An Article about Marriage — Edited July 29

Our fellow blogger Giraffe Pen, has linked this article in one of his posts, and I've decided to link it just in case you didn't catch it on his blog.

Regardless of how you feel on the basic question, you may find it interesting as an example of "Where did we go wrong" and "Where do we go from here" thinking on the part of Evangelical Christians. I don't recall any significant disagreements from a Catholic point of view, except that officially we didn't cave in on divorce and contraception. But I found a couple of points especially worth noting.

First was that marriage isn't a license to have sex, it's a license to have children. I've often thought that the misconception that it was for sex is what lay behind the phenomenon of multiple marriages in Hollywood, which became the model for much of the culture. Maybe I'm misjudging, but it seemed to me that it was all about sex. The stars divorced and remarried so that they could legitimately — in the eyes of their fans — have sex with the ones they wanted to.

Then there is the further point that marriage functioned as a symbol of the importance society placed on children, by establishing an institution in which they would be both produced and cared for.

Anyway, I find it a good example of an acknowledgment that same sex marriage has become thinkable only because society's understanding of marriage had already become confused.

Edit: Sorry, I inadvertently linked the last page of the article instead of the first. I've corrected that now, I think.

July 24 — St. Sharbel Makhluf

St. Sharbel is not well known, and not one whose optional memorial I would normally note, but in honor of Pilgrim I'll give this notice, quoted from an account I have.

"Born in 1828 in a small mountain village in north Lebanon, he became a monk of the Maronite Rite and was ordained a priest in 1859. Devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, he spent the last twenty-three years of his life as a hermit. Despite temptations to wealth and comfort, Sharbel taught the value of poverty, self-sacrifice, and prayer by the life he lived. He possessed the gift of performing miracles even during his lifetime. [He died on Christmas Eve in 1898.] His tomb at the monastery of St. Maron in Annaya, Lebanon, is a place of pilgrimage. Canonized by Pope Paul VI in 1977, Sharbel is known as the "Hermit of Lebanon." This memorial has been newly included in the Universal Calendar of the revised [Roman Missal]."

Additional detail about the saint is available in a wiki article.

New Blog: I Like Guys

Jay, at Adventures of a Christian Collegian, recommended this new blog, I Like Guys (There. I Said It), and I went over and checked it out. Steve, the blogger, just graduated from Wheaton College in Illinois. (For those who don't know of it, it is an Evangelical Christian college.) His post "Gay At Wheaton" tells of some of the trials and satisfactions he experienced while there. It may resonate with those who are going to college and it may give some good ideas for people who are in college or will be going soon. I think it can also be helpful for those who are in churches that do not approve of homosexual conduct. Steve presents some hope for acceptance and inclusion in such communities. So why not check it out.

I've linked it in my list in the left column so you can keep an eye on it if you don't decide to sign up as a follower.

What Does St. Paul Say — No. 2: Romans 1:27

Here's the next bit of my take on Romans. I'll have at least one more post on Romans, in which I'll look beyond the words of the verses themselves to things in scripture beyond St. Paul's writings specifically on homosexuality. I think these other passages will help us interpret these verses from St. Paul. But for now, here's something on Romans 1:27 by itself.

Romans 1:27

"[A]nd the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." The phrase translated "natural relations" is the same as in the preceding verse. Here natural relations are specified as being "with women."  I see the phrase "with women" as clarifiying Paul's understanding. To him, "natural relations" are heterosexual. The same question as to what is natural applies as in the previous verse: is this only because he is unaware of homosexuality as an orientation? Would he have been equally against homosexually oriented men giving up "natural relations" with men, as some have suggested? And in any event, is that how we should understand the verse in the light of modern psychology? In addition to what I said about the question in discussing verse 26, there is more to be said.

In the first place, there seems to be consensus that sexual orientation is a continuum. So if it is agreed that the verse applies to heterosexual men, what are we to say of men who are 90% hetero, or in the middle, or 80% gay? When does heterosexuality stop becoming natural and get replaced by homosexuality? If both are natural for someone who is in the middle of the scale, where does one or the other stop being natural? Or is there no single natural for anybody? That seems to be the necessary conclusion, as I cannot find a point at which one could reasonably say that one stops being natural and the others starts. So what somebody is doing is natural at that moment even if it is only expressing 5% of their sexuality. But in that case, the verse is empty. To me it seems that to find it meaningless is unacceptable for someone who believes that scripture is in a meaningful sense, the word of God, which is the premise of caring about what it says.

Then there is the phrase about "committing shameless acts." Other translations use other adjectives such as "indecent," "filthy," or "shameful." But the meaning is substantially the same. The commentators I'm aware of explain this as a case of Paul accepting the culture of his time, which regarded the receiving position in anal intercourse as unfit and degrading for one who was socially superior to the other party. In Stoic thinking, Byrne says, "The 'reduction' of the male to the female [role] constituted a 'shame' contrary to nature." I think it's reasonable, if not inescapable, that a Christian must not cause someone else to commit shameful acts any more than he should do them himself. So if it is shameful to be the "bottom" in anal intercourse, it is equally wrong to be the "top."

Welcome — July 16, 2009: Callen

Welcome to Callen, my newest follower.  He's about to start his senior year in college and planning to go to law school after that. He's also in a leadership position at the Iowa State Univ. LGBTAA. So why not go by and take a peek at his blog and see what he's up to.

I hope you find my blog interesting and thought provoking, Callen.

Edit: BTW, he has just moved to blogger from his old blog. I've linked the new url to his name in the first line. Here's his old blog.

July 13, 2009 — St. Henry II, Emperor

Coincidentally, the day the church remembers St. Henry is two days after the feast of St. Benedict, July 13 being the date of Henry's death in 1024. He was born in 972 or 973, the son of Duke Henry of Bavaria and Gisela of Burgundy. He was educated by St. Wolfgang, Bishop of Regensburg (himself a Benedictine monk). In 995 he succeeded his father as Duke of Bavaria. In 1002, he was elected King of Germany; in 1004 he became King of Italy; and in 1014 Pope Benedict VIII crowned him as Holy Roman Emperor. He was the last of the Saxon emperors.

It was an age in which the notion of separation of church and state was essentially unknown. Popes crowned kings (e.g., St. Stephen of Hungary — husband of Henry's sister Gisela — whose crown was sent to him in the year 1,000 by Pope Sylvester II), some bishops were secular rulers as well as spiritual (prince bishops), and kings founded churches and appointed bishops. And thus Henry took an active interest, not only in the defense of his empire, but also in the well-being of the church within his realm. The Schott daily missal credits him with filling the bishoprics of Germany and Italy with excellent men, supporting monastic reforms (monasticism always is in danger of becoming too worldly), re-establishing the diocese of Meresburg, and establishing the diocese of Bamberg as a center for missions to the Slavs.

He married St. Cunigunda, daughter of the Count of Luxemburg. The marriage was childless, possibly because she or both took a vow of virginity. They are entombed side by side in the cathedral of Bamberg — another place (in addition to St. Boniface's tomb in Fulda) I have visited and prayed for Germany.

St. Henry is patron saint, among other things, of Benedictine Oblates*, which makes him of further interest to me, since I am a secular oblate since my time at the monastery. Whether Henry was himself an oblate I don't know. There are accounts of his asking to join a monastery and being refused by the abbot because his work as ruler was too important.

I think it is worth reflecting on the point that being a layman fully involved in the affairs of the world is no bar to holiness. Indeed, we are all called to be holy by doing our work in ways which correspond to God's will, ways which make this world more the sort of place God wants it to be — to the best of our understanding and ability — and doing the same in family life and all our dealings with others.

*(From the linked article) — From the very beginning Benedictine monasteries accepted boys, and convents received girls, "offered!' to them by their parents for their religious training and education. These children lived in the community, shared its daily round of religious activities, and became known as Oblates. In the course of time, lay people asked to be associated with the work of the monks and nuns, without however leaving their homes, families, and occupations. These too were received, offered. themselves to God, became Oblates of a monastery or convent, and promised to regulate their lives according to the spirit of the Rule of St. Benedict. They applied the teachings of the Rule to their lives in the world, in their family circles, in their places of work, and in their civic and social activities. 

Oblates are called "claustral" (=cloistered) if they live in the monastery, and "secular" (=of the world) if they do not live in the monastery. I like to say I am "a very secular oblate."

Welcome — July 12, 2009: Why Me?

A big Naturgesetz welcome to my latest follower, Why Me?, who is a brand new blogger. So far he has made six posts, so you can read his entire blogging output to date without spending a day and a half. He's recently been made redundant (laid off), and so far he seems to be making good use of the newfound free time. I like his attitude. Maybe you will too.

July 11, 2009 — St. Benedict, Patron of Europe

St. Benedict lived from about 480 to 547 and is considered the founder of Western monasticism. He founded several monasteries, the last and most important of which is Monte Cassino, which the allies bombed heavily during WWII because they thought that the Germans were using it. He wrote a Rule for monks and monasteries, drawing on earlier rules from the Eastern Mediterranean area. This rule, considered highly practical and moderate in its requirements, came to be adopted by many subsequent monasteries. And as the monasteries were the principal places in Europe where the learning of classical antiquity was preserved and transmitted during the Middle Ages, Pope Paul VI proclaimed him patron saint of Europe in 1964.

Here a couple of excerpts from an address by Pope Benedict XVI at his weekly audience of April 9, 2008. The Pope took the name Benedict because of his belief in the continuing importance of the work of the saint for today's world.

Today, I would like to speak about Benedict, the Founder of Western Monasticism and also the Patron of my Pontificate. I begin with words that St Gregory the Great wrote about St Benedict: "The man of God who shone on this earth among so many miracles was just as brilliant in the eloquent exposition of his teaching" (cf. Dialogues II, 36). The great Pope wrote these words in 592 A.D. The holy monk, who had died barely 50 years earlier, lived on in people's memories and especially in the flourishing religious Order he had founded. St Benedict of Norcia, with his life and his work, had a fundamental influence on the development of European civilization and culture. The most important source on Benedict's life is the second book of St Gregory the Great's Dialogues.

The Abbot must be at the same time a tender father and a strict teacher (cf. 2, 24), a true educator. Inflexible against vices, he is nevertheless called above all to imitate the tenderness of the Good Shepherd (27, 8), to "serve rather than to rule" (64, 8) in order "to show them all what is good and holy by his deeds more than by his words" and "illustrate the divine precepts by his example" (2, 12). To be able to decide responsibly, the Abbot must also be a person who listens to "the brethren's views" (3, 2), because "the Lord often reveals to the youngest what is best" (3, 3). This provision makes a Rule written almost 15 centuries ago surprisingly modern! A man with public responsibility even in small circles must always be a man who can listen and learn from what he hears.

Benedict describes the Rule he wrote as "minimal, just an initial outline" (cf. 73, 8); in fact, however, he offers useful guidelines not only for monks but for all who seek guidance on their journey toward God. For its moderation, humanity and sober discernment between the essential and the secondary in spiritual life, his Rule has retained its illuminating power even to today. By proclaiming St Benedict Patron of Europe on 24 October 1964, Paul VI intended to recognize the marvellous work the Saint achieved with his Rule for the formation of the civilization and culture of Europe. Having recently emerged from a century that was deeply wounded by two World Wars and the collapse of the great ideologies, now revealed as tragic utopias, Europe today is in search of its own identity. Of course, in order to create new and lasting unity, political, economic and juridical instruments are important, but it is also necessary to awaken an ethical and spiritual renewal which draws on the Christian roots of the Continent, otherwise a new Europe cannot be built. Without this vital sap, man is exposed to the danger of succumbing to the ancient temptation of seeking to redeem himself by himself - a utopia which in different ways, in 20th-century Europe, as Pope John Paul II pointed out, has caused "a regression without precedent in the tormented history of humanity" (Address to the Pontifical Council for Culture, 12 January 1990). Today, in seeking true progress, let us also listen to the Rule of St Benedict as a guiding light on our journey. The great monk is still a true master at whose school we can learn to become proficient in true humanism.

His feast was generally observed for centuries on March 21, believed to be the date of his death. But since that date always falls within Lent and is thus unsuitable for great festivities, the date was changed to July 11, which had long been a secondary feast day of the saint. (Some monastic and local calendars may still use the March date, but the Roman calendar, followed by most of the Roman Catholic churches, has July 11.) Christians may wish to pray on this day for the "ethical and spiritual renewal which draws on the Christian roots of the Continent" which the Pope speaks of as necessary for the building of "a new Europe."

Fourth of July: An Alternative View

In the Boston Globe of Friday July 3, an opinion piece was published on the op-ed page in which the author presents an alternative view of the American Revolution.

Here's the opening prargraph. "MY EX-FATHER-IN-LAW is the only true conservative I’ve ever met. Why? Because he believes that the American Revolution was a mistake. That is, as a true believer in law and order, he abhors unlawful violence of any kind, even that used to overthrow unjust and oppressive governments." The whole thing is available through the link above.

Fun to think about. OTOH if the US hadn't been independent in the time of Jefferson, much of the continent might have remained in French and Spanish hands — which might or might not have been a good thing.

Happy Independence Day

July 4, the national holiday of the United States, when the Continental Congress adopted the actual text of the Declaration of Independence, having decided two days earlier to make such a declaration.

Enjoy the day, Americans.

In my town, the bells of the town hall and churches are rung for 1/2 hour at 7:30,a.m., noon, and 5:00 p.m., and there is a "horribles parade" in which children dress up in patriotic, topical, or grotesque costumes.

I'll be having the traditional salmon and peas for lunch, and some "barbecued" spareribs for dinner (sprinkled with a pork rub, covered with barbecue sauce, and baked for an hour in a covered dish) with home baked apple pie for dessert.

What Does St. Paul Say — No. 2: Romans 1:26

Romans 1:26

"Their women exchanged natural relations (την φυσικην χρησιν — ten physiken chresin) for unnatural (την παρα φυσιν — ten para physin)" There seems to be no doubt that "chresis" here means sexual activity. So the question, it seems to me, is one of understanding "nature —physis," "natural — physiken," and "unnatural — para physin." Are we to understand it as a single nature, the nature of creation, the nature of a single humanity, or are we to take it, as some have urged, as the personal nature of each individual?

Well, it's a blanket statement. Nothing about doing things contrary to their nature, but simply contrary to "nature." Those who urge restricting the force of this verse and the following one to those of heterosexual orientation acknowledge that Paul knew nothing of orientations, just conduct. So in his mind, there cannot have been a separate nature for the homosexually oriented.

Early writers similarly see nature as a single thing. For example, Tertullian (155/160-240/250) writes, "When Paul asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, he validates the natural way." And Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384) writes,"For what is it to change the use of nature into a use which is contrary to nature, if not to take away the former and adopt the latter, so that the same part of the body should be used by each of the sexes in a way for which it was not intended? Therefore, if this is the part of the body which they think it is, how could they have changed the natural use of it if they had not had this use given to them by nature?"

Brendan Byrne, S.J., an Australian Jesuit, wrote the commentary on Romans in the Sacra Pagina series, published in 1996. He is sympathetic to the view that would take modern psychology into account in applying these verses. But he notes that, "The preposition (para) in the Greek phrase para physin here has the strong sense of 'contrary to …' Josephus … uses precisely the phrase para physin in criticism of homosexual union. … Used in this strong sense, the phrase was a commonplace in popular Stoic ethical discussion and features prominently in literature debating the propriety of same-sex love. The Pauline usage reflects a popular appropriation of the Stoic tradition." In another place he adds, "The language reflects the conventional Stoic sense of 'nature' as the established order of things (cf. 11:21,24)."

So it seems to me that the literal meaning of this verse, and the way Paul would have intended it, is to regard all female homosexual behavior as wrong. This also has implications for male behavior, which is explicitly discussed in verse 27.

Because of the length of the discussion, I will stop here, and return with discussion of verse 27 and my conclusions on the nature/orientation question in a subsequent post.

What Does St. Paul Say — No. 2: A Note About Interpreting Scripture

Gomad.ch asked, "Given that St. Paul's writings are relevant for us and that they are part of the word of God, do we have to take them literally or are we allowed to interpret them in the context of the times they were written and translated?"

I had said, "So all I can say is read the next post when I'll get into what he means/how we should understand it," and Mirrorboy commented, "Isn't that just your interpretation though?Could someone else not interpret it in a way that says homosexuals are unnatural and shameful?"

In the light of these questions, maybe a word about how to interpret scripture is in order.

As I see it, if we approach scripture with the idea that it is the word of God in the words of men, we start by trying to understand what the author understood by what he wrote. In some cases literary form makes a difference because the author may not have intended it literally. But with the passages under consideration, I think it's fair to say that St. Paul's understanding was what the words actually meant, and would have meant to the ordinary reader of his time — he's not writing poetry or describing a vision. As I noted in an earlier post, I'll look at the original Greek to get behind differences in translations. I'll also look at some early writers' takes as well as some recent commentary.

Once we are clear on the literal meaning of the text, then we can consider whether there is any reason that we should not take the texts at face value, such as passage of time and recent understandings of human sexuality.

And then, in No. 3, I'll note some other passages which feetxxxl believes lead us to a different conclusion, and you can add others from St. Paul that you think need to be taken into account; I'll give my take on those texts in post(s) No. 4 of the series. In No. 5 I'll try to pull it all together.

And yes, Mirrorboy, what I'll give is my interpretation. Others may disagree, and we can discuss. I hope people will find my take reasonable, and even persuasive.

Happy Canada Day

The title says it all.

You can find other versions if you check out the links.