|
Published: April 28, 2007
“A Catholic culture of same-sex love”
BBC says it will broadcast “gay Mass” originating from San Francisco parish
Editor's note: The following story contains a correction. Father Alison has noted that he never said Pope Benedict would approve homosexual marriage, as the story originally said, but that the Church would eventually accept homosexuality and homosexual relationships as natural.
 The BBC has announced that tomorrow it will broadcast a “gay Mass” held last October at Most Holy Redeemer parish in San Francisco. Father Donal Godfrey, a Jesuit on staff at the University of San Francisco, said he was pleased the BBC is “exploring how gay people fit into the perspective of the Christian narrative.”
Godfrey told the London Daily Mail, “Being gay is not special. It's simply another gift from God who created us as rainbow people.”
The web site of Most Holy Redeemer parish says the BBC will broadcast “a special prayer service” at which Godfrey presided on Sunday, Oct. 22. The broadcast will run for the following week on the BBC web site.
The Daily Mail called the “special service” a “gay Mass” that “will feature “prayers and readings tailored for the gay community.” The Mass or service was held at Most Holy Redeemer, a Catholic church “in the predominantly gay Castro district,” said the Daily Mail.
San Francisco archdiocesan spokesman Maurice Healy told LifeSiteNews.com, however, that the “event was not, repeat, not a ‘gay Mass;’ it was a prayer service organized by Jesuit Father Donal Godfrey... It was not an archdiocesan function and the archdiocese was not aware of the BBC broadcast.”
The “speaker” at the Mass was Father James Alison, a London-based theologian who has described himself as a gay, unpartnered priest. The October service was not Alison’s first time at Most Holy Redeemer. In February 2006 he participated at a conference there, sponsored by the University of San Francisco’s LGBTQ Caucus and the university's Lane Center for Catholic Studies and Social Thought.
At that conference, "Is it Ethical to be Catholic? Queer Perspectives -- Community in Conversation with Fr. James Alison," Alison said Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, “leaves room for us [homosexuals], and I suggest that we read it as an invitation for us to work out what the rich elements and gifts of same-sex love can be. How we are to set creating a Catholic culture of same-sex love." During the question and answer period, Alison opined that the Church would eventually acknowledge the validity of homosexuality and homosexual relationships.
Most Holy Redeemer and its pastor, Fr. Stephen Meriwether, have long been involved in homosexual activism. Last September, the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence,” the “leading-edge order of queer nuns” whose official slogan is “go forth and sin some more,” held a bingo fundraiser at the parish’s Ellard Hall. Another bingo fundraiser was scheduled for early November, but on Oct. 31 the San Francisco archdiocese canceled it and the Sisters’ lease on the hall.
Shortly afterward, Archbishop George Niederauer removed Meriwether as archdiocesan chancellor, making him instead the chancery’s director of ecumenical and interreligious affairs, a position he still holds. Niederauer also briefly suspended Meriwether from his pastoral duties at Most Holy Redeemer. Archbishop (now Cardinal) William Levada appointed Meriwether as chancellor in 2004.
Readers interested in contacting Archbishop Niederauer about this subject may send an email to the archdiocese’s general e-mail, info@sfarchdiocese.org, or call the archdiocese at (415) 614-5500.
Posted Saturday, April 28, 2007 8:33 AM By Robert Lockwood
Just another indicator that the distruction of the Catholic Faith is well under way. For our Bishops and Priests to fly in the face of Catholic teaching, Vatican instructions and their own vows is simply the work of Satin. As Father Malaci Martin stated "The Catholic Church has been destroyed, all we can do is remain faithful the best way we can utilizing the Sacraments, especially the Euchrist". The problem we all have is where do we find a valid Mass to receive valid sacraments? The Pope's delay in his long anticipated statement on the use of the Latin Mass is a confirmation of just how weak the Church is, even from the Vatican.
|
Posted Saturday, April 28, 2007 8:37 AM By Tom
Why am I not surprised that the Jesuits are at the center of this? It is so sad that a religious order who's founder wrote in his Exercises "What appears white I will believe black if the heirachical church so defines" is seen thumbing their noses at Church teaching and leading so many astray.
It's no wonder that vocations to the Jesuits have withered to almost nothing while other orthodox orders are flourishing.
Please continue to pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet for the Church here in California.
|
Posted Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:52 AM By Laurette Elsberry
On this past February 20 I wrote the following letter to Archbishop Niederauer:
Your Excellency:
I acknowledge that you have a very difficult position there in San Francisco - Sodom by the Sea - and that you are probably surrounded by individuals who will not follow the teachings of the Church.
Empirically, however, it would seem to be impossible for you to continue to allow the sodomite influence at Most Holy Redeemer Church as if you were not aware of it.
While the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence may no longer be allowed to have "bingo" nights there in Ellard Hall, as you can see from my enclosure, the "gay" California Men's Gathering will be having an Academy Awards Night there this coming Sunday.
Is there nothing you will do to stop these sacrileges at Most Holy Redeemer?
Sincerely,
There was no response from the Archbishop or his office.
|
Posted Saturday, April 28, 2007 10:22 AM By Lourdes del-Calvo
Let us pray, trully pray from the heart..."Come Holy Spirit and renew the face of the earth....."
Boy the devil must be having fun...but we knew all these should come, for this is part of he beginning of the end...
oh, we know that evil is not new but we must admit that it is increasing more and more...what does that mean, well figured it out...read the Gospel
God have mercy on us specially on our grandkids...
Sincerely in Christ,
Mrs. Lourdes del-Calvo
|
Posted Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:58 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
The man that Pope Benedict made the Archbishop of Sad Francisco, Bishop Neiderauer, will have to stand before God and explain how he allowed this to happen, and for that matter so will Pope Benedict for making Neideraurer Archbishop of Sodom By The Sea!
Kenneth M. Fisher, Foudner & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
|
Posted Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:10 PM By AJ
Perhaps most revealing is Rev. Alison's comment in the story about getting to Chuch approval of "same-sex love." That is the nub of the deception they seek to bring into Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching is clear that sexual activity outside the bonds of a legitimate marriage btween a man and a woman is sinful, whether is between a man and a woman, two people of the same gender, or any other permutation. The intent of the homoesexual campaign is to legitimize same sex acts. The homosexual campaign seeks to legitimize within the Church an activity that is clearly sinful.
|
Posted Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:24 PM By Donna Orth
The roller-coaster ride is in full-swing. We can't jump out. We can't slow it down. We can only hang on (to the Eucharist), until the car comes to a complete stop.
|
Posted Saturday, April 28, 2007 10:08 PM By nick
Niederaurer did not remove Meriwether for this event. Meriwether was already on leave for personal reasons of his own. It appeared that Liederhosen removed him, but this is not the case. The Archdiocese was extremely clever to mention that Meriwether was on leave, but they never explained why.
|
Posted Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:20 AM By Vincent
It is heartening, as a gay Catholic, to learn of this broadcast. Fr James Alison is a remarkable theologian, and his books make for excellent reading - he is a Dominican by training. Another English Dominican who wrote well on the "gay and Catholic" theme was Fr Gareth Moore OP. It is high time that the magesterial officials explored the theme of human sexuality in the light of modern scientific findings, and re-evaluated its teachings. For example, Augustine and Aquinas taught what they learn from Aristotelian science - that a man's semen contains the homunculus (the new person in its entirety), and that the woman merely provided a receptacle to nurture the seed. Aquinas said it is a lesser evil to rape a woman or have sex with your mother than to masturbate or contracept (since by "spilling the seed" you were aborting a new life)! Along came the microscope - sperm and egg cells were discovered, and bang went 1800 years of flawed Church teaching on human sexuality. But these hierarchs still teach that masturbation, artificial contraception [though not natural contraception such as the Billings method - which still deliberately separates the unitive from the procreative by an act of the free will!] and gay sex are evil. So almost all young men and women are destined for the fires of pre-Vatican II hell, since they have committed the mortal sin of masturbation [read any sociological survey on the subject]. Church teaching must mirror Natural Law - and it seems grossly out of step with the modern scientific understanding of human sexual behaviour ... it is in desperate need of re-evaluation. Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas simply will not do in 2007! And good, orthodox Catholic theologians like Alison and Moore have had the moral integrity to explore the issue in a rational manner - three cheers for them: hip hip hooray!
|
Posted Sunday, April 29, 2007 2:04 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Vincent,
Ah, yes. Progress! We're all getting better and wiser!
Please enlighten us. When did modern science conclude that the anus is a sexual organ?
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 2:27 AM By Vincent
Yawn!
Sorry Chris, but that's my honest response ... try reading Gareth Moore's "Christianity and Homosexuality: a question of truth" where such objections are dealt with in a profoundly honest, objective [i.e. non-partisan], unemotive manner. You might also like to real his "Body in context: sex and Catholicism".
As for the anus being used as a sexual organ - lots of straights seem to use it as such, especially if to avoid pregnancy. And for males, it is loaded with nerve endings, especially the prostate gland with its billions of nerve endings - ideally positioned for sexual arousal, so I'm told. So perhaps it might be reasonable to conclude that it is a sex organ, though a non-procreative one? It certainly seems to have been used as such by millions of gays and straights throughout history!
The point I was trying to make is that the Magisterium's obsession with every sex-act being open to the transmission of life seems to be a consequence of the belief that the semen contained a perfectly-formed microscopic homunculus, so that the only permissible sex is that between a man and a woman, where the semen is deposited in the vagina (so that the homunculus can be nurtured and allowed to grow and mature).
Since we now know that masturbation, gay sex and sex with a condom is NOT abortion of a homunculus, but that conception also requires the woman's ovum, it seems absurd to carry forward the consequences of Arisotelian science into the modern age.
In any case, the lie is already there - the Magisterium allows married couples to contracept by having sex when the woman is infertile due to her monthly cycles - today one can use these methods to avoid conception with greater than 99% success! So the Magisterium already allows a couple to choose of their own free will to have sterile sex!!!
In addition, they allow sterile couples to marry [if the woman had a hysterectomy to remove cancer, for example]. Even post-menopausal women would be given a full nuptial Mass! So these heterosexual couples are allowed to have sex even though procreation is impossible! Would such a sterile vagina be regarded as a sexual organ by you, Chris? And why discriminate agai
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 4:26 AM By kc
Halleluliah! Welcome to the 21st Century!
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 9:35 AM By humbleservant
Vincent: How exactly does the Billing's Method (or Natural Family Planning ("NFP") for that matter) separate the unitive from the procreative?
Further, you say "Natural Law . . . seems grossly out of step with the modern scientific understanding of human sexual behaviour," yet it is not the Church, but Jesus Christ Himself that teaches:
"But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matt. 5:28
Adultery is a mortal sin and its prohibition stems from but Natural Law and Divine Law (the 6th Commandment). As such, Jesus Christ is raising -- not lowering -- the standard for all people.
Consider the following:
First, Jesus condemns sex outside of marriage. Matt. 15:19-20. Second, marriage is between a man and a woman. Matt. 19:5. Third, "Gay sex" is forbidden. Lev 18:22, cf. Romans 1:26-27. Lastly, Jesus condemns even the thought of sex outside of marriage. Matt 5:28.
Thus, persons living with same sex attractions are called to a life of self sacrifice and chastity -- just like all religious and single people. All unmarried persons should be embraced and challenged to live a life of holiness: suitable for our vocation in life.
You have sabotaged your own identity by calling yourself a "gay Catholic." Are you gay first and a child of the Living God second? No, my brother in Christ, you are a person living with same-sex attractions. You are a person first, a child of God. You are not defined by your sexuality, and as such you should not define your faith by those terms.
You and I have a vocation to holiness. You and I are both sinners -- I am a great sinner than you. So please pray for my growth in holiness and I will pray for your brother.
a humble servant
www.firstconfessions.com
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 11:07 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Vincent,
The Church does not condemn contraception because of Aristotelian science but because it thwarts the primary purpose of sexual intercourse, which is procreation. This teaching does not rest on any theory of a homunculus but on the understanding that the act in question is a procreative one.
The fact that heterosexuals practice sodomy doesn't justify it. The fact that many people do and have masturbated doesn't make masturbation right. I would hazard to guess that government leaders have, even for the most part, abused their authority; does that justify abuse of authority?
Thomas wouldn't have held that spilling the seed was tantamount to abortion because he didn't hold that the embryo, as we call it, was fully human until the quickening. But even if he did, the Church bases her teaching on her tradition and on teleology; that we don't have the right to thward the procreative end.
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 11:37 AM By Vincent
And so, Christopher, why does the Church allow for a full nuptial Mass for a post-menopausal woman, or a sterile woman? If these heterosexual sexual relationships are closed to the procreation of life, then surely they must be pronounced intrinsically disordered/evil - and the sterile individuals should be called to a life of mandatory celibacy ... just as for gays. Or are we allowing a double standard to exist?
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 11:39 AM By Vincent
Seems my previous post was truncated ... rest follows ...
In addition, they allow sterile couples to marry [if the woman had a hysterectomy to remove cancer, for example]. Even post-menopausal women would be given a full nuptial Mass! So these heterosexual couples are allowed to have sex even though procreation is impossible! Would such a sterile vagina be regarded as a sexual organ by you, Chris? And why discriminate against gay couples, who want sex [even though non-procreative – much as the sterile hetero couples] for the shared intimacy it brings to their relationships? Binding their relationships into powerful covenantal relationships much like that between David and Jonathan!
To conclude: one-line soundbites are often very unhelpful in discerning the truth – and the time for an authentic pastoral solution for gays is long overdue!
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 11:43 AM By Vincent
Humbleservant asks "Vincent: How exactly does the Billing's Method (or Natural Family Planning ("NFP") for that matter) separate the unitive from the procreative?"
Well, this is a contraceptive act, since it deliberately seeks, as a premeditated act of the free will, to separate the unitive from the procreative by limiting itself to sterile periods in the woman's fertility cycle. i.e. the sex is for pleasure, and most certainly not for procreation. Am I missing something glaringly obvious here?
Perhaps Jesus said "But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart" precisely because no (straight) man can make such a claim ... i.e. he is saying that we have all committed adultery, and so let none of us dare to presume to cast the first stone. Or to pass judgements on others.
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 11:48 AM By Vincent
Humbleservant, Jesus had nought to say about committed loving gay relationships ... though Yahweh did look upon the covenant between David and Jonathan with approval. This is clearly a covenant of deep and committed love between two men, and it seems quite obvious that it had an erotic dimension to it.
As for Leviticus (the second prohibition around 20 or so) - it says that the penalty for a man lying with a man id death by stoning - so if you truly believe this to be the immutable word of God, please come and stone us to death - or admit to your selective hypocrisy [that might be a bit harsh, but it is truly what I believe it to be].
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 1:34 PM By Mike Hall
As a Brit I can only apologise for our useless and liberal BBC in broadcasting such an event in the UK and giving the so called service any publicity. The good thing is that any Bible believing Christian will see this service for what it is, my real sadness is for those of weaker faith who may regard it as having worth and substance. I would also add that the Catholic Church authorities in the area should be ashamed for allowing such an act of heresy to take place - a very sad event when so many millions are looking for truth.
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 2:23 PM By ELIZEBETH
AS A FOURTH GENERATION SAN FRANCISCO AND CRADLE CATHOLIC MY CONCERN IS IF THE GAY PEOPLE AT HOLY REDEEMER CHURCH AND OTHERS, ARE BEING INSTRUCTED AND REMINDED, THAT IF YOU ARE NOT LIVING A CHASTE LIFE, BE IT STRAIGHT OR GAY.......YOU ARE NOT TO APPROACH THE COMMUNION RAIL AND RECEIVE THE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINIITY OF OUR LORD.
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 2:58 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Vincent,
Would I consider a "sterile vagina" to be an sexual organ? Yes, just like I would consider an unseeing eye to be an organ of sight. One must distinguish between the essential character of a thing and a defect that might inhere in it. An apple tree is still an apple tree even it fails to give apples.
A similar point might be made about marriage to a sterile or post-menopausal woman or a man who is unable to father a child. Marriage by its nature is a union whose primary purpose is the procreation and rearing of children. As such, it must be between a man and a woman; two members of the same sex can not procreate. Theirs is an essential impediment that fundamentally removes the purpose of marriage.
Sterility in a marriage between a man and woman, however, is like blindness in the eye or lameness in the foot. It is an accidental not an essential impediment, since the male/female union remains, the procreative organs remain but by some non-essential defect are not fully able to realize their purpose. In other words, procreation is not impossible because of the nature of the organs or the male/female sexual act but because of some other cause. In homosexual sex, however, procreation is impossible because of the nature of the organs and the act.
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 6:35 PM By Stan
Read (Leviticus 20) and see what God have to tell us about homosexuality!
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 7:04 PM By Zep
Vincent, your history of science is quite flawed. The homunculus theory you refer to, where a fully-formed embryo is enclosed in the sperm cell, is a seventeenth-century theory based on Cartesian natural philosophy and encouraged by observations by early microscopists at the time when there was no widespread standardization of instruments. It's about as far from Aristotelian as you can get. I'm not sure if you're getting this from the books you keep recommending, but you've got the date for the theory of by a couple milennia. See Jacques Roger's The Life Sciences in Eighteenth Century French Thought.
Further, it's not clear to me why you think "modern science" tells us something new about the function of various sexual organs, etc. If modern biology trumpets anything as its great achievement, it's that it reduces all purpose to random processes and natural selection. You can't have it both ways - if you want to hang everything on a shallow scientism you should admit that biology tells us nothing one way or the other about what's in accordance with the purpose of the body and its organs.
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 11:00 PM By ahumbleservant
Hi Vincent,
According to your post, a “contraceptive act” is a (1) "deliberate,” (2) “premeditated act” of the (3) “free will,” to (4) “separate the unitive from the procreative.” Those are your elements.
Now, you define your fourth element by stating there is a separation of the unitive from the procreative when the martial embrace is “limit[ed] . . . to sterile periods in the woman's fertility cycle.” Further, you claim this is sex “for pleasure, and most certainly not for procreation.”
First, your deliberate and premeditated elements refer to “intent.” I would agree that couples who employ NFP are doing so with intent. Further, I do not dispute that they are doing so of their own free will.
However, I challenge your fourth element. I asked, “How exactly does [NFP] separate the unitive from the procreative?” You answered by restating your element. Interestingly, you clarified it by saying there is a unitive/procreative separation when the marital embrace is limited to periods of infertility because that sex would only be for pleasure and not procreation.
Here are some points to consider. First, sex should be pleasurable. The Church is not a prude. Instead, She encourages married persons to engage in sex and to engage in it often. Cf. 1 Cor 7:1-9. The Church teaches that the marital embrace is “noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.” Catechism 2362. She goes on to teach, “Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure.” Id.
Second, even if the couple is getting pleasure from sex without the intent to conceive a child, NFP would not be contraception. Instead, the couple remains open to the transmission of new life. The Church teaches, “Periodic continence . . . is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 PM By ahumbleservant
Hi Vincent,
I have another point. You are adding two different teachings of our Lord to arrive at a nonsensical answer. Look at the context of both passages. First, when Jesus was teaching us not to look at one another with lust, (Matt 5:28) it was in the context of a wide range of teachings geared to clarify those from the Old Testament and raise the standards for the New Israel: the Church.
In addition to lust, Jesus commands us (1) to cast out things in our lives that lead us to sin (“If thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off”), (2) never divorce (“I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery”), and (3) never to swear in God’s holy name (“But I say to you, not to swear at all”).
Jesus Christ is teaching us how to be holy, not politically correct. You suggested that Christ was teaching us not to throw the first stone or to pass judgment on others. You are right in that we are not to pass judgment on another’s immortal soul. That is reserved for Christ the King. However, we can judge another person’s external actions. In fact, Christ commands us to do so. In Matt 18:15-17, Christ teaches,
“But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”
Thus, Christ tells us to rebuke our brothers when they have sinned. We are not to cause a big scene, but we are allowed to cast him out if he refuses to repent. Yet, we cannot judge another person. In other words, we cannot tell a person where they will end up, only what road they are on.
Lastly, as for the story where Christ says, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” I have one point to make. Through His Divine Mercy, Christ forgives the woman. However, through His Divine Justice, Christ commands her to “Go, and sin no more” John 8:11. You see, forgi
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 11:45 PM By ahumbleservant
Hi Vincent,
You said, “Jesus had nought to say about committed loving gay relationships.” You are right. He never spoke of “committed” or “loving” gay relationships. He never even spoke of “gay relationships” as such. Instead, He spoke of sinful relationships and holy relationships.
A sinful relationship, as I have previous discussed, it one that goes against Natural or Divine Law. Same-sex sexual relationships (not mere friendships) contradict both and thus sinful. People with same-sex attractions (the orientation in and of itself without sexual acts) is not sinful. People with same-sex attractions can be close friends.
I would recommend you check out Courage (Catholic ministry for people with same-sex attractions by people with same-sex attractions: http://couragerc.net/) and John Heard (An “almost lawyer, philosophy major, perpetual writer, 'gay', Catholic,” 25 year-old: http://johnheard.blogspot.com/).
Would you please send me the Bible verse that discusses how “Yahweh did look upon the covenant between David and Jonathan with approval”? I would love to research it and respond to you.
As for Leviticus, those penalties belonged to a pre-Messianic era. Today, we read those pages in light of Christ and His teachings. While I do “truly” believe the Old Testament is “the immutable word of God” I will not “stone” you to death. Even if you ask nicely. Cf. 5th Commandment. No, both Christians and Jews hold it to be the inspired word of God. However, the Word of God is a Person and not a book. Thus, we must understand it in light of Christ, the second Person of the holy Trinity. As such, we no long stone people for sodomy. However, even if the earthly penalty changes, the eternal penalty for moral sin remains the same.
I know you are not trying to be harsh, nor am I. Please continue to pray with me. Let us both pray a Hail Mary before the day is out and try to reflect on each other’s words.
Take care,
ahumbleservant
www.firstconfessions.org
|
Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 11:51 PM By ahumbleservant
To All:
I signed off with "www.firstconfessions.COM" twice before but I meant to type "www.firstconfessions.ORG."
I cannot guarantee the content of the "COM" address but the "ORG" address is my humble little Catholic blog.
Take care,
ahumbleservant
www.firstconfessions.org
|
Posted Tuesday, May 01, 2007 6:58 AM By Ken Roberts
There is only one hope for the Catholic church, just like the Protestant church a true discovery, like the Reformers, of Bible based Christianity. How we cry for such a revival of truth that when preached will turn the world upside down!
|
Posted Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:31 PM By Vincent
Dear ahumble serbant: Leviticus 20:13 is unequivocal. "If two men engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed, both have committed an abomination. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Surely Yahweh cannot err – or change his mind. Hence if Jesus has indicated that he without sin must throw the first stone, and if no true Christian today would fulfil Yahweh’s alleged proscription that men who lie with men must be put to death, it must be an admission that Yahweh never made such a demand in the first place – i.e. it was the people who made such a law! Modern scholars have made the point that for a man to be penetrated by another man was to emasculate him – to make him a woman [who had no social standing, other than to be the property of men]. So this might quite well explain why the Jews despised and feared anal penetration! There are many other death penalties in Lev [children who cheek their parents are to be put to death!]. Selectively choosing Lev to forbid loving, consensual gay relationships today is being disingenuous in the extreme!
|
Posted Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:32 PM By Vincent
Dear ahumble serbant: If sterile hetero couples are allowed to get married and have sex even though procreation is impossible, well then why can’t sterile [through no fault of their own] gay couples? The heteros are being married, and allowed to have full sex lives – presumably because sex has more than just to do with procreation: it also binds and strengthens relationships, even “sterile” ones. So why can’t the gays be married and allowed to have full sex lives, to strengthen their relationships? At the very least, gay unions should be treated by the church in the same way as unions between sterile hetero couples!
|
Posted Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:35 PM By Vincent
Dear ahumble serbant: I still see no difference between using the Billings method to contracept or a condom to contracept. Both involve a deliberate act of the free will to have sex without the possibility of conception. In fact, the Billings method is probably more effective in avoiding pregnancy than using a condom!
|
Posted Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:39 PM By Vincent
Dear Christopher: "Would I consider a "sterile vagina" to be an sexual organ? Yes, just like I would consider an unseeing eye to be an organ of sight." - So is a penis a sexual organ, or an excretory organ, or both?! So why can an anus not be a sexual organ, as well as an excretory organ? It has billions of nerve endings, and when penetrated can cause ejaculation of the penetratee! Why?! The onus is surely on you to prove that the anus is not a sexual organ. And the fact that it doesn't lead to procreation presupposes that sex is about procreation, and nothing else. As with sterile heterp couples, the sex can be about all sorts of other things!
|
Posted Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:34 PM By ahumbleservant
Continuation of 4/30/07 11:00PM Post:
To Vincent:
[. . .]
. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil.”
NFP does not seek to render procreation impossible; that is the aim of birth control pills and condoms. No, NFP seeks to regulate birth in such a way to leave the door open to new life. NFP relies on nature and God’s Providence, not artificial barriers.
Lastly, periodic continence is biblical. St. Paul says married couples should not withhold sex but “by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.” 1 Cor. 7:5. Thus, continence is encouraged because it gives the couple time to reflect and praise God for the gift of one another.
Take Care,
a humble servant
www.firstconfessions.org
|
Posted Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:36 PM By ahumbleservant
A Continuation of the 4/30/07 11:26 PM Post:
To Vincent:
[. . .]
Lastly, as for the story where Christ says, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” I have one point to make. Through His Divine Mercy, Christ forgives the woman. However, through His Divine Justice, Christ commands her to “Go, and sin no more” John 8:11. You see, forgiveness comes with a price. We must promise to flee from sin and embrace Jesus. No one is perfect, yet we are called to perfection. Christ will make us all perfect – great Saints in Heaven – if we will just cooperate with Him.
The least we can do is try.
Take care,
a humble servant
www.firstconfessions.org
|
Posted Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:37 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Vincent,
The onus is on you to prove that what has always been considered a procreative act is not. The Catholic Church at least has the thought of centuried on her side. Your opinion is the innovation. (And, yes, sodomy has been practiced for centuries, but so has murder, theft, lying, and other vices. The fact that men do evil does not render evil good.)
What is the point of ejaculation of semen if not to deliver sperm to an ovum? Intercourse can have secondary ends; but these are secondary and thus subordinated to the primary end.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:26 AM By Vincent
Dear Zehnder, “What is the point of ejaculation of semen if not to deliver sperm to an ovum? Intercourse can have secondary ends; but these are secondary and thus subordinated to the primary end.” Following on from your logic, a fertile man who falls in love with a good Catholic girl, and subsequently finds out that she doesn’t have a uterus or the means of producing ova [surgically removed bits infected with cancer, say] MUST leave the girl and look for a fertile one. And yet the Church allows the couple to enter into the Sacrament of Marriage! In full knowledge that any ejaculation of semen will not deliver sperm to the nonexistent ovum! The primary end doesn’t exist here! So surely the good but sterile Catholic girl must remain celibate all her life, just like the good Catholic gay dudes! She must avoid falling in romantic love … avoid this temptation all her life. It is a trial [as the CCC says the gay Christian life is], but celibacy is the only option – because the sex act is not open to the transmission of human life [precisely the argument used against gays]. Yet the Church allows the sterile hetero couple to marry and have sex – because sex has secondary ends [which are not subordinated by the primary end in this case]. So why can’t the sterile gay couple marry and have sex, to enjoy the fruits of the secondary ends? Hyporcrisy, that’s why! Double standards, mendacity and all that.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:39 AM By Vincent
Dear ahumbleservant: "No, NFP seeks to regulate birth in such a way to leave the door open to new life. NFP relies on nature and God’s Providence, not artificial barriers." Semantics, my friend. By charting her monthly cycle, a woman can guarantee nonprocreative sex to better than 99% accuracy. NFP is used to limit the size of a family - we have our 2.3 kids, dear, so now NFP kicks in ... and every subsequent sex act is deliberately sterile!!! Surely if EVERY sex act must be open to both the unitive and procreative it becomes a mortal sin to use scientific means to ensure that every subsequent sex act is closed to procreation, is [by a deliberate and conscious act of the free will] chosen to be conducted when there is absolutely no possibility of procreation taking place! The unitive HAS INDEED been separated from the procreative by the Billings method. Call a spade a shovel. This is no different to having your 2.4 kids and then strapping on a condom with every subsequent sex act. And this is realized by over 90% of straight practising Catholic married couples, who in survey after survey admit to using artificial contraception [as opposed to "natural" contraception - though how measuring mucus types and temperatures can be considered natural beats me] as their preferred means of family planning. Supposedly celibate hierarchs should get out of their ivory towers and either bar these couples from receiving communion [like they increasingly do to gay couples who go to Mass as a couple, or who get married] or admit that their teachings on sexuality need to be revisited by expert commisions [like Pope Paul VI's which recommended to a man that artificial contraception be allowed].
|
Posted Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:58 AM By Vincent
Dear Zep: “Vincent, your history of science is quite flawed. The homunculus theory you refer to … It's about as far from Aristotelian as you can get.” Yeah Zep, sure, that’d be convenient for you. Aristotle, Aquinas and Augustine, the three A’s, all realized by some amazing feat of intuition or Divine providence that a sperm cell fertilized an ovum ... any fool knows that. Well, let’s look at the facts, sweetie. It is indisputable that Aristotelian science insisted that the procreative power resides only in the male of the species [see, for example, Sr Prudence Allen RSM’s “The concept of woman, the Aristotelian revolution, 750BC – 1250AD”, WN Eerdmans 1985] – the male semen contained the seed which was planted into the woman [a mere vessel] for subsequent nurturing. The woman was given the status of a defective male by Aristotle [and Aquinus, who tried in his Summa to reconcile Aristotelian science, natural law – and the Christian theology]. Thomas taught that this defect in women was untouched by the sacraments – they remain defective in spite of receiving Baptism and the Eucharist! Aquinas argued that prostitution should be legalised so that horny young soldiers could deposit their seed in the correct receptacle for nurturing rather than have it spilt by masturbation [called spilling of the seed!] – and scripture reinforced this with Onan, and unconceived people already being in their fathers’ loins before they had sex with women. Let's stick to the facts rather than use hindsight to reinvent a new Aristotelian physics which suits our current point of view!
|
Posted Wednesday, May 02, 2007 3:59 AM By Vincent
It might be worth visiting the BBC Radio 4 website, and reading a transcript of the gay service mentioned in the article above [or listening to the audio clip]. A truly magnificent service, with an excellent homily from Fr James Alison ... giving hope to queer Catholics: something the official Church hasn't given us ever!
The link is http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/sunday_worship/documents/20070429.shtml for the text, and http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/sunday_worship/ for the audio. Enjoy!
|
Posted Wednesday, May 02, 2007 4:06 AM By Vincent
Dear ahumbleservant: "St. Paul says married couples should not withhold sex ... " - yes, and he also says that it is better not to get married at all in the first place! I don't see you or the official Church holding this up as a virtue worth striving after today! Are you being a tad selective again? St Paul says it's better not to get married - only if you're so weak that you can't help fornicating should you get married [as some sort of lesser evil!]. Aren't our Catholic youth instead taught that celibacy is a gift from Yahweh given to a very select few. And that most people will marry! And how does that square with gay people - are we all gifted with the charism of celibacy? Clearly not - just look around you for ample evidence to the contrary. Hence, to avoid the sin of fornication, shouldn't gays be allowed to marry "lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency"?! Some sort of fairness, consistency and justice is lacking in your [and the official Church's] viewpoint, methinks.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 02, 2007 9:10 AM By English girl listens
Having read all the tug of war comments about what is and what isn't right before God - and whether we give a damn or not - I sense such deep sadness in the heart of God. He wants us to have a love affair with Him! I fell in love with Him 25 years ago and our 'affair' is growing stronger by the day! If He asks me not do do something that hurts and displeases Him, if I love Him truely, I won't do it. It's a heart response. Only in Him can we find our true and best-we-can-be identities - as we remain in Him and His word remains in us. Sometimes the simplest truths are the hardest to get to grips with. Homosexuality breaks His Heart and His Design. Embrace the truth no matter what the cost. He who looses his life will save it, but he who tries to save his life - even what life he has shall be taken from him. Unless a seed falls into the ground and dies, it cannot produce fruit. I need to be submitted totally to Him - in this is true life and freedom! I'm in love with Christ and His love fills my life so amazingly, I couldn't bear to upset or hurt Him. This is a love affair worth having! All people are invited to fall in love with Him - He already loves you more than you can imagine. Say yes to Him! Give into the temptation!
|
Posted Wednesday, May 02, 2007 9:39 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Vincent,
I answered your objection about couples where one member is sterile in my April 30, 2:58 p.m. comment. I'll let that stand for my response here. Suffice it to say, there is a difference between what is impossible by nature and what is rendered impossible by an accidental cause.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 02, 2007 5:04 PM By Stephen
Many things the church teaches not the least of these is obedience.
|
Posted Wednesday, May 02, 2007 11:58 PM By Vincent
Dear Stephen: "Many things the church teaches not the least of these is obedience." - yes, indeed - and that to which we owe our ultimate obedience is our conscience: the primacy of conscience is a very Catholic idea. Con-scio - to know with ... with who? With God, I suppose! Obedience to Christ is NOT the same thing as obedience to the Magisterium or the Church. The Church is NOT the Kingdom of God ... good Vatican II theology.
|
Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:00 AM By boniface
The teaching of the Catholic church is clear on homosexuality. Catholics must follow it. Those who resist will face Jesus at their judgment, Hebrews 9-27. Such souls have no defense. It is that simple. God will not force anyone to obey. Homosexuality, in my opinion, is idolotry of the genitals, and if you read the bible, you know how idolotars were dealt with by God.
|
Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:02 AM By Vincent
Dear English girl listens: "Homosexuality breaks His Heart and His Design." - and just how do you know this? An astonishing statement, I'm glad you can speak for our Lord - I, personally [lesser mortal that I am] would be a little more hesitant in deciding what breaks our Lord's heart. Possibilities that spring to mind are the persucution of His People ... yes, perhaps even his gay children. As an OT prophet once said: this is all that Yahweh asks of us: to act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with our God.
|
Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 3:18 AM By Vincent
Dear Zehnder: Please explain the official Catholic theology which reasons out why a sterile hetero couple can [or would even want to] enter into the sacrament of marriage. Explain what is the point of such a union. In your own words “What is the point of ejaculation of semen if not to deliver sperm to an ovum? Intercourse can have secondary ends; but these are secondary and thus subordinated to the primary end.” You cannot have it both ways! Explain, from your paradigm, why a knowingly sterile woman would want to marry a fertile man. And have sex with him. Why, oh why, oh why?????
|
Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 3:20 AM By Vincent
Dear Zehnder: It seems clear that consistently throughout human history a small proportion of the population has been homosexual in orientation. This seems to be part of the natural order – a natural variant of the wide spectrum of human sexuality. It occurs naturally in thousands of animal species too. It seems to be a facet of Yahweh’s creation that a certain fraction of the population has same-sex attraction. This needs to be faced up to by the official Church, and a humane theology of same-sex relationships needs to be worked out. That this will happen is inevitable – it is just a matter of how long it will take to overcome the current inertia. My point is that to claim that sex is purely ordered to procreation is a false statement [you admit as much by sanctioning sterile hetero couplings]. And so to claim that gay couplings are against nature is an extraordinary statement that needs some sort of justification … and yet none is provided! This affects the lives of a few hundred million people today [assuming 5% of the population is gay] - it can't be decided just because you or the hierarchs have a hunch that gay unions and gay sex is against nature.
|
Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:05 AM By WalkingHisWay
Vincent states: "This is no different to having your 2.4 kids and then strapping on a condom with every subsequent sex act. " As someone who's walked the walk, I can tell you there's in fact a huge difference. NFP (Billings, etc.) leaves intact within the human heart the desire for children. When I compare the discussions regarding children between NFPers and contraceptors, the difference is huge. NFPers look at children as gifts from God, and tend to remain open to the possibility that God will grant them a child even if their NFP might delay that gift. Contraceptors also look at their existing children as gifts from God, but their speech belies their attitude that they must at all costs remain in control of their fertility. Future children are often spoken of as burdens; future parenthood remains something undesired, at least until they change their minds. This huge difference must be considered when looking at NFP.
|
Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:06 AM By WalkingHisWay
Vincent states: "This is no different to having your 2.4 kids and then strapping on a condom with every subsequent sex act. " As someone who's walked the walk, I can tell you there's in fact a huge difference. NFP (Billings, etc.) leaves intact within the human heart the desire for children. When I compare the discussions regarding children between NFPers and contraceptors, the difference is huge. NFPers look at children as gifts from God, and tend to remain open to the possibility that God will grant them a child even if their NFP might delay that gift. Contraceptors also look at their existing children as gifts from God, but their speech belies their attitude that they must at all costs remain in control of their fertility. Future children are often spoken of as burdens; future parenthood remains something undesired, at least until they change their minds. This huge difference must be considered when looking at NFP.
|
Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:14 AM By WalkingHisWay
Vincent states: "This is no different to having your 2.4 kids and then strapping on a condom with every subsequent sex act. " As someone who's walked the walk, I can tell you there's in fact a huge difference. NFP (Billings, etc.) leaves intact within the human heart the desire for children. When I compare the discussions regarding children between NFPers and contraceptors, the difference is huge. NFPers look at children as gifts from God, and tend to remain open to the possibility that God will grant them a child even if their NFP might delay that gift. Contraceptors also look at their existing children as gifts from God, but their speech belies their attitude that they must at all costs remain in control of their fertility. Future children are often spoken of as burdens; future parenthood remains something undesired, at least until they change their minds. This huge difference must be considered when looking at NFP.
|
Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:11 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Vincent,
A secondary end is one that coexists with the primary end but is subordinated to it. Pleasure is a secondary end of eating and drinking, nourishment being the primary end. It is not wrong to pursue the secondary end of pleasure as long as one does not render nourishment impossible. The Romans would vomit out their food and drink in order to eat more and experience the pleasure of eating. This would be opposed to purpose of eating because, in forcing vomiting, one is frustrating the end of nourishment. It reveals a lack of due respect to the nature of the process one is engaged in.
The secondary ends of sexual intercourse, in the same way, have to respect the primary end based on the objective nature of the act. Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman by its objective nature has the primary end of procreation. If one partner be infertile, this does not change the objective nature of their act but introduces an accidental or subjective hindrance to its fulfillment. It would be like a farmer spreading seed on a field that was barren; he would be engaged in an activity whose objective end is a crop but would be thwarted by the field's subjective infertility.
Of course, a farmer wouldn't spread seed on a barren field because the sole (not just the primary) reason for doing this is to raise a crop. But there are secondary purposes for sexual intercourse which may be fulfilled as long as the primary purpose is not hindered. So a couple may engage in intercourse even when they are certain that conception is impossible as long as they do nothing to alter the essential or objective character of the act and so thwart whatever natural intention is possible to that act at the time. Likewise, a couple may marry even if one is beyond childbearing age or infertile, as long as they do nothing to hinder the natural purpose of marriage.
It is interesting, though, that an impotent man can not contract a valid marriage because he is unable to carry through the sexual act.
|
Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:21 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Vincent,
To continue: Why would one marry an infertile partner? For the goods derivable from the secondary ends of marriage: love, security, companionship, etc. One simply may not of oneself use one's sexual organs in a way not warranted by their objective purpose. Again, if one's partner is infertile, that is a subjective or accidental impediment (depending on the variables of time, place, condition) to fulfillment of the purpose of sexual intercourse, not an object or essential impediment (depending on the natural character of the act alone.)
Homosexual gential activity, by its very nature and not simply by some accidental or subjective impediment, is a non-procreative activity and thus a misuse of sexual organs. So, even if pursued for love, companionship, pleasure, or whatever, it is perverse because it closes off the primary end of genital activity essentially. It is by its nature not procreative.
Finally, because there have always been homosexuals is not sufficient evidence for saying homosexuality is natural. There have always been people with congenital blindness or with manic depression or with bad tempers, but we do not, on that account, call these things anything else but disorders.
|
Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:43 PM By WalkingHisWay
Vincent states: "This is no different to having your 2.4 kids and then strapping on a condom with every subsequent sex act. " As someone who's walked the walk, I can tell you there's in fact a huge difference. NFP (Billings, etc.) leaves intact within the human heart the desire for children. When I compare the discussions regarding children between NFPers and contraceptors, the difference is huge. NFPers look at children as gifts from God, and tend to remain open to the possibility that God will grant them a child even if their NFP might delay that gift. Contraceptors also look at their existing children as gifts from God, but their speech belies their attitude that they must at all costs remain in control of their fertility. Future children are often spoken of as burdens; future parenthood remains something undesired, at least until they change their minds. This huge difference must be considered when looking at NFP.
|
Posted Friday, May 04, 2007 2:02 AM By Vincent
Dear Chris: We need to examine the axioms upon which you build your case very closely. You state that the primary end of sexual intercourse is reproduction, and that all other ends [love, security, companionship, et cetera] are secondary. On what basis do you make your claim? I believe that for a fertile or sterile or gay couple the primary end of sexual intercourse is not reproduction, but the fostering of human love and intimacy. I believe that in the created order, THE primary end is the same as THE primary source: Love. For God is love. And so I believe that the primary end of sexual intercourse is to become more God-like, more loving – to enter into communion with another [just as the Holy Trinity is a communion of three persons joined together in perfect intimacy]. Reproduction is a secondary end [you might argue that for survival of the human race, it is the primary end – but then you are on the same wavelength as an evolutionary biologist: I’m not sure that the continuation of the species is all that important to Yahweh – it is something He has handed over to us: we are the stewards of His creation. He’s far more interested in justice, in relief of poverty and hatred and social inequality and injustice – read the beatitudes, the commandments, and you should see this to be true.] If sexual intercourse has as its primary end the nurturing of love and right-relationships in the world, then there is no reason why committed gay partnerships cannot have an erotic sexual dimension. [continued … ]
|
Posted Friday, May 04, 2007 2:03 AM By Vincent
St Augustine argued very similarly to Freud – that the moment of orgasm is a dangerous moment since we lose our rationality, we become base and animalistic. The contemplatives believe quite the opposite [as did Jung] – that the moment of orgasm is sublime and divine, a meeting with Yahweh – paralled only by the intimacy of the meeting which occurs at reception of the Eucharist. If you wish to reduce the primary end of sexual relations to mere biological reproduction, so be it: you must live according to the dictates of your conscience. However, I [and many other devout Catholics, gay and straight, laity and clergy] believe that the primary end of reproduction is to become a more integrated person, to achieve wholeness and hence holiness … not as an isolated individual, but in relationship with a significant other. And there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why a committed gay couple should not enter into such a joyous covenantal relationship [which is biblical, by the way – just read about the love relationship between David and Jonathan in the book of Samuel] – a sacrament of marriage. I far prefer the personalist theology of sexuality [is the relationship sound and loving] to the physicalist theology [does the plumbing fit, is the biology correct, are there children – over and above such issues as is there inequality between the spouses, a not-so-loving relationship, a little subtle abuse: the man is the head of the household, the dominant partner, etc]. Yahweh is concerned about right relationships, about us finding wholeness – all of His sacraments are ordered to this – INCLUDING the sacrament of Marriage! Let’s not reduce the marriage act to having a primary end which is purely biological – that is limiting Yahweh, and perhaps borders on heresy – and certainly, in denying gays the potential of loving relationships with all the dimensions of philio, eros, and agape, it is a grave and indefensible injustice.
|
Posted Friday, May 04, 2007 2:10 AM By Vincent
Dear walkinghisway [the nom de plume is perhaps a little presumptuous, methinks], congratulations on your being an NFP'er - that's your faith journey, and is no doubt very sacred to you. But please DO NOT presume to judge those devout Catholics who choose to use artificial contraception as somehow less perfect than yourself in how they percieve children and life, and in regard to the sacredness of their particular faith journeys. It is offensive to them to do so - and hopefully no NFP'er would dare to presume that such people [artificial contraceptors, gay couples, etc] are somehow not walking the Way of Christ. There are surely as many different ways of walking a faith journey with Christ as there are people walking the earth!
|
Posted Friday, May 04, 2007 4:21 AM By Vincent
Oops - all that talk of Freud produced a Freudian slip? Two posts back, a crucial sentence should read : "However, I [and many other devout Catholics, gay and straight, laity and clergy] believe that the primary end of sexual intercourse {not "reproduction" as stated above} is to become a more integrated person, to achieve wholeness and hence holiness … not as an isolated individual, but in relationship with a significant other." Sincerest apologies.
|
Posted Friday, May 04, 2007 10:49 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Vincent,
The conception of a rational, eternal soul whose end is union with God is hardly a merely biological end. That the sexual organs are ordered to procreation --- that they are reproductive organs --- is so bloody obvious that I wonder that you have the temerity to say, "on what basis do you make your claim?"
The inability to have sex with someone does not preclude love. You can love another man by working for his good or by dying for him ("greater love has no man than this...") and so imitate God's love.
The mystics, in speaking of divine union in terms of eros, did not mean literally sexual intercourse but were speaking analogically.
It is typical of the modern mind to disdain the "purely biological" and the "physicalist" because the modern mind is essentially manichaean, dualist. The Catholic faith thinks the body an essential aspect of man and sharing in the the dignity of human nature. The body is something exalted and noble, even in its post-lapsarian state, and so we don't disdain to draw our understanding of human nature from the body's purely physical nature. You modernists, on the other hand, think of the body as a mere instrument to be used at the will of the person who possesses it. But that is the very definition of slavery. Catholics, on the other hand, see the body as the servant of the soul but also as possessing, as it were, rights which the soul may not transgress. A man must respect the biological character of his body, no matter his own wants or feelings.
|
Posted Friday, May 04, 2007 11:59 PM By Vincent
Dear Zehnder, thanks for the rant. So I'm a modernist, and am not a Catholic? Thanks for pointing that out. And Catholics have a monolithic view of human sexuality, and all reject the posibility of homosexual unions - like the majority of Spanish Catholics recently surveyed who saw nothing wrong in homosexual unions. That the biological function of the sexual organs precludes other functions is so incredibly limiting. The ears are for discerning sound, the eyes for discerning light, etc. But the way an animal perceives light and sound is very different to the way a human does. Can a dog enjoy Beethoven or Motzart? Can a cat be moved by a painting of the Last Supper? Similarly, for an animal, the sex organs are purely for reproduction, I agree. But for man and woman, created in the image of Yahweh, there is so much more to it than that - the binding together of souls so that they can become a communion [the two become one flesh], etc. And this is precisely why a sterile couple may marry and have sex - because there is a much deeper mystical reality to the sex act, well beyond the simple reality of biological reproduction. Otherwise there would be no point for a sterile couple to marry and have sex. At least admit that much!!! [cont …]
|
Posted Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:00 AM By Vincent
And we can easily extrapolate this mystical dimension of the sex act to gay couples! Do you really think that a sterile couple must always have a penis penetrate a vagina? Would it be wrong for them to have anal sex, or oral sex, or mutual masturbation, or strap on a condom? And if so, why so? Surely their only reason for having sex is for the mystical dimension of the sex act - the nurturing of the relationship, etc. I see no further point in my continuing with this discussion - we clearly have a very different idea of the mystical reality of sexual intercourse [the word intercourse implying much of what I have already stated about human sexual relations being well beyond mere biological reproduction]. It seems that I will not convince you, and you will most certainly not convince me. But be assured of this – I am a devout Catholic, and quite an orthodox and conservative one at that. I believe all of the essential truths contained in the creeds. I believe in the incarnation, and in the crucifixion, death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour. I have a deep personal relationship with Jesus. And I am a gay man who feels that Jesus is well pleased with my sexuality [His gift to me], and would be well pleased if I were to live in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship with another guy.
|
Posted Saturday, May 05, 2007 8:58 AM By RP
There are some good and interesting points made on both sides of this argument. But one issue remains largely unaddressed by the pro-homosexuality camp (no pun intended). The bible explicitly and implicitly prohibits homosexual acts, and only the most liberal interpretations perceive any kind of favourable biblical view of same-sex acts. Consider the "created order" view, the pre- and post-Mosaic comments and the Christine comments on marriage (to the exclusion of all other sexual relationships).
If you wish to practise homosexuality AND seek spiritual favour, it seems to me that the only option is to pursue a NEW religion. Granted, it may be based on Judeo-Christian scripture, but until the bible actively condones homosexuality (which this write humbly submits, it doesn't) it seems to me that the Christian homosexual has two choices: submit to the will of God (and abstain) or admit that your lifestyle is sinful.
But that's just my view.
|
Posted Sunday, May 06, 2007 7:37 AM By Vincent
Dear RP: "The bible explicitly and implicitly prohibits homosexual acts, and only the most liberal interpretations perceive any kind of favourable biblical view of same-sex acts." Even some decidedly conservative scripture scholars would disagree with this statement. For an excellent, impartial and profoundly scholarly study of what the scriptures really have to say on the subject, I would recommend as a starting point the excellent treatise by the Dominican scholar Fr Gareth Moore OP, entitled "Christianity and Homosexuality: a question of truth". Perhaps after reading his work you might have a slightly different perception of what the Holy Writ does and does not have to say about homosexuality.
|
Posted Sunday, May 06, 2007 8:02 AM By Vincent
Dear RP, Jesus summed up the Law by saying that it is about love: love of God, love of neighbour and love of self. Everything must be held up to the highest standards of the Law ... does something fulfil the law, in which case it is pure and good; or does it act against the law, in which case it is sinful. Now if the primary purpose of sex is to reproduce [as Zehnder argues], then it would be okay to impregnate all that moves ... and fill the earth with lots of little children. But does this fulfil the law? Of course not! The primary purpose of sex is to build a committed stable monogamous partnership [biologically speaking, the promiscuous model is far more apt - but we Christians call that lust, not love]. And then, secondarily, in that loving union, is reproduction IN SOME [but most certainly not all] INSTANCES. And even NFP'ers choose to limit their family to a sustainable size so that they can clothe, feed and educate them, etc. But they continue having sex to enhance their relationship, and provide a stable home for their children. Now do committed gay partnerships with an active sexual dimension fulfil the law? Of course they do - if the couple enhance their love for God, neighbour and self as a consequence. Let me speak from personal experience [rather than have you take the words of heterosexuals as to how it is meant to be for us gays in terms of their neat and tidy theological abstractions] - to live on one's own is often quite dismal - the second creation story in Genesis has Yahweh saying that it is not good for man to be alone! And he creates various partners [from elephants to giraffes!] - but Adam does not find these fulfilling. Only when he makes a woman is Adam pleased - it is Adam who decides what pleases him, NOT Yahweh!!! And if this Adam chose Eve, well, another Adam might quite well find her unfulfilling, and choose Steve ... and Yahweh is experimenting by creating options for Adam - the final choice remains Adam's!
|
Posted Sunday, May 06, 2007 8:07 AM By Vincent
[cont ...] So Yahweh want’s [most of] us to have a life-partner who delights, pleases and fulfils us. And if some guys prefer other guys, then so be it! As long as their relationship is loving, it fulfils the law! But being on their own, and being frustrated and bitter – these people might obsess about what they want and cannot have – these people might not have the energy to be the light of Christ to others, bowed down as they are by so great a burden of loneliness, emptiness, etc. No energy left to fulfil the law and be loving to their neighbour! I say that committed gay relationships are much more a fulfilment of the law of love than enforced and mandatory celibacy. And the Word is not the texts in the Bible – the Word became flesh and dwelt among us! And to fulfil his law is more important than getting into a tangle over fulfilling every element of the [oft-times contradictory] scriptures. If you do wish to fulfil the Levitical Law, then you had better begin filling your pockets with stones! But I wish to fulfil Jesus’ law – of love of God, neighbour and self. And this is already evident in the OT scriptures – as the prophet Micah [6:8] says, all that God asks of us is to act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with him. If you feel it is just to impose mandatory celibacy on gay gays and gals, then perhaps you’ll at least do us the dignity of asking if this squares with our faith stories and life experience – and at least listen to our response before condemning us to what you feel is appropriate for us – and act which doesn’t [to my mind] square with loving your neighbour, and loving your enemy as yourself. Some of us do have quite an advanced spirituality, and might quite well be able to shed some light on the problem - if only the Magisterium would have the guts and common human decency to meet with us and LISTEN to us.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2007. All Rights Reserved.
|