Brethren, Peace and Good to all of you. As many of you already know, the Archbishop of San Francisco, George Niederauer, "disinvited" openly homosexual Protestant clergy from Advent vespers in a local parish. The "LGBT Community" is thoroughly offended and is attempting to make this a wedge issue.As part of that effort, an unknown writer - the piece has no byline, although the writer's identity is probably known by the regulars - of the San Francisco Guardian Online wrote a piece titled Catholic Church rejects LGBT ministers in which he vents his anger. I left a comment in their comm-box which I now reproduce here:
Quote:
I grew up in the Catholic Church, and it pretty much drove me away from religion. I could never quite get the basic contradictions between a message of love for all people and a politics of intolerance. (Jesus loves his children, except the women, who have to be second-class citizens, and the homosexuals, who are going to burn in Hell.)It appears you missed CCD class the day they discussed this:
Chastity and homosexualityYou misinform your readers when you state that the Church's stance is to hate homosexual persons. Far from it.
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
"2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
"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."
The thing is that just as there is no truth without love, there is no love without truth. We would be lying to you if we say that sexual relations - rather, the simulation of sexual relations - between members of the same sex, when engaged freely and with full knowledge, are healthy to your body, mind, and spirit. They are not and if we lie, our love for you would be a lie.
The Archbishop of San Francisco acted correctly and in accordance to the stated Catholic doctrine. Inviting clergy engaged in same-sex couplings would have confused people - something the good Archbishop learned the hard way four years ago - giving the impression that it is "OK" for people who profess love for Christ and for the Gospel and even purportedly seek to serve Him in ordained ministry while engaging in behavior against Nature and against Nature's God.
We have to preach the Gospel in and out of season and now it's definitely out of season and in San Francisco, much out of place. But we are not going shy away despite the calumnies, the hate, and the lies thrown against us.
May the Lord richly bless you, and may the Lord bless and keep the good Archbishop of San Francisco.
Posts
5 comments:
The foundational assertion underlying the Catechism's view of homosexuality is that the Bible "presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity." You neglected, however, to spell out the reference used to substantiate that assertion. Reference 140 points to four specific Biblical passages. The first is the Sodom story, which is quite explicitly about same-sex gang rape. The other three are NT passages from Paul's letters ... one being from Romans 1, which is specifically about people "inflamed with lust." All three NT passages -- the other two are 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 -- are acknowledged by the Catholic scholars/translators behind the Church's own NAB translation to be about things like pederasty. (One can confirm this by visiting the USCCB website and reading the footnotes for the 1 Corinthians 6 NAB commentary.) Those four passages are relevant only if one believes going in that homosexuality = rape/lust/pedophilia/prostitution. And it's not merely including homosexuality as one item on a list of sexual sins; it is using those other destructive behaviors, all grounded entirely in a desire for self-gratification, to define the essence of what homosexuals -- including those in loving, monogamous, same-gender relationships -- are. That general view of homosexuals, which is not Biblical in and of itself, but rather is a lens through which Scripture is interpreted in the Catechism, is apparent in much of what Catholic leaders have to say, no matter how much they try to sugar-coat it. And you really don't need to look any further than that to understand why so many non-Catholics find the official Catholic position so offensive and ridiculous. Such malicious characterizations would be harmful to LGBT people even if that were as far as it went; the fact that the Church is working so hard to embed its views in laws that impact everyone just makes it that much worse.
@ Dave N. I didn't "neglect" anything, really. I always assume that my readers would do the homework, much as you seem to have done.
The Catholic Doctrine ennunciated in the Catechism is as old as the Bible itself and for us, as you probably know, the Bible is not the sole rule of faith and morals. Despite what some exegetes may or may not think about what the Bible says or doesn't say about homosexual relations per sé, the fact of the matter is that for ever and for always, the moral teaching of the Church is not solely derived from exegetical interpretations of the Bible, much less about what some isolated 20th century exegetes may think.
That the post-modern peanut gallery may consider the Catholic moral position, along with our view of a human nature gifted with clear attributes oriented towards a supernatural end, while presuming to redefine by academic fiat that very nature, as "ridiculous", has no bearing. We're not here to win popularity contests among the epicureans of the day, we are here to preach the truth about God and the truth about Man - male and female, created in his image and likeness, oriented toward each other in full complementarity.
Finally, regarding your accusation against the Church's attempt to embed her views into laws affecting everybody, it is really the reverse. For 5,000 years of recorded history, marriage between one man or one woman - or between one man and many women - have been the societal norm. Other pairings or groupings may have been tolerated here and there, but never EVER recognized as equal to marriage in any society. Marriage as we know it, is a natural consequence of human social evolution.
Now, you and the likes of you want to redefine marriage after 5,000 years, affecting along the way the rest of us, turning those of us who defend natural marriage into outcasts, bigots and worse, in the free society we helped create.
Well, we won't stand for it.
May the Lord richly bless you this upcoming Christmas Day.
-Theo
Brethren, for those of you interested in finding out more about the foundations of Catholic Moral Philosophy, I invite you to read the following work:
Right and Reason by Fr. Austin Fagothey.
To learn more about the teaching of Catholic Moral Theology about homosexuality, this lecture by Dr. Peter Kreeft is very enlightening:
Moral Theology and Homosexuality — Traditional moral wisdom for modern moral confusion.
Don't be scared by the homosexualist Jabberwocky! Ground yourself in the faith and hold your head high, confident about the teaching you have received.
+JMJ,
-Theo
The things you claim I characterized as "ridiculous" ... I didn't. What I DID say was ridiculous is the assertion that same-gender couples, including some I know that have been in committed relationships for over 20 years, were and are driven by the same lustful, self-indulgent, destructive drives that the gang-rapists of Sodom were. And that is what the Catechism requires one to believe if its reference to the Sodom story is to make any sense. And that view of the Sodom story is not just that of "some isolated 20th-century exegetes" ... it is quite clearly what the story is about. And when it comes to the NT, I'm not sure a Catholic should be quite so dismissive of scholarly views of the USCCB and NAB translators, either.
As for US civil law, theological arguments aren't really relevant (as per the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment), nor is your desire to avoid being "outcasts." The fact is that if federal, state, and local governments eventually come to recognize civil marriages for same-gender couples, that won't make you any more or less an outcast than you already are. Trying to wage that war by fighting to maintain/pass laws that negatively impact those that you disagree with is an inappropriate and counterproductive choice of a battlefield. And as for bigotry -- Merriam-Webster defines intolerant as follows: "unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights: bigoted." People should respect the right of Catholics to make their theological case as to why they believe same-gender relationships are always wrong, and enforce their conclusions on their own members as they see fit. But when you try to deprive same-gender couples of legal rights, benefits, and protections granted to straight married couples, using the worst sorts of negative stereotypes to make your case, you actually have moved into an area where the term "bigoted" quite literally applies.
@Dave N: My reply to your latest comment was too long for the comm box. Please, kindly read it here. Thank you for commenting in Vivificat.
+JMJ,
-Theo
Post a Comment