|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Evangelicals / Catholics Theological Method and Gender / Sexuality
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Also please note that this thread has veered very far off course: the OP question is
quote:
I was wondering why in (Anglo but not exclusively) Catholic circles those who support the OOW also tend to be affirming on sexuality, whereas in Evangelical circles (Anglo but not exclusively) those who support the OOW tend not to be.
Thank you Louise. I must admit I had pretty much given up hope.
I think it stands that a more catholic theological method links sexuality and gender more intimately than an evangelical theological method.
I can't comment on this from a Catholic point of view. But if we broaden 'evangelical' to include the classic Reformed churches, then we are simply less hung up about ontology! Apostolic Succession to us is primarily about preaching the Gospel, making ministry first and foremost about doing rather than being. There is no reason why a woman cannot do ministry, and therefore no reason why she should not be an ordained minister. Being is effectively neutral.
This emphasis of doing over being has worked well for us re. the ordination of women. Of course, it has also had to be combined with a reading of the Bible that recognises a variety of patterns of ministry in the early church, including women as leaders, elders, and apostles.
When it comes to homosexuality, debate has recognised that sexual orientation is probably intrinsic to a person, and is not a matter of choice, any more than being a woman is! There is therefore absolutely no prohibition against a gay person serving as a minister, and to be gay is no kind of sin. As I said, being is pretty much neutral, whether it is about gender or sexuality.
However, if a person is having sex with someone of the same gender, then they are doing something which the Bible seems to call sin. This means that even if that person is doing ministry, i.e., preaching the Gospel, they are at the same time doing something that the Bible says is wrong. Their sinful disobedience means that they have disqualified themselves from ministry.
In our tradition, the Bible always has the last word, trumping reason, experience, and tradition. This means that if a Reformed Christian honestly cannot see a validation of women's ministry in the scriptures, then they will not support OoW. This is the case even if they can see no other argument against their ordination, and even if they cannot understand why God would 'ban' it. They don't have to have any recourse to an ontology of male-female difference, and they don't have to disparage women as being in any way incapable of ministry. Their duty is simply to obey God's Word in the Bible even if they cannot see why God would say that.
By the same token, I know many in my tradition who are very conflicted when it comes to homosexuality. Their sensible, social brain tells them that their homosexual friends are in loving, affirming relationships, and they cannot see rationally why this should be a sin. Yet the Bible says it is. Some have done a great deal of study to see if there is any other way of interpreting the Bible, and badly wish that there was a nice clear verse saying "It's okay to be gay", but they just can't see it. So they submit to what they understand God to be saying.
I should add that the above is not my view! But it might help answer Edward's query.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
That's interesting, Cottontail. I do tend to agree that the Biblical record in re: OoW is far friendlier to it than it is to homosexuality. The Bible is not friendly at all to the latter - but then, the Bible has nothing nice to say about dogs, either.
So earlier resistance to the OoW was based purely on cultural norms, then, I'd bet? That by itself is also interesting in re: this topic.
Because if there were no Anglicanism, and all else being equal, I would far rather belong to a Catholic congregation as a gay person than an Evangelical one - because the culture of the latter seems so unforgiving. It wants to invade and to change me before accepting me as a member, while the Catholic Church at least accepts me for who I am. IOW, in the culture of Evangelicalism, it seems very important - to me at least - that everybody be the same sort of person, and go along 100% with the program. (I do have to say that I've seen some of this creep into the Catholic worldview in the last few years, so perhaps it's merely a matter of regime.)
Evangelicalism is very scary to me as a gay person. Not sure others feel that way, but it scares the living bejeezus (so to speak) out of me.
(I'd also like to point out that at least one woman priest I know considers some of the Episcopalian "low-church" types to be pretty misogynistic, even though they accept OoW - and even though she's basically "low-church" herself!)
[ 31. January 2011, 15:23: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... the Bible has nothing nice to say about dogs, either.
We must abolish all SPCA's!
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Tuba Mirum said
"Because if there were no Anglicanism, and all else being equal, I would far rather belong to a Catholic congregation as a gay person than an Evangelical one - because the culture of the latter seems so unforgiving. It wants to invade and to change me before accepting me as a member, while the Catholic Church at least accepts me for who I am"
I think that's on the whole right, although an evangelical view might be that there is forgiveness, but being a gay relationship is contrary to scriptural guidance so can't be condoned for the sorts of reasons Cottontail sets out. Maybe it's something to do with the emphasis on being born again.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Speaking as a non-RC, I also detect a kind of case-by-case fluidity and charity in pastoral care within Roman Catholicism that doesn't seem to be there in many Evangelical contexts. (I said many; not all.)
I've often told people that if I were hit by a bus and were in extremis on the curbside, I'd much rather be given last rites by an RC priest than spend my final moments on this mortal coil with some Bible-banging Evangelical demanding to know if I'd finally accepted Jesus as my Personal Savior.[tm] There just seems to be more room in RC theology for "cases" rather than blanket pronouncements regarding morality and salvation.
But that's perhaps just a sidebar observation.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Speaking as a non-RC, I also detect a kind of case-by-case fluidity and charity in pastoral care within Roman Catholicism that doesn't seem to be there in many Evangelical contexts. (I said many; not all.)
I've often told people that if I were hit by a bus and were in extremis on the curbside, I'd much rather be given last rites by an RC priest than spend my final moments on this mortal coil with some Bible-banging Evangelical demanding to know if I'd finally accepted Jesus as my Personal Savior.[tm] There just seems to be more room in RC theology for "cases" rather than blanket pronouncements regarding morality and salvation.
But that's perhaps just a sidebar observation.
And maybe that's part of the answer to the question posed in the OP, too; "last rites" actually exist. Confession, too. The Book of Common Prayer, in fact, has a whole "Pastoral Rites" section - which means that clergypeople need to deal with their parishioners at a case-by-case level (as LC says above).
And that means listening - two-way conversation. More information about the facts of the human condition implies more sympathy or empathy.
[ 31. January 2011, 19:45: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
It's rather illuminating, too, to read scholarship on the Mosaic Code suggesting that the ritual nitpickery and draconian punishments for "sin"/"uncleanness" were not enforced that stringently; that it was more an ideal, if that is the right word, of holiness and less a workable social program. Again, more fluidity and charity than some seem to think...which may be why today even in Conservative Jewish circles there seems to be more room for discussion of sexuality issues than in some absolutist Christian circles.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMiram:
So earlier resistance to the OoW was based purely on cultural norms, then, I'd bet? That by itself is also interesting in re: this topic.
I think this is true, and always has been, right back to the early church. What is useful in my tradition is that Calvin for one recognised this. For example, he notes how Paul does not allow women to speak in public because it would cause a scandal. He then goes on to say that it would still cause a scandal in his time, and so still should be avoided.
But he also speculates that a time may come when it is not a scandal for a woman to speak out, and adds that there will also times when a woman should and must speak out. So it is a matter both of social conformity and of prophetic non-conformity, according to the demands of the times. What it is not about is ontology. Nothing is set in stone!
In other words, Calvin was far from a literal fundamentalist, but put a huge emphasis on context. Context for him meant understanding a Bible verse in terms of the argument and intention of the whole passage, and wider still, in the light of the whole Bible. It also meant taking into account cultural norms at the time of writing, as well as at the time of reading.
What this means is that there is a strong resistance in the Reformed tradition to interpretative absolutes, and a strong precedence for going back to the scripture and re-reading it in the light of new understandings, both of scripture and of wider scholarship. (We are a very scholarly crew!) And so there is permission within the tradition for a constant re-visiting of Bible teachings on same-sex relationships. Many have done so, and like myself, have found that the Bible is more open on the issue than might have been expected. Have found, in fact, that God's grace is pretty darn wide.
NS: Just to clarify: Evangelical does not equal Reformed. We have our Evangelicals, to be sure, but we also have plenty who do not so identify. It's a spectrum, just like in Anglicanism.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Going back to the OP:
quote:
originally posted by Edward Green
I was wondering why in (Anglo but not exclusively) Catholic circles those who support the OOW also tend to be affirming on sexuality, whereas in Evangelical circles (Anglo but not exclusively) those who support the OOW tend not to be.
Notwithstanding your theological points, Edward, I actually wonder how much of this, in the UK anyway, is really about tribalism and church (and specifically Anglican church) politics, rather than theology per se.
It seems to me that there is a desire by such groupings as "Fulcrum" (in leadership terms pro OOW/anti homosexual practice) not to be outflanked to the right. That is to say, they are unlikely to lose "membership" to the left, since anyone who considers the party line to be too conservative has no-where to go whilst maintaining their evangelical distinctives such as a committment to conversionism and a high view of scripture. They are, however, susceptible to attrition from the right, towards more conservative groupings such as Reform. Am I being over cynical? Well, perhaps, but personal (if, admittedly, anecdotal) experiences suggest that the positions advocated, for example, by Wood and Barnabas62 of this parish, whilst maybe not the majority view, are certainly common in moderate evangelicalism in the UK.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting
Hi Lynnmagdalencollege,
You may have missed it but the Canadian registrar case is being discussed on the Gay Marriage and blurred boundaries thread where it belongs. Please don't derail this thread by importing that still open discussion here.
(And others - please shift your replies to Lynn on this back to the correct thread)
Apologies, Louise - I thought I was responding and answering questions and hadn't really thought about how far we've drifted from the OP. I'll simply reiterate my first post: I think both questions involve divine revelation.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
@ Cottontail, on one hand you are saying
"The bible trumps all"
But also
"We are very good at re-reading the bible in light of context".
I see a tension here as a theological method.
I suppose the catholic alternative is
"Making sense of the Bible trumps all"
(for example The Trinity trumps passages that could suggest adoptionism)
and
"We read the bible with those who have read it before us"
@Jolly Jape, you are probably right.
On the ground the moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo Evangelical who looks to Wesley rather than Calvin probably has more in common with the moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo Catholic who looks to Dearmer rather than Newman than with other Evangelicals.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Edward Green
...moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo Evangelical who looks to Wesley rather than Calvin
You rang????
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
@ Cottontail, on one hand you are saying
"The bible trumps all"
But also
"We are very good at re-reading the bible in light of context".
I see a tension here as a theological method.
If it's a tension, then it's a creative tension, and not a contradiction! We take out Bible very seriously, but that does not mean that it yields its meaning without struggle. God is not that transparent. Rather, our high view of scripture obliges us study it seriously for context, original meaning, etc. Who do you think invented Higher Criticism anyway? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
To posit either fundamentalist literalism, or the downgrading of the Bible is a false dichotomy.
quote:
I suppose the catholic alternative is
"Making sense of the Bible trumps all"
(for example The Trinity trumps passages that could suggest adoptionism)
and
"We read the bible with those who have read it before us"
Absolutely. That is our view too. Calvin knew his church fathers inside out, for example. We are just a little more free to disagree with them, though always with the utmost respect.
Once again, beware false dichotomies. It just may be that my tradition doesn't fit neatly into your rather polarised schema.
quote:
On the ground the moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo Evangelical who looks to Wesley rather than Calvin probably has more in common with the moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo Catholic who looks to Dearmer rather than Newman than with other Evangelicals.
You may think so, but don't dismiss your Reformed brethern too readily. 'Moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo' pretty much describes a vast swathe of the Calvinist tradition, including the Church of Scotland. Besides, modern Evangelicalism owes more to Arminianism than Calvinism, though I don't deny that there is overlap.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
NS: Just to clarify: Evangelical does not equal Reformed. We have our Evangelicals, to be sure, but we also have plenty who do not so identify. It's a spectrum, just like in Anglicanism.
Let me clear up some confusion I have about this, if you don't mind.
Is "Reformed" a generic word for "Protestant"? Are all Evangelicals Reformed, but it doesn't work the other way around?
Or is "Reformed" a generic word for "Protestant-and-in-the-mainstream"? And Evangelicals are their own category (if you see what I mean)?
Thanks - interesting discussion. We don't have many Evangelicals in TEC, so it's all a bit mysterious to me....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
"Reformed" is basically a broad-label term used to describe Prots who look to Calvin and Geneva for at least their soteriology (monergist) and in some cases also for their ecclesiology (presbyterian). According to the 39 Articles, for example, the Church of England is Reformed in its soteriology but episcopal in ecclesiology. "Evengelical" tends to mean those Prots who stress the need for personal conversion, penal substitutionary atonement, the supremacy (not necessarily inerrancy) of Scripture in all matters of faith and doctrine etc.* Thus there is some overlap but not all Reformed Christians are evangelical and not all evangelicals are Reformed (some, esp Penties, are Arminian).
*There are two other main meanings of the term: 'Evangelical' (big 'E') is used to describe Lutheran churches in mainland Europe and 'evangelical' is used by Catholics (and I think Orthodox too) to describe those adhering to a monastic way of life.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Thank you, Matt. The biggest surprise for me in your explanation was that Lutherans are not considered Reformed! I think I've been mixing up the terms "Reformed" and "Reformation," actually.
Things are much clearer now - oh, except I have to look up "monergist" and "arminian," and all that stuff. You can't tell the players without a scorecard....
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I have another question of the anti-gay respondents here.
We all know your arguments for opposing same-sex marriage.
What is your moral opposition to gay partners having the right to share partner benefits?
In my state legislators have tried to punish state-funded organizations like state universities who have offered health insurance and other benefits to same-sex partners.
What is your theological justification for thinking that this is a good and righteous act on the part of these legislators? We're not talking the M word or even the CU word -- we're talking about employees being able to share their benefits, pensions and other work benefits with their partners? Why is Jesus smiling at this, in your view? Remember -- I want theological justification.
Those benefits are approved by the State, it's the business of the State. Civil partnerships, tax breaks, healthcare considerations (etc etc) for same-sex, trans, poly, zoo (etc etc) unions are granted or denied by the authority of the State.
The Church can counsel the faithful, but State-sanctioned sin will always be just that. Correspondingly, there is no Sacramental Reconciliation for a government, but only for individuals.
I suppose you might have a point, but there is - thankfully - enough wriggle space for people to apply the rule in an even-handed manner.
Certainly a ruling less liable to being misconstrued would help to bring clarity to the matter.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
/Tangent/
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Thank you, Matt. The biggest surprise for me in your explanation was that Lutherans are not considered Reformed! I think I've been mixing up the terms "Reformed" and "Reformation," actually.
Things are much clearer now - oh, except I have to look up "monergist" and "arminian," and all that stuff. You can't tell the players without a scorecard....
That's okay, we are used to not being understood. The effort is appreciated.
I guess it's like the word 'catholic' - there are little-c catholics and big-C Catholics. All Protestant churches are little-r reformed, but big-R Reformed Churches denotes those who are descended from Geneva, as Matt said.
It's a handy catch-all term for what is a variety of church set-ups, some Presbyterian, some Congregationalist, and some even Episcopal. Wikipedia suggests that there are 746 ( ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ) Reformed denominations world wide, but that's because we don't do any denominational thing bigger than a single country, and because we like splitting so much. But we are all family nevertheless.
//end Tangent//
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I've often told people that if I were hit by a bus and were in extremis on the curbside, I'd much rather be given last rites by an RC priest than spend my final moments on this mortal coil with some Bible-banging Evangelical demanding to know if I'd finally accepted Jesus as my Personal Savior.
I so agree with that.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
If it's a tension, then it's a creative tension, and not a contradiction! We take out Bible very seriously, but that does not mean that it yields its meaning without struggle. God is not that transparent. Rather, our high view of scripture obliges us study it seriously for context, original meaning, etc. Who do you think invented Higher Criticism anyway?
To posit either fundamentalist literalism, or the downgrading of the Bible is a false dichotomy.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
One of the things that frustrates me the most about conversations on homosexuality is the assumption, by SOME people that I have the conversation with, that I must have 'downgraded the Bible' to suit myself in order to reach the conclusion I have now reached, that homosexuality is okay.
I find it quite hard to cope with that assumption, because it's so horribly far from the truth. I didn't downgrade the Bible one iota. I wrestled with it. More than anything I respected it. And I eventually came to a sincere conclusion about what I think it really, truly says.
To have that conclusion slapped away just because it doesn't match another person's views, often quite unthinking views maintained without any real thought, is a difficult thing to bear.
So thank you for articulating a view of Scripture that matches my own experience and which allows for struggle.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"Reformed" is basically a broad-label term used to describe Prots who look to Calvin and Geneva for at least their soteriology (monergist) and in some cases also for their ecclesiology (presbyterian). According to the 39 Articles, for example, the Church of England is Reformed in its soteriology but episcopal in ecclesiology.
Yep, exactly!
And "Reformed" (in this context) might or might not be the same as "Evangelical".
Almost all Pentecostalists and charismatic Churches count as "Evangelical", but most aren't "Reformed" in this sense, (though NFI are). Presbyterians and URC are by definition "Reformed" but most aren't "Evangelical" - though some are. Methodists are have a foot in both camps, but most Methodists are neither Evangelical nor Reformed.
The largest Evangelican denominational groups in Britain are Anglicans and Baptists. Perhaps a third of the CofE and almost all of the baptists would count as Evangelical. But rather fewer of either could broadly described as "Reformed".
In the Church of England effectively all the Reformed party would also be evangelicals. But among the independents in the Baptists and perhaps also URC the most strongly "Reformed" might often be the less obviously "Evangelical".
Its all good fun. And it all changes depending on context. If you go over the channel, or if you talking about the 16th century, the same words mean different things.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"Evangelical" tends to mean those Prots who stress the need for personal conversion, penal substitutionary atonement, the supremacy (not necessarily inerrancy) of Scripture in all matters of faith and doctrine etc.* Thus there is some overlap but not all Reformed Christians are evangelical and not all evangelicals are Reformed (some, esp Penties, are Arminian).
Historically at least plenty of Evangelicals would not tick the PSA box - especially in the Arminian stream.
There is something uniquely cultural about Evangelicalism which I think is related to it being confessional.
Like others I found myself outside the fold when I discovered sacramental Christianity. Having left a New Church for a Catholic(ish) Anglican church, and having questioned some of the culture of Evangelicalism (especially its approach to leadership, ministry, media and merchandise) I suddenly found myself no longer considered Evangelical by other Evangelicals. Most of my theology had not changed at that point. Once my theology did change I was clearly no longer a sound Evangelical.
Catholicism in its various forms somehow feels more diverse. Yes there are those who would consider others 'not real Catholics' because of theology or church they worship in and there is a culture (although I try to avoid it!), but the shibboleths of sacramental Christianity are of a different order. A respect for and continuity with the Tradition, a universal understanding of the church militant, expectant and triumphant, and the presence of Christ in the sacraments.
I can't quite put my finger on why one set of identities seem to include a much wider range of theology and practice, and have a looser identity.
In may be because the Catholic Revival is on the wane in the CofE whilst the Evangelical Revival, especially in Charismatic form is on the increase.
Or it could come back to the way modern Catholic theology deals with practice.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Edward Green, you might be interested in reading this article by James Alison. It speaks to some of the questions it seems you have on this topic; Alison is sort of charting his own history in moving from Evangelicalism to Catholicism. And, of course, he's gay himself.
Here's an interesting part I thought:
quote:
Then again, one of the reliefs about coming into the Church was precisely that it was not ethics-obsessed. I remember, a year or so after becoming a Catholic, realising that one of the first things I had to learn about being a Catholic – bizarrely – was how to sin. In the world of my formation, being good was obligatory and boring. And sinning, being bad, was a terrible letting down of the side. A sort of failure of English gentlemanliness. This meant, in fact, a constant struggle to live up to “being good”, whatever that meant. Curiously, a strong belief in “Justification by faith alone” seemed to have as its psychological counterpart an extreme need to justify oneself. As a Catholic I had to learn that sin is boringly normal, and that what is exciting is being pulled into learning new things, called virtues, which are ways in which a goodness which is not ours becomes connatural with us, and that this is something of an adventure. I had to learn how not to be so concerned with whether I was getting things right or wrong, but to learn instead to relax into the given-ness of things. I can scarcely tell you how strange it sounds in retrospect, but I was discovering that it is part of the mercy of the Catholic faith that those of us who are infected by spiritual haughtiness find ourselves being lowered slowly and gently into the mud, the slime, of being one of ordinary humanity, and learning that it is this ordinary humanity which is loved as it is. If there are to be any diamonds, they will be found amidst the clay, and as the outworking of the pressures in the clay, not perched on high, on stalks, trying to avoid being infected by so much common carbon.
[ 02. February 2011, 12:14: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One of the things that frustrates me the most about conversations on homosexuality is the assumption, by SOME people that I have the conversation with, that I must have 'downgraded the Bible' to suit myself in order to reach the conclusion I have now reached, that homosexuality is okay.
Conversely, opponents would have us believe that they were raised as feral children where societal prejudices could have no bearing on their conclusions, wandered out of the forest, opened a Bible, and it just happened conveniently to back up conventional ideas of morality and proscribe certain relationships of which they honestly had no opinion before and how dare anyone suggest that the Bible confirmed their views already instilled by parents and preachers rather than the other way around. They have no great wish to cause us harm, and if only the Bible didn't say what they think it does they'd leave us alone - but then, when we take them up on that and furnish them with ample room for doubt that it does in fact say that they suddenly become curiously invested in countering that doubt for someone who supposedly doesn't have an agenda one way or another.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
