2016/11/27 — 1st Sunday of Advent — Year A

Happy New (Church) Year!  The calendar of the Catholic Church runs from the first Sunday of Advent, which is the fourth Sunday before Christmas, through the day before the next year's first Sunday of Advent. The most notable changes from one year to the next are the scripture readings at Mass. On Sundays there is a three year cycle, marked principally by the Gospel which is most frequently employed. On weekdays there is a tow year cycle in which the gospel readings are the same in both years, but the first readings are different. Today, we begin "Year A," in which Matthew supplies the gospel readings for most of the Sundays.

I suppose the reason we start now with the new liturgical calendar is that the year is seen to go from Jesus' birth, celebrated at Christmas, to his return at the end of time as king of creation. Advent is in the same year as Christmas because it is a time for preparation to celebrate that feast. There is, however, some overlap, because early in Advent the prayers and readings also look to the second coming of Jesus. There is also another coming of the Lord which we should be aware of: his daily coming to us in grace, especially his sacramental coming to us in the Eucharist. So we prepare to celebrate the Lord's birth into time and his coming to us here and now, and we prepare to see him when he comes again at the end of time.


In the first reading — Isaiah 2:15 — the prophet sees the Messianic age as one in which there will be peace among all nations. All will recognize the God of Jacob, i.e., the God of Israel, as the true God. For that reason, they will want to go to his earthly sanctuary to learn from him how to live. The promise is not that the kingdom of Israel will rule the world or that Jerusalem will be a political capital, but that it will be the spiritual center. The prophet exhorts the people of Israel to "walk in the light of the Lord" even now, as the Gentiles will in the end. Now that the Messiah has come, Gentiles do walk in the light of the Lord, but so far not all of them. The prophecy of Isaiah is partially fulfilled in a way he probably did not foresee. We look forward to its complete fulfillment, also in a way we can't completely foresee, although it probably has to do with the end of time and the return of Christ.


The responsorial psalm — Psalm 122 — was apparently one which pilgrims would sing as they came to Jerusalem. Now we sing it as Gentiles who are approaching the Lord according to Isaiah's prophecy.


In the second reading — Romans 13:11-14 — St. Paul turns explicitly to how we are to behave in expectation of our coming salvation, that is, the return of the Lord. We are to "walk in [God's] paths," following his instruction. Paul's converts had been engaged in "works of darkness:" excessive eating, drinking, and partying; sexual immorality; and self-seeking. All these are part of what he calls "desires of the flesh." These remained temptations for the Romans, and they remain temptations for us. But the true day, of the light of Christ, "is at hand." For each of us the time is short, even if for the planet it may appear to us to be long.


The gospel — Matthew 24:37-44 — gives further instruction about the time of the Lord's return. It will be unpredictable for each of us and for the world, and therefore we must always be ready. It is not something that should cause us to live in fear, because for God's people, the day of the Lord means the perfection of joy. It is something to look forward to, to hope for. We will not be left when the Lord gathers his own if we have lived as his people, walking in his ways, putting on the Lord Jesus and conducting ourselves properly.


The Lord Jesus, who was born into history at Bethlehem, comes to us now in prayer, in the words of scripture, and preeminently in the sacrament of his Body and Blood, strengthening us to be ready for his return to bring us beyond the limits of time and history — to life in his presence. We want to be ready to greet him then, and when he comes to us in the here and now.

Pulse (Orlando*) Terror Attack

* Although the attack occurred in Orlando, the most important fact about it is that it was perpetrated in a gay club. Just as the assault at the offices of Charlie Hebdo became known by the target, rather than the city where it occurred, this terrorist attack would better be known as Pulse than Orlando. The city is an appropriate designation for attacks where the victims are random and the location is not associated with a specific target group. In this post, I'll be considering this attack in its character as an attack against gay, or LGBTQ, people.

The choice of Pulse for the attack, when any number of other clubs were available, is itself enough to show that the attack was motivated by hatred of gay people. The widely reported account by the killer's father of his son's anger at seeing two men kissing in public confirms the fact. Many comments and a candidate for President blame the hatred on Islam and target all Muslims in response. Other comments have blamed Christians who have opposed homosexuality for creating a climate of hatred.

I think it is inaccurate to blame Islam for this attack, even though the attacker was Muslim. The "Joint Muslim Statement on the Carnage in Orlando" shows clearly that many Muslims believe that such violence against gay people is wrong — this despite the fact the Islam considers homosexual conduct immoral and deserving of death. So it is unjustifiable to blame Islam as such for the actions of that Muslim, in the same way as it is unjustifiable to blame Christianity for violence against gays — despite the fact that some Christian churches continue to maintain the traditional doctrine that homosexual conduct is wrong. In fact, I think some Catholic bishops did very well in expressing that homophobia should not have any place among us.

Nevertheless, it is clear that some Christians do believe that violence against gays is justified, even that gays deserve to be put to death. The rest of us should explicitly reject such ideas. This is clear enough. But we need to go beyond that. This incident should be recognized as a wake-up call. We need to acknowledge that the insistence with which many of us have made an issue of homosexuality, the forcefulness with which we have upheld our positions — even if justified at the level of moral theology — have indeed been factors in promoting the climate of hostility within which some people feel justified in resorting to violence.

Somehow, we needed to be clearer that, while we were appealing to the consciences of individuals, we were not seeking to compel those who disagreed with our theology. In the first place, though, we needed to be clearer in our own minds about that. For many, homosexual conduct seemed to be some sort of "super sin." That view doubtless shaped the thinking of those who turned to violence.

I think we "conservative " Christians still need to be clearer in our own minds, as well as in our ways of expressing our beliefs, about our love and acceptance of gays as deserving of respect, and welcome in our churches. Some people say "Love the sinner, but hate the sin." At a theoretical level, that may be cliché; but in reality it is hypocritical when the only time we say it is when we are talking about people who engage in homosexual conduct. We don't say it about fornicators or adulterers, the proud, the avaricious, the calumniators, the rash judgers, the lustful. Some people have the attitude that homosexuals have to refrain from homosexual conduct as a condition of being welcome, but we never withdraw the welcome from gossips, from money-grubbers, from cohabiting couples.

The problem for many if us is that there are ingrained habits of mind which it will take sustained effort to change, but we have to do it. We have to catch ourselves whenever we find ourselves making judgments on gay people, when we think of them as cases in moral theology, when we start regarding being on good terms with them as something we need to justify to ourselves. We need to see them as individuals, not as members of a category. Which means we have to be willing and able to become acquaintances, friendly acquaintances, and friends, with whom we deal as ordinary people. When enough of us do that, perhaps fewer gay people will perceive us as enemies.

It may be that the anti-gay prejudice which exists is similar to racism or prejudice against Jews. It can  exist in us unnoticed or nearly so, and it can be overcome only with conscious effort. One thing which helps, of course, is getting to know people as individuals, so that we can no longer think of them merely as categories.

Beyond looking at our own attitudes and manners of expression, we should also do what we can to promote a climate in society where expressions of anti-gay prejudice are unacceptable.

Some responses to the killings have suggested that the expression of doctrines which hold homosexual conduct to be wrong is, in and of itself, so damaging to gay people's sense of acceptance and so productive of a climate of fear among them that those doctrines must no longer be proclaimed. To me, that seems to go too far. It must be acceptable for simple traditional doctrine to be taught by churches to their members. That, however, doesn't mean that churches need to or should make public statements condemning the private conduct of others.

At this point my thinking on how we should go forward is provisional, but it seems to me that our church leaders should refrain from public statements, press releases, or the like, proclaiming opposition to homosexual conduct. Such positions are already well known and do not need to be repeated. What is needed is a living out of Pope Francis' "Who am I to judge?" If someone asks a question about what we think, we should answer truthfully, simply, and as non-confrontationally as possible. But otherwise, for those of us who aren't someone's pastor or spiritual director, their perceived or proclaimed orientation isn't really our concern and shouldn't be an issue, and the sooner we can realize that and live accordingly, the better it will be.

For gay people to feel accepted in our churches, it is necessary that they actually be accepted. For them to feel safe in our society, it is necessary that they be safe. We need to do what we can to promote that acceptance, based on love and respect, and to bring about that safety.

2015/05/10 — 6th Sunday of Easter

The love of God for us, our love for one another, and the action of the Holy Spirit in choosing us are the themes this Sunday.

The gospel (John 15:9-17)* begins with Jesus saying that he loves us in the same way the Father loves him — which is totally. He tells us to remain in his love, which we do by keeping his commandments. In other words, we can separate ourselves from his love by failing to keep his commandments. His commandment is that we love one another as he has loved us — which means that we lay down our lives for one another as he laid down his life for us.

This can seem kind of abstract until we remember that Jesus also said that love of God and love of neighbor are the two greatest commandments, and that all the others depend on those two. In other words, the commandments (honor parents; do not murder, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, or covet) are specific instances of loving one another. And we need to understand those commandments in the way Jesus taught them in the Sermon on the Mount and in other contexts. Turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, give to those in need, avoid anger, don't look at others with lust, forgive. In one way or another, the entirety of morality is part of what it means to love.

Jesus goes on to say that our being his disciples comes from his having chosen us rather than our choosing him. Of course, we have to respond to that choice. If we do, the consequence is that we bear fruit, as he puts it metaphorically. That fruit is the loving way of life to which the Sermon on the Mount points.


The second reading (1 John 4:7-10)* makes some of the same points. God loves us before we love him. When we live in love we live in God, and if we don't love we don't know God. God is love, a love that is revealed in Jesus' coming among us so we can have life through him.


While the first reading (Acts 10:25-26, 34-35, 44-48) doesn't seem to have much to do with the others, in one sense it exemplifies what they say about God loving us first and choosing us. While the reading has selected verses of chapter 10 of Acts, the full story is all of the chapter. God prompts Cornelius to send for Simon Peter. Peter is given a symbolic vision to teach him that the rules of ritual purity no longer apply, meaning that he is allowed to associate with Gentiles. While Peter is preaching to Cornelius and his family, the Holy Spirit falls on them, as he did on the disciples at Pentecost (which we'll hear about in the first reading on Pentecost, two weeks from now), whereupon Peter orders that they be baptized. It is God who chose them, and, in the person of Peter, the Church recognizes the action of God.

It is important for us to realize that God is free to do what he wants — to choose whomever he wants for whatever graces or works he wants — and that this can go beyond our own limited understanding. We do not control access to God. But God can use us to bring people to knowledge of him, just as he used Peter to bring the inchoate faith of Cornelius to the point where he was able to receive the Holy Spirit. We need to be alert to see what God is doing in our lives: how he is calling us to live out our love for him and one another, how he is enabling us to witness to Jesus as Savior of the world — by our way of life and, when given the chance, by our words.


* It is possible that in some places the second reading and gospel will be those assigned for the Seventh Sunday of Easter — 1 John 4:11-17, a further proclamation of God's love remaining in us; and John 17:11b-19, in which Jesus prays that his disciples will remain in the truth of God's word and be protected from the evil one. Truth and love go together.

The reason for this possibility is that the feast of the Ascension of the Lord can be celebrated on its traditional date, the Thursday 40 days after Easter, or on the following Sunday, which is the Seventh Sunday of Easter. Where the Ascension is celebrated on the Sunday, then that Sunday's second reading and gospel can be read on the Sixth Sunday.

What Does St. Paul Say — No. 5

In 2009 and 2010, I started a series, "What Does St. Paul Say," in response to another blogger. Although that blogger's basic contention was that St. Paul says that the Law does not apply to those who live in the Spirit — so that what he writes about homosexuality does not apply to those in the Spirit — I felt I needed to establish what St. Paul says about homosexuality before I took on the blogger's underlying argument. So I looked at three passages which seem to deal specifically with homosexual conduct and tried to explain why I understand them to refer to all homosexual conduct, not just that by heterosexuals, and why I don't think the modern realization that there is a homosexual orientation — something St. Paul probably had no idea of — does not change the meaning of the passages.

Three years later, although I have seen other statements of the argument that when St. Paul says "against nature" he should now be understood to mean "against the one's personal nature," I still find the argument unconvincing. So I still see the passages in St. Paul as applying to all homosexual conduct, regardless of an individual's orientation. BTW, because it seems to me that St. Paul is clear on the subject — even just because he wrote about it — arguments about Leviticus are irrelevant. The Old Testament passages do not establish the case, and refuting them is irrelevant because the refutation leaves St. Paul's writings untouched.

My previous posts are all available under the tag St. Paul, and all have a title that begins, "What Does St. Paul Say."

There is a post in the series that covers what I originally projected as Nos. 3 and 4, the one dated August 11, 2009. Therefore, I come now to the final part of the series, No. 5, where I explicitly consider the argument that none of these moral rules apply to those who live in the Spirit.

The blogger feetxl, asserted that homosexual marriages were approved by Christ because, "gay believing marriages are filled with the fruit of the spirit in the same way as heterosexual marriages." He added, "in fact how do support the magisterium creating new regulations or affirming old ones to be under, in the new covenant, when the tearing of the curtain at the cruxifiction indicated that we no longer have a relationship to god thru regulation as in deut. 28, but instead directly to the one who lives in each believer.

paul said all things are permissible but not all things are beneficial.

paul also said(romans) that we are to be led by and serve of the spirit.

jesus said we would recognize them by their fruit(fruit of the spirit(gal5). a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.

can murder,thievery, adultery, produce the fruit of the spirit? then why is it that believing homosexual marriages can if it is a sin?"

So I think we need to consider what are the fruits of the Spirit that he alludes to. He seems to be referring to Galatians 5:18-23. More specifically: "18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. … 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." (New International Version). He concludes that since in Christians' gay marriages such things are found, gay marriage for Christians is approved by Christ — a way of being led by the Spirit.

In response, I'd point out the context of those verses, including not only the rest of the passage, but also verses 16-17 and 24-25. There we are told that we are not to "gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature." (The original Greek word which is the NIV translates "sinful nature" is σαρς/sarx, which most others translate literally, as "flesh.") If we belong to Christ we "have crucified the sinful nature with its passions," and need to live by the Spirit.

In other words, there is no license for specifically immoral conduct intended in this passage. In fact, at verse 19 "sexual immorality" is included among the things that are acts of the sinful nature and hence contrary to living by the Spirit.

But my argument has been that homosexual acts are included in the category of sexual immorality. If I'm right, this passage does not condone homosexual conduct. On the other hand, if Christians in gay marriages experience the fruit of the Spirit, then how can homosexual conduct belong to sinful nature?

I think the answer is that our life isn't an absolute either/or. We do not live entirely by the Spirit — which is why St. Paul concludes by saying, "Since we live by the Spirit let us also keep in step with [walk in] the Spirit." Even those who live by the Spirit do not always walk as they should. Our sanctification is, for most of us, a work in progress.

It must be acknowledged that we can see much in the life of many sexually active gay couples which corresponds to what St. Paul calls the fruit of the Spirit. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that they are being sanctified. But it must also be acknowledged that there are many atheists whose lives seem similarly characterized by the fruit of the Spirit. Yet a Christian would not say that the atheist is right about the existence of God. So one can be mistaken about something and still be someone who is in the Spirit. I think this is true whether the mistake pertains to a matter of faith in God or to a particular question of morality.

To summarize the series, then, as I see it

1. being justified by faith rather than by the works of the law is not the same as being free to commit immoral acts;
2. homosexual acts are among those St. Paul says are immoral; and
3. the realization that there is a homosexual orientation does not invalidate St. Paul's teaching on the matter.

A final note: all of this is to be read and understood in the context of Pope Francis' famous line, "Who am I to judge" one who seeks God and tries to do what is right according to his own conscience and in the context of the line in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says that homosexuals must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. I have tried to explain my beliefs and my understanding of scripture both respectfully and persuasively, in the hope that those who think I am wrong will see that there is at least some rational basis for my position — it's not simple bigotry — and that those who are still undecided or open to changing their mind will see the reasonableness of my view of the issue.

Explanation for a Friend

A couple of days ago, my good friend @seeker300 tweeted, "Great NY Times article by Frank Bruni titled "Reading God's Mind" nytimes.com/2013/03/05/opi…#samesexmarriage #christianity" I replied, "There is confusion and illogic throughout that article."

That reply was too short, but there wasn't room in a tweet to explain why I thought so. Still, I want to give an explanation; he certainly deserves one. So I'll copy the article and insert my objections in red italics as we go along.

Jeff Chu was married last September, on the lawn of a house on Cape Cod, against the backdrop of an ivy-covered fence. About 80 people came.

Enlarge This Image

Earl Wilson/The New York Times

Frank Bruni

Go to Columnist Page »

Frank Bruni's Blog »

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

Readers’ Comments

"Those who judge homosexuals as wrongly created are, in fact, saying God has erred in his creations."

Amy Haible, Harpswell, Maine

• Read Full Comment »

His mother and father weren’t among them.

His mother sent an e-mail just beforehand, to let him know that she was thinking of him. But to be a part of the ceremony? To celebrate the day? That much she couldn’t do, because Jeff was pledging his devotion to another man. And his parents, strict Southern Baptists, have always deemed such a love sinful, and against God’s wishes.

Against God’s wishes. That notion — that argument — is probably the most stubborn barrier to the full acceptance of gay and lesbian Americans, a last bastion and engine of bigotry. It’s what many preachers still thunder. It’s what some politicians still maintain.

It’s what Jeff himself once feared.

“How many nights have I spent sweaty and panicked and drained of tears, because I thought I would go to hell — for being gay, for being me?” he asks.

And how often, he adds, did he pray “that God would take these feelings from me?”

Those words come from a book that he wrote, its title yet another question: “Does Jesus Really Love Me?” It will be published this month, and is largely a travelogue.

For the span of a year, Jeff, who has written for Time magazine and many other publications, roamed the country, visiting Christian churches and groups of diverse theological stripes to explore their attitudes toward homosexuality. He also talked with devout Christians who’d dealt with homosexual feelings in different ways: by repressing them, by embracing them, by trying to divert them.

One man had elected celibacy. Another had married a woman and resolved to appreciate sex with her. He told Jeff: “It’s not like pizza or French fries — it’s more an acquired taste that I’ve come to like even better. It’s like olives.”

In the book Jeff, now 35, also shares his own story, which we discussed further in his Brooklyn town house recently.

His parents came to America from Hong Kong with the conservative beliefs that Baptist missionaries had spread through that area of the world. They reared Jeff in their religion, sending him to a Christian high school in Miami. One of his vivid memories from those years was the sudden banishment of a favorite teacher after the school discovered that he was involved with another man.

Jeff knew even then that he had feelings like the teacher’s, and writes: “This was the lesson that I learned: Nobody could ever, ever find out, because if they did, I would be damned and cast out, just like he was.”

 But the teacher was fired for being "involved with another man," not just for his feelings. Maybe Jeff was right, that in his environment discovery even of the feelings would have led to his expulsion. Still, there is a valid distinction between one's unspoken feelings and one's overt activity. Indeed, there is a valid distinction between one's spoken feelings and one's overt activity.

At Princeton, he dated women. But in London for graduate school, he began to date men, and to wonder how that orientation could be wrong, when God had presumably made him the way he was.

 The presumption that "God had made him the way he was," is, IMO, unfounded. It is true if one believes that everything that happens is the result of God's direct activity. This effectively denies free will (and, coincidentally, miracles since if everything that happens is God's direct doing, then the seemingly miraculous is no more an act of God that the seemingly natural.) I think it is clear that things happen in the world which are caused by natural forces and/or by human activity.

Beyond that, there is a tremendous imprecision in the word "wrong." Does he mean morally wrong, i.e., sinful? If so, I'd just say that many Christians, probably most, including the Catholic Church, do not consider a homosexual orientation sinful. Or does he mean something like what the Catholic Church does when it calls it "disordered," something at the psycho-biological level. If so, there are many sorts of disorders among humans which seem to be innate, but we do not say that they are good because God created the person the way he is.

Although his book doesn’t focus on the scattered references in the Bible to homosexuality, Jeff knows them well. And, yes, a few seem to condemn same-sex intimacy.

But have they been translated correctly? Interpreted the right way? Are they timeless verities or — more logically — reflections of an outmoded culture and obsolete mind-set? And if all of the Bible is to be taken literally, shouldn’t Christians refrain from planting multiple kinds of seed in one field or letting women speak in church or charging interest to the poor? 

“You can twist the Bible any way you want,” Jeff told me, adding, “We overemphasize sexual morality, as if God puts a premium on what we do in the bedroom over what we do at the bank.”

Bringing the Bible into it implies that he thinks the Bible is authoritative. He also acknowledges that there are passages that deal with homosexuality. Then he merely raises questions and uses those questions as a pretext for setting the Bible aside. When there is a relevant authoritative text, that will not do. One must honestly try to answer the questions. The fact that others may twist the Bible doesn't mean that it is meaningless, or that there is no true meaning. What are the answers to the questions he raises?

And the question about what happens if you take everything in the Bible literally is relevant only to prove that you shouldn't take everything literally. It certainly does not prove that you should take nothing literally. It proves that the Bible needs to be interpreted correctly, not ignored if the message is uncomfortable.

It may be that we overemphasize sexual morality. This may be in part because questions of sexual morality are always hot topics. Sex is certainly important. But I agree that we should pay more attention to other areas of morality. For example, Western culture seems totally oblivious to sins of greed.

He’s right. He’s also humble. He doesn’t claim, in his book or in conversation, to have definitive answers. He hasn’t determined beyond any doubt that his life and love are in concert with God’s wishes, because he thinks it arrogant to insist, as the zealots who condemn gay people do, that God’s will is so easily known.

And in light of that, he thinks it wrong for anyone to try to consign gays to the shame that so many of them have endured.

The stories in Jeff’s book made me sad, and they made me angry. How much needless pain have people like him been put through, and in God’s name no less?

We haven't been made privy to those stories, so a direct comment is impossible. But it is clear that there is needless pain inflicted on gay people just because they are gay. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, says that gay people must be accepted with "respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and in some quarters those qualities are in very short supply.

But Jeff’s own story makes me hopeful. It’s one of grace. He still attends church, though not a Southern Baptist one. He’s patient with his parents; they’re struggling, too.

His mother actually plans to visit, and stay with, him and his husband this summer.

Yay!

“I pull her along and she pulls me along, and we grow,” Jeff said, describing a dynamic and a tension not unlike America’s. “It’s uncomfortable for both of us. But it’s the path we have to take.”

This is good. Parents should not reject their gay children. At some point, they need to realize that love can coexist with moral disagreement, and that moral disagreement does not require avoidance or separation.

I hope this clarifies what I meant in my tweet.

Jesus and Same-Sex Couples — Part 3

Seeker030 posted on his blog and clarified what sort of relationship he had in mind when he wrote the tweet that got me started on this series. I hadn't quite understood what he was getting at, and I have left a comment there, responding to his specific concerns. Please check it out.

As long as we're thinking about Jesus and same-sex couples, there are a couple of further general points I had in mind which I think are worth presenting for consideration.

Jesus must not be thought of apart from the rest of the Bible.  The fact that Jesus did not speak directly to a specific topic does not necessarily mean that Christians are free to do whatever they feel like. We cannot ignore what Paul, and John, Peter, and James tell us about how Christians ought to live. We cannot ignore the prophets and wisdom literature of the Old Testament when they tell us how God wants his people to live. After all, Jesus himself, on the road to Emmaus, interpreted the parts of scripture which referred to him for the disciples. Luke 24:27 Christians believe that Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1) and that the Bible is the Word of God in human language. There can be no real contradiction between them. What this means is that if we find the Bible telling us to do this or not to do that, then that is how God is calling to live, even if Jesus did not speak about it.


Jesus does not always approve what we want. People sometimes say, Jesus would not want me to have the unhappiness which this rule would bring. But Jesus does not promise pleasure or happiness in this life. In the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12), he calls blessed, people who are poor in spirit, who mourn, who are persecuted. Ultimately, their reward will be great, but for now, we are told that we have a cross to carry daily. (Luke 9:23) The line, "How can something that feels so right be wrong?" is sometimes used to assuage guilty consciences in situations of adultery and fornication. We shouldn't let our feelings overcome what we know about right and wrong or invoke an image of a loving God which has been transformed into an image of an indulgent God.

Whatever moral standards exist are for our good, since God did not send Jesus for the purpose of condemning us, but to save us. John 3:17


"Jesus appreciates same-sex couples who are committed to one another in love."

To sum up my feelings on this, I'd say that Jesus certainly appreciates all, including same-sex couples, who are attempting to live a life of  love, even if their understanding of what is right or wrong is mistaken on some points. And it certainly doesn't matter whether I think they are mistaken.

My belief is that when it comes to sex, for one thing we are supposed to avoid lust. That is one of the big points in the Theology of the Body, which I have been posting about. But lust is not the same thing as attraction, much less is it the same as affection. So an affection which does not seek to reduce the other to an instrument for one's own sexual gratification is legitimate. And when it comes to action, it seems to me that what is forbidden is only those actions which involve contact with the genitals or which more or less inevitably lead to sexual arousal. I believe that there can be innocent touch including such things as embracing, stroking, cuddling, even light kissing — depending on the "tolerance" of the individuals. Different people probably have different levels of activity in which they can engage without sexual arousal. Within those limits, I see no problem in physical expressions of affection and love. (I know that other Side B people take a more rigorous position either because they believe the pleasure that comes from these forms of touch is so sexual as to be restricted to husband and wife, or because it is too difficult for most me to stop before the touch progresses to more explicitly sexual activity.)

So I agree with Seeker030 in the sense in which he meant his tweet. I wouldn't mind some of that sort of expression of love in my own life.

Jesus and Same-Sex Couples — Part 2

Shall we go say hello to the elephant in the room? One point my friend did not state explicitly is that the same-sex couples of whom he speaks are sexually active. If we presume they aren't then this bit is superfluous. But if, as I suppose he means, they could be, then we have to note that among those who care about what Jesus thinks, namely Christians, there are, several schools of thought about the morality of homosexuality. They are sometimes designated by the terms "Side A" and "Side B." Side A holds that gay and lesbian sex can be morally legitimate. Side B holds that a homosexual orientation is not sinful in itself, but sex between members of the same sex is sinful. As regular readers know, I believe tat Side B is correct. (There is also "Side X," which says that even a homosexual orientation which is not acted on is sinful. Since they could never see Jesus appreciating even a celibate gay person, let alone a couple, there is no point in considering their position  for purposes of this discussion.)

I think it makes sense to distinguish between what is objectively right or wrong and what is subjectively right or wrong. I think this is a very important distinction when we talk about what Jesus appreciates. Let's think about drinking alcohol. There are some Christians who think it's morally wrong to drink alcohol. Most think it isn't wrong. They can't all be right. Objectively, either it is alright or it is wrong. But subjectively, if I think drinking is not sinful and I drink, I am not sinning because I do not intend to do anything I believe to be wrong. If the other side is right, then I am objectively doing something wrong even though I have not sinned by knowingly doing something wrong. On the other hand, even if drinking is not objectively wrong, someone who thinks it is and still goes ahead and has a drink is sinning, because he wants to do something he considers wrong.

Now, if Side A is objectively right, there is clearly no problem with saying that Jesus appreciates the couples my friend speaks of (except for Side B individuals who believe they are sinning). But if Side B is objectively right, then there is no problem with sexually inactive couples, but we have a question about those who are sexually active. Here is where the distinction between objective and subjective morality is important, because when Side A people engage in activity which they believe is okay, then they are not sinning, and there is no problem on that score between them and Jesus.


Who am I/are we to judge?  Whether a person is sinning or not is between his conscience and God. It is not my place to judge them. I do not know what's in their conscience. In other words, we can all have our beliefs about whether certain forms of conduct are objectively wrong, but that does not mean we know whether specific individuals have sinned. Of course, unless they tell us or we are there when it happens, we don't even know whether they have done anything or not. So there is no way I can say that these people have incurred Jesus' disapproval. And even in speaking hypothetically of Jesus' disapproval, we have to remember, as I noted at the beginning of the first post, that God is love. Even if someone sins, that does not make God stop loving him.


To be continued.

Contraception Opposed Him before He Opposed Contraception

Blogger Tom Hoopes comes at it from a different angle.

Links

Here are a couple of articles I found on other blogs.

The first is about religious freedom and forcing church-related institutions to do things contrary to their doctrines.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/lutheran-leader-sides-with-catholics-on-contraceptives-issue-in-fiery/article_d4d9cb3b-f83f-5887-99f4-8c251618adde.html

The next is an attempt at a natural law basis for traditional sexual morality.
http://healingintoauthenticmanhood.blogspot.com/2012/02/sexual-anarchy-part-ii.html

Riots in Britain — A Differing View

63mago has linked another opinion piece. This one is also worth considering, IMO. It's from Tony Blair.

Riots in Britain

Another blogger posted a link to this article. Not living in GB, I can't know how valid the analysis is, but I think it's worth considering. I think that there is validity to the suggestion that there had been a breakdown in morality in the West, but I'm not sure exactly how that relates to the riots. Anyway, I think the piece is worth reading and thinking about.

Theology of the Body — 2011/06/26

"By reconnecting body and heart … Christ introduces a new ethos, a new way of living as an embodied person. … [H]e shows that holiness is about far more than following the rules. This is the ethos of redemption. … It is new and revolutionary for every sinful human being.

"Because of sin, the Apostle Paul writes, all of creation … longs for liberation, while human beings in particular 'wait eagerly for . . . the redemption of our bodies' (Rom 8:23).

"Christ did not come to redeem the 'spiritual' aspect of man and leave the body behind. All of Christ's work — the entire Gospel — is directed towards the redemption of the body.

" … His appeal to the beginning [at Matthew 19:8, when he tells the Pharisees that divorce wasn't allowed in the beginning] only makes sense in light of redemption. Without redemption, man would be in permanent bondage to lust and decay. It would be useless to appeal to the state of original innocence as a standard for our lives today.

"Christ does not change the Law. He confirms the commandment, 'Do not commit adultery.' At the same time, he leads us to the fullness of God's original intent for this command. … To the extent that our thoughts and actions are directed towards the redemption of the body, the man of lust gives way to the 'new man.' The way to nurture the new man within is by guarding our hearts and controlling our impulses.

"Sexual self-control is not simply about abstinence. It is not an emptiness, but a fullness. When we allow Christ to transform our desires, the true meaning of the body and the person is respected. Self-control protects the value — the attractiveness — of the other person, while lust only cheapens it.

"As eros is redeemed, our deepest longings are confirmed and strengthened. The heart finds its true voice. …

"The path of self-mastery is not easy,especially for a person who has grown accustomed to giving in to his impulses, rather than controlling them. If he perseveres, though, such a person will feel a growing sense of his own dignity. He will begin to experience the body as a gift, and sexuality as a sign of communion — a reflection of God's love. Freedom, the fruit of self-control, is the foundation of love between persons. This is why love can only flourish where there is purity of heart."

This was a bit longer than most of my posts on this topic because I found very little in this chapter that did not seem necessary to include.

Theology of the Body — 2011/06/15

"It is often thought that ethos — or morality — suffocates the spontaneous expression of eros. …

"Ethics is usually understood in the negative sense — as rules and condemnations. The Sermon on the Mount is often read in this way, too. Christ's teaching on lust is reduced to a prohibition, a limitation on our hearts. But when we look deeper, we see that Christ aims to liberate the heart from the constraints of lust.

"Everyone who accepts Christ's teaching is called to fullness. …

"Jesus' words … require us to examine not only our … behavior, but also our innermost thoughts …[and] that we be aware of our deepest impulses. A man must guard his heart from impurity like a wathcman protecting a hidden spring.

"… [W]e need to acquire a true and full understanding of the human body in its masculinity and femininity. This truth … must be lived in our hearts. It cannot be learned simply by reading a book — it demands a deep study of oneself. We must learn to distinguish true attraction — appreciating the bountiful riches of masculinity and femininity — from the simple reductions of lust. …[T]hrough Christ it is possible.

"There is nothing truly … free about lust. It doesn't aspire to goodness, truth, or beauty. Christ, however, far from stifling the noble desires of the heart, opens the way to their fulfillment."

Theology of the Body — 2011/06/10

"The Greek word for romantic love is eros. …[I]t has trickled down into everyday language — for example, when we call something 'erotic.' This word does not appear in the [Greek texts of the] Bible. …

"The Bible speaks of ethos — the condition of the heart with regard to what is true and good — but not eros. In everyday speech, we often hear eros equated with lust. If what is erotic is always lustful, then Jesus would condemn eros along with lust. But is that the case?

"According to Plato, eros is a force within us drawing us toward the good, the beautiful, and the true. … Though the word isn't used, eros is present in Genesis — in the call to become one flesh. … When romantic love is channeled to this end [the communion of persons], it is deeply connected to ethos — what is good and right in God's eyes.

"In this light, eros is not the same as lust. Lust strains not for the beautiful and the good, but for the possession of a person for his or her sexual value. Especially in the Platonic sense, eros strives towards selfless love.

"Jesus doesn't condemn the heart or romantic love. … His call to overcome lust is a call to embrace the good, the beautiful, and the true — eros rightly understood. …

"Only when our hearts are free can we know the true joy of eros. Passion (eros) and purity (ethos) are not opposed to one another. Instead they are called to meet and bear fruit in the human heart. Christ's words are not exclusively a prohibition. They are a call to experience the fullness of erotic love."

Just a reminder: when I post things, whether it's on Theology of the Body or any other topic, of course I hope you'll find it interesting and worth reading. But I also welcome questions and discussion.

Catholics and the LGBT Community

An alert reader (Cody Dickerson) has included a link to this article in a recent comment. It is titled "Joseph Sullivan: Catholics are reaching out to the LGBT community." It is from the Buffalo News, and the author, Joseph Sullivan is identified as a retired auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Brooklyn.

There are two important things about this piece, IMO. First is the point it makes, that increasing numbers of Catholics are accepting of lgbt people. Second is the fact that the writer is a Catholic bishop who is pleased by this trend.

One reason I have for writing this blog is to let people know that the Catholic Church does not hate gays. Its official position is that homosexuals should be welcomed into our community. Obviously, we have our share of homophobes, but this article suggests that fortunately their number is decreasing. Yes, we have our teachings about sexual morality, but we have our teachings about other areas of morality too.  What we hope is that we will all grow closer to God and live increasingly holy lives through the power of his grace at work in us.

Theology of the Body — 2011/05/29

"The body shares in our dignity as persons, just as much as the spirit.

"The body manifests the spirit. It expresses the person, The sexual embrace, too, was designed to express the invisible love and communion shared between spouses. In a way, then, the body and the sexual embrace are both sacramental. Both are physical signs of spiritual realities.

" … By ignoring the sign and reducing the body to an object, lust rejects the body's true value.

"Though man is sinful, this doesn't mean that the body is evil. Sin clouds our ability to see the original meaning of the body, but it can't erase the meaning itself."

…

"The right Christian attitude aims at purifying the heart so we can see the true value of the body and sex, according to God's original plan. Christians believe in the redemption and resurrection of the body. …

"Christ calls our hearts to overcome evil. This means rooting out our sinful desires from within … . If a man looks lustfully at a woman, he must not blame her for his sin. The woman's body is not evil … Instead her body is of a great value that, because of lust, is not fully appreciated.

"Adultery in the heart devalues God's creation. Christ speaks to the heart, calling for a rediscovery of human dignity … . The call to conquer lust springs from this dignity."



Of course, what John Paul II says of the dignity of the female body applies also to the dignity of the male body, which is also a physical sign of a spiritual reality, the value of which is rejected by lust. So we must also not look at men with lust. It seems to me that lust and sexual attraction are not identical. In the Pope's view, it seems that attraction, which is to be expected, can coexist with respect for the human dignity of a person, body and spirit, while lust ignores that dignity.

Theology of the Body — 2011/05/24

After four months away from this topic, I need to resume posting about it. Just to remind my long-term readers and to explain to the newer ones, what I do in the posts under the title "Theology of the Body" is to present extracts from a book titled Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body in Simple Language. The book has distilled 129 talks that he gave at his weekly audiences on the subject of sexuality — which run to 533 pages of sometimes heavy theology — into 185 pages that you don't need to be a theologian to understand. I certainly recommend the book itself, published in 2008 by Philokalia press. But I also think that what is contained in it is so relevant to the topic of sex, with clear implications for homosexual activity, that I need to offer the main points in it to everyone who reads my blog. I hope it will help you at least to understand and respect the Catholic Church's position on the topic; and of course I hope you will find it worth taking seriously and ultimately persuasive.


You can review the previous posts in this series by clicking on the topic "Theology of the Body" near the end of the sidebar. Recent posts have dealt with the topics of adultery and lust.


"The study of ethics is not just an intellectual exercise. Above all, morality must be lived. …

"At times, the effort to live out Christ's teaching has gone awry. … Consider  Manichaeism …

"For the Manichaeans, all aspects of bodily life were degrading, but especially sexuality and procreation. …

"In Christ's teaching about adultery in the heart, the Manichaeans saw a condemnation of the body. The body itself, they believed, was the cause of sin. …

"But, contrary to the Manichaeans, Jesus locates sin in the heart — not the body. …

"Far from condemning the body, Christ calls the total person to purity. True Christian morality doesn't flee bodily existence — it embraces and sanctifies it."

Theology of the Body — 2011/01/06

"Christ is showing us how the … Commandment, 'Do not commit adultery,' must be understood and put into practice ….
"The key phrase … is 'adultery in the heart.' This is a paradox. How can you commit adultery without committing adultery? …
"'Adultery in the heart' is usually understood as desire for another man's wife. … According to this interpretation, a man is free to look lustfully at his own wife. …
"…
"But in light of Christ's entire revelation, this interpretation must be broadened. Jesus affirms the Ten Commandments, but he doesn't stop there — he sheds new light on them.
"…
"In the situation posed by Jesus, a man looks upon a woman lustfully. It is significant that Christ describes her simply as 'a woman' — not as 'another man's wife.' Adultery in the heart is not limited to the boundaries that define adultery committed in the body. Instead, it is defined by the presence of lust. In Christ's example, the man's relationship to the woman doesn't change the fact that he commits adultery in his heart by looking lustfully. Even if she is his wife, if he reduces her to an object he is still guilty of adultery in his heart.
"This interpretation takes into account the true nature of lust. It reduces the call to form a communion of persons — the perennial attraction of masculinity and femininity — to mere satisfaction of the sex instinct. It reduces a person, called into existence for her own sake, to an object for my pleasure."

This is the talk which gained a lot of attention. Reported apart from the context of all that he had said about lust in previous talks, or even as fully developed in this talk, the headlines to the effect that the Pope says there can be lust and adultery in the heart within marriage were greeted with incomprehension and some ridicule. IMO, JPII makes perfect sense here. And of course, it can apply equally to gay men and their attitudes toward men. Even if sex is legitimate within a stable and loving gay relationship (which I would not agree with), regarding one's partner as an object for one's own gratification puts one into a condition of adultery in the heart, IMO.

Theology of the Body — 2010/12/06

"The eternal attraction of men to women arises from the call to communion. Lust denies this attraction, limiting it to a purely sexual level.
"…. Instead of the body and its sexuality as a gift, the man becomes dominated by his bodily urges. The words of Sirach are apt: 'The soul heated like a burning fire will not be quenched until it is consumed.'
"This is not to question sexual desire itself, which is directed towards union and procreation. Christ's teaching is far from Manichaeism — the belief that the spirit is good and the body evil. True Christian belief has always affirmed the goodness of God's creation, including the body, sexuality, and procreation.
"Disorder occurs when sexual desire seeks its own satisfaction rather than the communion of persons."

Theology of the Body — 2010/11/20

"In the mystery of God's creation, sexual attraction is a call to communion. Lust is a lie. It keeps us from hearing the call to self-giving inscribed in the body itself. Men have always been attracted to the feminine form, and women to the masculine. This, in itself, is nor lust. … It is one thing for a man to be aware of the value of sexuality among the other riches of a woman. It is another to reduce all the riches of her femininity to a single value — sex.
"Lust obscures the significance of the body and the worth of the person. … Lust in the heart aims not to establish a communion of persons, but only to satisfy the sexual urges of the body.
"According to Jesus, this reduction of the person can be expressed in a single look. In the man's heart, the woman ceases to be valued as a whole person, as Eve was valued by Adam, and instead becomes an object of lust."

I think this bit clarifies things greatly, so I'd like to repeat what seem to me to be the most significant sentences. Men have always been attracted to the feminine form, and women to the masculine. This, in itself, is not lust. … Lust in the heart aims not to establish a communion of persons, but only to satisfy the sexual urges of the body.


Obviously, for us homosexuals, lust toward women isn't a big problem, but I think this is useful to think about with respect to our attractions toward men, whether we believe, as I do, that all sexual activity with the same sex is wrong, or we believe that homosexual activity is not necessarily always wrong.