Series on Catholics and Sexuality
March 18, 2011, 2:10 pm
Posted by Eduardo Peñalver
Fordham University, Fairfield University, Yale Divinity School, and the Union Theological Seminary will be hosting a series of one-day events in September and October exploring Catholic views on sexuality. Here is a link to the website with the schedule. So far, the organizers have lined up some top people for these discussions. It should be interesting.
I hope the biblical witness will be considered, it is too often ignored in these sessions.
Dennis,
Do you mean Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1?
Actually, I mean all of the biblical references.
Did I miss one? :P
actually one would be enough to discuss but there are at least six more that I can find, so that would create a lively discussion.
Kudos to Fairfield, Fordham, Union and Yale for undertaking this series. I am thrilled to see that Don Cozzens will be at Fairfield.
From hearing him a number of times, and from the privilege of reading his many books, Don Cozzens is the most impressive and insightful priest; a first-rate mind, and heart — exactly what we need as a bishop. Of course that will never happen, to our clear, painful disadvantage; and to his relief, no doubt. Imagine, someone with courage and integrity, who heals instead of alienates!
If that is the caliber of the presenters, this will be a great success. I hope the presentations and discussion can be taped, and made available online afterwards; as Boston College does with its Church in the 21st Century program.
Dennis,
And you think that the discussion of the Bible and homosexuality has been neglected? Note that the name of the conference is “More Than a Monologue,” and on the web site it says: “For too long, the conversation on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues in the Roman Catholic Church has been only a monologue — the sole voice being heard is that of the institutional Catholic Church. We must engage in more than a monologue by having a 21st century conversation on sexual diversity, with new and different voices heard from.” New and different voices probably are not going to rehash the traditional Biblical arguments against homosexuality.
That is just my point, all discussion of this issue in these types of conferences ignores God’s Word. It has to, since the biblical testimony is so onesided. The discussion on sexuality needs to engage the text, not ignore it.
And it should be a dialogue, but it can’t ignore one side of that dialogue, otherwise we should just take the Bible and throw it in the trash as an outdated homophobic rant. However, if we do that, we are left in a world of sin and death where God has no means of communicating with us.
This issue is also about whether the biblical witness is still relevant. If you want to convince the average Christian to accept homosexual relationships in the church, you will never succeed by ignoring the Bible. Rather, you need to take the Bible seriously, and convince others that it says something completely different from what it appears to say.
Dennis,
I think there are good answers for all of the biblical passages one might quote against homosexuality. Summaries can be found on sites like Religioustolerance.org. It is not a matter of the issue not having been discussed enough. It is that arguments over biblical interpretations don’t change minds. What seems to change minds from the “conservative” position to the more “liberal” position are experiences like having a gay son or daughter or friend.
I would argue that the Bible appears to say almost nothing against homosexuality, but interpreters of the Bible who oppose homosexuality find a number of passages they can use to make their case. So it’s not a matter of trying to convince people that the Bible doesn’t mean what it appears to say. To people who disagree with you, the Bible doesn’t appear to say anything against homosexuality.
These convocations sound like a colossal waste of time to me. All these types of events merely underscore the divide between the Church and its gay members. What good can come of such a series? What could possibly be said that hasn’t been said already that will simply offend on one side and wound on the other?
The Bible says a great deal about homosexuality and it is uniformly negative: hence the traditional doctrine. There is no end of exegetical nonsense that will ever change that fact. Everyone tries to bend the text to support his/her peccadillos: it is the human condition.
The only value I can see for such a conference without the biblical debate is a discussion of how a gay person might best nuture his/or her faith in an ecclesial environment which rejects their relationships. The Catholic Church, and most of the Protestant denominations are unlikely to ever change their position on homosexuality – since to do so is to say that God does not speak through the Bible. So the question remains – how can a gay person nurture his/her faith in the church, with becoming UCC?
Dennis wrote: “otherwise we should just take the Bible and throw it in the trash as an outdated homophobic rant. However, if we do that, we are left in a world of sin and death where God has no means of communicating with us.”
Two things, firstly, I cannot agree that 6 passages in a 4000 page collection of books constitutes a rant. Secondly, I think homophobia and homosexuality are recent Western constructs not well applied to ancient Hebrew understandings of sexuality. See the relationship between David and Jonathan (not that I am implying a sexual relationship between them, but rather a relationship that is more subtle than modern classifications of ‘friendship’ and ‘lover’).
And secondly I’m sorry Dennis but the Church survived for a long time without a Bible (any formalization of the canon), or even with limited to no access to it (due to Germanic disruptions, material and economic considerations, limited numbers of scribes). God somehow managed to continue to communicate with the Church, that is, the people of God, the Body of Christ. Jesus didn’t hand out Bibles saying, “Hey, I’m going away for a while, here is the owner’s manual. I’ll see you in a couple centuries.” That view, though popular amongst ahistorical protestants is neither Catholic nor historically justifiable.
Dennis,
Why are there people sexually attracted to those of the same sex? Do you have a working theory on this point? What is the nature of the condition which a human person must struggle if they are to lead the life God desires for them?
In the June 15, 2007 edition of this very magazine there was a dialog between Luke Timothy Johnson and Eve Tushnet entitled: “Homosexuality and the Church: 2 views.” They both presented respectful but disagreeing positions on what the church and scripture have to say about the topic.
In the closing paragraph of his portion, Johnson had this to say:
“The Pharisees’ sin has come to be called ’scotosis,’ a deliberate and willful darkening of the mind that results from the refusal to acknowledge God’s presence and power at work in human stories. If the neglect of Scripture is a form of sin, John suggests, a blind adherence to Scripture when God is trying to show us the truth in human bodies is also a form of sin, and a far more grievous one. Both our own sense of integrity as Christians, and our hope of entering into positive conversation with those who disagree with us, obligate us to engage Scripture with maximum devotion, love, and intelligence. If it is risky to trust ourselves to the evidence of God at work in transformed lives even when it challenges the clear statements of Scripture, it is a far greater risk to allow the words of Scripture to blind us to the presence and power of the living God.”
In Commonweal’s November 5, 2010 issue there was a review of Diarmaid MacCulloch’s “Christianity: the First Three Thousand Years” by Kenneth L. Parker. In this review Parker said: “And to my knowledge, this is the first general history of Christianity to address homosexuality in the tradition from the earliest centuries up to today. MacCulloch calls for a collective examination of conscience on this topic; but the mere inclusion of the subject in such a magisterial book is an important step, opening the door to further discussion and debate.”
I also call attention to this site of the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm They say this in introduction:
“This is an important sub-section in our web site’s section on homosexuals and other sexual minorities. Many people’s beliefs toward homosexuality and actions towards homosexuals are religiously based. Because such a large percentage of North Americans are English speaking and identify themselves as Jews, Christians and Muslims, it is important to understand what the Bible says about this topic: both in its original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek language, and after its translation into English by religious translators.”
An easier-to-read approach to the subject of homosexuality and the bible is this article by Dr. Walter Wink: http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/winkhombib.htm. Wink is Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City. He has also taught at Union Theological Seminary and Hartford Seminary, and has been a visiting professor at Columbia and Drew universities.
The point of all of this? Simply this: the usually-cited “clobber texts” are not to be understood at face value. To my knowledge thoughtful Catholics are not bibliolatrists (“The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it”) but, rather, take into account many circumstances, conditions and cultures in which the scriptures were written and how they have been interpreted over time. To simply state that “The Bible says a great deal about homosexuality and it is uniformly negative: hence the traditional doctrine” is, unfortunately, overly-simplistic and not conducive to dialogue of any kind.
So I am supposed to believe that the exegesis of a few very liberal modern scholars should trump 2000 years of scholarly interpretation on these texts? Sorry, not buying it.
I find it ironic that these “exegetical discoveries” just happened to occur in the last thrity years or so…mmmm, I wonder why? Could it be that someone might have an agenda to change what has always be the interpretation of the church?…naah.
The name Paul Lakeland rings a bell but I can’t quite place it. Brian Wallace, spokesman for the Diocese of Bridgeport, where Fairfield University is located, had this to say:
“We’re confident that our students in all these universities are certainly well-versed in Catholic teaching and Catholic viewpoints.”
I would love to know the reason for his confidence.
I could be wrong, but I think Luke Timothy Johnson may have a family member dealing with same-sex attractions.
Does Catholic tradition articulate a cause for same-sex attraction in biological or cultural terms?
This is only a day conference? No overnight rates on hotels?
William–
I think the Church teaches that the cause has something to do with an apple, a serpent, and a choice.
Over at America’s blog, on a thread regarding this conference, a couple of commenters are getting all exercised (and one may actually have been exorcised, too) over a disclosure that the Arcus Foundation is one of the conference funders, how directly I’m not sure. And I really don’t care–can someone more dialed in than I please explain why we should be bothered by a liberal organization contributing funds to a conference on this topic? Seems not unexpected. It’s not like the conference organizers are turning down offers of sponsorship from the KOC, I’m guessing.
“I think the Church teaches that the cause has something to do with an apple, a serpent, and a choice.”
OK, I realize a certain witty economy in this reply, but surely there’s a more nuanced and serious response to the question.
” —2000 years of scholarly interpretation on these texts?”
I love a good joke as the next person, but 2,000 years of scholarly interpretation?? Where, pray tell?
If you can leave your “if it’s liberal than it can’t be any good” bias aside, you might read through this study by John Boswell:
“Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century”
John Boswell (1947-1994) was the A. Whitney Griswold Professor of History at Yale University and the author of The Royal Treasure, The Kindness of Strangers, and Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe.
Or this —
“What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality” by Daniel Helminiak.
He’s a bit of a light-weight, but we can live with that:
Ph.D. (theology, 1979): Joint Doctoral Program at Boston College and Andover Newton Theological School . Dissertation: One in Christ: An Exercise in Systematic Theology, Committee: Richard P. McBrien, (Director), George Peck, Theodore M. Steeman. Assistant to Prof. Bernard Lonergan, Boston College, in these courses: Myth and Theology, Symbol and Analogy, Insight and Method in Theology, Macroeconomics and the Dialectic of History.
S.T.L. (theology, 1968), S.T.B. (theology), Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, Italy
So I am supposed to believe that the exegesis of a few very liberal modern scholars should trump 2000 years of scholarly interpretation on these texts? Sorry, not buying it.
Dennis,
And what’s this nonsense about the Jews not being guilty for killing our Lord? Do they expect us to deny what’s plainly written in the Bible just because after 2000 years anti-Semitism has become unfashionable?
Jimmy Mac, this does not change the self-evident truth that engaging in sexual acts that demean the inherent dignity of the human person is a form of slavery for Love is not possessive nor does it serve to manipulate.
The Good News is because God Loves us, The Truth of Love can set us free.
Nancy,
Could you be more specific in your reference to “sexual acts that demean the inherent dignity of the human person”? I suspect you mean particular things people do with their own body (in relation to other bodies of different sex), but you might well refer to sexual acts of any kind that occur outside a marriage, including kissing, holding hands, going to ‘second base’, etc. I find your poetic imprecision a stumbling block when these matters get discussed.
The more relevant conference might be the attitude toward hetero marriages. The hierarchy has bungled that up substantially.
David Nickol: an outstanding response to Dennis on blaming the Jews for deicide.
There, you have 19 centuries of biblical interpretation that is today considered erroneous, despite clear, unequivocal condemnation of the Jews in Matthew 25:27 “His blood be on us and on our children.”
To answer Dennis: Yes, you are “supposed to believe that the exegesis of … modern scholars should trump 2000 years of scholarly interpretation.” Only I would not classify B16 as a “very liberal modern scholar,” nor is the number of scholars confined to “a few,” as you suggested in your description.
There is a fascinating review of B16′s new book about Jesus of Nazareth, where the impossibility of the synoptics’ account of Jesus’s crucifixion is clearly explained:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/mar/12/jesus-nazareth-pope-benedict-review
“Any historian familiar with Judaism must realise that the synoptic timetable is impossible: Jesus’s two trials and crucifixion could not have taken place on Passover day. Obliged to make a critical choice, the pope judges the synoptic chronology erroneous and opts correctly for that of the fourth gospel. However, he wants to have it both ways.
Instead of adopting the coherent story from John’s gospel, he transfers the synoptic details that are missing from John, including the Jewish trial, to the day before Passover.
But taking such liberties turns out to be costly: the denial of the last supper’s paschal character flatly contradicts the clear mention of the feast in the synoptics and, further, clashes with the reference that Jesus and his party had sung the halleluiah psalms, “the hymn” concluding the Passover dinner, before they departed to Gethsemane.
A tougher challenge soon follows. Who is to be blamed for the death of Jesus? A decree of the Second Vatican Council prevents the pope from following 19 centuries of Catholic tradition and pointing the finger at the Jews. So what about Matthew 27:25, which states that, after asking for the release of Barabbas, “the people as a whole” shouted the fateful words, “His blood be on us and on our children”?
Here the pope displays courage for a Christian leader of his disposition and correctly concedes that what Matthew reports is not a “historical fact”: the whole Jewish people, he argues, could not have foregathered outside Pilate’s residence. The exoneration of the Jews from the crime of deicide thus receives papal approval: the guilt lies, he declares, with the temple aristocracy and the pro-Barabbas mob.
Legally, in fact, the chief culprit was Pilate, the notoriously cruel and lawless Roman governor, who was later dismissed from office and sent to Rome to account for his crimes.
One should add that the pope spoils the effect of his denial of general Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus by explaining the verse in Matthew as a “theological etiology” – an anticipated justification by Matthew of the terrible fate and total destruction the Jews brought on themselves by demanding Christ’s execution.”
William, let us not pretend that there is no difference between appropriate and inappropriate sexual acts and sexual relationships or that respect for the inherent dignity of the human person is a “stumbling block”.
The wider point is the profound impact of Scriptural literalism that has dominated so much Catholic teaching — mine at least.
I believe the damage is incalculable, whether for women, the LGBT community, the Jews, members of other faiths, or those Catholics taught to equate the literal with the fullness of truth.
What to do about the fact that there is no valid archeological evidence that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, or wandered the Sinai for 40 years? That most likely the Israelites were originally a subset of Canaanites who revolted against a ruling class.
It is sad to see the truths of the faith so constricted that people are left more with stone than bread, or otherwise feel threatened by anything beyond the literal. Reality is much deeper than that, and our God so beyond our small minds.
As for the spectrum of human sexuality, much much more humility is needed, for we truly understand so little. For example, “God made them male and female” is no certainty for any OB/GYN who delivers a transgendered baby and thinks he/she knows the orientation from what is visible physically — as so many tragic outcomes from premature surgeries show. Straight from the womb, and not fully one or the other.
Context, context in Scriptural interpretations, please. The struggle to find our way never ends, but let it not be foreclosed by a narrowness that assumes revelation needs no further unfolding.
Agreed. Let us not pretend. Explain. Clarify. Amplify. Unpack. Paraphrase.
I’ll ask my earlier question a somewhat different way: Does Catholic teaching on sexual ethics demand a working theory for the nature of same-sex attraction (in light of the intrinsic evil of acting on it)?
Is this attraction itself a gift, a curse, a fruit of our fallen nature, a genetic condition, a random visitation of bad luck, a test, a matter of poor parenting? Is there any definitive account of the nature of homosexuality as a disposition/orientation that receives a Catholic stamp of approval?
Is there an explanation for what #25/29 means?.
To William FitzGerald,
Your question is on target, and I await some official Catholic definition.
I find an internal contradiction in church teaching: how can the expression of something be sinful, if its essence is not sinful? I thought that essence and expression needed to be congruent to make sense.
Too much theological and verbal gymnastics required.
I don’t think the Church gives thoroughgoing explanations of most human desires. I could be wrong.
Fundamentalists work hard to make the Bible hateful. Reading the stories of David and Jonathan or the male-composed Song of Songs that writes to erotically of male beauty I think the fundamentalists have missed something, due to a lack of human and literary sensibility.
“Is this attraction itself a gift, a curse, a fruit of our fallen nature, a genetic condition, a random visitation of bad luck, a test, a matter of poor parenting? Is there any definitive account of the nature of homosexuality as a disposition/orientation that receives a Catholic stamp of approval?”
None of the above — all of the above are based on faulty hermeneutical frames. Homosexuality is just sexuality — a gift if you like; but a gift that everyone has.
Likewise, does the Church have an anthropological explanation for the temptation of infidelity?
Jean, I’m intrigued by your observation: “All these types of events merely underscore the divide between the Church and its gay members. What good can come of such a series? What could possibly be said that hasn’t been said already that will simply offend on one side and wound on the other?”
The Church on one side. The gays on the other. The Church obliged to wound. Over and over.
Because, as Dennis says, there’s that inconvenient rag-bag, the handful of well-worn scripture verses we, the Church, have no choice except to trot out again and again. Wounding the gays. On the other side of the line. We the Church. Its heterosexual members. You the gays. Over there. We talk. You listen. We own the scriptures. You receive them.
In the past, meetings similar to the one being announced now were held–meetings of a sort–and the Church announced to slaves that they should be content to live in their condition of slavery. Sorry to wound you, the Church said. But the scriptures say, after all.
And those who owned slaves and supported slavery could, for centuries, smugly assume that they were the Church. And the slaves were on the other side of the line, unfortunately having to be wounded. Because the scriptures are clear, after all. They say what they say.
And in the past, meetings of a sort were held in which the Church announced to women that they must accept their lot of subjugation to men. Sorry to wound you, the Church said. But the scriptures say, after all.
And men could smugly assume that they were the Church, and owned the church in a unilateral way. And the female members of the church were on the other side of a line, with no choice except to hear the wounding scriptures. Which the Church had no choice except to proclaim. Because they exist, after all. And they say what they say.
The Church has stopped at least some of the outrageous behavior in which it once engaged in the preceding two cases, quoting a rag-tag handful of well-worn and oh-so-certain bible verses as it did so. It may well one day stop the behavior when it comes to its gay and lesbian members.
And as it does so, it may begin to think about how the scriptures are chock-full of reminders to make love, justice, and mercy central. Not wounding. Or not giving unwarranted power and privilege to one set of God’s children at the expense of another.
Since the scriptures, the church, and God belong to no one bunch of us.
David,
Your need to create a diversion on the issue of the Jews and the crucifixion shows your tacit agreement with my point – the texts on homosexuality really say what they seem to say. I appreciate your support.
Carolyn,
You seem to have rejected the entire canon of scripture as innacurate. My question is to you then, is what should be the guide for faith and morals for the future? Are you willing to write your own gospel so we have something to go by?
Dennis, I’m perplexed to read your references to “the texts on homosexuality.”
If the word “homosexual/ity” was coined only in the latter half of the 19th century, and the psychological phenomenon to which the word points (and to identify which it was coined) began to understood by psychological researchers only at that point in history, how can the scriptures possibly contain “texts on homosexuality”?
How can they use a word that did not even exist until the 19th century?
And how can they presume a concept unknown to the biblical writers?
Is it possible our certainty that the scriptures reflect what we want to believe now in the 21st century may be entirely misplaced? And that the scriptures may be much more ambiguous about the issue of “homosexuality” than we imagine?
While they don’t seem ambiguous to me at all about the centrality of love, justice, and mercy to the spiritual life. And while they talk constantly about those matters, when only six or so murky verses about “homosexuality” are ever trotted out to combat the gays.
None of those six originating with Jesus, who is absolutely silent about “homosexuality.” But never about love, justice, and mercy.
“Likewise, does the Church have an anthropological explanation for the temptation of infidelity?”
I will assume, Mark, that you are not “tempted” to engage in sexual acts with men, including mental acts involving sexualized fantasies. But why not? Or perhaps you do feel tempted to such things or were at one time but by the grace of God developed the spiritual resources to re-orient yourself?
Why do some people discover that their innate drive to relate to others as a sexualized being are oriented toward those of the same-sex and not to those of the opposite sex? Perhaps Catholicism has no answer to this question. Or will accept what explanations that natural and human sciences can furnish. Or perhaps it is to ever remain a mystery.
In any case, if homosexual desire is natural to the extent that its manifestation as desire must be accepted as a given, a gift even, how can we celebrate this form of desire as part of the beauty of creation even as we instruct against acting on that desire in mind and in body?
As to the spectrum of human sexuality, let us not pretend that it has only been Catholics who, since The Beginning, have been living in relationship as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters…
Oh what a tangled web they weave…
And your point, Nancy, is…?
Where does sexual attraction come from? Why does it come in different flavors?
I will close with this thought.
The question is really this: Does God speak through the Bible?
Being that there is little interest in struggling with these texts honestly, I can only come to the conclusion that almost everyone on this string believes that He does not. This is a tragedy, since the only conclusion to this belief is that God has left us to ourselves in a sinful and often harsh world. In such a situation, we are left with “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Judges 21:25. But this is a clear violation of what the Bible tells us to do, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.” Proverbs 3:5. Do we really want to depend on Carolyn’s gospel? Or mine?
The second alternative is to believe that God does speak through scripture. This is not always simple, as Carolyn’s B16 reference shows above. One must struggle to understand the text and avoid literal interpretations. But I believe that an honest approach to looking at the text will prove fruitful. On this issue, to say “the Bible has nothing to say on this subject” is intellectually dishonest. A fair person looking at the combined testimony of Gen. 2, Gen. 19, Deut. 23, Lev. 18, Lev. 20, 1 Kings 14, 2 Kings 23, 1 Cor. 6, Rom. 1, 1 Tim. 1, and Jude 1 can see how they all point in one direction (with no passages pointing the opposite way).
So we are left with two paths, follow God’s sometimes difficult Word and struggle with it, or make up our own. I’ll stick with God.
Your need to create a diversion on the issue of the Jews and the crucifixion shows your tacit agreement with my point – the texts on homosexuality really say what they seem to say.
Dennis,
It was not, of course, a diversion. It was an example of how an interpretation (the guilt of the Jews) that spanned two millennia has been rejected. The very recent and very dramatic changes in the Church’s attitudes toward the Jews does not prove anything at all about homosexuality. But it does demonstrate that long-held interpretations of scripture can and do change. Of course, no doubt there are many who will insist that the Gospels do plainly teach that the Jews are guilty of deicide. And there are many, too, who would insist that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true.
“So we are left with two paths, follow God’s sometimes difficult Word and struggle with it, or make up our own. I’ll stick with God.”
Two cheers for the power of binary thinking: ‘a’ or not ‘a’.
I thought God sent the Holy Spirit to guide, comfort and encourage us.
Another binary: scripture AND tradition.
William F., my point is, all persons, regardless of race or ethnicity, have been created equal as persons, while being complementary as male and female, since The Beginning. The fact that you would describe sexual attraction as a “flavor” is evidence enough that I can not engage in a respectful conversation with you. Since this is a Catholic forum, I suggest you read The Sermon on The Mount regarding the sin of adultery.
“If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, Who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given to you. But ask in Faith, never doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind; for the doubter, being double-minded and unstable in every way, must not expect to receive anything from The Lord.” – James
Now that the line has been drawn in the sand, it will be interesting to see the response of the shepherds. Will they ascent to The Truth of Love? At this moment it is late.
Dennis,
Thank you for your reasoned commentary on this subject. It’s refreshing to see this kind of thoughtful input on the dotCommonweal blog.
Nancy,
I’m amazed that my use of the word “flavor” is a conversation stopper. Isn’t the varieties of sexual preference and expression precisely what is at issue here, whether one calls those preferences orientations, dispositions, orderings or, playfully, “flavors.”
Regardless of the terms that indicate difference, how do you account for the fact that some people discover themselves attracted to those of the same sex rather than complementary sex? Given the complementarity of which you speak, why do some not desire their sexual complement?
Dennis, here is an exercise for you: read through the entire Bible and underline all the passages that state a command, in stark terms, for what one ought and ought not to do, dietary passages included. How many of these things do we now understand in terms of social norms that have no or very little relevance to Christianity in our times or even generally? Are women now commanded to keep silent in church? Do you abhor the eating of shellfish? Are we morally neutral towards slavery or polygamy? Have you sold everything you own and given it to the poor?
Your reading is, above all, selective. Even those who adhere to the sola scriptura normative view of Christianity struggle to comprehend and interpret the passages on male to male sexual activity in terms of a modern understanding of sexuality.
Thanks, but be careful Frank, comments like that can get your entry expunged by the moderator. This has happened to me on a number of strings on this blog.
“Since the scriptures, the church, and God belong to no one bunch of us.”
Yah, that’s true, but it’s the hierarchs who make the rules about what’s a sin and what’s not. If the rules that prevent me from receiving are wrong, then God will make it right.
I guess I’ve lived so long away from the table that I’m comfy there. So I show up, I try to live in the spirit of the Church as much as I can. I hope for the best.
Barbara,
We’re not talking about a prescription of the provisional Law, that Paul said was like a tutor, watching over the childhood of revealed religion.
We’re talking about an activity that Paul says arises from idolatry and is prima facie contrary to reason.
Jean, thanks for your reply. I agree: we wait on God to right injustice and bring light where there’s darkness now. I think I may be slightly less inclined as I wait to relinquish the rule-making task entirely to the hierarchs, though.
And I hope as we take our places at the table, that we can keep setting new place settings for all those who have been excluded. To my mind, that’s central to what the Eucharist is all about.
The discussion here almost makes me despair -I contrast it to the Catholic Anglican dialogue going on currently(at Berkley, i beleive) that is respectful, lays out positions thoughtfully and wil probably not get too far in closing the gap (and there is one!) on views on homosexuality and sexuality in general and the church.
I think everyone on Board here respects scripture and trying to hit someone over the head by proof text arguments is unhelpful. Similarly, using “right” and left” labels for individuals and groups doesn’t enhance the discusion.
I think also we can understand that our understanding of what God commands grows as our knowledge of issues grow in many ways including human sexuality, the role of women and other issues that will continue to divide us.
Maybe Jean is right in saying the is just a continuation of divide, bu tI think we need to keep working our way forward; if it causes us to reexamine our approaches, it may well be helpful.
We’re not talking about a prescription of the provisional Law, that Paul said was like a tutor, watching over the childhood of revealed religion.
Kathy,
Certainly Leviticus and Deuteronomy are part of the “provisional” Law, and those who oppose homosexuality on biblical grounds always make use of Leviticus 18:22 and/or Leviticus 20:13.
What do you make of the idea of the “provisional” Law in the light of what J. Peter Nixon said in a recent thread about the work of John P. Meier?
If this is true, doesn’t it lead to the rather startling conclusion that the earthly Jesus basically wasted his breath debating the interpretation and application of Law that, shortly after his death, his followers decided did not apply to them?
“We’re talking about an activity that Paul says arises from idolatry and is prima facie contrary to reason.”
Fine and dandy if you want to accept that as God-given truth, as a lay person, what does it really matter?
I presume that even if I were a Good Catholic, I would still be obligated to recognize my gay friends and relations as human beings created in the image of God; still responsible for loving them as my neighbor; still responsible for feeding and clothing them, sheltering them, caring for them in sickness, and comforting them in their final days.
If the priests and bishops proscribe gay people from communion, let them be rewarded or punished for that decision as God wills. It’s not my call or the call of any other lay person here.
“We’re talking about an activity that Paul says arises from idolatry and is prima facie contrary to reason.”
Kathy,
What activity (or activities) are you referring to?
David,
I think they applied his interpretation and application of the Law. The Law, for example, already begins to provide for the universal salvific will by allowing foreign nationals to convert. Jesus’ ministry is first of all “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” but it is when the Greeks come to him through Philip that his hour of glory has arrived.
The Law was like a seed that died to produce a rich harvest of nations. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.
William,
Women having sex with women. Men having sex with men. Romans 1:26, as I’m sure you know.
“I presume that even if I were a Good Catholic, I would still be obligated to recognize my gay friends and relations as human beings created in the image of God; still responsible for loving them as my neighbor; still responsible for feeding and clothing them, sheltering them, caring for them in sickness, and comforting them in their final days.”
Jean, of course you are right! But that is not the purpose of the “dialogue” that is being discussed. Folks want to change the Church’s teaching, as has happened in several mainline bodies, to what good effect?
Ok, Kathy. I wasn’t entirely clear what “activity” was “prima facie contrary to reason.” As if reason had anything to do with erotic desire.
Dennis,
Barbara attempted to educate you on the bible. There are so many passages which you should review. You might want to ask why we are not murdering our children anymore.
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother … Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city … And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Is this a fair statement: in a perfect world, a world without sin, there would be no homosexual desire?
Is the existence of such impulses, orientations, dispositions, leanings, etc. a sign of our fallen nature as a species? Will gay people become straightened in the new heave and new earth at the end of days? Does disorder get re-ordered? Or do we transcend erotic desire all together such that what we were (e.g., straight, gay, etc.) no longer matters?
To add this query to my previous one:
Would it be wrong for a gay person to pray that God change him or her? Or, short of such radical transformations, to be resentful for having turned out differently from most? Is homosexual desire something to be accepted (if not acted upon in mental or physical acts) or something to be overcome?
“But that is not the purpose of the “dialogue” that is being discussed. Folks want to change the Church’s teaching, as has happened in several mainline bodies, to what good effect?”
That’s why I think this whole enterprise is a waste of time. Dialogues that attempt to debate teaching simply divide people and distract them from the obligations they have to their neighbors.
These dialogues create schism and promote the sins of pride and anger. Those who believe in the current teaching will come away impressed with the purity of their own belief and shaking their heads over the folly of others. Those who don’t believe in current teaching will come away feeling oppressed and resentful.
In my view, if you don’t follow the rules, get what you can from Mass and stay away from the table. If the priests suddenly find that they have no takers on Sunday, perhaps the hierarchy will get it through their heads that they need to minister not only to the saints but to the sinners as well.
Women having sex with women. Men having sex with men. Romans 1:26, as I’m sure you know.
Kathy,
This is not a rhetorical question. Do you (or does anyone else here) know whether St. Paul’s description of the Romans is “fair and balanced”? It seems to me it can’t possibly be. It is not limited to male and female homosexuality.
It sounds like such utter depravity, chaos, and loss of self-control that the only result would be anarchy. How could the Romans hang on to an empire? Do we know know the incidence of homosexuality in first-century Rome?
On line jumps out at me at the moment: “They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.” It’s my understanding that in the Roman world, the father had absolute control over his family, up to and including the power of life and death. Is Paul speaking accurately here about rebelliousness toward parents?
Even the NAB says in a note:
The note continues:
Are we to understand that homosexuality in American society is the result of God’s wrath? It sounds like for Paul, homosexuality and almost every other vice attributed to the Romans was a result of, or punishment for, the behavior Paul is castigating the Romans for. They aren’t bad because they are homosexuals. They are homosexuals because they are bad, and God punished them by making them homosexuals.
“Would it be wrong for a gay person to pray that God change him or her?”
I don’t know, but I find the whole proposition very sad.
I knew a woman in her late 40s, a fundamentalist. She was married and in denial about her homosexuality. When her husband divorced her for a younger woman, she prayed and prayed for God to take away all sexual desire, but it wasn’t working. She went to a doctor to ask for shots to kill her sex drive. (The doctor declined.)
A colloquium that addressed the pain and desperation some gay people feel in the wake of categorical teachings about sex might be more enlightning than dialogues about who’s right.
How does one get past the idea that he or she is one of God’s mistakes, a malformed person?
Perhaps by talking in deeply honest ways about the nature of our desires (beyond “temptation” rhetoric) in a spirit of solidarity, as neighbors.
“In any case, if homosexual desire is natural to the extent that its manifestation as desire must be accepted as a given, a gift even, how can we celebrate this form of desire as part of the beauty of creation even as we instruct against acting on that desire in mind and in body?”
William—
That sentence is structurally equivalent to “If we assume that I am right, isn’t it a contradiction to proceed as if I’m wrong?” That line of inquiry may carry the day in some venues, but I think your more interesting question deals with the origin of our many desires that the Church considers disordered. There is the scientific/technical explanation dealing with the interplay of environment and genetics, but the Church goes much deeper. You found Genesis lacking in nuance and seriousness. On the contrary, I think it addresses the foundation: The evil one leading man, not without his complicity, into thinking that what harms him is acceptable, a gift even.
Jean, if one of your married friends was experiencing sexual desires outside of Marriage would you then suggest they go to the Doctor for some “shots”? Would you suggest that they receive therapy to change this “sexual orientation” or would you desire that they have enough respect and Love for themselves, their spouse, and their family to overcome this sexual desire? Would you claim that because they are experiencing sexual desires outside of Marriage that they are malformed, a “mistake”, or would you, out of Love and respect for your married friend, desire that she receives the proper counseling that will help her overcome this sexual desire?
Nancy, I might not have been clear above.
This woman was faithful to her husband until he ditched her. That’s when she began to have homosexual urges (though I would bet that she probably had them during and before her relatively brief marriage).
I encouraged my friend to talk to her clergyman (she viewed counseling with skepticism) because I felt she might do herself some harm. I asked God to help her. I thought the whole idea of shots was shocking and sad.
Because I don’t think homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, I would not remonstrate with gay friends and relations to seek counseling to “overcome” it. I would encourage counseling or talking with a priest if they were deeply depressed or suicidal because of self-loathing or because others were telling them they were doomed to fry in hell for being gay.
While I hate to keep piling up evidence of my being a Bad Catholic, I will further say that I don’t see it as my Christian duty to go around trying to make others sin-free. However, if people seem to be hurting themselves or others (one of my relatives was an alcoholic and habitual drunk driver), I have no qualms about calling the cops if I think they’re endangering others.
Mark,
What I do not understand is why some people are attracted in a sexual way to persons of the same-sex while most others are not. Why is that?
Take my case: I do not experience temptations of a homosexual sort, whether to flirt, fantasize or act on homoerotic desires. I’m not sure why I don’t experience this desire as something I must overcome. However, at an earlier age I suppose my sexuality was sufficiently plastic that things might have turned out differently. I wondered if being gay was something that would creep up on someone (because certain rougher, meaner lads called my gay to my face. Lots of fairy and fag terms were thrown at me from age 12-16. I liked girls, was painfully shy, and worried that they were right and that I was only fooling myself. Turns out, I was right, or perhaps I decided to be straight. What about you? Did you wrestle with whether or not you were ordered or disordered in your sexuality? Did you feel compassion for those who were susceptible to certain evil inclinations that you were not yourself struggling with? Do you think of homoerotic desire as something to be likened to avarice or sloth? Do you think one’s disordered orientation is something fixable in this life?
Nancy,
When you speak of overcoming a desire, do you mean–beyond not acting upon it–tamping it down or sublimating or do you mean a spiritual process of re-ordering one’s erotic desires so that, where once attracted to those of the same sex now one is again or for the first time interested in persons of the opposite sex? And in either case, do you have a working theory for how one comes to be interested in those of the same sex in the first place?
Jean, you are quite clear. You deny that engaging in demeaning sexual acts is physically, mentally, and spiritually destructive and claim that it is those who desire that their beloved develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships grounded in authentic Love that are responsible for the self-loathing of those who are suffering from a homosexual inclination. You claim that it is not your Christian duty to make others sin-free while claiming that those who refuse to condone demeaning sexual acts are dooming others to “fry in hell”.
Nancy: it appears that the only persons for which “respect for the inherent dignity of the human person is a ‘stumbling block’ ” are, unfortunately you and those who believe like you that persons with same-sex attraction are, ipso facto, always and everywhere doomed to lives of emotion and physically sterility.
You continue to make the insupportable claim that there is a “self-evident truth that engaging in sexual acts that demean —“ meaning, to you, any act between persons of the same gender. There is no evidence that any act of love between any two consenting adults is, in itself, self-evidently demeaning. Just because you continue to repeat this mantra (and you repeat it over and over and over and over again!) does not make it theologocially, spiritually, psychologically or emotionally true.
William–
You have a keen interest in the origin of same-sex attraction. Perhaps you’re in that field of study or it comes from your life experiences. I think the Church’s teaching is that there’s nothing “special” or unique about the temptation–people who have them are no more “malformed” than the rest of us. Since the Fall we’re all susceptible to temptations of various sorts and, of course, we’re bound to treat other with compassion, and help them overcome their temptations as best we can. No man is an island.
Mark P said: “I could be wrong, but I think Luke Timothy Johnson may have a family member dealing with same-sex attractions.”
What better reason for LTJ to take a second, third or one-hundredth look at what passes for time-dishonored scriptural “interpretation.”
LTJ is right at home with many people who can be found in PFLAG (http://community.pflag.org/Page.aspx?pid=194&srcid=-2) and Fortunate Families (http://www.fortunatefamilies.org/). They, too, “have a family member dealing with same-sex attractions,” and most of them are parents who continue to question and challenge the dishonor that passes as Church teaching.
Carolyn D – Dennis: “Yes, you are ‘supposed to believe that the exegesis of … modern scholars should trump 2,000 years of scholarly interpretation.’ ”
Too bad the compilers of the CCC didn’t bear that in mind as well.
Bob N mentioned proof texting as a form of clobbering.
I’ve always found this example of the oft-times fallacy of proof-texting to be helpful:
“A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.”
“A ‘proof text’ was originally a neutral term for the scriptural text that proved (or was seen to prove) a particular doctrine. However, the overuse and even abuse of proof texts (i.e., Quoting Out of Context as an Appeal to Authority) to defend practically any position eventually led to ‘proof text’ taking on a mainly negative―sometimes even pejorative―connotation.”
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/quotcont.html
I do have a ‘keen interest’ in this topic, though I can’t say for sure why. Perhaps it’s because I discovered how profound the love of a committed spousal relationship is and feel sad, mystified even, that God closes that option off to a significant number of people. I can’t bring myself to believe that same-sex desire is anything like a “temptation” to be overcome. Part of me wishes that those who are gay will accept the discipline of chastity even as they openly acknowledge the truth of their inclination, wishes they would refuse to marry anyone.
However, when my gay friends and neighbors choose to live in committed relationships and be sexually active I’m fine with that. I have no strong interest in seeing them live otherwise.
“Part of me wishes that those who are gay will accept the discipline of chastity even as they openly acknowledge the truth of their inclination, wishes they would refuse to marry anyone.”
Why?
“Part of me wishes that those who are gay will accept the discipline of chastity even as they openly acknowledge the truth of their inclination, wishes they would refuse to marry anyone.”
Why?
Good question. Because it would make it easier for ME, frankly, if gay people chose what the institutional Church and many Catholics say God wants gay people to choose–a life of holy chastity. Then I would not have to feel so divided in my allegiance to orthodoxy and solidarity with gay people to secure legal protection and affirmation of the reality and virtue of healthy same-sex relationships. Perhaps that is selfish of me. But gay people do not seem any more inclined to accept a life of mute sexual expression than straight people, no more likely to choose chastity as a permanent life choice than others.
I’m not persuaded that, in the words from above, God has closed off the option of a committed spousal relationship, nor have I found what seems to me to be a well-reasoned argument that could convince me homosexuals are innately disordered. Like others have said, I don’t see any possibility of dialogue on the topic, given there doesn’t seem to be a starting point both sides could agree on–what dialogue is possible with an organization that says you are by nature disordered? A lesbian colleague of mine uses an intentionally inflammatory comparison to ask whether it would make sense for a person of color to attempt to change from within an organization premised upon the notion that as a black person she is inferior. Perhaps the best use of the conference is as Jean suggested–a safe supportive space for LBGT Catholics and those in solidarity with them to share their experiences. Almost all of my gay and lesbian friends have, after decades of devoted service to the Church, decided to leave and go where they are welcome to be and live as who they are, while continuing to serve Christ and His Church. They speak to me of how demeaning it was to hear themselves compared with rapists, incestors, pedophiles, and necrophiliacs, while the widespread scandal of heterosexuals refusing to abide by Church teachings on divorce, birth control, adultery, and heterosexual chastity was virtually ignored. As a straight woman, I could not in good conscience urge them to stay and I confess to guilt feelings that I have so far chosen to remain. I think a key question is why do they stay as long as they do? And why haven’t more heterosexuals joined them in solidarity?
Mary–
To clarify, the Church’s teaching is that the desire is disordered, not the person. Talk of people being inherently disordered, or inferior, or other vile things, impedes meaningful dialogue. I have found that the more secure one is in his position, the more fairly he’ll state an opposing view.
Exactly. Persons have disordered desires.
All persons–with two exceptions–have disordered desires. Proof text alert:
“Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Gen 6:5
No language exists that can change the fact that engaging in demeaning sexual acts oppress and imprison, bringing great moral, psychological, and physical suffering. To trivialize the true Good of a Holy Marriage, to corrupt the minds of the innocent, to disregard the meaning of our inherent dignity and the purpose of our complementary nature as male and female, to deny authentic Love, is just another symptom of the harm tha continues to be done by those who deny there is a difference between appropriate and inappropriate sexual behaviors and sexual relationships, NOT by those who may be struggling with unwanted sexual desires and truly want to learn to develop Holy relationships and friendships grounded in authentic Love. No doubt the widespread group that Mary refers to, the group who refuses to accept The Catholic Church’s teaching on God’s intention for Marriage and the Family, are among the group of those who deny there is a difference between appropriate and inappropriate sexual acts and sexual relationships, and have caused great scandal in His Church. For those who struggle with a homosexual inclination and desire to be set free, I Pray that you will trust in God’s Divine Mercy and the Truth of Love that can set all men free.
@Mark, thanks, yes, I understand that’s a distinction the Church wishes to make. I apologize if I’m being difficult, but it makes no sense to me at all. Frankly, it seems like a rhetorical strategy rather than a philosophical stance, something akin to “guns don’t kill people, people do.” It seems to rely on a view of sexuality as a something added on to humanity (like an accessory–you either prefer Birkenstocks or Blahniks but you can get by without shoes) rather than inseparable from who we are. And, regardless, for some gays and lesbians, when some of the leaders of their Church take active political stances using slippery slope arguments along the lines of “What’ll these people want next? Beastiality?” it doesn’t seem to model “fairly stating an opposing view.”
Mary–
I apologize if I’m being difficult too, but this is not a distinction the Church “wishes” to make, it’s a distinction the Church makes, so who’s indulging in rhetorical strategy? Personally, I find it a deeply philosophical distinction, but perhaps you think people are defined by their desires, so that no distinction can fairly be made.
I’m not sure I understand the presumptions inherent in your remark about beastiality–it seems like you’re assuming people indeed can have sexually disordered desires, but I may be misinterpreting your remark.
I appreciate the truth that we all have disordered desires. I often want more of something I already have more than enough of or fixate upon the wish to obtain a particular shirt or sweater. I crave foods I know are bad for me. I could cultivate inappropriate relationships with other women if I aced upon certain impulses I try to recognize in a continual effort to keep priorities and responsibilities in order.
What I am not clear about is how gay people ‘deal’ with their disordered desires for intimacy and connection. Does it require letting other forms of love expand to fill the space of eros? Is it possible to cultivate a desire for something good such that one’s sexual desires are no longer disordered? Does God answer the prayer that one becomes straight (to have one’s desires ordered) or must one hope for the strength to live with disordered sexual desires but not be mastered by them?
Mark,
Seems like you and I agree that it would be good for all perspectives on the issue to model what you call a fair statement of opposing views. We would also agree that there are expressions of sexuality we would condemn (though we’d disagree on specifics, obviously). My reference was to what I consider a patently unfair but common characterization of the view of gays and lesbians as demanding something equivalent to asking the Church to approve of bestiality. That kind of rhetoric illustrates why I don’t think a productive dialogue on the topic is possible, so the goals of the conference may be difficult to achieve. As for the rest, no, I don’t think “desires” and “sexuality” are the same thing. I don’t think one can separate oneself from one’s sexuality. I understand the concept more broadly than in terms of biological function, genitalia or what parts may seem to some inevitably and exclusively to go with other parts, but instead as fully integrated into who we are as intellectual and spiritual individuals, so for me the distinction between the homosexual and the homosexual’s desires for sex with someone of the same sex isn’t at all meaningful. I suspect that’s just something on which we’ll have to disagree. Cheers.
“No language exists that can change the fact that engaging in demeaning sexual acts oppress and imprison, bringing great moral, psychological, and physical suffering”
Tell this–preferably in person–to the many committed gay and lesbian couples I know, some whom I see each week in my church who live lives of Christian witness and service. Perhaps someone you know has brought you great moral, psychological, and physical suffering because of their demeaning acts, but I haven’t seen this oppression and imprisonment. Saying it doesn’t make it so.
Who we are as intellectual and spiritual individuals are men and women, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters..
I submit this entire thread as evidence for why dialogues about homosexuality are a futile waste of time.
No one has persuaded or enlightened anyone here; no one has said anything that hasn’t already been said on many other threads about this topic. Including me.
Jean Raber is so right. I’ll make this post my last, but I thank and pray for all my interlocutors.
One cannot be in a committed relationship if one is engaging in demeaning sexual acts. Christian witness and service is grounded in authentic Love.
Jean and William – Thank you for your thoughtful comments. On blogs, it is difficult to change the minds of people who base their beliefs mainly on appeals to authority or by defining their own terms. However, several times, your posts (and others) have moved people out from their talking points to engage in discussion, which deepened my understanding of what people believe about sexuality and the Church.
So maybe the discussion was not a complete waste of time, especially in light of the parable of the mustard seed…er, for those who consider scripture a legitimate source of authority.
From what I’ve read here, everyone here considers scripture a legitimate source of authority. But we are Catholics. Tthe Church teaches that tradition and continuing revelation are important, as well. We continue to grow on our pilgrim journey as individuals and as Church through these conversations.
Bob–
Agreed. No worries; my parting words were meant to be cheeky, not accusatory. But please no one use the phrase “We are Church” because I’ve just had a full breakfast.
I find the “complete waste of time conclusion” troubling. What it communicates to me is this: I’m somewhat troubled by the fact that gay folks aren’t at the table. But I can’t spend a great deal of my own time and energy as someone who’s not gay bemoaning that fact, trying to understand it, or doing something about it.
Because the rules are the rules. The scriptures say what the scriptures say. And, when all is said and done, don’t the gays help create the conditions for their own displacement simply by being who they are in a very public way and creating these cross-grained demands for inclusion?
Running beneath this “complete wast of time” conclusion is, there seems to me, a troubling presupposition about who owns the church. About who really counts and who doesn’t. About who has the right to proclaim and define the scriptures and who doesn’t.
I read the long silences that ensue following discussions like this not merely as frustrated silence–we still can’t talk about these issues in any productive way–but as silences that are also tacit statements of ownership. Statements about who’s comfortable at the table, despite someone else’s absence. And, ultimately, statements about who needs to keep quiet in order to assure the comfort levels of those at the table, who own the table and everything on it.
Beyond all the haggling about this scripture verse and that, there are some fundamental questions about what it means to be authentically catholic embedded in these discussions. I find the ability of many American Catholics who enjoy full entree within the church to tolerate and remain silent about the exclusion of some of their brothers and sisters from the table on grounds of sexual orientation baffling–because of what it says about how we view catholicity.
If Jesus could talk to a woman who was on her sixth husband and made her an apostle no less, we can welcome homosexuals in the church.
Bob, I am wondering if you can explain to us what this “new” revelation is that now affirms the celebration of sex outside a Holy Marriage between a husband and wife, united as one body, one spirit in Love, creating a new family?
Hi, Nancy. I don’t know yet, but I’m listening. That may not be enough of an answer, but that’s where I am now.
The problem with this kind of discussion for me is that it is very tempting to say, intentionally, something as hurtful and vicious as the Dennis Di Mauros and Nancy Danielsons do, when the proper attitude ought to be, “Forgive them, Father, for they are possibly unaware of what they are doing.” Why canned arguments or repetitive, batty, inane non-arguments are so infuriating is difficult to articulate, but for me they make civil discussion almost impossible. I would like to think I would say this even if I were on the opposite side of the debate.
Although I don’t hesitate to criticize the position of the Catholic Church on issues regarding sexuality, it does seem to me that the official Church itself is less hysterical and more rational and humane than the defenders of “orthodoxy” in discussions like this. I can only imagine I would be much more comfortable discussing the Church’s position on homosexuality with Pope Benedict XVI himself than with some here who claim to be standing up for the the teachings of the Church. I think he would listen to what I have to say and make cordial, careful, nuanced responses that would bear little resemblance to much of what the defenders of “orthodoxy” spew here.
I don’t think Benedict would ever say something like, “One cannot be in a committed relationship if one is engaging in demeaning sexual acts. Christian witness and service is grounded in authentic Love.”
The Catholic Church teaches that out of Love and respect for all persons, we must never condone homosexual sexual acts or any sexual act, that demeans the inherent Dignity of the human person. In what way is that statement hurtful or vicious, David?
“Context, context in Scriptural interpretations, please.”
Caroline (and Nancy!) –
Indeed, indeed. It’s the lack of understanding of how language works — particularly the lack of understnding of the function of context in communication that leads to the deadly literalism that weighs down so many readings of Scripture. Unfortunately, schools don’t teach people how language itself works, so many, many people are unaware of just how ambiguous language is. They especially don’t realize that the *context* of a text — what *goes with* a text (con= with) is what makes us automatically interpret a text one way rather than another possible way or *many other* possible ways. ( Some people get to understand this in poetry classes when they’re taught to look for many meanings, but lots of people resist such exercises in understanding, even of poetry. They like their language neat.) But if we are wise, we do not invariably accept these automatic interpretations as true.
So many people — including you, O Defender of the Faith, Nancy Danielson — seem to think that there is such a thing as ONE literal meaning of a word or set of words, and that the literal meaning that occurs to you first is always the *true* meaning, that is, the meaning which was intended by the speaker. But all the more reason to learn the ancient history of the Jews to try to understand what the Hebrew words meant in *their* context as distinguished from our own — and not just in the broad historical context(s) of ancient Judaism (note that plural), but also in the particular contexts of the styles and assumptions of particular writers and speakers.
Context, context. (That needs to be repeated as often as ‘complexity, complexity’.).
I said before this thread has been dispiriting and I can understand Jean thinking there’s no possible hope of moving forward.
But I thank David for saying what had to be said and should be said here more often: we have too many canned or inane batty arguments – and often repeated. Ann is too kind.
But, one can hope that the conference on sexuality won’t have that kind of discussion amd the whole complex set of questions on human sexuality and the Church (not just homosexuality as Dennis hijacked this thread to be and not well, I might add)) will be discussed with intelligence vigor and progress.
” Are you willing to write your own gospel so we have something to go by?”
What a snide remark. Not one calculated to persuade. Cut it out. You’re wastin our time.
Why do you capitalize so much, Nancy? What kind of argument are you making when you say “Dignity” vs “dignity”? You make it an ontological category it would seem. They become super-nouns, abstract Platonic forms. That’s my reading of the rhetorical move so distinctive of your prose and almost of no one else on this blog or most other places. But how would you describe it?
As far as “hurtful or vicious,” I wouldn’t go so far as to use those adjectives, but there’s a way in which your argumentative moves, including style, seem designed to deny the reality of other people’s experience. You speak Truth, but it’s always couched in absolutist terms. Take your use of the phrase “demeaning acts.” You talk of Love, but there’s something profoundly uncharitable about your prose. (I’m sorry to say it, but there it is.) I think your writing is a product of a great deal of pain and anger and that the way you have perfected your performance of orthodoxy on these pages seems at some level designed to wound more than it is designed to prick the conscience.
What surprises me is that nothing you’ve ever said about the homosexual relations has any ring of truth to my experience. Indeed, it has a surreal character I find as unnerving as I do unconvincing.
;”If the word “homosexual/ity” was coined only in the latter half of the 19th century, and the psychological phenomenon to which the word points (and to identify which it was coined) began to understood by psychological researchers only at that point in history, how can the scriptures possibly contain “texts on homosexuality”?”
William,
Early texts and oral traditions spoke of eclipses before there were words for the phenomenon. Concepts always precede words for them. The question is what were the composers of the Bible talking about when they describes actions that we would interpret as homosexual or some meaning of “homosexual”. (Yes, by now “homosexual” has a number of meanings.).
“Being that there is little interest in struggling with these texts honestly,”
More insults. Sheesh.
“. . . or the doubter, being double-minded and unstable in every way, must not expect to receive anything from The Lord.” – James
Nancy,
James is obviously exaggerating here. He just said that God showers understanding on us all. Further, he seems to be talking here about people who don’t really believre *anything*. Most people doubt some things somewhere along the line. Even Benedict XVI talks about it.
You really need to learn something about rhetoric, especially the rhetoric used in the Bible.
Nancy,
You said: “One cannot be in a committed relationship if one is engaging in demeaning sexual acts. Christian witness and service is grounded in authentic Love.” In the first same-sex wedding in San Francisco in 2008, a lesbian couple, ages 83 and 87, were married after having been together for 56 years. To say such things about people like this is both heartless and mindless.
Ann, Truth is consistent. Consider, for example the context and the demonstrative THIS in for this reason…
Genesis 2:24 -http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis2.htm
Mark 10:7 -http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark10.htm
Ephesians 5:13 -http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ephesians/ephesians5.htm
Matthew 19:15 -http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew19.htm
From the context of the trinitarian relationship of Tradition, Scripture, and the Teaching of the Magisterium, God’s intention for Marriage and The Family has remained consistent from The Beginning.
That should read:
Genesis 2:24
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis2.htm
Mark 10:7
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark10.htm
Ephesians 5:31
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ephesians/ephesians5.htm
Matthew 19:5
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew19.htm
Ann Olivier (I think there may be more than one on Ann in the thread now? and so am using your full name), thanks for your response.
You say, “Early texts and oral traditions spoke of eclipses before there were words for the phenomenon. Concepts always precede words for them. ”
Perhaps. But I’d respond that there are concepts and there are concepts.
Describing an empirical happening like an eclipse seems to me rather different than describing a much more complex psychological concept like sexual orientation. And so I’d find it easier to accept that an ancient text that seems to have a description of an easily observed empirical happening like an eclipse is describing what we ourselves would identify as an eclipse in our contemporary scientifically charged worldivew.
I’d be far less inclined to think that those writing about “homosexuality” in the scriptures had the same notion we do that some human beings are born with a more or less fixed predisposition to erotic attraction to members of their own sex.
And so I think that imposing the word “homosexual” on biblical texts that are murky at best, in exegetical terms, is retrojecting into our translations a concept of which the biblical authors had no notion at all, and of which they couldn’t have dreamed at the time the scriptures were written.
Nancy –
Everyone agrees that to demean anyone is unloving. But the question is: just *why* is homosexual expression of love demeaning? What makes it demeaning? Because its not what you or I or most of the rest of us are attracted to is no reason. Most people don’t like broccoli. Some do. Are the ones who eat broccoli thereby disordered, perverse, etc., etc., ?
Give the specific reason you think gay acts are disordered. Nobody is disputing your general principle that to demean is not to love.
How dramatic this thread has become.
Gay sexual acts are disordered on the physical level. Sexual acts in marriage must be open to life. They must make physical sense, according to the purpose of the members of the body. Gay sexual acts do not. They are contrary to reason even on the physical level, and contrary to reason because they are by nature infertile.
Stating that one is viciously hurt when someone who sees things differently states his position regarding certain actions in unambiguous, if stark, terms, tends to foreclose the possibility for meaningful dialogue. For another take on this series:
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/03/more-than-a-monologue.html
Gay sexual acts are disordered on the physical level. Sexual acts in marriage must be open to life. They must make physical sense, according to the purpose of the members of the body. Gay sexual acts do not. They are contrary to reason even on the physical level, and contrary to reason because they are by nature infertile.
Kathy,
This purely physicalist approach to sex acts applies equally to all. A married couple using contraception is doing something wrong, according to this approach, for much the same reasons that a same-sex couple is doing something wrong. They are, in Nancy’s point of view, engaging in “demeaning sexual acts.” Likewise for heterosexual couples engaging in “nonprocreative” sexual acts (e.g., oral sex). I think it would be bizarre for someone to claim that married couples who use some form of artificial contraception “cannot be in a committed relationship.”
I do not think it is the position of the Catholic Church that same-sex couples cannot be in a committed relationship (as opposed to may not), or that same-sex couples are incapable of loving each other. Even accepting the physicalist interpretation of sexual morality, it does not follow that people who have nonprocreative sex are not committed to one another and do not love each other.
As we saw in a recent discussion here on contraception, a great many people, including Catholics (and priests) do not accept the physicalist approach to sexuality in such Church pronouncements as Humanae Vitae. We could have very much the same discussion about sexuality without ever referring to homosexuality.
David, it is neither heartless nor is it mindless to state the self-evident truth that fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, brothers and sisters, two men, two women, children, “are not demeaned, their equality is not rejected, their Love is not denied when they are barred from marrying one another.” -Hadley Arkes
By the physicalist standard described above it would be contrary to reason, unnatural, demeaning and degrading for a married heterosexual couple to engage in kissing during their sexual relations, since lips, mouths, and tongues were not designed for/intended for sexual purposes.
Mark,
There can be no “meaningful dialog” with those who are so convinced of their position that they refuse to entertain any idea that does not mesh 100% with what they already believe. There can, of course, be a civil discussion or debate, but I think “dialog” requires listening to what the other side says and making a thoughtful reply. But there can be neither dialog nor civil discussion and debate with those who, to quote my own characterization, put forward “canned arguments or repetitive, batty, inane non-arguments.”
I don’t think it is ever inappropriate to say that certain remarks strike one as hurtful or even unintentionally (one hopes) vicious. An appropriate response would be, “It is not my intention to hurt, and I am sorry if I offended you. Nevertheless, my understanding of the facts is . . . . ” I am more than happy to continue a discussion when someone else’s honestly held position strikes me as hurtful . . . as long as the discussion is actually going somewhere. Too often here it is not, and the wiser course is just to opt out.
I’m not sure which epithet I find more unconvincingly reductive: “proof-text” or “physicalist.” Unless someone thinks that we’re disembodied spirits roaming the earth, what we do with our bodies matters.
Contracepted sex is missing one of the elements that makes sex sexual enough to be Catholic–openness to life. Oral sex that is exclusively oral (including ejaculation) is missing two–openness to life and respect for the purposefulness of the body’s physical makeup. Homosexual sex subtracts another element–gender difference.
Now that’s a super turn of phrase. All this time and the problem is that gay sex just hasn’t been sexual ENOUGH to count as Catholic sex. Who knew?
I do not think homosexual relations are inherently sinful or contrary to reason or to nature, notwithstanding the missing elements deemed essential in Catholic theology.
For reasons I do not understand, some people turn out to be gay. I don’t think they should be denied the opportunity to find love and fulfillment in committed relationships.
This conversation has helped to clarify my position.
They are contrary to reason even on the physical level, and contrary to reason because they are by nature infertile.
Kathy,
I think that for a great many people, what is contrary to reason is that there is (and for married couples only), one “form” that the “marital act” must take, which boils down to requiring a husband and wife to perform sex physically, each and every time, as if they were fertile and trying start a pregnancy, even if they are not trying to start a pregnancy and are infertile, old, and infirm.
David–
It is not my intention to hurt, and I am sorry if I offended you. Nevertheless, my understanding of the facts is that you believe meaningful dialogue requires a thoughtful reply, yet you characterize arguments you don’t agree with as batty, inane, etc. Need help here.
David, thank you for that link. I hope everyone reads it. It’s pretty horrifying.
Gotta love the part with the helpful advice that elderly men are impotent because they have unconfessed sin.
I have to say if that bloodless, mechanical, reductionist, SOULLESS answer/discussion counts as an adequate description of what’s enough-sex-to-be-sexual-by-Catholic-standards, then no thanks. And no thanks if that counts as ministry. That kind of juridical crap is precisely why people mock Catholics and the celebate priesthood.
Mary, it’s not as though a confessor is supposed to read manuals out loud to penitents. They’re meant to help form his judgments. Then he talks to people.
“I’d be far less inclined to think that those writing about “homosexuality” in the scriptures had the same notion we do that some human beings are born with a more or less fixed predisposition to erotic attraction to members of their own sex.”
William L. –
Yes, now I see the sense in which you used the term — you mean a distinct, fixed predisposition, etc. I was using it is a broader sense to mean simply all same-sex sexual activity. True, prior to the 19th-20th century there does not seem to have been a concept such as what you mean by “homosexuality” above.
(See, Nancy, the word “homosexual” is ambiguous, and William and I were giving the one symbol two somewhat different meanings. It happens all the time, and unless we clearly say what we’re talking about the other person cannot get what we’re saying. And I certainly agree that truths — plural — are consistent. The problem always is to find the different truths that God intends us to find. Not an easy job.)
Kathy, seems to me a case of garbage in, garbage out. I cannot fathom how the info on that link could usefully inform the advice a priest gives or be helpful to some poor elderly or infirm person who stumbles on that site hoping for insight. Why isn’t the right answer something that is decidedly not derived from estimating degress of flacidness but instead one that’s a bit closer to “Go for it, your love for each other and pleasure in each other’s touch after all these years is a blessing.”
“They are contrary to reason even on the physical level, and contrary to reason because they are by nature infertile.”
Kathy –
Surely you don’t mean that infertile married people regardless of age should not have sexual intercourse?
(How DO you get out of that one?)
Mary,
You’re not considering the human being as a body-soul composite. Love doesn’t override purpose. They are supposed to work together.
Ann,
No, of course I don’t mean that. Married people who have fertility issues should have sex just the same as everyone else. Elizabeth and Zechariah were old and hadn’t had any children. Abraham and Sarah. Etc. Marital (penis-vagina) sex is by nature fertile. Fertility can be thwarted by various factors, but the act itself is by nature fertile, in contrast to acts that are not conducive to fertility at all.
Can anyone explain to me why some people are gay?
Ann, shall I assume, in regards to my post at 5:27, that you believe our Good Lord is mistaken?
Kathy, that link had nothing to do with the soul. And I’m still waiting for an explanation for why heterosexual married people are permitted to kiss, given that making out violates the purpose and intention of lips and tongues.
Marital (penis-vagina) sex is by nature fertile.
Kathy,
Actually, for human beings, sex is by nature infertile most of the time. According to the NFP folks, abstinence to avoid pregnancy for the average couple is ten to twelve days a month. And of course nowadays the average woman is infertile (postmenopausal) for very roughly 25 years of her life. Yet the Catholic Church insists that the mechanics of sex must be essentially the same every single time it is performed, whether the couple is fertile or infertile.
This is true even in the case of a husband and his pregnant wife. If they should engage in some nonprocreative sex act, it would be wrong because it was not “open to the transmission of life,” even though no one could accuse them of not being “open to the transmission of life.” It is as if sexual morality were a matter not of what people do, but organs do.
Kathy –
Sex between a man and a woman whose uterus has been removed has about as much chance of producing a child as sex between gays.
Do you think their acts are disordered?
Nevertheless, my understanding of the facts is that you believe meaningful dialogue requires a thoughtful reply . . .
Mark,
How do you give a thoughtful reply to something like, “Ann, shall I assume, in regards to my post at 5:27, that you believe our Good Lord is mistaken?” It takes two to tango.
William FG –
The psychologist offer no explanation, nor do the geneticists. We just don’t know at this point what the specific reason(s) is/are.
But I am totally convinced that a homosexual orientation is not usually, anyway, a matter of choice. Why would anybody choose a way of life that others scorn, make fun of, insult, discriminate against, throw you out of your family for, send you to jail for, beat you, kill you, and promise you that you will burn in Hell for. Given such a choice, only the crazies would choose that orientation.
Nancy —
No, of course, Our Lord is not mistaken. It is you who are mistaken about Jesus, who never talked about homosexuality at all, and it is wrong of you to put words in His mouth.
The texts from the NT you refer to are about the marriage of man and woman, NOT about the union of same sex couples. Jesus simply didn’t talk about that. And, if you’ll notice, in the Mark text he does NOT list same-sex sex among the prohibitions of the Commandmenets. Why do you think He left that out? Could it be that it was because, as with some of the other early Jewish laws He rejected, He also rejected the prohibitions in Leviticus? Leviticus says to have the priest stone your disobedient children. Do you do that too?
You keep over-simplifying. It’s you who are fallible, Nancy, not the Lord.
Thanks, Ann. I keep thinking of young people who realize, often through a complicated, confusing and painful process, that they are not attracted to those of the opposite sex but yet hunger for the full spectrum of relationships with other human beings and with God. Indeed, I believe that healthy, holy homosexual relationships are possible. I’ve seen them. They give the lie to much that is said here on this blog.
“Marital (penis-vagina) sex is by nature fertile.”
I have it on good authority (my married sister, for one) that married people engage in sexual acts other than the Orthodox Holy Roman Missionary Position. In fact, I was shocked that she and her hubby sometimes do the same things that my hubby and I do!
It certainly is NOT fertile by nature. Should they be stopping this immediately?
The future of their marriage depends on this Holy Roman Pontification that I am seeking!
“It is as if sexual morality were a matter not of what people do, but organs do.” And not just what organs CAN do, but an even narrower criterion of what they’re MEANT to do, a mechanistic purposiveness derived from what? From where exactly are we getting purpose and intent? Males and females both have breasts–what precisely is the purpose of a man’s breasts? (No jokes about usefulness and boars, please.) Because without nailing that purpose down one can’t know if contact with them is degrading and sinful. A female’s breasts are biologically intended for the purpose of feeding offspring, so they’re apparently on the “no go” list for sexual activity. Seems like purpose as a criterion for knowing if sex is sex enough to be Catholic renders much of the body irrelevant and off limits.
I say this with resolve. Only the rhetoric of Nancy Danielson on this blog causes me real pain and genuinely rattles me, routinely. There is in this language a level of aggression, cloaked in principle and righteousness, which I find absolutely chilling. I’m not sure what to make of it all, frankly.
Why go there? When I feel compelled to respond out of anger, I try to remember that any efforts to post here should be undertaken in the spirit of ministry and of witness to the Gospel as we are given light to understand it in fellowship with others. So let us keep each other in our prayers and pray, too, that God be in our thoughts and in our speaking.
Maybe pride is the sin we are really discussing here
Maybe people could minister to Nancy instead of running her down.
“Running me down”? By people who view sex as a form of appetite with many flavors? There is a difference between sex and Sexual Love. Love is not possessive nor does it serve to manipulate. No doubt, those who insist upon defining themselves or others as an object of sexual desire do so in order that it may appear that those of us, who, out of Love and respect for the inherent dignity of all persons refuse to condone homosexual sexual acts or any sexual act that is demeaning, are discriminating against a person, when in fact, we are discriminating against demeaning sexual acts. It is absurd to even suggest that Christ would refer to someone as homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual…, when we all know that from The Beginning, regardless of ethnicity or race, we have been created in The Image of God, equal as persons, while being complementary as male and female, to live in a relationship of Love as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters… while being called to The Perfect Communion of Love, simultaneously. Our only orientation should be to The Word of Love.
I hope this is not going to be construed as running Nancy down. I understand and appreciate that this thread runs as close to the bone for her as it does for me. I have taken a day or so to consider what she wrote to me, and, as this thread winds down, here is my response.
Nancy wrote: Jean, you are quite clear. You deny that engaging in demeaning sexual acts is physically, mentally, and spiritually destructive and claim that it is those who desire that their beloved develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships grounded in authentic Love that are responsible for the self-loathing of those who are suffering from a homosexual inclination. You claim that it is not your Christian duty to make others sin-free while claiming that those who refuse to condone demeaning sexual acts are dooming others to “fry in hell”.
Jean replies: I think it’s wrong of you to say that I “deny” that demeaning sexual acts are destructive. Rape, pedophilia, sex in which there is no love (I like Kathy’s sense of involvement of the soul), viewing pornography, acts that involve physical pain or psychological humiliation, sex outside of marriage–I think you and I would agree that these are all demeaning, coercive, and destructive.
I do not now believe that homosexual activity is demeaning, however. If you want to put things in black-and-white terms, yes, I “deny” that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, at least in some instances based on knowledge of friends and relations who are gay.
I do not believe that anybody who desires a chaste and holy friendship for anybody is responsible for self-loathing among homosexuals. I think living chastely is underrated in our society, and I recommend it for all who are not now allowed the sacrament of marriage. I DO believe that haranguing homosexuals could account for self-loathing. A gay friend’s sister used to send him Jack Chick tracts, which served no good purpose except to drive a permanent wedge between them. Here’s an example of one of those tracts:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0084/0084_01.asp
Yes, I do not claim that my mission in life is to make my friends sin-free, but to pray for them and offer my opinion when asked. However, I take Jesus’ words to “love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself” as my Prime Directive. That doesn’t mean I mindlessly condone whatever people do or that my notions of truth boil down to relativism.
However, I am deeply conflicted about some aspects of Church teaching about certain sexual activities and artificial contraception, and I am not about to preach compliance in others when I’m not sure I think those teachings are correct or tally with my own experience. Or, in some cases, where I have not been able to follow them myself.
Moreover, what I have read about counseling for homosexuals indicates to me that it runs a gamut. Some of it involves “transference” techniques in which an individual is bombarded with heterosexual images and encouraged to masturbate while watching them. I don’t think either you or I would find this squares with Church teaching. Other counseling involves urging homosexuals to channel sexual energy into prayer, exercise, and good works. I have no problem with this type of counseling IF THAT IS WHAT A GAY PERSON SEEKS.
As noted above, I am not sure the Church is correct about its teaching on homosexuality, and I certainly would not make the latter type of counseling a condition of love or friendship for the many gay people I know and love.
Not to mention the lack of charity on the part of those so called “social scientists”, who, despite the fact that there is no evidence that a homosexual inclination is inherent, refuse to acknowledge the role that developmental issues contribute to various disorders, such as trauma from sexual or mental abuse, self-esteem issues, bullying and rejection from peers, difficulty adjusting after an emotional event, confusion about appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior, confusion after an inappropriate sexual advance, gender confusion… and refuse to give the necessary guidance so that those who are suffering can heal their wounds and receive the adequate care to promote their emotional, spiritual, and physical welfare while learning to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love, BECAUSE other so called “social scientists” who viewed human beings as sexual objects or “flavors” decided to use “shock treatments” instead.
Who has argued against providing counseling for those who have experienced sexual trauma in the situations Nancy described?
However, “trauma” certainly does not describe all homosexual activity as I understand it.
However, I rest my case: Dialogue is futile.
Nancy, with all respect, I wonder do you actually have close friends and/or relatives who are GLBT and with whom you are able to speak? I have many (and have also been involved in organizations that allowed me to be more informally acquaintanced with many hundreds of others) and none of them are gay because they were molested or bullied or otherwise traumatized. You sneer at those of us who have yet to hear a reasoned argument for why homosexual sex (and other acts engaged in by heterosexuals–which you aren’t able to defend as natural) is degrading, but all you offer is the strawman assertion that a demand for reasoning and evidence is the equivalent of saying all sex of any kind with anything is appropriate. No poster here has taken that position.
Ann O.–yes, that’s the distinction I was getting at. Your sharp philosophical mind sees it precisely–better than my dull one (philosophically speaking). I’d simply note that there’s a whole realm of modern baggage packed into the term “homosexual” or “homosexuality,” which can’t be there at all, when the scriptures speak of whatever they’re talking about, which we now wish to tag as a condemnation of “homosexuality.”
And I do remain perplexed (repeating this as a reflection on the whole thread, not a response to you in particular) that we’re so fixated on those six or so exegetically murky texts, when the huge weight of all the texts in scripture that tell us our salvation will depend on how we treat widows and orphans and the stranger seems not to perplex us, morally speaking, much at all.
That some followers of Jesus want to make the entire bible, the whole tradition, inclusion or exclusion from the body of Christ, stand today on what the homos do or think: it baffles me. Mightily so.
It’s almost as if (irony alert) our moral center is radically displaced in American Catholicism today. When I read folks who actively argued against bringing more widows and orphans into our health care system in recent months now just as actively trying to keep the gays out in order to keep the church poor, well, I wonder about us.
And what we’ve made of ourselves, in the Catholic church in the U.S.
Quite a typo in what I just posted (Freudian slip, I think): where I write “in order to keep the church poor,” I meant to say, “in order to keep the church pure.”
As for the usefulness of the “dialogue” in the conference: Like the recent letter from German religious on celibacy and related issues, I believe these things amount to, above all, a form of signaling that there are people who want to engage in a discussion over subjects of official Church teaching that hierarchs have deemed to be closed.
I don’t think that dialogue is necessarily futile, but there has been little or no dialogue in this thread, nor does it look like there can be any.
Although it doesn’t exactly break my heart—since I disagree with the teachings of the Church on sexuality—the authentic position of the Catholic Church has been poorly and cold-bloodedly represented in this thread. I can understand why some might not want to get involved in yet another discussion, but when the defense of the position of the Church is left largely to people who do it poorly, and almost seem to try to alienate rather than win over, the results are inevitable.
I don’t think any gay person, torn between the “orthodox” position requiring a life of celibacy and all the various alternatives, would read this thread and find himself or herself drawn to “orthodox” Catholicism. It doesn’t seem to me that the job of good Catholics is to try to drive people away from the Church.
Barbara,
I suspect that there is a step or two behind your explanation. There are folks who want to make the DNC’s gay-solicitous platform palatable to Catholics, so in preparation for the next presidential election, they are raising a doubt in peoples’ minds about the necessity of this teaching.
Fortunately, Catholic teaching is not electoral.
For what it’s worth, I am not trying to run Nancy D down. I single out her rhetoric as reflective of pious Rage for all its talk of Love. I don’t hear compassion in all that capitalization. It’s not the position that she holds (for others here hold it) that love that expresses itself in homosexual terms cannot be a genuine love, that this is not what God desires for us. Rather, it is the manner in which those positions are expressed in highly wrought phrasing, phrasing calculated, I believe, at once to wound and to paper over a wound. In other words, it seems to come from an unhealthy place.
Believe me when I say I take no pleasure in saying this. Many are the posts I have written but did not send. So, while we are all capable of self-delusion, I think I am being charitable when I say this.
On this point Nancy and I are in agreement: I do not think homosexuality is genetic, at least in the sense of a gay gene. Our sexual dimensions are more complex than that. But love between two men or two women that expresses itself in physically intimate terms is not demeaning. I reject that position entirely. We need a richer account of the nature of love than I hear coming from absolutists on this position.
“I don’t think any gay person, torn between the “orthodox” position requiring a life of celibacy and all the various alternatives, would read this thread and find himself or herself drawn to “orthodox” Catholicism. It doesn’t seem to me that the job of good Catholics is to try to drive people away from the Church.”
Hear, hear David.
“It doesn’t seem to me that the job of good Catholics is to try to drive people away from the Church.”
Hmmm. Charity requires us to assume that everyone posting here has love of neighbor at heart. Yes, I’m as put off by the sturm und drang of Bible and Catechism thumping (I feel sometimes like the foreigner at whom people simply talk LOUDER without bothering to understand where people are coming from).
But if I thought this kind of approach was representative of “good Catholics,” I truly wouldn’t bother going to Mass anymore and participate to the limited extent I do now.
I think Barbara has it right re dialogue: “I believe these things amount to, above all, a form of signaling that there are people who want to engage in a discussion over subjects of official Church teaching that hierarchs have deemed to be closed.”
Kathy, I am assuming you haven’t investigated much less proven the existence of a wish among German religious to fund and/or enable the DNC in time for the next election.
As for making things palatable to Catholics — I worry less and less about this. Based on what I have encountered, your concern should be whether even in the near term Catholicism is going to palatable to the average person coming of age over the last decade and in the future. (I don’t see views on this particular issue changing as a person grows up and starts their own family.)
I feel certain the Church’s push on the issue is as strong as it is because it appreciates what will happen when gay relationships are normatively acceptable to most people. I think it also appreciates that said acceptance will have profound implications for other Church doctrines — most notably those involving contraception.
Organizations like this are trying to reassure people that there is an alternative to leaving the church.
William F., to suggest that respect for the true Good of The Sacrament of Holy Marriage is only an “orthodox” Catholic belief, is a lie from the start. All Catholics are called to witness to The Truth of Love, not create the meaning of Love in their own image. When one denies The Truth of Love, everything becomes permissable because Love becomes a matter of opinion. No doubt, there are those who profess to be Catholic while denying The Truth of Love, simultaneously. Certainly, as a professor at Rutgers, you should be able to recognize this as an oxymoron to begin with. Those who profess to be Catholic, profess that there is only One Word of Love, The Word Made Flesh, Our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Pray, and never cease Praying, that The Bishops will wake up and not be afraid to lead us in The Truth of Love. At this moment it is already late.
Clarification: I did not meant to charge anyone here with intentionally trying to drive people away from the Church. As the politicians say, I misspoke. But I do stand by what I said about a wavering gay Catholic reading this thread. I don’t think he or she would feel drawn to the Church upon reading the messages of those defending the “orthodox” position. This is, of course, an argument taking place on a blog, not an outreach to lost sheep. But clearly the people reading this who are either gay themselves, or have gay relatives or friends they care about, have feelings that the defenders of “orthodoxy” aren’t bending over backwards to take into consideration.
I remember when I was a kid the young son of the people living down the street was killed in a car crash. My parents had spoken with his parents, and the father told my mother he had received a call from someone saying, “There was an accident and your son is down here lying on a slab in the morgue.” It was a perfectly true statement about which the caller could not possibly have been mistaken (unlike—in my opinion—a lot of what has been said here about homosexuality), but considering the circumstances, there were a lot better ways of putting it.
For the sake of Christ and His Church.
Here’s a possible shift from the impasse. One thing that might be discussed at such a forum is the possibility of Catholics advocating for same sex CIVIL marriage. This won’t settle the on-going battle in the Church, but might slow down the bishops from saying things like same-sex civil marriage harms the human dignity of all.
See, we also have a tradition concerning what norms guide civil law. We neither legislate all virtues, nor do we prohibit all vices. Rather, civil law is answerable to the norm of the common good, which, since Paul VI, is aptly expressed in civil law as a doctrine of equal rights for all.
Civil marriage is, very simply, not an institution whose only value to society is procreation. And Catholic leaders do not demand any such “openness to life” on the part of non-Catholics. Civil marriage is open to anyone regardless of reproductive capacity or intent. Nor is it accurate to say that only straight couples can benefit from the non-procreative benefits of civil marriage.
Note that the language of “complementarity” that underlies many of the comments here is JPII’s interpretation of Genesis. Unless it can be spun into an argument that is intelligible to those of other faiths or none, (and it can’t, as far as I can tell,) it’s not a good grounding for CIVIL law. In fact, arguing that same-sex couples must be excluded from civil marriage on the basis of a religious argument violates equal treatment AND freedom of religion, both of which the Church rejects.
In sum–instead of violating Catholic tradition on the nature and purpose of civil law, perhaps we should be strong advocates for civil marriage for same-sex couples.
and to be clear, William, I am talking about renewed attention to language addressed to God, not “the gods”, for Catholics would not be calling for renewed attention to worship false idols to begin with.
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~wfitz/rsa_overview.html
Nancy,
Maybe you could get a warrant to have William’s phone tapped.
Wow. What a silly and cheap shot, Nancy. You can’t address rationally the reasonable questions put to you in good faith by others. Instead, you resort to strawman argument, cafeteria mining of scripture, and smug insinuations that those who respectfully disagree with you are degraded sinners who aren’t entitled to call ourselves Catholic. Then you descend to ad hominem irrelevancy: A course description for Rhetoric and Religion–not Rhetoric and Monotheism–accurately and appropriately acknowledges that some religions to be studied may posit the existence of more than one god (and if you really read your OT for more than proof text about sodomy you’d find it rife with polytheism), you accuse the professor of promoting idolatry?? You may be a sincere and kind and good person in real life, but the persona you present on this and other threads is, frankly, unhinged.
“How do you give a thoughtful reply to something like, ‘Ann, shall I assume, in regards to my post at 5:27, that you believe our Good Lord is mistaken?’”,
Well, as Ann did. I think Nancy provides a unique perspective and her comments, often thought-provoking, are invariably directed at the behavior, not the person.
More commentary on the proposed dialogue: http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/03/sure-looks-like-a-monologue-to-me.html
Lisa, there is no battle going on in the communion that is The Body of Christ, His Church. Those who deny God’s intention for Marriage and The Family are certainly not in communion with His Church. The inherent nature of Marriage is restrictive to begin with. It is absurd to even suggest that the relationship between a husband and wife is merely a “religious” argument and that all sexual acts and sexual relationships are equal or that civil marriage is discrimitive if it is not open to everyone. But then, let us not pretend that the purpose of this dialogue has not been, from the beginning, to empty The Sacrament of Marriage of its meaning by those who profess to be Catholic but are not in communion with Christ’s Church.
Nancy, the vast majority of all marriages are not sacramental. Mine isn’t (married outside church, never had marriage regularized). And yet, as Lisa says, the Church has no desire and certainly no policy to forbid people like me and my husband from getting married. And this would be true for people who are even further afield: atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and so on. No religion has any say whatsoever is whether people can get married. So Lisa isn’t even disagreeing with you: she’s asking for your opinion on CIVIL LAW requirements that, by definition, cannot be informed by religious doctrine.
Thanks ever so much, Mary.
I think Nancy provides a unique perspective and her comments, often thought-provoking, are invariably directed at the behavior, not the person.
Mark,
It can hardly be denied that Nancy presents a unique perspective. It is hers and hers alone.
Regarding her comments being invariably directed at the behavior, not the person, as best I understand her, she denies the existence of “homosexual persons,” even though that designation is frequently used by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the USCCB.
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
But Nancy denies there are homosexual persons. It would appear, although she will not give a straight (no pun intended) answer when asked, that she believes a homosexual orientation is something that can be changed. I would be glad to hear more from her on this topic, but her answers to questions (when she answers at all) are repetitive and cryptic. By this time, we know we are all mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, etc., etc. But it seems that there are things about her own views Nancy is unwilling to state.
She says things like the following: Not to mention the lack of charity on the part of those so called “social scientists”, who, despite the fact that there is no evidence that a homosexual inclination is inherent, refuse to acknowledge the role that developmental issues contribute to various disorders . . . . But she refuses to back them up by citing any sources.
None of this is conducive to dialogue.
“Those who deny God’s intention for Marriage and The Family are certainly not in communion with His Church.”
I weary of the word “deny.”
Yes, I struggle with SOME of what the CHURCH claims are God’s intentions for marriage and the family. I wasn’t raised a Catholic. For us converts, perfect obedience to and belief in Church teaching doesn’t come all at once. I’ve already stepped away from the Table until I can understand it better. What more must I do?
To call me and others like me “deny-ers” is both inaccurate and dispiriting. I’m puzzled by the defenders of the faith here who can’t muster the charity to understand that.
“. . . . we’re so fixated on those six or so exegetically murky texts, when the huge weight of all the texts in scripture that tell us our salvation will depend on how we treat widows and orphans and the stranger seems not to perplex us, morally speaking, much at all.”
William L. –
Yes, I think that those passages are the root problem for most people who cannot change their thinking. But I think it is because the prohibition passages are totally at odds with the heart of Jesus’ message, though there are also, I think, some unfortunate people who are latent homosexuals and cannot admit it to themselves. For the latter the problem is even worse.
The Scriptural problem is essentially a very, very deeply religious one. If Leviticus, etc., are true, then the sayings of Jesus contradict them. It is a contradiction beyond resolution IF one believes that the Bible is inerrant, and that is a religious problem. Many people are so threatened by any hint that the Bible is not all 100% true that they simply become totally irrational and accept the dilemma — the prohibitions and the saying of Christ.
I don’t at all mean to say that this is a minor religious problem. If we admit that some texts are false, we thereby admit the possibility that *other* texts are false, and we’re left with all sorts of epistemological problems — they boil down to: how do we sift the true from the false in the Bible? I say we have a most fundamental need for a theological epistemology, including especially a Biblical hermeneutic, but I don’t think that Rome sees it that way. Although the RCC admits that the Bible is not 100% true, it mostly doesn’t help those who, like Nancy, still feel obliged to claim that all of it is the word of God.
In the gospels (don’t have cites right now), Jesus associates the O.T. story of Sodom & Gomorrah with refusal to extend hospitality/reception to the traveler, not with sexuality, much less with homosexuality.
Looks like we have hit on a subject worthy of debate and discussion. The biblical witness on homosexual acts in the context of violence or depravity is clear. But there is no biblical witness on loving same-sex relationships. Principles have to be interpreted. And, of course, loving, long-term same-sex relationships do exist, because we see them. So we have a responsibility theologically to make sense of them. Where there is real love, somehow God is present. We just have to figure out what the Holy Spirit is telling us about them. I hope our conferences will move us all forward just a little bit.
Jean, I am sorry if you have stepped away from the table because you do not believe. That doesn’t give you the right to misrepresent the truth of The Catholic Church because you do not believe that it is true.
David, a sexual inclination, disordered or not is not a person. The word “homosexual” as in homosexual person refers to a man or woman with a homosexual inclination. I have suggested that we do not refer to persons or define persons according to sexual preferences because it is demeaning. Your claim that discriminating against certain sexual acts is the same as discriminating against a person, is a lie from the start.
Joseph, that is the interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah story (Luke 10, maybe?) that I was taught in by our parish priest when I was a young Catholic. I don’t think that interpretation matters to the “gay sexuality is degraded” crowd, anymore than they care that the story of Onan has nothing to do with masturbation.
” The biblical witness on homosexual acts in the context of violence or depravity is clear.”
Paul –
Hmm. Interesting point. I wonder if the prohibition in the Lot story is a prohibition against sado-masochistic sex. Makes sense to me. A dear gay friend of mine was murdered in a sado-masochistic situation. You’ll never convince me that such practices are OK.
“Fortunately, Catholic teaching is not electoral.”
Nor is a lot of it pastoral, divinely inspired or even remotely Christian.
“I feel certain the Church’s push on the issue is as strong as it is because it appreciates what will happen when gay relationships are normatively acceptable to most people.” It’s happening on a daily basis: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/support-gay-marriage-reaches-milestone/story?id=13159608.
What is telling is that Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Focus on the Family that “it’s clear that something like same-sex marriage — indeed, almost exactly what we would envision by that — is going to become normalized, legalized and recognized in the culture. . . . It’s time for Christians to start thinking about how we’re going to deal with that.” The Vaticanes and their minions would do well to take this advice to heart.
“I hope our conference will move us forward a bit”? The Catholic Church will not be moving anywhere on this issue. We cannot transform The Truth of Love, Christ transforms us.
I have suggested that we do not refer to persons or define persons according to sexual preferences because it is demeaning.
Nancy,
So you do acknowledge that there are persons with a homosexual orientation, exact origin or cause of which is unclear, but in most cases that orientation is highly unlikely to be changed? Would that be a correct?
And you find it demeaning to call someone not just a homosexual person, but a heterosexual person?
Your claim that discriminating against certain sexual acts is the same as discriminating against a person, is a lie from the start.
I am not sure how one discriminates against sexual acts, except by not performing them. Suppose someone with a homosexual orientation wants to be a priest, a teacher, or a soldier, and they are “virgins” who, though aware of their orientation, have never engaged in any sexual activity. Would it be discrimination against them as persons to refuse to let them be a priest, a teacher or a soldier? They have never committed any sexual acts to discriminate against, so would you say it would be discriminating against them as persons to not allow them to take on any particular vocation or job?
Nancy –
Why do you think that people who disagree with you must be liars? How do you get into their heads, so to speak?
A talent is not a person, but it it demeaning to say, “He is a musical genius”? A disease is not a person, but is it demeaning to say, “I am a diabetic?” A profession is not a person, but is it demeaning to say, “She is a plumber”? A vocation is not a person, but is it demeaning to say, “He is a priest?”
The Catholic Church will not be moving anywhere on this issue.
Let’s not rule out backwards. (jk!)
Actually, I believe the statements in the Catechism about homosexual persons were widely viewed as a step forward.
David, apparently it isn’t the act that is the problem, either, since we could list a number of acts that Nancy would say are fine-and-dandy when undertaken by heterosexuals but the instant the not-to-be-labeled-homosexual undertakes them? Hey presto! They’re degrading and inhumane.
“Jean, I am sorry if you have stepped away from the table because you do not believe. That doesn’t give you the right to misrepresent the truth of The Catholic Church because you do not believe that it is true.”
Nancy, you are imputing motives to me (misrepresenting the truth of the Church v. questioning teaching) and twisting my meaning (do not believe v. struggling with teaching).
Your inability or unwillingness to fairly represent my poor posts and the posts of many others here makes it difficult to find credible any representations you might offer about the teachings of the Church. It also also makes further discussion with you a complete waste of time.
David, I think we all know why we should not define ourselves or view others as sexual objects.
David, I think we all know why we should not define ourselves or view others as sexual objects.
Nancy,
When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to someone as a “homosexual person,” do you believe they are viewing them as sexual objects? Do you thing the Church is wrong to use the term “homosexual person” in official documents? A yes or no answer will suffice.
Ann,
Thank you, although you are not alone in this, for your efforts to set a tone of responsible, respectful inquiry and to make others feel welcome, listened to and appropriately challenged in this community space, a parlor in the best sense of the term.
Why, thank you, WFG. What a lovely compliment for me and the blog. I’m glad to see the old word “parlor” resuscitated. Some of my happiest hours were spent in people’s parlors when I was a child. There was something about the formality or the rooms that made even children want to behave, but still there was fun there. (Also, we were usually served treats :-) I wonder if the elimination of parlors from American homes has something to do with all the snarkiness on the blog. Hmm.
My favorite literary critic and rhetorician, Kenneth Burke (whose Rhetoric of Religion inspired my academic career) famously writes of the parlor and the unending conversation:
Imagine that you enter a parlor. You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you, and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. In fact, the discussion had already begun long before any of them got there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone before. You listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the argument; then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you answer him; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself against you, to either the embarrassment or gratification of your opponent, depending upon the quality of your ally’s assistance. However, the discussion is interminable. The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress. (Philosophy of Literary Form 110-11).
“I wonder if the elimination of parlors from American homes has something to do with all the snarkiness on the blog. Hmm.”
Were we able to see each other’s faces (and others see ours) I suspect that our tone would be different, though not necessarily better. One has only to remember the famous dinner conversation about Parnell in Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist or remember similar family gatherings of our own to recognize how quickly comes the shouting and the willful misrepresentations of others.
Wayne Booth famously conducted his first year writing seminars this way: only when person B had summarized person A’s statement with language acceptable to person A could person B then proceed to rebut, qualify, take exception, etc. Good rhetoric begins with good listening, yes?
WFG –
Great idea about repeating the other fellow’s position accurately. We could have a Rule of Accurate Summary and require that it be applied on demand. Let’s call it the Demand for Accurate Summary Rule.
Ann O.: yes, I think you’re exactly right in describing why some people need to cling to the “truth” of that particular set of anti-gay texts. There’s a perception that the entire truth of the Christian system stands and falls on the truth of those texts.
But this strikes me as a problematic perception for all kinds of reasons. You and I both have Louisiana roots, and we are aware that people once made precisely the same claims about the biblical texts supporting slavery. They’re there, after all. And they’re unambiguous, and clear.
And wrong, from the standpoint of what we have come to think morally. We have revised our moral thinking on that issue and, as a result, about the significance of that set of scriptures, and things did not fall apart. As they didn’t when those who were convinced that the next falling apart would occur argued that to ignore the scriptures’ call for subjugation of women would unravel the whole fabric of Christian truth.
I wonder what would make the “anti-homosexual” scriptures any different–what would set them apart from these cases.
I also find the perception that the truth of Christianity rises and falls on the literal or absolute truth of these texts problematic because there are scads of things we have chosen not to read as literally true in the scriptures–though previous generations of Christians took these things quite literally. Again, why are we isolating that handful of texts as the pivot point of Christian truth today, particularly when the weight of scripture in the direction of love, justice, and mercy is so strong–and many Christians focusing obsessively on the “anti-homosexual” texts seem so cavalier about that weight?
Finally, I would argue that for Catholics, considerations about whether everything turns on the literal truth of biblical texts loom far less large than for evangelical Protestants. And that’s one reason, I suspect, recent polls show American Catholics as far more in support of gay rights, including same-sex marriage, than evangelical Protestants.
The history of American Protestantism is, in some key respects, a history of lines drawn in the sand over and over, about biblical texts on which it all rises and falls, with the churches having to concede ground, then discovering things don’t fall apart, as they predicted, when the ground got conceded. And then those churches often choose, perplexingly, to do the line-drawing all over again, when a new issue comes down the road.
William, you are not fooling anyone. Any Catholic who condones homosexual sexual acts is not in communion with the Catholic Church. Your claim that American Catholics support same-sex marriage is not valid. Good rhetoric is always grounded in truth.
Your claim that American Catholics support same-sex marriage is not valid. Good rhetoric is always grounded in truth.
Nancy,
Please read the following:
William L. –
I think you’re right that the resistance to dropping the homosexual prohibitions is a more complex matter than most. I’m quite sure that there have always been primarily homosexual people, but in the early days of the human race it was urgent that people have very large families. The very survival of the group and its members depended on it. So being single or in an exclusively homosexual relationship could not be tolerated by the clan. I daresay the evolutionary biologists have already or will have something to say about this.
Now, with modern medicine, there are if anything *too many* people, so the very primitive stricture above is no longer necessary for the survival of the species, and humanity is ready to drop the old prohibitions. But some people simply can’t change for psychological reasons of various sorts.
By the way, my copy of Tavris and Aronson’s book “Mistakes Were Made (but not by me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions and Hurtful Acts)” came. Excellent. It explains how we are hard-wired to *automatically* and even *unconsciously* defend our own wisdom, decisions and general worth, so that we actually *re=make* our memories of what we actually did or said. This causes “cognitive dissonance” — our judgments really don’t match the facts and we become very defensive, and stubbornly make more mistakes, even very stupid and costly ones. But we can change.
How? I just read the ending chapter — we can change our crippled minds in the face of evidence. But we mustn’t let ourselves get hardened into thinking we were right and criticism by others is wrong. We must realize that everyone — including ourselves — makes mistakes, including big ones, and that does not make us stupid or not valuable. We must take criticism founded on evidence seriously. The process can be extremely difficult, and requires humility and will power.
No quick new fixes for Aronson. He quotes Lao Tzu at the very end:
A great nation is like a great man.
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
Ah, but if that 55 percent aren’t “in communion with the Church” by rejecting the official teaching, then they get defined into invisibility–they aren’t really Catholic after all. Neat definitional trick.
No, not a definition trick. One can not be in communion with The Catholic Church while rejecting the official teaching of The Catholic Church, simultaneously.
P.S. I think every Catholic bishop in the world should be required to read this book.
To be clear: One can both be for civil marriage for gays and lesbians (and Hindus and atheists) and divorcees and simultaneously accept the teaching that homosexual acts are always and everywhere against God’s will. I suspect a large percentage of that 55% that is cited are able to make this critical distinction.
Ann O., thanks. Yes, I agree with you.
And along the lines of your analysis–that the Jewish scriptures high-profiled a procreative ethic at a point in which the survival of the Jewish community may have depended on it–I recommend a very good meditation Fr. John McNeill published recently at his Spiritual Transformation blog.
It’s about the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts, and the insistence in the prophetic literature of Judaism that the messianic era would be characterized by a welcome of eunuchs (of the non-procreative) as well as the procreative among the people of God.
Nancy, thanks for letting me know I’m not fooling anyone. It’s not my intent to do so–rather to try, in my small way, to dispel tomfoolery where I spot it. Especially when it’s malicious tomfoolery that hurts people. Even, or especially, in the name of Christ.
In the name of Christ, you declare homosexual sexual acts to be good? Oh what tangled webs you are willing to weave.
Ann O., upon further reflection: it does occur to me to wonder, though, whether each generation of believers imagines the crisis du jour is the one on which Christian faith absolutely rises or falls. Some of my ancestors were as devoutly convinced as some Christians are today (re: the gay issue) that Christianity and “Christian civilization” would crumble if we stopped paying attention the the scripture that tells slaves to obey their masters, and all the scriptures that take slavery for granted and even appear to bless it. Or if we questioned the scripture cursing Noah’s son Ham for revealing his father’s nakedness, and consigning him and his descendants to perpetual servitude for his brothers.
Historical studies of that text show it exercising tremendous power on the European Christian imagination for many centuries. And then it simply vanished, as a powerful text–thank God.
As an aside (but a pertinent one): I well recall from my college days in New Orleans and the years after college that the monument to white supremacy stood proudly at the foot of Canal Street in that Catholic city.
And then it vanished.
Thank God.
Sorry, poor proofreading:
“if we stopped paying attention TO”
“perpetual servitude TO his brothers.”
Some people talk about the homosexual act–sounds so clinical, doesn’t it?–as if it were a bad thing. Let us not pretend that love takes many forms as it has from the beginning. It’s not my cup of tea, but it’s not like gay sex is inherently evil or anything.
William F., a perfect example of rhetoric nonsense. Obviously one who recognizes the great physical, spiritual, and emotional harm that results from engaging in any form of demeaning sexual act would not then be complicit in supporting such acts. That would hurt people.
Let us Pray that our Bishops wake up and take their vocation as shepherds seriously.
Nancy–at some point you’re responsible for proving these assertions of yours. What “physical harm” does one person kissing another person in a sexual way cause?
Or, perhaps you might answer this: that link David provided yesterday said from a Catholic perspective that oral sex between a heterosexual married couple can be allowed under certain circumstances. You’re the one who says it’s all about the act: What “physical harm” results when the mouth involved in the act of oral sex is attached to a man rather than a woman?
I haven’t heard the word parlor since my very Irish uncle passed away. I thought it was another term for what we called the living room in our home. Kinda miss the word. Him too.
In a monastery, the parlor was the place for conversation when silence was elsewhere the norm.
Nancy Danielson: “One can not [sic] be in communion with The Catholic Church while rejecting the official teaching of The Catholic Church, simultaneously.”
Joseph Ratzinger: “Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism”.
(Joseph Ratzinger in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II ,Vol. V., pg. 134 (Ed) H. Vorgrimler, New York, Herder and Herder, 1967).
William L. –
I don’t think that moral revolutions just happen. I was born and raised and mostly have lived here, and the change in most people’s minds and hearts about segregation really began in the ’30s when Archbishop Rummel and some of the priests and nuns started to preach against it. And even before then here were people who were against segregation, e.g., my mother’s atheist physics teacher whom I’m named after was a native New Orleanian. I also had a great-great grandfather who voted against the Civil War. Even in those days there were people in the South who were beginning to change.
I just got Kwame Appiah’s “The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen” and have barely looked at it, but he says that such revolutions do precipitate very quickly, but they take a long period of criticism to reach that point. He analyses such practices as dueling, foot-binding (in China), and slavery. I don’t know yet just what he means by an ‘honor code”, but he says that for such revolutions to happen the honor codes must change.
You know, folks, this has been great fun and all, but us poor depraved demeaning/demeaned people of intrinsic disorder are just going to mosey along now and live our lives as we have been for a long, long time. Whatever this church decides and this dialogue reveals will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on our (at least mine –) lives.
Ann, I agree. Moral revolutions require the development of a critical mass, and that takes a considerable period of time (and work, and suffering). I suspect that the nub of the revolution is usually a small group of people of conscience who are willing to put themselves on the line for what’s right and true, and to share the lot of those misused by a particular ideology. Those folks are likely to be ridiculed and knocked about for a considerable period of time, but when the arc of justice clearly bends in the direction they’re pointing, they later come to be seen as a prophetic indicator of where social groups and institutions has been heading.
Here’s part of what I was getting at in referring to the monument to white supremacy in New Orleans, which stood there well into my young adulthood: it’s how many of us are content to live with religious ideas that can do real harm to others, as long as those ideas don’t really affect us or those close to us in personal ways. I’m want to point to this example from our very recent history to get at the way in which even people with good educations and seemingly sharp minds can live comfortably for generations upon generations with things like belief in white supremacy, not caring to challenge the bogus religious ideas on which such beliefs are premised. Even when they know those ideas are bogus.
As long as the real damage is being done to someone else–not to them and to theirs.
In retrospect, it’s all very clear. We can see clearly how downright malicious and stupid the misuse of scriptures about slavery or the curse of Ham was for centuries in Western culture. But as all this unfolded in history, initially only a small handful of courageous people stood up against it. The majority went along–including most people of faith. Including many enlightened people of faith.
For them, I suspect that, even when they had misgivings, they were willing to grant that the scriptures cited in support of slavery and white supremacy had a certain plausibility as long as a majority believed in that plausibility. Just as many of us today, including many of us with good educations and sharp minds, are still willing to grant that scriptures cited to condemn “homosexuals” are plausible.
As long as it is not we and our loved ones who are the target of those scriptures.
F.Y.I.-
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad_tuendam-fidem_en.html
That should read:
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/552/Doctrinal_Commentary_on_Ad_Tuendam_Fidem_Joseph_Cardinal_Ratzinger.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html
For those that don’t believe there is anything disordered about homosexuality: I’m curious to know if you believe that there is such a thing at all as sexual disorder in general. Is sexually disordered desire possible or is all sexual desire good?
If you do think it’s possible, how do you distinguish between good sexual behavior and disordered sexual behavior in the context of homosexuality?
It’s not a ‘gotcha’ question. Just trying to understand the thinking.
In reply to Brian Killian:
Yes. I think, for example, that a man’s desire to rape his wife is disordered — and, according to the National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women, “Researchers estimate that between 10 and 14% of married women experience rape in marriage.” Does that make all sexual expression within heterosexual marriages disordered?
Of course not — the desire to dominate and do violence is distinct and different from the desire to express affection and erotic love (thank God). Heterosexual sexuality can be filled with disordered sexual desire; so can homosexual sexuality. But that doesn’t mean all heterosexual expressions of sexual love are disordered; why should all expressions of homosexual sexual love be?
That link went to an overview page rather than the specific study on marital rape that I had in mind. Hopefully this one will work.
Brian,
It seems to me that contemporary psychiatry answers the question. Obviously there are sexual desires that, if acted on, would harm the person himself or herself, or would harm others. I don’t see that a theory of sexuality must say, “This is what sex organs are for, and if you use them in some way that is contrary to their purpose, that is wrong.” (Particularly if you define their purpose as narrowly as the Catholic Church does.) Contemporary psychiatry and psychology finds such things as masturbation and oral sex, in and of themselves, to be normal and natural. Catholic sexual morality finds them to be gravely disordered.
This is very simplistic, but good sexual behavior would be sexual behavior that does no physical or psychological harm to those engaging in it. Instead of asking whether sexual behavior offends God or breaks some “natural law,” the point should be, as with any other human activity, what it does for the health and well being of the people who engage in it.
Nancy, thank you for the links.
However, these statements by JPII and Ratzinger do not contradict the latter’s writing on the supremacy of one’s conscience.
Conscience reigns supreme. Always.
On the other hand, if you can find something in the CCC’s teaching on “Moral Conscience” that contradicts Ratzinger’s statement on supremacy of conscience, please let us know.
In the meantime, we must hold that one can remain in communion with the Roman Catholic Church while simultaneously rejecting a particular non-infallible teaching of said church.
I am not sure this discussion of whether homosexuality is “disordered” is helpful. This tends to enter the realm of how I, or anyone, feel about homosexuality. This can also get into the area of emotional baggage and bias. And I hate to go against the predominant current of discussing anecdotal feelings in this thread, but feelings are useless in these types of debates. How can I argue morality on the basis of mine or anyone’s feelings? Won’t I always feel like defending myself, no matter what I do? That’s like saying, “I am glad I yelled at my coworker today – I feel like he deserved it.” Did he? Probably not.
What is really at issue is whether the Bible is “hurtful and vicious.” David has accused me of this (I am too much of a gentleman to respond in kind), but he’s really not accusing me, he is really accusing the Bible, since my only exercise in this thread has been to defend the specific Biblical witness on this subject (and that does not include every verse where God is shown to be loving). Like everyone here, I can come up with a hundred verses that speak of God’s love. But these verses do nothing to assist us in a specific discussion of the ethics of the homosexual lifestyle. The ones that do speak of it, speak in unity.
And Jimmy Mac – just because you can cite a few theologians who disagree with the normal interpretation of these texts, doesn’t mean a whole lot. As a person who has had the misfortune of being overeducated theologically, I can cite many more who have dismissed the divinity of Christ. Should I just believe them too, after all, they have PhD’s!
What I would give for a little honesty. Can someone just tell me they think the Bible is sexist, racist, homophobic, and misogynistic and we as Christians don’t need to follow it anymore? We could then agree to disagree. But no one will do that. Why? Because we all want a guide for all lives. We all want to believe that God has not abandoned us, and that he has a means of communicating with us. Our only difference is that a few of us are really willing to listen to what he is saying.
“What I would give for a little honesty.”
Are you God? Can you get into the minds of the other people on this blog?
“Our only difference is that a few of us are really willing to listen to what [God] is saying.”
Please be careful stepping down from your pedestal of moral righteousness.
What is “the homosexual lifestyle”?
SInce you use this phrase, this cultural meme, you are obligated to define it if asked, I would argue. Be sure to note the significance of you use of the definite article ‘the’ to locate a singularity. Presumably, there are many commonalities with other lifestyles, so perhaps you could identify both areas of similarity and difference in your response.
Of course you would argue that. But those of us who have respect for the inherent Dignity of the human person would not participate.
Time for a march on Washington, only this time, to the headquarters of the USCCB.
How do you avoid something like a natural law once you bring up concepts like well-being, health, and normalcy?
I appreciated Kari Lundgren’s spot-on recognition of disordered sexual expression as rooted in violence and domination.
How do you avoid something like a natural law once you bring up concepts like well-being, health, and normalcy?
Brian,
I did not use the word normalcy. You don’t need to appeal to natural law to have working concepts of health and well-being. Psychiatry and psychology are not based on natural law.
Dennis,
Could you explain briefly why we don’t follow the dietary guidelines in the Bible?
Christ has freed us from the ceremonial requirments of the Mosaic law through his atonenent. This would include the food laws. Did you miss this in catechism class? I hope that wasn’t a “hurtful and vicious” thing to say.
This is unlike the teaching on homosexuality, which is not a ceremonial code. We know this because we can find these teachings in the New Testament as well. Nice try.
Those who think homosexual relations are such a bad thing:
What would you have gay people do?
Why not encourage them to look to and for others similarly inclined to learn to love deeply in committed spousal relations? Having experienced the joy that comes from a committed relationship for life, I am not about to oppose it for my gay brothers and sisters. No way.
Christ has freed us from the ceremonial requirments of the Mosaic law through his atonenent. This would include the food laws.
Dennis,
And yet here’s the results of the decision in Acts 15 what part of the Law gentile converts were to be bound by:
That means all Christians are supposed to eat only kosher meat.
Did you miss this in catechism class? I hope that wasn’t a “hurtful and vicious” thing to say.
Is this the kind of thing a gentleman says? It seems pretty snarky to me.
David,
These are not in any way the full extent of kosher guidlelines and you know it. Where is the prohibition on pork and other unclean animals? Go back to Leviticus. As I hope you already know, this was a compromise made at the Council of Jerusalem to deal with two communities, those who felt Christians should follow the food laws, and those like Paul who understood correctly that they had been freed from the regulations by Christ. This compromise was made to keep the church together. In time, all the regulations were lifted. These are the struggles that occur in the church and are resolved at the ecumenical councils.
But you crack me up with your constant effort to prove your point, which is that we can’t depend on the Bible for anything. Suppose you accomplish your goal, which you won’t of course. What will replace it? The gospel of David? I am sure that gospel would say gay marriage is A-OK.
And why would that give you any comfort? Why do you want to destroy God’s law? it is our treasure, but you want to tear it down.
I want to volunteer to create a David Bible, its like the Jefferson Bible, but anything that offends David will be removed. I will tear out the pages that you don’t like, I already know a bunch from reading this string. I will fund it 100%, plus shipping! But the shipping will be quite low, cause it won’t have too many pages. I’ll leave one in that says “God is Love” written in crayon just for you!
Don’t build your house on sand, David, it will collapse.
“I’ll leave one in that says “God is Love” written in crayon just for you!”
Wow. Just wow.
Dennis,
If you want to discuss the Bible, how it is interpreted, and what authority it has, I’m more than willing. But I am not interested in being ranted at and judged.
In Catholic school, we sang the song, “And they’ll know we are Christians be our love, etc.” Anyone remember that one? Recent posts take me back to those timeless lessons of respect and charity.
God be in my head, and in my understanding;
God be in mine eyes, and in my looking;
God be in my mouth, and in my speaking;
God be in my heart, and in my thinking;
God be at mine end, and at my departing. (Sarum Primer)
Btw, folks in this conversation may find this of interest – and also, somewhat a blast from the past: on the USCCB website, there is a statement reaffirming that New Ways Ministry is not authorized to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. Folks who follow Catholic events may recall that, in the 1990s, the two founders of New Ways Ministry, Fr. Robert Nugent and Sr. Jeannine Gramick, were barred by Rome from further association with New Ways Ministry because of its departure from Catholic teaching.
http://www.usccb.org/Wuerl-Cordileone-ltr-3-11-11.pdf
David, I apologize. I guess being called “hurtful and vicious” has hit a nerve.
Maybe the most direct answer to those who like to cherry pick biblical verses is that, at least insofar as their own personal salvation is concerned, those verses in the Bible have no relevance and the purpose of lobbing them like missiles at their fellow humans is simply to hurt, not to persuade.
Here is where I think protestants are in a better position than Catholics: the notion that we must all be perfectly aligned in religious orientation on matters that are defined from above as big or small (and thus major or minor sins when transgressed) means that people for whom a given sin has virtually no meaning (as in, they can’t even imagine being tempted to engage in that allegedly sinful behavior) nonetheless feel utterly confident that they comprehend its meaning — that the church is like a three dimensional jigsaw puzzle and if even one piece is out of place the whole thing is at risk of collapsing.
Some of us might read the Bible as enabling a great deal of what I would call standard male sexual fantasies — that its norms are geared to allowing a great deal of latitude for the historically dominant class. Ergo, your tempations to sin sexually are so much easier to manage because only the outliers are truly taxed with the label of deviance. Jesus clipped back some of that acting out of fantasy life, particularly as it pertained to divorce and outright cruelty to women, but most of it was left in place.
I fail to see how Catholics collectively or individually are harmed by other people living outside its norms. If that challenges the norms by showing that it’s possible to live happily outside of them that’s not David Nickol’s or Jimmy Mac’s fault or problem. And if they were wrong about the Bible or its interpretation, then it’s their funeral as one of my professors used to say, not yours.
Finally, someone has admitted that they think the Bible is misogynistic and that “most of it was left in place.” I think getting to the root of people’s beliefs about the Bible is the key in this discussion. Thanks, Barbara.
Dennis, you used the word misogyny, not me. Rather than actually addressing the comment, you characterized it in a conclusory and judgmental way. Your meme, so to speake, is judgment on others, not engagement with them.
I am sorry if I have misunderstood you. But it seems to me that someone who feels “that its norms are geared to allowing a great deal of latitude for the historically dominant class” means that the Bible is a tool for oppression.
If we see the Bible in this manner, I can see how you and many others on this string are more than willing to “cherry pick” what parts of the Bible you are willing to accept. My question to you is this: how does one determine what part of the Bible is God’s Word, and what part is a tool for the male power structure? Does it have something to do with how you feel about that particular verse?
Also, why exclude Jesus from this dominant power structure? Didn’t he have 12 apostles? – all men.
Dennis, my point is that if you are reading the Bible as part of God’s plan for your personal salvation a good rule of thumb is to focus most intently on those parts that are most directly relevant to your personal circumstances. In some cases (the Synoptic Gospels) that’s all parts for everyone. This is not a selective reading, this is a reading aimed at engaging the Bible for the purpose for which it exists according to Christian belief, and that is not to bludgeon your neighbor over the head with the passages that you think condemn him as a sinner.
A second point is to accept with humility that the Bible was written in a place and time with specific cultural norms some of which we avowedly no longer accept (we are NOT morally neutral towards slavery and polygamy and women do speak in church). This means you might have to work hard to see the connection between what was then and what is now, and not assume that there is a one to one correspondence between all rules and behavior you find there and what you find in the here and now.
In short: to accept that whether you are Sola Scriptura (which you seem to be close to saying) or something else in terms of your biblical exegesis, whatever else it is, the Bible is complex and nuanced and not simple to understand for anyone, let alone people living in a vastly different social context than the nomadic desert people among which it arose. Layer over that the fact that we are as individuals beset by different temptations, and that some of us can be grateful that there is a clear mostly satisfactory outlet for own temptations — and therefore should think long and hard before we assume we know the biblical truth for the salvation of others.
“Bible is a tool for oppression.” Depends in whose hands it is being wielded, it would seem. Try to make the argument that the Bible was not used as a tool of oppression when its texts was employed by Catholics and Protestants alike to defend chattel slavery well into the 1860s. Try to argue that the Bible has never been used to justify oppressive power structures. Any good instrument can be abused.
First, of all let me state that I agree with most of what you have said. We do need to look at the canon from a historical perspective in light of the cultural circumstances.
Take women’s ordination, for instance. While there are many instances of men taking the pastoral role, there are instances of women doing the same in the early church. Many have made good arguments for such a role for the widows, Priscilla, Phoebe, Mary Magdalene, and great women of the early church.
Unfortunately, this is not the case for homosexuality. There is no “other side.” All signs point one way.
Even I, the pariah of this blog, am not altogether pleased with the scriptural witness on this one. But it is what it is, and sometimes that has to be good enough when it comes to God’s communication with us. Sometimes you can’t get around a text no matter what you may want, and you need to simply accept it. Otherwise, the scriptures are rendered useless.
Dennis,
Please consider the exchange between you (9:45 am) and Barbara (9:54 am) in which she asks you why you prefer judgment over engagement with others, in which you look for evidence in the word of others to confirm a judgment already held or suspected. And please consider whether there is not something in your reading strategies that could benefit from what Paul Ricoeur refers to a hermeneutic of charity as opposed to a hermeneutic of suspicion. I think it makes all the difference in how we are invited to encounter the words of others and the Word of God.
Actually, Dennis, I very much welcome your contributions to this blog. The questions you raise should not be easily dismissed, the texts you point to cannot simply be ignored. Your distinction between women in ministry and homosexuality is a case in point.
Off to teach!
Is defending the ordinary understanding of God’s Word considered judgemental? If so, I am guilty as charged.
Lord, forgive me for getting back into this thread but:
“I fail to see how Catholics collectively or individually are harmed by other people living outside its norms. If that challenges the norms by showing that it’s possible to live happily outside of them that’s not David Nickol’s or Jimmy Mac’s fault or problem.”
Barbara, I don’t think that’s really the point for orthodox Catholics, though, is it? I think they might argue that the more numerous those living outside the norms of Catholicism, the more the Church’s influence–and God’s by extension–is weakened. Moreover, I expect orthodox Catholics would say it is not possible for homosexuals in a committed sexual relation to live happily; it is a sham happiness outside the true happiness afforded by knowledge of Christ.
The orthodox Catholics have Scripture and Tradition on their side, and I don’t anyone can argue that. What they don’t have on their side, in most cases, is the ability to answer questions and challenges with love and civility. In other words, they may have faith and hope, but the greatest of these–love–they’re sure not showing here.
What they fail to see is that their own rigidity and anger weakens the Church’s influence–and by extension God’s–as much as the behavior of any sinner.
Getting hacked up, misread, and accused of being a deny-er and unbeliever by Nancy certainly makes me think twice about wanting to seek a fuller communion with the Church.
Jean, my point is that at a certain level you have to be satisfied that you have the truth as you see it on your side and that ruling the lives and actions of others is not something you are entitled to do — whether they are incompatible with orthodoxy or not, and whether that diminishes the Church’s influence in the world or not. This is, perhaps, a conflict between those who really do adhere (whether they realize it or not) to the City of God view of Christianity — necessary for all if it is to be fulfilled for anyone — and those who believe that Christianity is so radical that it will never innately command the allegiance of a majority of people and thank God we live in a society that doesn’t punish us for the extremeness of our beliefs.
I realize that if you grew up in a mostly Catholic world Christianity seems ordinary but maybe we should step back and acknowledge how extraordinary its claims really are — if for no other reason than to gain empathy with those who struggle with them.
A quick note: America “Im All Things” has started a thread on the conference(s) by Tom Beadoin who is helping to plan the Fordham piece.
Already the usual argumentative comments are building up there.
I am interested in what wil lcome out of the conference which has to be beter than a lot of what I read here.
Is defending the ordinary understanding of God’s Word considered judgemental? If so, I am guilty as charged.
Dennis,
First, I didn’t say you were vicious and hurtful. I said it it is “tempting to say, intentionally, something as hurtful and vicious as the Dennis Di Mauros and Nancy Danielsons do.” The clear implication was that you comments are unintentionally vicious and hateful, not that you personally are vicious and hateful. There is a real difference, although perhaps I went too far. I could have made my point without naming names. So I apologize.
As for being judgmental, if we stick to arguing about what the Bible says, how it is to be interpreted, and what authority it has, there is no danger of being judgmental. It is only when we accuse people we are arguing with of being up to no good that we become judgmental.
Thank you for your apology. I certainly did not intend to accuse anyone of being up to no good. I was simply delving into what appears to be the predominant hermeneutic on this string. This is the crux of the homosexual debate, and to me it is much more important than the debate itself, which I feel is often motivated by a thinly veiled prejudice against gays on one side, and a larger libertine agenda on the other. That is why the discussion of “disorders” can become so biased, both for and against.
So what we are really left with is the Bible and tradition – but since tradition is often based on biblical interpretation, it always goes back to the canon. And I believe that our presuppositions about scripture lead to predictible interpretations on all kinds of different subjects. It is these presuppositions that direct affect our faith, morals, and ultimately, our relationship with God.
So New Ways Ministry is not authorized to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church?
This ministry may not be authorized to speak on behalf of the “Roman” Catholic Church, but the USCCB is not qualified to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church or individual Catholic Churches or individual Catholic parishes not affiliated with the Church of Rome.
I do wish these orthotoxic hierarchs would not be so uppity as to claim they somehow are qualified to speak on behalf of ALL Catholics — when, in fact, they are anything *but* qualified to do so!!!
Catholicism, after all, includes way, way more than the Church of Rome.
Jim–Does that mean New Ways Ministry is really Wrong Ways Ministry?
Apropos of nothing, I found the following Ratzingerian quote in Nancy’s link to Cross Roads Initiative:
“With the different symbols of faith, the believer recognizes and attests that he [sic] professes the faith of the entire Church. It is for this reason that, above all in the earliest symbols of faith, this consciousness is expressed in the formula ‘We believe.’ As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: ‘I believe’ (Apostles’ Creed) is the faith of the Church professed personally by each believer, principally during Baptism. ‘We believe’ (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) is the faith of the Church confessed by the Bishops assembled in council OR MORE GENERALLY BY THE LITURGICAL ASSEMBLY OF BELIEVERS. ‘I believe’ is also the Church, our mother, responding to God by faith as she teaches us to say both ‘I believe’ and ‘We believe’” (emphases added).
And now with the upcoming translation to “I believe…”
O, well, this wouldn’t be the first time Ratzinger has done a 180: Condoms are OK to prevent transmission of AIDS/HIV, and this pope is going to Assisi to meet other religious leaders……
I wonder what’s next?
I wonder if changing practices in media are contributing to the perceived authority of texts, including the Bible, and relationship with centralized forms of authority.
Oops! Mean to say:
I wonder if changing practices in media are contributing to transformations in the perceived authority of texts, including the Bible, and to transformations in our relationship with centralized forms of authority.
Question to the site managers: is this exchange approaching a site record for the number of posts? I think it’s somewhere in the 280s by now.
I think a contributor should find a way to weave a thread combining the Church’s position on homosexual inclinations and abortion. The resulting comments may approach an infinite jest. How about simply making the claim, “The Church’s position on homosexuality is an abortion” and letting it run from there?
If you are using “abortion” as a surrogate for “a crime,” I’ll agree.
William FG –
I can’t prove this, but I think that the media (including TV, movies, books, magazines, and maybe blogs) are the single most influential segment in our society, more than churches, parents, or the law. Schools serve to give us concepts, history, exercise in thinking skills, technical knowledge, etc., but I don’t think that even college exerts as much influence on young people’s thinking as the media do later. Yes, kids begin to change in college, but it’s only when they find corroboration or no corroboration of their inclinations in the wider society that their ideologies are hardened.
For this reason I think that the education of journalism majors is most important. Yes, other professions have their influence, but it’s largely the journalists who funnel the values and knowledge of the other professions, and of the colleges and churches into the wider society. And if the journalists don’t know a good bit of history, geography and economics, if they don’t know how to think critically, and know which questions are important to ask and report on, the society as a whole will be weakened because of it. Fortunately, not all journalists think alike.
Unfortunately, journalism majors and public relations majors are educated in the same departments, or they used to be.
(Jean, please comment on this probable over-simplification.)
Long gone are the days when rhetoric (the art of public discourse) was the heart of a liberal arts education. But Cicero argues that the orator must have knowledge of every field.
William FG –
Hmm. It seems to me that orators of Cicero’s day and the reporters/pundits of today differ radically. Rome didn’t have a TV industry, and I’ve never heard of any newspapers there. So what was the main source of information for those who governed? I assume it was the orators in the Senate.
But now the reporting of news and the *development* of news stories is not primarily a function of legislators, though legislative committees do call hearings, and they can require sworn testimony, unlike Wolf Blitzer or Brian Williams or Kathy Couric. (Wouldn’t it be an improvement if the latter could require the politicians to swear to tell the truth and be tossed in jail if they didn’t?)
Anyway, I think that Carlyle, Burke and other 18th and 19th century observers saw clearly that the power of fhe media was equal to that of the other Estates (the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Church in England), and I suspect the same was true of the power centers in France after the Revolution.
The truly dreadful thing about our TV medium (the most powerful of all, I think) is that the policies it assumes or explicitly pushes are determined by the owners and corporate advertisers. Objectivity is fostered only by the professional ethics of the reporters and pundits and that can be limited by just who gets hired in the first place.
Sometimes I wonder if the internet could start some sort of news institution which would be staffed only by independent reporters. That might work. But the internet would have to be kept neutral for that sort of arrangement to function well.
Oh my, we really have strayed from the thread topic. Maybe we could have a thread on the media some time.
I guess this thread is just about done.
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on Jones and Cox’s report on Catholic opinions on Gay and lesbian Issues?
Despite all the argumentation here, strikes me there is a growing distance from official teaching and beleifs and behaviors by many in the pews – a distance that just can’t be smoothly written off.
Hence, the kind of conference(s) we’ll see and, before shooting from the hip, think about.
http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/EucharisticAdoration/tabid/Default.aspx
Nancy,
I wonder if it is the work of the Holy Spirit that so many of your links don’t work.
Be nice, David!
“Unfortunately, journalism majors and public relations majors are educated in the same departments, or they used to be.”
At MSU, PR majors are often not journalism majors, but used to have to take some journalism courses in order to learn how to work with the press. The curriculum changed recently–which is why I’m now teaching composition and rhetoric again …
“And if the journalists don’t know a good bit of history, geography and economics, if they don’t know how to think critically, and know which questions are important to ask and report on, the society as a whole will be weakened because of it.”
I encouraged students to take a minor or double major in another field where they might want to report–political science, environmental science, education, religion, etc.
However, the problem is that, with the demise of so many newspapers, there is less and less of a market for reporters with specialized knowledge and more demand for generalists. David Gibson and others on other threads have noted that the number of religion reporters has dropped sharply in recent years.
Nancy’s link seemed to work just fine for me. Does that imply, following David’s lead, that if it doesn’t work for you, you’re from the evil one?
Mark,
Where did the link take you? I think Nancy meant you to go here
http://cns.winxweb.com/EucharisticAdoration/tabid/60/Default.aspx
The link takes you (or me, anyway) here
http://cns.winxweb.com/
David–
I believe you are correct. Thanks for fixing Nancy’s link, which otherwise might not have been found. The Lord works in mysterious ways, don’t you think?
Thanks, Jean. I don’t mean to dump on journalism majors. It’s just that I think it’s extremely important that those particular kids get really strong general educations.
Yes, the demise of the newspaper is bad news. Which reminds me — I have to figure out how to subscribe to the online NYT.
Mark,
The Lord’s ways are indeed mysterious if he worked through Nancy and then through me to add to this thread about homosexuality a link to a Lenten prayer campaign for the renewal of Catholic colleges. Of course, we should distinguish between mysteries, on the one hand, and things that just don’t make any sense at all, on the other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgqVCJpRqWQ
A strong general education helps, particularly a background in civics. However, as newspapers fail, more and more J-school student are taking journalism in tandem with tech knowledge needed as news organizations go electronic. I’m a little disturbed at the accolades some of the very young graduates have gotten for writing highly successful, trendy blogs that are breezy, entertaining, and uncritical.
I’m not an optimist by nature, and I have a notion that as the medium becomes more ephemeral, what is written carries less weight and is less considered. However, we all have to change or become obsolete ourselves. My grandmother loved horses, but she was the first lady teacher to buy a Ford in 1917.
F.Y.I.-
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2011/03/youve-likely-seen-the-reports-and-headlines.html
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/03/24/31532#comments
Poll: 74% of Catholics Support Recognizing Same-Sex Unions
March 24th, 2011
The day I left the institutional church was when collections were taken up–during the mass–to help to make same-sex marriage illegal in Maine and when I learned that diocesan funds across the county to support the media campaign for that ballot initiative. A clarifying moment.
… [Trackback] …
[...] Informations on that Topic: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=12517…