks us to take very uncomfortable stands on moral issues, and this is one of them.
The Catholic agencies in the UK are experts in placing children with difficult and unhappy backgrounds that the secular agencies are unable to; hence the funding from the government for them to do this work.
We have to set out what we believe very clearly but with compassion for the sinner and not the sin. A very difficult path to tread, but one that Jesus took.
The other comment I want to make is that our present government in the UK seems to have a covert policy of undermining any sort of "faith" that doesn't conform to it's own thinking on matters of morality.
In other words, they want faith to be kept inside the churches just on Sunday's and to have no impact on the life of the country at all.
The answer from the Church is not to enagage in party political, or any other sort of political lobbying, but to preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified in word and deed.
Only then will people begin to take us seriously and want to become part of us.