Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?

[LisaA]

I agree. But your statement was still erroneous. It’s nebulous but there’s plenty there that goes beyond “tolerance.”

You won’t get any disagreement from me on the hopeless inadequacy of the Episcopal Church’s stance (or lack thereof) on abortion.

I’m not a big fan of the 1979 Catechism. But that doesn’t make your original statement true. It wasn’t true and I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge the fact.

Again, it’s still more than just talking about “tolerance.”

I disagree that there are no clear practical implications.

She’s been quoted out of context to make her appear to say a lot of things she didn’t say.

I have strong disagreements with her, but there have been a lot of malicious and unjust things said about her. I try to treat her the same way I wish liberal Catholics would treat Pope Benedict (well, not quite, because she clearly doesn’t have the kind of authority he does, but I mean in terms of charitable construction of her words and actions).

Anglicanism is very local. My bishop is someone I deeply respect. I do not intend to go on being Episcopalian should I move to a new location, and I am trying to work up the guts (after years of indecision) to seek full communion with the Catholic Church even under present circumstances, while still trying to find ways to maintain a relationship with my brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church.

Edwin

**But there are literally no standards of behavior other than being “tolerant” of any kind of behavior, activity, sexual mores or lack thereof. Conveniently ignoring the multiple Biblical references to homosexuality, the sanctity of marriage, the love of children (even those in the womb!) they soldier on, focused only on “love” and “tolerance.”
**

Edwin please read the actual statement. I referred to standards of BEHAVIOR with specific mention of the complete acceptance of any sort of sexual activity, in, out or beside of marriage (man woman marriage). I know you don’t want to defend the Catechism here but in all fairness you claimed I was bearing false witness as the Catechism would demonstrate. I read it and as a couple of other posters have pointed out, there really are no definitive boundaries. The reference to “our bodily desires” is literally the antithesis of everything I’ve learned about being a Christian. It is not in submitting to every urge or desire that we walk with Christ. Rather it is in avoiding temptations and lusts and urges, in self sacrifice.

I am sorry if I overspoke to make a point. But honestly Edwin, there isn’t any there there.

As to Bishop Schori, I didn’t read ABOUT her, I read her own words and she frankly sounds more than a little skeptical about basic Christian teachings. I guess what is disturbing is to think the Episcopal Church elevates such controversial and IMO seriously flawed characters to lead their flock. As I said, it’s almost as if they are trying harder to be PC (first with the homosexual then the rather overly liberal female) than to truly identify someone who can lead by example and by words. The house is built on shifting sands.

Lisa

 

[Contarini]

From my experience, from my reading, from hearing the same of friend who were or still are members of these churches, they rarely speak of sin, commandments, covenants or anything God might expect OF us in our life here on earth. Instead the focus seems to be on “tolerance” and “love” and such nebulous topics.

The Episcopal Church varies widely. I have attended three parishes and formally belonged to two. The first and third definitely did not fit your stereotype at all, and even the middle one (yes, that would be the one I never formally joined!) didn’t really. The priests there were relatively liberal compared to the other two, but they certainly presented challenging sermons that encouraged us to love God and neighbor.

My present priest talks about sin a good deal. In fact he can be downright scary in confession.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin please read the actual statement. I referred to standards of BEHAVIOR

Yes, and those were what I provided.

Putting nothing in the place of God is a standard of behavior.

Setting aside times of prayer and study is a standard of behavior.

And so on.

with specific mention of the complete acceptance of any sort of sexual activity, in, out or beside of marriage (man woman marriage). I know you don’t want to defend the Catechism here but in all fairness you claimed I was bearing false witness as the Catechism would demonstrate. I read it and as a couple of other posters have pointed out, there really are no definitive boundaries. The reference to “our bodily desires” is literally the antithesis of everything I’ve learned about being a Christian. It is not in submitting to every urge or desire that we walk with Christ.

Excuse me? the Catechism doesn’t say that. It says “using our bodily desires as God intended,” which means precisely that you don’t submit to those desires that go against God’s intentions.

I agree that this is hopelessly vague. But it didn’t say “just tolerate anything.” Quite the contrary. That’s the specific point on which you–although not deliberately–bore false witness.

I remember a fairly liberal priest saying to me " the key issue for me is fidelity." In other words, to her sexual morality should be focused on getting people to be faithful in relationships, whether gay or straight. That’s not the same as the orthodox view, but it’s not the same thing as just talking about tolerance. You’re engaging in a caricature, and as a matter of fact you said something false, claiming that the standard of behavior was something not even mentioned in our official catechism.

I am sorry if I overspoke to make a point. But honestly Edwin, there isn’t any there there.

Yes, there is.

As to Bishop Schori, I didn’t read ABOUT her, I read her own words and she frankly sounds more than a little skeptical about basic Christian teachings.

What words, where? Did you read the entire passage in context? Which of her sermons or addresses are we talking about?

Edwin

 

[cheese_sdc]

I have no idea what you are talking about in reference to “liberal Catholics.” I was speaking of the liberal mainline churches such as Episcopalian, UCC, Unitarian etc not the Catholic Church. Further I said this in reference to what you hear from the pulpit, not a concern with PERSONAL sin.

Ah. My apologies for misunderstanding.

In the UU church I attend, there is no talk of sin, but there is talk better understanding oneself. I tend to view sin through the lens of authenticity and adherence to one’s own standard of behavior. I’m also a bit different that I emphatically do not believe in a Universalist doctrine. If there is an afterlife, people can end up on the “wrong side” of it - whatever form that takes.

I do know many Catholics who might be considered liberal, and I find them to be both devout and devoted to Catholicism.

 

[LisaA]

Yes, and those were what I provided.

Putting nothing in the place of God is a standard of behavior.

Setting aside times of prayer and study is a standard of behavior.

And so on.

Excuse me? the Catechism doesn’t say that. It says “using our bodily desires as God intended,” which means precisely that you don’t submit to those desires that go against God’s intentions.

I agree that this is hopelessly vague. But it didn’t say “just tolerate anything.” Quite the contrary. That’s the specific point on which you–although not deliberately–bore false witness.

I remember a fairly liberal priest saying to me " the key issue for me is fidelity." In other words, to her sexual morality should be focused on getting people to be faithful in relationships, whether gay or straight. That’s not the same as the orthodox view, but it’s not the same thing as just talking about tolerance. You’re engaging in a caricature, and as a matter of fact you said something false, claiming that the standard of behavior was something not even mentioned in our official catechism.

Yes, there is.

What words, where? Did you read the entire passage in context? Which of her sermons or addresses are we talking about?

Edwin

Edwin to quickly answer as this is getting way off topic:

Please quit splitting hairs. The reference to standards of behavior were with respect to the sexual activities that seem to be not simply tolerate but celebrated. Allowing open homosexuality while demanding one set aside time for prayer seems like a mixed set of priorities.

Re the bodily desire “as God intended” do you REALLY think God made us male and female and then intended that we engage in homosexuality? Really? Did God make women able to bring forth life but intends that we kill that life? Really? The whole problem with the Catechism is that there are more unanswered questions than clear answers.

Bishop Schori’s Easter messages are long on environmental issues but short on references to Jesus (in fact he’s gone missing completely in a couple of them), the Resurrection or any of the things one would normally associate with a Christian sermon particularly on its most holy day of the year.

BTW you have studiously avoided any references to Gene Robinson. What are your thoughts on his elevation? This was the point at which I realized there was no going back for TEC.

Lisa

 

[Trebor135]

I do know many Catholics who might be considered liberal, and I find them to be both devout and devoted to Catholicism.

What do you mean by “liberal”? How do you find them “devout” and “devoted to Catholicism”? Can an individual be one but not the other?

Your (name removed by moderator)ut will be appreciated.

 

[septimine]

I think it’s just the proof of the pudding. If what Sprong said was remotely true, it should attract people, yet in the space of less than 40 years, the church dies. And part of it is because of the lack of need for the state, but i think the other part is the thought that the church is supposed to change to match a culture. I’m not against a practice – that’s not what I’m talking about. But when you change what a faith IS, it becomes worthless. People go to church to learn to be better, not to hear the exact same answers that they’d hear on the street.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I remember a fairly liberal priest saying to me " the key issue for me is fidelity." In other words, to her sexual morality should be focused on getting people to be faithful in relationships, whether gay or straight. That’s not the same as the orthodox view, but it’s not the same thing as just talking about tolerance. You’re engaging in a caricature,

I don’t think she is. She may, like I, be talking about a fundamental difference, which changes the very context of “fidelity.” Fidelity to whom and to what?

To accept that fidelity is always good (in your above example) is to say also that homosexual behavior is either good or morally neutral. But if one is clear about homosexual behavior being unsupportable in any way, shape, or form, then fidelity is irrelevant. “Fidelity” in that context just means repetition of evil acts. (So says the straight single guy: gosh, as long as I’m a consistent fornicator, making it with just one woman, I’m good. Heck, I never stray!) And in fact couples do say that. Cohabitating heterosexual couples justify their behavior by claiming monogamy.

Fidelity has a context for a consistent moral theology. That context is man+woman, and married, not single. What your “liberal priest” said is a complete change of the paradigm, creating a new one not authored by the God of Life.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think she is. She may, like I, be talking about a fundamental difference, which changes the very context of “fidelity.” Fidelity to whom and to what?

To accept that fidelity is always good (in your above example) is to say also that homosexual behavior is either good or morally neutral.

Actually no. It’s to say that fidelity in relationships is good. One could respond (as I would) that the virtues of fidelity could exist without the sexual aspect. But the virtue of fidelity in a relationship should not be questioned.

But if one is clear about homosexual behavior being unsupportable in any way, shape, or form, then fidelity is irrelevant.

That may be your position, but it’s not a position that agrees with reason and natural law.

“Fidelity” in that context just means repetition of evil acts.

That is a monstrous claim. It reduces a relationship of love and trust between two people to the sexual aspect, which is irrational and unjust.

[QUTOE] (So says the straight single guy: gosh, as long as I’m a consistent fornicator, making it with just one woman, I’m good. Heck, I never stray!) And in fact couples do say that. Cohabitating heterosexual couples justify their behavior by claiming monogamy.

Yes. And those kinds of relationships are clearly in a completely different category from promiscuous ones. I’m a bit surprised and discouraged that that’s controversial.

In the case of two “unmarried” people of the opposite sex who are faithful to each other, one can question what it means to call them “unmarried.”

Fidelity has a context for a consistent moral theology. That context is man+woman, and married, not single.

So fidelity in a non-sexual relationship is meaningless? You surely can’t mean that.

But if it isn’t, then the same kind of fidelity doesn’t become meaningless just because it is accompanied by illicit sexual behavior.

What your “liberal priest” said is a complete change of the paradigm, creating a new one not authored by the God of Life.

I’m unconvinced that it’s a “complete change” for the reasons I’ve given. But more to the point, whether it’s a changed paradigm or not, it is not a paradigm whose only norm is tolerance.

This is a question of simple truth-telling. Lisa said that the only standard of behavior in the Episcopal Church is tolerance. When I point to various other standards, people keep saying, “but they’re inadequate.” That’s not the point. Other inadequate standards still mean other standards, not just tolerance.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I think it’s just the proof of the pudding. If what Sprong said was remotely true, it should attract people

Truth is defined by popularity?

Some “conservative” argument this. Some “orthodox” defense of truth at all costs. Truth is measured by popularity, and this is somehow the stick with which you will beat liberals? It’s a stick made of jelly.

yet in the space of less than 40 years, the church dies.

It’s very far from dead. I’m both amused and frustrated by the illogical equation of “loss of numbers” with “death.”

And part of it is because of the lack of need for the state, but i think the other part is the thought that the church is supposed to change to match a culture. I’m not against a practice – that’s not what I’m talking about. But when you change what a faith IS, it becomes worthless. People go to church to learn to be better, not to hear the exact same answers that they’d hear on the street.

Well, a lot of conservative churches in this country are giving them the same answers they can hear on FOX News. . . .

I basically agree that this is a huge problem with the liberal mainline, but there are those who are trying to change it, claiming to be genuinely countercultural. I wish them well, though I’m not convinced by their version of Christianity on a number of counts.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin to quickly answer as this is getting way off topic:

Please quit splitting hairs.

What you call “splitting hairs” is simply asking for careful truth-telling. I am not going to stop doing that. You said something that was not true. Period.

The reference to standards of behavior were with respect to the sexual activities that seem to be not simply tolerate but celebrated.

So the only standards of behavior that matter for you are sexual ones?

Why else would you use such general language when you meant one very specific part of Christian morality?

And even in sexual behavior, I have pointed out that Episcopal clergy, even fairly liberal ones, have norms other than tolerance.

As you say, there’s a mixed message in trying to maintain traditional liturgical/devotional practices while treating traditional sexual morality with contempt. I agree. That is precisely my point–the situation is “mixed” and not the simplistic one you are portraying.

Re the bodily desire “as God intended” do you REALLY think God made us male and female and then intended that we engage in homosexuality? Really? Did God make women able to bring forth life but intends that we kill that life? Really?

No. And nothing I have said gives you any reason to suppose that I think this.

You are so interested in the “big picture” that you seem unable to believe that I really care about the accuracy of specific statements. You think I must somehow be defending the establishment Episcopal position just because I want you to tell the truth about it. That’s frankly insulting.

Again, the point is that the 1979 Catechism holds up God’s intentions, not merely tolerance, as the standard in sexual morality. I agree that it’s a hopelessly vague statement that leaves the folks who were shocked by the events of 2003 with little excuse. I mean, couldn’t they see it coming? (I saw it coming but expected either to jump ship for Rome/Orthodoxy or to find myself part of an “orthodox” Anglican Communion over against the “heretical” Episcopal Church. It didn’t work out that way, and I have no regrets about not joining the conservative Anglican alternative, though I have a lot of regrets about not becoming Catholic years ago.)

But it’s not just about tolerance. You said it was all about tolerance. You were wrong.

Bishop Schori’s Easter messages are long on environmental issues but short on references to Jesus (in fact he’s gone missing completely in a couple of them), the Resurrection or any of the things one would normally associate with a Christian sermon particularly on its most holy day of the year.

No disagreement there. But it’s uncharitable to leap to conclusions about her alleged lack of belief simply because she spends a lot of her time talking about social issues.

BTW you have studiously avoided any references to Gene Robinson.

LOL–I haven’t studiously avoided him, I just had no reason to bring him up.

What are your thoughts on his elevation?

It was wrong.

This was the point at which I realized there was no going back for TEC.

Well, I’m baffled by the people who took that long to realize that the Episcopal Church was moving in that direction and most likely couldn’t be stopped without a major schism.

When I was a member of a conservative Anglo-Catholic parish with little experience of the rest of the Episcopal Church, it was easy to look on that prospect with complacency.

I think it has been good for my soul to be shocked out of my complacency, even if that makes some folks assume (mistakenly) that I therefore agree with the views of those whom I defend as my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Edwin

 

[Trebor135]

Truth is defined by popularity?

Some “conservative” argument this. Some “orthodox” defense of truth at all costs. Truth is measured by popularity, and this is somehow the stick with which you will beat liberals? It’s a stick made of jelly.

It’s very far from dead. I’m both amused and frustrated by the illogical equation of “loss of numbers” with “death.”

If they were a denomination, I’ve read, former Catholics would be the biggest Christian group in the United States. Their numbers are at about ten percent (thirty million souls), as I recall, and one half is Protestant now and the other half irreligious. Surely no one on CAF will argue that this data proves Catholicism false…?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Actually no. It’s to say that fidelity in relationships is good. One could respond (as I would) that the virtues of fidelity could exist without the sexual aspect. But the virtue of fidelity in a relationship should not be questioned.

Except that if the relationship is disordered, then so is the fidelity to it.

That may be your position, but it’s not a position that agrees with reason and natural law.

Oh really? Homosexual behavior is consistent with natural law? I think it’s time for a bugle call here.

That is a monstrous claim. It reduces a relationship of love and trust between two people to the sexual aspect, which is irrational and unjust.

No need to exaggerate. It is what it is. If an act is categorically evil, and it is continued faithfully (with fidelity), then fidelity in that context is a repetition of evil acts.

(So says the straight single guy: gosh, as long as I’m a consistent fornicator, making it with just one woman, I’m good. Heck, I never stray!) And in fact couples do say that. Cohabitating heterosexual couples justify their behavior by claiming monogamy.

Yes. And those kinds of relationships are clearly in a completely different category from promiscuous ones. I’m a bit surprised and discouraged that that’s controversial.

They’re “different” from promiscuity, but only quantitatively. They are qualitatively different from marriage.

So fidelity in a non-sexual relationship is meaningless? You surely can’t mean that.

No. My context was sexual relationships because yours was. (Contarini, sometimes you seriously have trouble following your own arguments. Others have also noticed this.)

But if it isn’t, then the same kind of fidelity doesn’t become meaningless just because it is accompanied by illicit sexual behavior.

It does alter the quality of the relationship. Let’s switch the behavior: Drug addicts attracted to each other because of mutual interest in drug behavior. They may have tangential good products in their relationship, resulting from constancy, but the basis of their relationship is essentially unhealthy. That is what homosexual relationships are, Contarini, essentially and basically unhealthy.

I’m unconvinced that it’s a “complete change” for the reasons I’ve given. But more to the point, whether it’s a changed paradigm or not, it is not a paradigm whose only norm is tolerance.

By the way, define your source for monogamy alone being the Good. Is a single individual (“liberal priest friend”) now a definitive source for Absolutes?

This is a question of simple truth-telling.

And I’m afraid your barometer for Truth is way off. You’re throwing out casually used colloquial terms as if they are philosophical principles.

Lisa said that the only standard of behavior in the Episcopal Church is tolerance. When I point to various other standards, people keep saying, “but they’re inadequate.” That’s not the point. Other inadequate standards still mean other standards, not just tolerance.

Define the source for those standards, and enumerate which ones of those are fixed, which ones shift like the sands.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But if one is clear about homosexual behavior being unsupportable in any way, shape, or form, then fidelity is irrelevant.

That may be your position, but it’s not a position that agrees with reason and natural law.

[quoting the Catechism]

**Chastity and homosexuality **

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

 

[Contarini]

Except that if the relationship is disordered, then so is the fidelity to it.

The sexual aspect is disordered. Other parts aren’t.

If you can say that for one person to care for another’s needs and genuinely seek their well-being is disordered, then your conception of the good is itself gravely disordered.

Oh really? Homosexual behavior is consistent with natural law?

Precisely the opposite of what I said.

No need to exaggerate. It is what it is. If an act is categorically evil, and it is continued faithfully (with fidelity), then fidelity in that context is a repetition of evil acts.

I see.

Caring for another person in sickness is evil?
Asking them how their day went is evil?
Cooking food for them is evil?
Having a conversation about matters of common interest is evil?

Really?

You seem to be saying that all the myriad non-sexual aspects of a homosexual relationship are “tainted” by the sexual aspect. That’s what I’m describing as monstrous and contrary to reason and the natural law.

They’re “different” from promiscuity, but only quantitatively.

That’s not a credible position. It doesn’t make any sense. Are you really saying that a “long-term” relationship in which two people deeply care about each other, take care of each other’s needs, stand by each other in difficult times, etc., simply amounts to a succession of one-night stands with the same person?

That’s irrational. And there is nothing in the Christian tradition that requires you to take this inhumane and irrational position.

No. My context was sexual relationships because yours was. (Contarini, sometimes you seriously have trouble following your own arguments. Others have also noticed this.)

I’m following my own argument fine. You are the one having trouble–which may in fact be my fault, of course.

Once again, here’s my argument:

In a non-sexual relationship, a close friendship between two people, we praise such things as genuine love and concern for the other, care for each other’s needs, shared pursuit of various goods, and so on. We praise a friendship characterized by fidelity–that is, one in which each party maintains the relationship through difficult times and does not simply drop the friendship when it is inconvenient or when new friendships beckon. These are all clearly good things.

Now add disordered sexuality to that relationship.

You seem to be claiming that this addition makes the other goods of the relationship meaningless. I’m saying the contrary.

You are interpreting “fidelity” to mean a succession of sexual acts. I’m saying that that’s nonsense. Fidelity involves the entire relationship, the entire person. It could co-exist perfectly well with the relationship ceasing to be sexual at all–which in the case of a homosexual relationship, of course, is what in principle ought to happen.

It does alter the quality of the relationship. Let’s switch the behavior: Drug addicts attracted to each other because of mutual interest in drug behavior. They may have tangential good products in their relationship, resulting from constancy, but the basis of their relationship is essentially unhealthy. That is what homosexual relationships are, Contarini, essentially and basically unhealthy.

OK, that’s a fair argument. My response is that I’ve known “gay” couples, and your description is simply inaccurate. They are not only held together by sexual interest. They are not people who behave like addicts. That just isn’t a believable description. And this is an important issue, because the fact that increasing numbers of people don’t find this to be a believable description is the reason why the conservative view is “losing.” You are trying to lump me in with folks who defend sexual acts between people of the same sex, when in fact I’m trying to make a key distinction that preserves the orthodox doctrine of the purpose of human sexuality.

Many Episcopalians and other liberal Christians have come to the conclusion that same-sex relationships are legitimate not simply because (as Lisa falsely claimed) they have “no standards except tolerance,” but because they have observed virtuous and holy qualities inhering in these relationships. The orthodox response to this challenge needs to take this into account in order to be persuasive, and more importantly in order to be true and just.

Furthermore, even if your analogy with drug addicts were correct, your argument would still not stand. If one drug addict cares for another in sickness (yes, even if their shared addiction has led to the sickness), remains in relationship with him even when it is unpleasant and unprofitable to do so, genuinely seeks his good (however misguidedly), this faithfulness is a good thing and can’t simply be reduced to “a series of shared fixes.” It may be that the addicts need to separate, at least for a time, in order better to overcome their addiction. (And that might or might not be true in a same-sex relationship, depending on the extent to which the addiction model applied.) But their fidelity to each other is monstrously misrepresented if it’s reduced simply to a shared addiction. (This isn’t just hypothetical–a childhood friend of mine was an addict for years and did in fact show this kind of fidelity to her fellow addicts.)

By the way, define your source for monogamy alone being the Good.

Since I never even remotely hinted that I believed such a thing, that’s an odd question.

And I’m afraid your barometer for Truth is way off. You’re throwing out casually used colloquial terms as if they are philosophical principles.

Excuse me?

Because I think that telling the truth, in the ordinary sense (i.e., not saying that people have only one standard when they clearly have others) is important, my barometer for Truth is way off?

This is something I frequently worry about on these forums: many folks are so enamored of what they believe to be “Truth” that they neglect truth in the more basic and ordinary sense. The recurring pattern in this discussion is that folks don’t seem to think it’s important to tell the truth about people whose beliefs they disagree with. You don’t seem capable of seeing that there’s a significant distinction between “no norms other than tolerance” and “several norms which are good as far as they go, but insufficient given the distorted understanding of tolerance which leads Episcopalians to reject traditional norms when they seem ‘intolerant.’”

Similarly, you and others irrationally assume that if I’m taking care to make sure that the truth is told about liberal Episcopalians, I must agree with them; and/or that if I agree with them in part I must agree with them entirely.

Any commitment to “Truth” that causes you to neglect ordinary truth in such elementary ways needs some re-examination.

Edwin

 

[Publisher]

The sexual aspect is disordered. Other parts aren’t.

If you can say that for one person to care for another’s needs and genuinely seek their well-being is disordered, then your conception of the good is itself gravely disordered.

Precisely the opposite of what I said.

I see.

Caring for another person in sickness is evil?
Asking them how their day went is evil?
Cooking food for them is evil?
Having a conversation about matters of common interest is evil?

Really?

You seem to be saying that all the myriad non-sexual aspects of a homosexual relationship are “tainted” by the sexual aspect. That’s what I’m describing as monstrous and contrary to reason and the natural law.

That’s not a credible position. It doesn’t make any sense. Are you really saying that a “long-term” relationship in which two people deeply care about each other, take care of each other’s needs, stand by each other in difficult times, etc., simply amounts to a succession of one-night stands with the same person?

That’s irrational. And there is nothing in the Christian tradition that requires you to take this inhumane and irrational position.

I’m following my own argument fine. You are the one having trouble–which may in fact be my fault, of course.

Once again, here’s my argument:

**In a non-sexual relationship, a close friendship between two people, we praise such things as genuine love and concern for the other, care for each other’s needs, shared pursuit of various goods, and so on. We praise a friendship characterized by fidelity–that is, one in which each party maintains the relationship through difficult times and does not simply drop the friendship when it is inconvenient or when new friendships beckon. These are all clearly good things.

Now add disordered sexuality to that relationship.

You seem to be claiming that this addition makes the other goods of the relationship meaningless. I’m saying the contrary.

You are interpreting “fidelity” to mean a succession of sexual acts. I’m saying that that’s nonsense. Fidelity involves the entire relationship, the entire person. It could co-exist perfectly well with the relationship ceasing to be sexual at all–which in the case of a homosexual relationship, of course, is what in principle ought to happen.**

OK, that’s a fair argument. My response is that I’ve known “gay” couples, and your description is simply inaccurate. They are not only held together by sexual interest. They are not people who behave like addicts. That just isn’t a believable description. And this is an important issue, because the fact that increasing numbers of people don’t find this to be a believable description is the reason why the conservative view is “losing.” You are trying to lump me in with folks who defend sexual acts between people of the same sex, when in fact I’m trying to make a key distinction that preserves the orthodox doctrine of the purpose of human sexuality.

Many Episcopalians and other liberal Christians have come to the conclusion that same-sex relationships are legitimate not simply because (as Lisa falsely claimed) they have “no standards except tolerance,” but because they have observed virtuous and holy qualities inhering in these relationships. The orthodox response to this challenge needs to take this into account in order to be persuasive, and more importantly in order to be true and just.Since I never even remotely hinted that I believed such a thing, that’s an odd question.

Excuse me?

Because I think that telling the truth, in the ordinary sense (i.e., not saying that people have only one standard when they clearly have others) is important, my barometer for Truth is way off?

This is something I frequently worry about on these forums: many folks are so enamored of what they believe to be “Truth” that they neglect truth in the more basic and ordinary sense. The recurring pattern in this discussion is that folks don’t seem to think it’s important to tell the truth about people whose beliefs they disagree with. You don’t seem capable of seeing that there’s a significant distinction between “no norms other than tolerance” and "several norms which are good as far as they go, but insufficient given the distorted understanding of tolerance which leads Episcopalians to reject traditional norms when they seem ‘intolerant.’"

Similarly, you and others irrationally assume that if I’m taking care to make sure that the truth is told about liberal Episcopalians, I must agree with them; and/or that if I agree with them in part I must agree with them entirely.

Any commitment to “Truth” that causes you to neglect ordinary truth in such elementary ways needs some re-examination.

Edwin

Define the source for those standards, and enumerate which ones of those are fixed, which ones shift like the sands.

:clapping: You said it very nicely friend…

 

[cheese_sdc]

What do you mean by “liberal”? How do you find them “devout” and “devoted to Catholicism”? Can an individual be one but not the other?

Your (name removed by moderator)ut will be appreciated.

They would like to see the ordination of women, non-arbortionate (sp) birth control and practice reiki, for example.

And at the same time they frequently take the sacraments, pray novena’s, teach religion classes, and study Church documents. They have a deep and abiding love for the Church and for Jesus and practice the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

 

[LisaA]

They would like to see the ordination of women, non-arbortionate (sp) birth control and practice reiki, for example.

And at the same time they frequently take the sacraments, pray novena’s, teach religion classes, and study Church documents. They have a deep and abiding love for the Church and for Jesus and practice the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

Yes the outward appearance of devotion but their heart has turned against fundamental teachings of the Church. Now if someone holds those positions in their heart, it is between them and God. I cannot presume to judge another’s heart.

But, as you’ve indicated, they “teach religion classes” and their opinions on heresy are public, then they are not demonstrating devotion to the Church. It’s rather like the Pharisees who went through the rituals and followed the “letter of the Law” but forgot the essentials and prosecuted those who reminded them of their failings.

LIsa

 

[Trebor135]

They would like to see the ordination of women, non-arbortionate (sp) birth control and practice reiki, for example.

And at the same time they frequently take the sacraments, pray novena’s, teach religion classes, and study Church documents. They have a deep and abiding love for the Church and for Jesus and practice the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

So, in essence, they’re unrepentantly engaging in profound hypocrisy. Teaching the faith to youngsters and acting as good Catholic role models while actively rejecting parts of that faith.

 

[ProLepanto]

The primary tenants of the faith are not an abstention from Judgment. Nor can any non-contradictory premiss hold this.

“Judge not…” as excerpted, is a contradiction. Any prescription of what one should or should not do, is a judgment. Saying other wise is sophistry, and poor at that:

‘it’s not telling other people what to do when I do it’

Christ dictated Correct action and incorrect action all the time. Christianity is a Faith of distinctions.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

The only Judgment of this command is in forbidding the very hypocrisy which the action of excluding everything save the first two words creates.

The companionship (or fraternal love) of homosexual arrangements is not deemed evil. In fact, humans by their very nature were designed to be communal beings. But this does not vindicate any action done in the presence of friendship, including sodomy. The two are no more related than Hitler’s love for animals is to genocide.
We may not do evil in the service of good.