Can Homesexual "Marriages" have Eros Love?

[Dakota_Roberts]

Or as we say in the states, teeth on a chicken.

Is he spamming us with Spark’s Notes? Really. Wow, somebody who needs Sparks Notes to do the deed. You know he’s in trouble.

People complained all the time when I told them to go read the book (in whatever conversation) so I gave and now link SparkNotes. It is far preferable that he reads the whole Symposium in book for, but SparkNotes should be sufficient in the interest of expediency

 

[iloveangels]

People complained all the time when I told them to go read the book (in whatever conversation) so I gave and now link SparkNotes. It is far preferable that he reads the whole Symposium in book for, but SparkNotes should be sufficient in the interest of expediency

News flash: I’m not reading that either.

Again, there is no reason I should go out of my way for this homosexuality kick some people are on.

Put that in your notes.

 

[John21652]

News flash: I’m not reading that either.

Again, there is no reason I should go out of my way for this homosexuality kick some people are on.

Put that in your notes.

 

[Hadrianus]

The question is in the title. If you are not sure what Eros Love is, the papal encyclical Deus Caritas Est will explain what Eros Love is.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

Eros as used by the Greeks included any number of loves viewed as desire. But Eros is not good in itself. It can be if directed to a proper end as in the love between man and wife; but it can also be destructive. Those who engage in homosexual acts, fornicators and adulterers all experience Eros. As the Pope wisely points out, the Scriptures largely avoid the term for this reason. This does not mean that Eros, within a given context cannot be good, but it is not an intrinsic good as Agape is. When the Greek Agape was translated into Latin, the Latin word Caritas was employed rather than Amor. The reason is that the Latin Amor like the English Love, is ambiguous. It can mean both the loftiest of loves, or the most base. Over time and as society became Christian that Latin Amor was reappropriated in a Christian sense.

There is an analogy here with the Latin sacerdos, meaning priest. The Early Christians avoided it because it had the connotations of a Pagan priest, but once Christianity became established the term was adopted to signify the Christian priesthood.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This does not mean that Eros, within a given context cannot be good, but it is not an intrinsic good as Agape is.

Exactly…which is why I find the title/theme of this thread rather misleading.

In fact the rest of the post – of which I quoted a tiny portion – is also accurate.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Eros as used by the Greeks included any number of loves viewed as desire. But Eros is not good in itself. It can be if directed to a proper end as in the love between man and wife; but it can also be destructive.

I agree with what you say here, Hadrianus (and with what you say regarding the relative goodness of Eros and the absolute goodness of Agape). I wonder about this, though: is the proper end to which Eros is directed only ever a specific object relative to a specific person, or can it not also be properly directed toward a specific mode of relationship–that is, Eros is good and fulfilled when it finds its end in agape? Or in slightly different terms, can one speak of Eros as a way of being toward or for someone that is conditioned not necessarily by gender but by, for instance, lust on the one hand (an improper Eros) or agape on another (a proper Eros)?

Because an understanding of Eros as a variety of loves viewed as desire which can be either ill- or well-directed suggests that we are speaking of Eros as a species of concupiscence and, as such, susceptible to both the sensual (lower) and the rational (higher) appetites. Which is, perhaps, to say with Fr. James Alison, that the erotic “inclination is a good thing, but is always encountered…in a distorted way.”

I think the next questions would, given the title of this thread, be Fr. Alison’s: “is the homosexual inclination, which is not in itself a sin, a subsection of heterosexual concupiscence? Or is it its own sort of concupiscent desire?” How we answer these questions, I think, determines how we proceed with the fundamental question behind that posed in the thread title–is it possible for homosexuals to experience eros in an authentic and good way?

(For reference, the quotations of Fr. Alison’s are from an essay/talk in which he deals with these issues–it can be found here.)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[michelleds]

Grace & Peace!

I agree with what you say here, Hadrianus (and with what you say regarding the relative goodness of Eros and the absolute goodness of Agape). I wonder about this, though: is the proper end to which Eros is directed only ever a specific object relative to a specific person, or can it not also be properly directed toward a specific mode of relationship–that is, Eros is good and fulfilled when it finds its end in agape? Or in slightly different terms, can one speak of Eros as a way of being toward or for someone that is conditioned not necessarily by gender but by, for instance, lust on the one hand (an improper Eros) or agape on another (a proper Eros)?

Because an understanding of Eros as a variety of loves viewed as desire which can be either ill- or well-directed suggests that we are speaking of Eros as a species of concupiscence and, as such, susceptible to both the sensual (lower) and the rational (higher) appetites. Which is, perhaps, to say with Fr. James Alison, that the erotic “inclination is a good thing, but is always encountered…in a distorted way.”

I think the next questions would, given the title of this thread, be Fr. Alison’s: “is the homosexual inclination, which is not in itself a sin, a subsection of heterosexual concupiscence? Or is it its own sort of concupiscent desire?” How we answer these questions, I think, determines how we proceed with the fundamental question behind that posed in the thread title–is it possible for homosexuals to experience eros in an authentic and good way?

(For reference, the quotations of Fr. Alison’s are from an essay/talk in which he deals with these issues–it can be found here.)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mr. Alison has publicly and repeatedly announced that he is not in agreement with the Magisterium with regards to homosexuality.

Mr. Alison, in that article you linked to above, says:

Fifty years ago, if someone had suggested that as many as half the men serving in the priesthood were homosexuals, that person would be assumed to be a bigoted anti-Catholic agitator who might be expected to go on in their next breath to claim that nuns regularly ate droves of the small babies who had been illegitimately born in their convents. Yet now someone who claimed that fifty percent of men currently in the priesthood are gay would not be considered mad, or anti-catholic. Many, myself among them, would hazard that fifty percent seems a conservative estimate, at least in major metropolitan dioceses.

[emphasis mine]

One I read that, I didn’t really see much point to reading his propoganda further.

is he even a Catholic priest in good standing? i found this: “He left the Dominicans . . . and has been feeding God’s sheep, as theologian and pastor independent of church structures and control” at queeringthechurch.com/2011/05/06/james-alison-feeding-gods-sheep/ [emphasis mine]

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Mr. Alison has publicly and repeatedly announced that he is not in agreement with the Magisterium with regards to homosexuality.

Mr. Alison, in that article you linked to above, says: [emphasis mine]

One I read that, I didn’t really see much point to reading his propoganda further.

No need to read the article, then, or even agree with him. The post I wrote contains what appear to be the relevant questions.

is he even a Catholic priest in good standing?

There’s no evidence for any official censure or disciplinary action that I can find, if that’s what you’re asking.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[michelleds]

Mark, you and other theorists appear to be trying with all your intellectual might to come up with an exception that will allow you to live the life you want and be fully justified within God’s teachings. Do you ever consider that you any time you have to fight this hard to force the square peg into the round hole, any result will simply be the invalid success of violence?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Grace & Peace!

No need to read the article, then, or even agree with him. The post I wrote contains what appear to be the relevant questions.

There’s no evidence for any official censure or disciplinary action that I can find, if that’s what you’re asking.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

James Alison is a gay theologian who defends homosexual desire.
It is said that there are two kinds of theologians: those whose subject is theology, and those whose subject is God. James Alison studies God. Best known as a “gay theologian,” for his extensive writings on homosexuality, Alison is a priest no longer attached to a diocese or religious order–in his own word, a “nonperson” canonically.

Born in Britain in 1959, Alison was raised as an Evangelical and became a Catholic at eighteen. He entered the Dominicans in 1981, was ordained in 1988, and, after studies in Oxford, completed his doctoral dissertation (on original sin) at the Jesuit theological faculty in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. *Alison left the Dominican Order in 1995 under pressure from many of its South American leaders (the circumstances are not fully explained in his writings); a few months later, he suffered his lover’s death from AIDS. *Apart from occasional teaching positions in Latin America and the United States, he has since been a peripatetic lecturer and retreat-giver–returning, he has wryly commented, to the mendicant vocation of an original Dominican, itinerantly preaching and begging for money.
…
From: In Defense of Desire, The Theology of James Alison by Christopher Ruddy

Further, Mark, the man himself on the article you linked goes by his name without “Father.” His website also does not use “Father.”

Why, for purposes of introducing the relevant part of the article as you say, would you use Father to identify him? It’s kinda like referring to Daniel Helminiak as Father Helminiak still.

Your continued effort in connecting spirituality and holiness with homosexuality is obvious!
,

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Mark, you and other theorists appear to be trying with all your intellectual might to come up with an exception that will allow you to live the life you want and be fully justified within God’s teachings. Do you ever consider that you any time you have to fight this hard to force the square peg into the round hole, any result will simply be the invalid success of violence?

I think you meant this as a PM, Michelle, but I’ll try to bring it back to the thread topic.

I can only speak for myself, but I’m not looking for an exception to anything, nor am I trying to come up with an excuse to live the life I want and still consider myself justified in doing so. Nor do I feel that I’m fighting particularly hard on this issue. I explained in another thread what I’m trying to do. I’ll copy it here: “I am trying to understand what it is the RC church is teaching by attempting to examine how such teachings may be lived.” What, I am wondering, are the practical consequences of the teaching, and do they make sense. Moreover, is it possible to glean the teaching from how it may be lived?

For instance, there’s an active thread right now which seems to support conversion therapy for homosexuals. That’s all fine. But the RC Church doesn’t teach that such therapy should be desired, nor does it teach that it’s necessary, though it’s often presented, or so it seems to me, as an unequivocal good should it actually work or achieve some level of success. So I have to wonder to myself–is the craze for conversion therapy that sometimes appears on these fora a natural outgrowth of RC Church teaching, or is it the preoccupation of some well-meaning, but perhaps over-zealous souls? There’s no indication that it’s an actual outgrowth of RC Church teaching, so for what are these souls actually zealous? The RC Church does not teach that a homosexual person becomes more virtuous by “converting” to heterosexuality (I put converting in quotes because whether the conversion is actual or perceived is immaterial here), but the zealousness for the therapy seems to be predicated on an equivalence between heterosexuality and the possibility of virtue. So it’s clear to me that the zealousness must not be for any actual spiritual virtue but depends on a particular socio-cultural ideal or value or virtue–that of normativity, I suspect.

Normativity is not to be dismissed out of hand as useless, however. It serves some very important functions which have to do with social decorum, a sense of belonging etc. However, it also contributes to our penchant for making in-groups and out-groups, us-groups and them-groups. It leads to thinking of those in the out-group as deprived of a good, inclined to evil, or both. The inevitable fallout of such thinking is violence of one sort of another. Some would argue that conversion therapy is in fact one species of this violence. (I’m not sure if I would so argue in every circumstance.)

So if the advocacy of conversion therapy has no basis in RC teaching but is nonetheless a prominent part of the landscape when it comes to discussions and understandings of homosexuality in RC culture, are there other attitudes which are part of the landscape but which, nonetheless, have no purchase in sound RC teaching?

So I’m not trying to fit square pegs into round holes. I’m trying to understand what the teaching really means. Discussing the questions I posed in post 46 would be helpful in that regard, but if they won’t be considered, then, well…c’est la vie.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

James Alison is a gay theologian who defends homosexual desire.

I suppose your and Michelle’s implicit assumption is right, InSearch–it’s probably true that those with whom we do not agree have nothing actually important to say. I should remember that.

Further, Mark, the man himself on the article you linked goes by his name without “Father.” His website also does not use “Father.”

Why, for purposes of introducing the relevant part of the article as you say, would you use Father to identify him? It’s kinda like referring to Daniel Helminiak as Father Helminiak still.

Your continued effort in connecting spirituality and holiness with homosexuality is obvious!
,

You’re so quick to divine my true intentions, InSearch! Truth be told, I call all RC priests Father. Just a habit.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[michelleds]

**Deo Volente said: Discussing the questions I posed in post 46 would be helpful in that regard, but if they won’t be considered, then, well…c’est la vie. **

well, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, your questions in post 46 are too esoteric for me. I don’t have the necessary background to have that discussion.

as you know, from all of our other conversations, homosexuality came down to a simple equation for me. more of a 2+2=4 than a quadratic equation. I looked at the bible and the Church’s teachings and came to an understanding, to-wit:

a. homosexual acts are immoral, illicit and forbidden.
b. homosexual attraction, while not a sin in and of itself, can lead to sin in the mind through fantasy, lust, masturbation, scandal, etc.
c. homosexual attraction is a disordered attraction.

Once I got to a level of acceptance of all three of those, I came to believe that if a certain attraction or behavior is disordered, then I wanted to get it into order–thru prayer, fasting, study, and a conscious turning away. If I have an eating disorder, I want to bring my eating and relationship with food into order; same/same, in my opinion.

I do not hold others to the same standards as I believe God has asked of me. I am in no way comparing myself to a Saint (!!) but there were Saints called by God to sleep on bare floors or eat only a small piece of bread a day for years, but everyone is not called to that same sacrifice. But I do think that Catholics who identify as gay or lesbian ought to seriously consider and prayerfully ponder a, b and c above as they contemplate who they are and how they are going to identify themselves.

I do not accept that good and virtue come out of disorder because of or due to the disorder. however, I believe that people who are fully enthralled by their disorder can do good and have virtue. For example, I truly believe that a sexually active and promiscuous homosexual can help an old lady across the street for pure reasons.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Grace & Peace!

I suppose your and Michelle’s implicit assumption is right, InSearch–it’s probably true that those with whom we do not agree have nothing actually important to say. I should remember that.

You’re so quick to divine my true intentions, InSearch! Truth be told, I call all RC priests Father. Just a habit.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Oh, I have no doubt you have something important to say to those who turn to this forum for answers, to questioning Catholics struggling with homosexual inclination directly and indirectly. And it is not to sway them towards Catholic teaching, but away. Too obvious from your record of posts.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

InSearch–it’s probably true that those with whom we do not agree have nothing actually important to say. I should remember that.

It would better to “remember” that those who take their definitions and assumptions from outside of Catholic doctrine have nothing actually important to say about Catholic doctrine, regardless of whatever else they may contribute to discussions not involving Catholic doctirne.


(Hint: Roman Catholic doctrine subsists with its own integrity, outside of “agreement” or “disagreement.”)