Since when did they want it to be ‘holy’?
WOW! That’s amazing! I haven’t heard a joke like that in years. Oh hang on, you were serious. Source please or apologise to the Danes?
What is an ordinary homosexual? Is that different to a super homosexual? Are the super homosexuals involved in the agenda, the one where they have an underwater base in Lake Nefarious?
Mark, is active homosexuality something that a heart needs to be cleansed of? are homosexual acts false things which buy and sell our affections?
I would indeed say that it was not, and here’s why: the more we believe that God approves of violence, death or destruction, the easier it is to implicate him in acts which are reflections of our own human orientation toward death on account of Original Sin. The Resurrection teaches us that God has nothing whatsoever to do with death. Nothing. This calls us to a radical re-engagement with Scripture in which we must divorce ourselves entirely from any image of God as a Vengeful Death/War God and cling, instead, to what we know to be the definitive revelation of God’s nature: The Resurrection. In light of the Resurrection, we can see throughout the OT God’s constant calling of us to love, and a consistent inability in us to understand exactly what that means, and we suffer the consequences. We continue to suffer the consequences, the inevitable consequences of Original Sin, until we are dazzled by the light of the Resurrection, the dawning of the Day-Spring, and begin to realize that God is moving us out of Death into Life.
I’d say that God’s love is a completely holy seduction which invites us to live the reality of mercy.
This has been part of my point, Charlemagne–God’s justice is not different from his mercy. God is one. God’s justice* is* his mercy. God’s justice is Jesus Christ.
I don’t think our obligation is chastisement. Our obligation should be loving correction (I’ve written as much earlier in this thread), being martyrs/witnesses of the all-gracious goodness of God, even if (particularly if) that means we must suffer or die with, on behalf of, or on account of those to whom we would witness. Part of my point, and I think part of Melinda’s point in offering us these 10 “rules” is to try to separate our zeal to be instruments of grace in the conversion of sinners from our zeal to kick sinners in the pants or beat them over the head with the Truth (as if such a thing could actually be done without doing harm to the Truth!) in order to chastise them for being so blatantly wrong–all that does is separate us from our brothers and sisters, because all it does is act out our own “rightness” in the face of their “wrongness.”
Instead of chastisement, did not Jesus occupy the place of sin and death for us, becoming a curse for us in order to lead us into blessing? And is that not part of what Jesus is telling us to do, how Jesus is teaching us to behave, when he breaks the bread and says, “Do this,” or when he tells us that we must take up our cross and follow him? That is far removed from leaving a sinner to congratulate himself on his sins, and it’s a way of being in relationship with each other that is also not a way of chastisement, but a way of completely self-giving love. That is our difficult and most noble high calling.What is love if it never chastises the sinner, but leaves him to congratulate himself on his sins?
I would say that the habitual desires to abuse ourselves and others are the things that buy and sell our affections and of which we must be cleansed, and that the RCC (which, let’s be clear, does not identify homosexual affection in itself with such abusive desires) teaches that homosexual acts are outgrowths of those abusive desires. I will be honest in saying that I, personally, can only affirm that homosexual acts can be outgrowths of those abusive desires, but I cannot affirm that they must be. Moreover it’s clear that anyone who wishes to be faithful to the RCC position on this should affirm what the RCC affirms. I understand and further think it entirely legitimate that people who do so affirm the RCC position will necessarily believe that my own position does not go far enough.
What, pray tell, is “homosexual affection”?
Ever hear of the word ‘metaphor’? Now go find your dictionary…
Your jokes are now banal. This issue has been covered by many others and they have been allowed to do so without fear of having someone make snide, sarcastic remarks, as you have done here. You need to apologise.
Charlemagne, I think the rest of that paragraph which you did not quote is the response to your assertion. I’ll copy it here: “I don’t think our obligation is chastisement. Our obligation should be loving correction (I’ve written as much earlier in this thread), being martyrs/witnesses of the all-gracious goodness of God, even if (particularly if) that means we must suffer or die with, on behalf of, or on account of those to whom we would witness.”
My suspicion that you’re missing the point of my posts is confirmed. I dealt with this in a very recent post. Here’s what I wrote:Deo
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
VERO CRAS!
What happened to Justice?
Deo_Volente:
As in your past posts and in so many words, you find justification and comfort in personal interpretation of Scripture in order for you not to concede to the consequence of homosexual acts.
I am not trying to be rude here, but why do you continue to convince members in the forum of only the parts in Scripture and in Catholic teaching that you like? You are not even Catholic, but you are ever offering your readings of Catholic teaching as an ‘Anglican in the Anglo-Catholic tradition.’ True, there are many areas where we share from a common faith and tradition. But Catholics don’t share your individual readings leading you to believe that unrepented homosexual acts are somehow exempted from consequence as it affects eternal life. In an earlier post where Michelle asked you if you deny there is a hell, I have to say that I also had the same question because your discourse on it suggested a denial of hell. Further, I do not share your singular view that people in this forum are trying to find an excuse to be cruel. Yes, we get what Melinda’s list is saying and some of her points are in fact arguable.
As far as what you pose here that it is not the obligation of Catholics to offer fraternal correction, then don’t accept it. But don’t think chastisement in charity should be skipped so others do not have to read it in this forum because of your bias. Your bias has been made clear no matter how much you cloud the issue on homosexual expression of love, vis-à-vis the authentic message of the bible and instruction from the Catholic faith.
The candle has to be lighted to see the darkness of homosexual sins.
,
It means something like “feeling love toward someone of the same sex to whom one is attracted.” I had in mind the “homosexual inclination” of which the catechism speaks (and which is not condemned as sin) when I wrote it.
What a horrible set of assumptions to make about anyone who would “chastise” another. The most abvious assumption is that the correction of another is based on personal ego and has nothing to do with right or wrong. Based on that assumption, we may as all shut up shop and go home.
You cannot affirm a documented action of the Saviour you state you follow, yet you can affirm the teachings of a theologian!? That will allow you to be very seletive in what you believe, wont it?
So why the equivocation?
I’m sorry you get that impression.
InSearch, I don’t recall when I expressed an “individual reading” which stated that “unrepented homosexual acts are …] exempted from consequences.” I’ve tried to stay far away from a discussion of homosexual acts because I’m well aware, in these forums, that that dog won’t hunt. I understand, though, that you think that all I’ve been saying has been one long sad justification of homosexual acts. But that’s not what I’ve been arguing. At all.
I’m unaware of where I might have given you the impression that I denied the real existence of hell.
Read what I’ve written, InSearch. I’ve not been speaking categorically when I’ve been speaking of cruelty. I’ve not even been accusing anyone here of cruelty. My impression has been that when someone questions chastisement as valuable always and everywhere and with everyone–particularly when it’s pointed out that, on account of our own sin, chastisement so often becomes more valuable to the self-conception of the one chastising than to the one being chastised–many folks here seem to feel like their right to chastise with impunity is being threatened (as if such a thing even existed in the first place), and that Christianity is being emasculated. I find such reactions puzzling, if not downright troubling, for the reasons I’ve written.
Let’s stick to the terms I’ve used so that we make sure I’m saying what I’ve actually said. I’ve never said anything against fraternal correction. Indeed, what I’ve called “loving correction” in previous posts would probably be better called “fraternal correction.”
I think you will discover that I have simply emphasized the “charity” part of “chastisement in charity.” You’ll also discover that I never said that loving correction/fraternal correction/chastisement in charity should be skipped.
Indeed, I hope it has been, though from this post of yours, I fear just the opposite is the case.
Good! I hope that the light of that candle is a bit more generous, though, and allows us to see all of our sins.
John, I think context would make it clear that that wasn’t what I was talking about…
You’re probably right. Thanks, John.
It wasn’t an assumption–it was a caution. Call it a fraternal caution.
I think you’ve misread me, John. I’ve spoken in favor of loving correction. You can see as much in my replies to Charlemagne and InSearch.
Again, you’ve misread me, John. Here’s what I wrote:
When did I deny that? My point has been to see the cleansing of the Temple within the context of the great act of love accomplished on the cross. It’s strange and incredibly ironic to me that simply stating such a thing–which is so clear in John’s version of the story–should move people to suggest one way or another that I’m not affirming Our Lord as I should or am attempting to deceive people through wicked interpretations of scripture. It’s a bit baffling, actually! But ah well. C’est la vie.