Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?

[liturgyluver]

Homosexual acts are disordered and sinful whether it is 1 or 10000.

Homosexual relationships absent any sex walk a fine line once acts are performed in deed or in mind as to distinguish the two is contrary to Scripture, Tradition and Church teaching.

Homosexual relationships having acted are in danger of further acts and represent a near occasion of sin. It would be appropriate to say that the near occasion, the relationship is no longer of any good regardless of any good that is seen.

There is some very rich interpretation on the Catholic Church’s view about Homosexuality contained in this link which I would suggest is worth reading:

rcdow.org.uk/diocese/default.asp?library_ref=4&content_ref=3699

In particular the section on the the meaning of disordered:

Meaning of ‘objectively disordered’

1. The particular orientation or inclination of the homosexual person is not a moral failing. An inclination is not a sin. An inclination towards acts which are contrary to the teaching of the Church has, however, been described as ‘objectively disordered.’ The word ‘disordered’ is a harsh one in our English language. It immediately suggests a sinful situation, or at least implies a demeaning of the person or even a sickness. It should not be so interpreted.

First, the word is a term belonging to the vocabulary of traditional Catholic moral theology and philosophy. It is used to describe an inclination which is a departure from what is generally regarded to be the norm. The norm consists of an inclination towards a sexual relationship with a person of the opposite sex and not between persons of the same sex. Being a homosexual person is, then, neither morally good nor morally bad; it is homosexual genital acts that are morally wrong.

Secondly, when the Church speaks of the inclination to homosexuality as being ‘an objective disorder’ (PC para.3), she does not consider, of course, the whole personality and character of the individual to be thereby disordered.
Homosexual people, as well as heterosexual people, can, and often do, give a fine example of friendship and the art of chaste loving.

 

[stewstew03]

There are all kinds of sexual relationships that are not approved of by the Episcopal Church.

Not yet, anyway. It’s reasonable to speculate that their views on polygamy, for example, might “evolve.”

 

[SteveVH]

Look, the point I’ve been trying to make throughout is that liberals are not just arguing on the basis of tolerance.

They are arguing on the basis of qualities in homosexual relationships that everyone would normally recognize as good and holy.

Now if you want to argue that these qualities are somehow no longer good and holy when found in a homosexual relationship, that’s really a separate argument. (Elizabeth was right about me in the sense that I do get distracted easily). As I’ve indicated, I don’t think that’s a reasonable response, and I don’t think Catholic teaching requires you to say this. But even if you do say this, the point remains that liberals don’t think this way. They start at the “other end,” as it were. They start from qualities that everyone would recognize as good if they were abstracted from the homosexual relationship in which they were found.

And that’s simply not the same thing as just invoking “tolerance” in a blanket way.

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

There is some very rich interpretation on the Catholic Church’s view about Homosexuality contained in this link which I would suggest is worth reading:

rcdow.org.uk/diocese/default.asp?library_ref=4&content_ref=3699

In particular the section on the the meaning of disordered:

Meaning of ‘objectively disordered’

1. The particular orientation or inclination of the homosexual person is not a moral failing. An inclination is not a sin. An inclination towards acts which are contrary to the teaching of the Church has, however, been described as ‘objectively disordered.’ The word ‘disordered’ is a harsh one in our English language. It immediately suggests a sinful situation, or at least implies a demeaning of the person or even a sickness. It should not be so interpreted.

First, the word is a term belonging to the vocabulary of traditional Catholic moral theology and philosophy. It is used to describe an inclination which is a departure from what is generally regarded to be the norm. The norm consists of an inclination towards a sexual relationship with a person of the opposite sex and not between persons of the same sex. Being a homosexual person is, then, neither morally good nor morally bad; it is homosexual genital acts that are morally wrong.

Secondly, when the Church speaks of the inclination to homosexuality as being ‘an objective disorder’ (PC para.3), she does not consider, of course, the whole personality and character of the individual to be thereby disordered.
Homosexual people, as well as heterosexual people, can, and often do, give a fine example of friendship and the art of chaste loving.

Thank you for posting this. It is evidence such as this that shows the compassion, understanding and clear thinking of the Catholic on issues such as this. Those that believe that the Church is just “mean” and “intolerant” do not know or understand the Catholic position.

 

[CopticChristian]

There is some very rich interpretation on the Catholic Church’s view about Homosexuality contained in this link which I would suggest is worth reading:

rcdow.org.uk/diocese/default.asp?library_ref=4&content_ref=3699

In particular the section on the the meaning of disordered:

Meaning of ‘objectively disordered’

1. The particular orientation or inclination of the homosexual person is not a moral failing. An inclination is not a sin. An inclination towards acts which are contrary to the teaching of the Church has, however, been described as ‘objectively disordered.’ The word ‘disordered’ is a harsh one in our English language. It immediately suggests a sinful situation, or at least implies a demeaning of the person or even a sickness. It should not be so interpreted.

First, the word is a term belonging to the vocabulary of traditional Catholic moral theology and philosophy. It is used to describe an inclination which is a departure from what is generally regarded to be the norm. The norm consists of an inclination towards a sexual relationship with a person of the opposite sex and not between persons of the same sex. Being a homosexual person is, then, neither morally good nor morally bad;** it is homosexual genital acts that are morally wrong. **
Secondly, when the Church speaks of the inclination to homosexuality as being ‘an objective disorder’ (PC para.3), she does not consider, of course, the whole personality and character of the individual to be thereby disordered.
Homosexual people, as well as heterosexual people, can, and often do, give a fine example of friendship and the art of chaste loving.

Liturgy Lover,

While we are in the teaching mode…recognize that you said nothing that I did not say.

Homosexual acts are disordered and sinful whether it is 1 or 10000.

Also recognize that the Church is speaking of humanity and in particular the baptised person with a homosexual inclination that is looking to the Church with the notion that they want to belong too. Come on down…we welcome heterosexuals that are chaste/celibate and homosexuals that are chaste/celibate.

The Church’s pastoral outreach recognises that baptised persons with a homosexual inclination continue to look to the Church for a place where they might live in authentic human integrity and holiness of life. Being welcomed and participating in their local faith community is the foundation of spiritual support that the Church offers to them. Full and active participation is encouraged.

Is this true of all homosexuals and as you might imagine…NO…by no means for since the beginning of the world what is known of God can be seen in the world and they despise what they know and practice abominations and they don’t want to belong…they want you to change so that they can have you accept something other than Church teaching…

[Footnote 1:] The Catechism of the Catholic Church and other Church teaching use the term “homosexual”. This statement is consistent with this terminology whilst recognising that other individuals or groups may identify themselves in other ways, such as ‘gay’, or ‘lesbian’. In using the language of ‘homosexual’ it is, however, worth bearing in mind that the Church “refuses to consider the person as a ‘heterosexual’ or a ‘homosexual’ and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God and, by grace, his child and heir to eternal life” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, par 16).

I also point out that the Church also notes as I noted in a thread that I asked to be closed…there is no such thing as a Gay Christian…it is a non-sequitor and the Church in this footnote states that every person is a creature of God first and then a product of their inclination not homosexual first and then a Christian…

 

[LisaA]

Liturgy Lover,

Also recognize that the Church is speaking of humanity and in particular the baptised person with a homosexual inclination that is looking to the Church with the notion that they want to belong too. Come on down…we welcome heterosexuals that are chaste/celibate and homosexuals that are chaste/celibate.

Is this true of all homosexuals and as you might imagine…NO…by no means for since the beginning of the world what is known of God can be seen in the world and they despise what they know and practice abominations and they don’t want to belong**…they want you to change so that they can have you accept something other than Church teaching…**

I think this is the entire issue in a nutshell. There is nothing in our Church’s teaching that says those who have same sex attraction are not welcome, are not children of God, are not able to love others or be loved. However one of these claims are usually the charge by those promoting a homosexual “agenda.” They don’t think their homosexual activity/relationships should be questioned, that the Church (or church) should adapt and accept them as they are. They claim they want to be authentic and real which apparently can only occur if their sinful behavior is displayed publically and accepted.

But in reality, heterosexuals cannot publically display disordered or sinful behavior and demand that their behavior be accepted by the Church either. It’s not a matter of homophobia or hate or any of the other silly buzzwords that are used in an attempt to demean those who support the Church’s teaching on the subject. It is the same standard applied to all of us…and of course all of us fail in some way. But very few of us demand that the Church "evolve’ to accept our failings.

That the liberal churches have capitulated to modern culture rather than standing by Scripture is IMO a very sad thing. They lose credibility as they lose membership.

LIsa

 

[epan]

This is a rather sunny view of liberals in general. Do liberals recognize “truth” as good? One would not think so based on the distorted propaganda that permeates the debate on same-sex marriage. Is Dan Cathy, for example, really homophobic and bigoted? Those words are thrown around too often. A homophobe is someone who “fears or hates” homosexuals or homosexuality. Can one be in favor of the traditional notion of marriage without being labeled as someone who fears or hates homosexuals? A bigot is one who is intolerant of other beliefs or opinions. Do we really need to use this label every time someone disagrees with the so-called “gay agenda”?

Clearly, the SSM debate has absolutely nothing to do with social justice, and has everything to do with “normalizing” abnormal behavior - and marginalizing those who hold traditional beliefs about marriage.

I love gay people and believe they should be treated with dignity and respect. But that does not mean that I have to give up my Christocentric beliefs about (1) homosexual behavior and (2) the institution of marriage.

Or does it?

All you have said is that you disagree with people whom you disagree with.

Statement like, “the SSM debate has absolutely nothing to do with social justice” serves no purpose other than to state your own opinion in rigid terms. It would be just as easy for someone on the other side to say, “The anti-SSM extremists are radicals who are bent on imposing their bigoted views on others for no good reason, and they are adamantly opposed to social justice.”

OK, so you disagree with some people. Many people disagree with each other.

 

[CopticChristian]

All you have said is that you disagree with people whom you disagree with.

Statement like, “the SSM debate has absolutely nothing to do with social justice” serves no purpose other than to state your own opinion in rigid terms. It would be just as easy for someone on the other side to say, “The anti-SSM extremists are radicals who are bent on imposing their bigoted views on others for no good reason, and they are adamantly opposed to social justice.”

OK, so you disagree with some people. Many people disagree with each other.

Epan,

An opinion expressed in the common term can be irrelevant to some and not to others. What can be said is that when expressing an opinion some sort of standard or understanding may or may not cause within the mind cognitave dissonance so that there may be discontent. Social. What is it to be Social or what is Social? Justice. What in fact is justice?

Is same sex marriage something about Society so that everyone that speaks of it is in fact referencing the same parameters of the society they speak of? Of course not.

In sames sex marriage what is just for the proponent is not just for the proponent and each sees their point of view certainly as just. Then what is Justice in this regard. Is it a variable or is there a common understanding of Justice that pervades both opinions. This may be the question that should be answerd.

Beyond that there has to be a common understanding. Social Justice. Is this a secular term that means for me what it means for let’s say the Magesterium, shall it never be…because to the Church was given the utterance of Scripture and in that regard in speaking of Social Justice it is the purview of the Magesterium to speak in truth.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

1. **Charity is at the heart of the Church’s social doctrine. **Every responsibility and every commitment spelt out by that doctrine is derived from charity which, according to the teaching of Jesus, is the synthesis of the entire Law (cf. Mt 22:36- 40). It gives real substance to the personal relationship with God and with neighbour; it is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones). For the Church, instructed by the Gospel, charity is everything because, as Saint John teaches (cf. 1 Jn 4:8, 16) and as I recalled in my first Encyclical Letter, “God is love” (Deus Caritas Est): everything has its origin in God’s love, everything is shaped by it, everything is directed towards it. Love is God’s greatest gift to humanity, it is his promise and our hope.

If Charity is at the very heart of every social doctrine then Charity is at the heart of Social Justice…in that regard reference elements you may or not be aware of, ie the encylicals that the Church has issued on Social Justice…

fratres.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/social-justice-list-of-catholic-social-encyclicals/

So when my friend and brother Stew says this…

Clearly, the SSM debate has absolutely nothing to do with social justice, and has everything to do with “normalizing” abnormal behavior - and marginalizing those who hold traditional beliefs about marriage.

His words concerning Social Justice are in reference as they should be and as I agree with and I am sure you would see if you saw them in the light of teaching on Social Justice in Charity through Christ…what shall we say then that those who knew and understood could not speak of what they know or is it that perhaps that those that hear and understand, understand in the light of what they know and understand. It is my concerned opinion that it is the latter.

 

[liturgyluver]

While we are in the teaching mode…recognize that you said nothing that I did not say.

Maybe not, but reading your post that I responded to certainly didn’t convey the church’s position on homosexuality. And several people have written to thank me for posting it.

 

[liturgyluver]

I think this is the entire issue in a nutshell. There is nothing in our Church’s teaching that says those who have same sex attraction are not welcome, are not children of God, are not able to love others or be loved. However one of these claims are usually the charge by those promoting a homosexual “agenda.” They don’t think their homosexual activity/relationships should be questioned, that the Church (or church) should adapt and accept them as they are. They claim they want to be authentic and real which apparently can only occur if their sinful behavior is displayed publically and accepted.

But in reality, heterosexuals cannot publically display disordered or sinful behavior and demand that their behavior be accepted by the Church either. It’s not a matter of homophobia or hate or any of the other silly buzzwords that are used in an attempt to demean those who support the Church’s teaching on the subject. It is the same standard applied to all of us…and of course all of us fail in some way. But very few of us demand that the Church "evolve’ to accept our failings.

LIsa

The problem is that despite there being nothing in the Church’s teaching about homosexuals not being welcome, this is the wrong interpretation that some Catholics have. I have seen homophobic posts on this forum and sadly from Catholics in real life who misunderstand what the church teaches on this.

I would suggest that most homosexual Catholics simply want to come to mass the same way everyone else does without experiencing what I have described above. That is why the link I provided strongly condemned those who discriminate against homosexuals.

 

[stewstew03]

Maybe not, but reading your post that I responded to certainly didn’t convey the church’s position on homosexuality. And several people have written to thank me for posting it.

You seem quite pleased with yourself. I guess the “several” who wrote to you did not realize that you would boast about it.

 

[liturgyluver]

You seem quite pleased with yourself. I guess the “several” who wrote to you did not realize that you would boast about it.

Maybe not? Who knows. Perhaps I’ll ask them.

 

[CopticChristian]

Maybe not, but reading your post that I responded to certainly didn’t convey the church’s position on homosexuality. And several people have written to thank me for posting it.

Liturgy,

It is kind of you to teach what is known in the Catechism. I have several times listed the teaching. I have not the time now however I shall in the future direct you to them. If you read my post that you say did not convey that teaching, it was in response to a specific question.

Post 217 in this thread.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Well, a very vague idea, but not enough to respond meaningfully.

Edwin

Your appreciation by others is admirable and I am grateful for those that got the message as you say. I thank you for expressing proper teaching and suggest that those that thanked you spend some time reading the rest of the Catechism.

Homosexuality discussion comes under the 6th commandment

Regarding Homosexuality - 1997

#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, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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.

#2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

#2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

I suggest you advise those that thanked you that if there is a 6th commandment that suggests others. Advise them that they study and understand the other 9 commandments and then I shall thank you and the Church will thank you. Continue your catechesis and I shall thank you.

 

[LisaA]

The problem is that despite there being nothing in the Church’s teaching about homosexuals not being welcome, this is the wrong interpretation that some Catholics have. I have seen homophobic posts on this forum and sadly from Catholics in real life who misunderstand what the church teaches on this.

I would suggest that most homosexual Catholics simply want to come to mass the same way everyone else does without experiencing what I have described above. That is why the link I provided strongly condemned those who discriminate against homosexuals.

Once again, the problem stems from homosexuals insisting on a) making their sinful behavior public, b) insisting that the Church accept this public demonstration of sin, and c) if anyone suggests that the overt behavior is not within our Church’s teaching they are attacked as homophobic, hateful, uncharitable, and not Christian.

I go to Mass at least once a week. I suspect within our parish or other parishes where I attend Mass, there are also homosexuals. I KNOW there are sinners there because I’m one myself. OTOH I do not think I need to make a public issue of my private struggle with sin and also demand that others accept my sin because “it’s who I am.”

I suggest there would not be discrimination against homosexuals if they kept their private lives private. Now say two men attend Mass, sit together and apparently have some kind of relationship although no one knows the intimate details. Do you truly think they are harassed, prosecuted, discriminated against? OTOH if two men come to Mass, paw each other and make a big deal about “I am a homosexual now give me Communion!” they put the priest and the other people at Mass in a very tough position. Also FWIW if a HETEROSEXUAL couple did the same thing, there would also be that discomfort. I can tell you from personal experience in our Parish there is a young couple who are known to be co-habitating. In addition they are frequently engaged in overtly sexual displays of affection during Mass. Our Priest and our Deacon have both counselled them on their inappropriate behavior and the Priest told them they were not to take the Eucharist until they stopped their sinful behavior. We have several married couples who have not received annulments. They have also abstained from the Eucharist until they are considered married within the Church. IOW this is not an issue of same sex attraction but of making a sin public and demanding acceptance.

Really I think the onus is upon homosexuals or other sinners not to make a public spectacle of their sin and demand the Church or its followers adapt and accept the sin.
DADT is a great plan not only for the military but for all public appearances.

Lisa

 

[CopticChristian]

The problem is that despite there being nothing in the Church’s teaching about homosexuals not being welcome, this is the wrong interpretation that some Catholics have. I have seen homophobic posts on this forum and sadly from Catholics in real life who misunderstand what the church teaches on this.

I would suggest that most homosexual Catholics simply want to come to mass the same way everyone else does without experiencing what I have described above. That is why the link I provided strongly condemned those who discriminate against homosexuals.

Liturgy,

Your experience differs from mine as expected. I can count on one hand, actually one finger, how many times I have seen the Catholic with same sex attraction speaking of attending mass. My experience on these threads is that the majority of opinions expressed by any person that favors homosexuality is in the trend of suggesting that the Church change. I don’t see any point in listing them. You can find them on this thread.

I suggest you take a pen, pad of paper, write down the post # so that you can read and review for yourself as you tally any person that is homosexual displaying desire to join the Church as you say as opposed to those that argue the “gay” agenda.

 

[liturgyluver]

Once again, the problem stems from homosexuals insisting on a) making their sinful behavior public, b) insisting that the Church accept this public demonstration of sin, and c) if anyone suggests that the overt behavior is not within our Church’s teaching they are attacked as homophobic, hateful, uncharitable, and not Christian.

I go to Mass at least once a week. I suspect within our parish or other parishes where I attend Mass, there are also homosexuals. I KNOW there are sinners there because I’m one myself. OTOH I do not think I need to make a public issue of my private struggle with sin and also demand that others accept my sin because “it’s who I am.”

I suggest there would not be discrimination against homosexuals if they kept their private lives private. Now say two men attend Mass, sit together and apparently have some kind of relationship although no one knows the intimate details. Do you truly think they are harassed, prosecuted, discriminated against? OTOH if two men come to Mass, paw each other and make a big deal about “I am a homosexual now give me Communion!” they put the priest and the other people at Mass in a very tough position. Also FWIW if a HETEROSEXUAL couple did the same thing, there would also be that discomfort. I can tell you from personal experience in our Parish there is a young couple who are known to be co-habitating. In addition they are frequently engaged in overtly sexual displays of affection during Mass. Our Priest and our Deacon have both counselled them on their inappropriate behavior and the Priest told them they were not to take the Eucharist until they stopped their sinful behavior. We have several married couples who have not received annulments. They have also abstained from the Eucharist until they are considered married within the Church. IOW this is not an issue of same sex attraction but of making a sin public and demanding acceptance.

Really I think the onus is upon homosexuals or other sinners not to make a public spectacle of their sin and demand the Church or its followers adapt and accept the sin.
DADT is a great plan not only for the military but for all public appearances.

Lisa

I agree with you about making a spectacle but in my experience (and perhaps things are very different here) they don’t “make a spectacle of themselves” but on the contrary often have to contend with people making derrogatory remarks about homosexuals as people. That is what the Church tells us not to do.

 

[liturgyluver]

Liturgy,

Your experience differs from mine as expected. I can count on one hand, actually one finger, how many times I have seen the Catholic with same sex attraction speaking of attending mass. My experience on these threads is that the majority of opinions expressed by any person that favors homosexuality is in the trend of suggesting that the Church change. I don’t see any point in listing them. You can find them on this thread.

I suggest you take a pen, pad of paper, write down the post # so that you can read and review for yourself as you tally any person that is homosexual displaying desire to join the Church as you say as opposed to those that argue the “gay” agenda.

CopticChristian, I live in the real world - not the imaginary one populated on this threads. If anybody were homosexual, they would be very brave indeed to put their heads over the parapet given some of the comments that have been read there. So thanks for your suggestion…but no thanks.

Incidently in speaking so sweepingly of homosexuals I think you ironically ignore the church’s messages that I was trying to relay in the links that I attached.

 

[liturgyluver]

Liturgy,

It is kind of you to teach what is known in the Catechism. I have several times listed the teaching. I have not the time now however I shall in the future direct you to them. If you read my post that you say did not convey that teaching, it was in response to a specific question.

Post 217 in this thread.

Your appreciation by others is admirable and I am grateful for those that got the message as you say. I thank you for expressing proper teaching and suggest that those that thanked you spend some time reading the rest of the Catechism.

Homosexuality discussion comes under the 6th commandment

I suggest you advise those that thanked you that if there is a 6th commandment that suggests others. Advise them that they study and understand the other 9 commandments and then I shall thank you and the Church will thank you. Continue your catechesis and I shall thank you.

Oh thank you so much. How we would we manage without you, I wonder?

 

[CopticChristian]

**CopticChristian, I live in the real world - not the imaginary one populated on this threads. ** If anybody were homosexual, they would be very brave indeed to put their heads over the parapet given some of the comments that have been read there. So thanks for your suggestion…but no thanks.

Incidently in speaking so sweepingly of homosexuals I think you ironically ignore the church’s messages that I was trying to relay in the links that I attached.

Liturgy,

You have proposed Church teaching on Homosexuality and I have pointed out that the Church teaching is based on Charity in Christ.

Help me understand, your exhibit of Charity, by telling me, publically, for all to read, as your entry into discussion your understanding of your world and what you do not know of my world. Are you being Charitable to me?

You believe I “ironically ignore” the Church message. Explain this irony and since you are in a position to teach. Teach me and I will thank you publically as those that have thanked you for your past teaching.

 

[CopticChristian]

Oh thank you so much. How we would we manage without you, I wonder?

Liturgy,

never wonder…manage what you can…your gratitude is appreciated.

1If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

  4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

  8Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Do you like the letter to the Romans as much as I do?