Effeminate Gospel, Effeminate Christians

[stevusmagnus]

Excellent.

Click link for entire article. Great read.

chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2005/07/10/effeminate-gospel-effeminate-christians/

Effeminate Gospel, Effeminate Christians
by Aaron D. Wolf

July 10th, 2005

Every definition of masculinity into which our Lord Jesus Christ does not fit belongs in the rubbish heap. Indeed, there could be no greater example of a man than He. Contrary to modern portrayals, Jesus was neither a sensitive metrosexual nor a macho-macho man. The tenderness that He displayed toward those whom He loved (including His enemies) was paternal and sacrificial, focused not on self-gratification or expression but on the real needs of those He came to save. The Son of Man did not strut about flexing His muscles or cursing at His enemies, because He possessed the quiet confidence of One absolutely certain of His mission and did not need the approval of others in order to maintain that certainty. Nor did He need to “be His own boss” in order to be a man (Isaiah called Him “God’s slave”), insisting, instead, that He came not to do His own will but the “will of Him Who sent Me”—His Father. He resisted the temptation of Satan to perform a spectacular feat of strength by casting Himself down from the pinnacle of the Temple, choosing, rather, the way of the Cross. This Man wept—for Jerusalem, for the family of Lazarus—not out of hypersensitivity or fear but because of His great love for a people languishing under the weight of their own sin. Even in the hour of His torment in Gethsemane, He prayed for those entrusted to His care while battling the Old Serpent, whose head He crushed in the greatest battle ever fought by a man. And He emerged from the grave a King, still bearing the wounds of battle. There will be no democracy on Judgment Day when “the Man comes around,” because only one vote will count: that of the God Who humbled Himself in order to save the ones He loves.

This is not the language of the American Christian man, who strolls, rosy-cheeked and all aflutter, “in the garden alone,”

while the dew is still on the roses.
And the voice I hear falling on my ear—
the Son of God—discloses.
And He walks with me and He talks with me.
And He tells me I am His own.
And the joy we share as we tarry there—
none other has ever known.

These familiar strains from the popular hymn “In the Garden” represent the modern American imagination of the essence of Christianity: a romantic fantasy in which a chivalric Jesus rescues me from my own loneliness and despair and fills all of my emotional needs. This effeminate picture of the Christian life, from the dramatic conversion experience to the long walks in the garden alone with “Jesus,” has produced generations of effeminate Christian men who either allow themselves to be consumed by their imaginary “walks with Jesus” or else drift away from church altogether, knowing that their best efforts at spiritual courtship will fall well short of those of the women who now, more than ever, fill the pews of America’s churches.

When the West was Christian, Church and society encouraged men to follow the example of the Son of Man: Endowed with headship yet obedient to higher authorities, a man must use his physical abilities and natural strength and demeanor to provide for and protect his family, his people, laying down his life if necessary. This requires the cultivation of courage, discipline, and honor in boys, which used to be the goal of the education that our churches used to provide.

Today, American culture presents boys with icons of “masculinity,” such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, who glory in sodomizing women while pumping iron in a gym. Ideally, physical strength is to be put into the service of self-gratification, not of protecting and providing for “weaker vessels.” The macho American man is a “selfish hedonist,” who lives fast, plays hard, and beds women at will. Loving a wife, rearing children, and serving others are the least of his concerns.

The flip-side of this concept of manhood is the homosexual, another sodomizer, whose very label means self-gratification. Adam and Steve cannot properly assume the mantle of responsibility that God calls marriage, because homosexual sex, devoid of the divinely instituted roles of man and wife—chief among them, the possibility of and openness to procreation—is nothing more than mutual self-gratification. Saint Paul calls it “that which is unseemly,” “vile affections,” “dishonouring the body,” and “against nature.” The homosexual’s “orientation” is open rebellion against God and His created order. Furthermore, a society that celebrates this (or any other) sort of hedonistic masculinity is warring against the very essence of Christianity…

 

[rpp]

Thank you. This is all so true.

 

[Shin]

It’s one of the most diabolical signs of evil times, and one of the signs of the very end for men to act like women, and women to act like men.

Men must be men, without apology. They must take their leadership position in the home and in the world, and not be afraid of it, nor back away from it, nor let it be taken away, or set aside.

‘Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.’

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

‘In consolations a child may be brave, but it is in serious tribulations that we distinguish the strong from the effeminate soul.’

St. Paul of the Cross

‘Let us read the lives of the saints; let us consider the penances which they performed, and blush to be so effeminate and so fearful of mortifying our flesh.’

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

‘Do not dishonor marriage by diabolical feasts. If you banish from them unbecoming, effeminate singing, dances, improper conversation, the pomps of Satan, noise, boisterous laughter, intemperance, with all that is unbecoming in Christians, Christ will be present at the wedding. But it is Satan who presides at those weddings at which voluptuous and disgraceful dancing is indulged in; and, from all the expenses incurred on such occasions, great harm results, and no profit is derived.’

St. John Chrysostom

‘I invite you: make haste. You have made light of my entreaties; perhaps you will listen to my reproaches. Effeminate soldier! What are you doing under the paternal roof? Though your mother tear her hair and rend her garments, though your father stand on the threshold and forbid your departure, you must be deaf to the voice of nature, and hasten with unmoistened eye to enlist under the banner of Christ; love for God and fear of hell easily breaks all chains.’

St. Jerome

 

[Miss_Linda]

Excerpted from this excellent article:
Men—pastors, fathers—do not need permission to take up their mantles of authority, any more than Our Lord did. God is still the Father of the baptized, no matter what their feelings or felt-needs are. And those earthly and spiritual fathers will answer to the ultimate Man for what they have done for those under their authority, no matter what the culture said. Boys still need fathers who are willing to teach them by example how to have courage, respect, and honor, and how to treat a lady; girls still need daddies who will keep them from dressing like harlots and stop any boy in his tracks who would harm their reputations; and wives—and congregations—still need men who will stand before them and say, with Joshua, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

This was an excellent article, and I am heartened to see that there are still brave men who stand up and proclaim an important (although sadly unpopular) truth. The author is simply reiterating the message in Ephesians 5, where St. Paul encourages men and women to obey the created order. The Church will be greatly strengthened and God will be glorified when men stand up as leaders of their households and leaders of the church, and women support, encourage and “submit to their husbands as to the Lord”.

Ephesians 5:21–33: “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ oes the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.”

 

[BobObob]

While the article made some good points, I must say that the statement “The homosexual’s ‘orientation’ is open rebellion against God and His created order,” is false and is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

The Catholic Church teaches in CCC 2357-9 that homosexual ACTS are wrong.

Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) said:

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder…”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

The Catholic Church in CCC 1762-1775 talks about passions. Same-sex attraction (a homosexual orientation) fits the CC’s definition for a passion. CCC 1767, in part, says:

“In themselves passions are neither good nor evil…”

It must be remembered that SSA (same-sex atraction or homosexual orientation) often has little to do with sex itself and often a lot to do with unmet emotional needs. Some of these needs may be needs for healthy bonding with the same-sex or overcoming the truama of being sexually abused.

 

[rpp]

While the article made some good points, I must say that the statement “The homosexual’s ‘orientation’ is open rebellion against God and His created order,” is false and is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

The Catholic Church teaches in CCC 2357-9 that homosexual ACTS are wrong.

Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) said:

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder…”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

The Catholic Church in CCC 1762-1775 talks about passions. Same-sex attraction (a homosexual orientation) fits the CC’s definition for a passion. CCC 1767, in part, says:

“In themselves passions are neither good nor evil…”

It must be remembered that SSA (same-sex atraction or homosexual orientation) often has little to do with sex itself and often a lot to do with unmet emotional needs. Some of these needs may be needs for healthy bonding with the same-sex or overcoming the truama of being sexually abused.

There is much misinformation in your post. It is critically important to keep in mind that SSA is a mental disorder.

Your post is also off topic. This is about the effects of preaching of an effeminate or emasculating gospel. It has nothing to do with mental disorders, such as schizophrenia, sociopolitical urges or homosexuality.

 

[BobObob]

Your post is also off topic. This is about the effects of preaching of an effeminate or emasculating gospel. It has nothing to do with mental disorders, such as schizophrenia, sociopolitical urges or homosexuality.

I think my post is relevant because this article claimed that SSA is nothing more than “open rebellion against God and His created order.” That false assertion has HUGE pastoral implications. You cannot preach the gospel without at least considering the pastoral issues.

If you are preaching that SSA is sinful per se, then when someone who experiences SSA hears that, he’s either made to feel like God has rejected them, or the person preaching is discredited in him mind. If that same person tries to get rid of SSA, but still experiences much SSA, he’ll tend to feel God has rejected him.

Sociopolitical urges! Why do you even mention that? How come every time I cite Catholic Church teaching that says that SSA is NOT a sin per se, and that we shouldn’t stone people who have SSA, do people assume that I have a political agenda?

The article clearly did mention homosexuality (both sodomy and SSA).

There is much misinformation in your post. It is critically important to keep in mind that SSA is a mental disorder.

Could you show how there is misinformation in my post?

As someone who is double majoring in THEOLOGY and mental health at a Catholic college that prides itself in orthodoxy, I see no theological problems in my post. Look at the link to a Church document that I provided.

You have to consider what a mental disorder is. As someone who is also majoring in mental health, I understand that a mental disorder, in a general sense, is some condition of the mind that is for some reason undesirable. SSA is a mental disorder in the sense that it is understandable due to making living a chaste life more difficult (which is in line with what the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith said). Thus, if someone with SSA is capable of living a chaste life, SSA would only really be a mental disorder insofar as it may bring them discomforts in life.

Also, the Catholic answers web page on homosexuality holds the same view that I do that sodomy is sinful per se, but SSA is not sinful per se. It can be found at (catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp). It says:

“Homosexual desires [by this they mean attractions and temptations], however, are not sinful in themselves.”

 

[Shin]

‘All passions are dishonorable, for the soul is even more prejudiced and degraded by sin than is the body by disease; but the worst of all passions is lust between men. . . when God abandons a man, everything is turned upside down! Therefore, not only are their passions satanic, but their lives are diabolic. A murderer only separates the soul from the body, whereas these destroy the soul inside the body. . . There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity.’

St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop, Father and Doctor of the Church

‘This vice disturbs the intellect, breaks an elevated and generous state of soul, drags great thoughts to petty ones, makes [men] pusillanimous and irascible, obstinate and hardened, servilely soft and incapable of anything . . . Someone who lived practicing the vice of sodomy will suffer more pains in Hell than anyone else, because this is the worst sin that there is.’

St. Bernardine of Siena

‘Brimstone calls to mind the foul odors of the flesh, as Sacred Scripture itself confirms when it speaks of the rain of fire and brimstone poured by the Lord upon Sodom. He had decided to punish in it the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment emphasized the shame of that crime, since brimstone exhales stench and fire burns. It was, therefore, just that the sodomites, burning with perverse desires that originated from the foul odor of flesh, should perish at the same time by fire and brimstone so that through this just chastisement they might realize the evil perpetrated under the impulse of a perverse desire.’

Pope St. Gregory the Great

‘To abstain from sinful actions is not sufficient for the fulfillment of God’s law. The very desire of what is forbidden is evil.’

St. John Baptist de la Salle

I will simply say a person who experiences the slightest hint of this diabolical temptation must hate it and reject it with a perfect hate.

 

[BobObob]

I would invite you to look at the Church teachings that I cited, in including this (vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html), CCC 1762-75 (the CC’s definition of passions and teaching on passions as the Church defines them), and CCC 2357-9 (the CC’s teaching on sodomy).

When you are looking at what saints have said in the past and comparing it to Catholic teachings, you must consider:

1 Their use of language might be different. Some people, such as St. John Chrysostom or St. Bernardine of Siena, may use words such as “passion” and “desire” as synonyms for lust. This is not how the Church defines the word passion when she teaches about passions (see CCC 1762-75). It is not wrong that they may use the words differently, but it does mean that they may be talking about very different concepts.

2 Saints can and have erred in the past. The Church, however, is infallible when it comes to faith and morals.

'All passions are dishonorable…

St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop, Father and Doctor of the Church

St. John Chrysostom is obviously not using the word “passion” the same way the Church does in CCC 2351. If a guy likes a girl, that would fit under what the Church is talking about regarding passions in CCC 1762-75. If a guy willfully fantasizes sexually about a girl, that would fall under the Church’s definition of lust in CCC 2351, which is what it seems like St. John Chrysostom is referring to by his use of the word “passion”.

St. John Chrysostom is probably using the word “passion” to refer to lust, which the Church defines in CCC 2351:

“Lust is disordered [cupidatis] or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”

This may seem off topic, but it’s extremely important. I inserted “cupidatis” in where “desire for” would appear in the English text because the CCC was written in Latin and translated into English. As someone who has painfully studied Latin for 2 years in college, I know that this particular translation leads to a lot of confusion. Cupidatis is commonly translated to “cupidity”, “avarice”, or sometimes “desire” in English, and it means TO WANT something (active), not just to be attracted to something (passive).

'This vice disturbs the intellect, breaks an elevated and generous state of soul…

St. Bernardine of Siena

I don’t have enough context here. What vice is she talking about? Is she talking about sodomy, lusting after others of the same sex, or passively experiencing an attraction toward others of the same sex? Those are three very different things.

‘To abstain from sinful actions is not sufficient for the fulfillment of God’s law. The very desire of what is forbidden is evil.’

St. John Baptist de la Salle

Again, you have to consider how people use words. If that was said using a word like “cupidatis” (used in the CCC and translated to desire), than he could be meaning a concept like the concept of lust rather than how the CCC uses the work passion. This is probably the case.

I will simply say a person who experiences the slightest hint of this diabolical temptation must hate it and reject it with a perfect hate.

Rejecting a temptation will not always make that temptation go away. Jesus, in the Garden of Gethsemane rejected the temptation to not submit to the Father’s will (for Him to die on the cross), but that temptation didn’t leave him (read the gospels for verification).

I encourage people to actually look at Church teaching considering homosexual acts (2357-9) and homosexual orientation (I provided some of the CC’s teachings on this previously). I recommend to actually read all these teaching by the Catholic Church carefully and fully before responding, as opposed to projecting your pre-conceived views onto what the CC teaches (which would just be your views, not the Church’s).

CCC 2357-9
CCC 1762-75
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Effeminate liturgy, Effeminate men.

 

[rpp]

I think my post is relevant because this article claimed that SSA is nothing more than “open rebellion against God and His created order.” That false assertion has HUGE pastoral implications. You cannot preach the gospel without at least considering the pastoral issues.

If you are preaching that SSA is sinful per se, then when someone who experiences SSA hears that, he’s either made to feel like God has rejected them, or the person preaching is discredited in him mind. If that same person tries to get rid of SSA, but still experiences much SSA, he’ll tend to feel God has rejected him.

Sociopolitical urges! Why do you even mention that? How come every time I cite Catholic Church teaching that says that SSA is NOT a sin per se, and that we shouldn’t stone people who have SSA, do people assume that I have a political agenda?

The article clearly did mention homosexuality (both sodomy and SSA).

Could you show how there is misinformation in my post?

As someone who is double majoring in THEOLOGY and mental health at a Catholic college that prides itself in orthodoxy, I see no theological problems in my post. Look at the link to a Church document that I provided.

You have to consider what a mental disorder is. As someone who is also majoring in mental health, I understand that a mental disorder, in a general sense, is some condition of the mind that is for some reason undesirable. SSA is a mental disorder in the sense that it is understandable due to making living a chaste life more difficult (which is in line with what the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith said). Thus, if someone with SSA is capable of living a chaste life, SSA would only really be a mental disorder insofar as it may bring them discomforts in life.

Also, the Catholic answers web page on homosexuality holds the same view that I do that sodomy is sinful per se, but SSA is not sinful per se. It can be found at (catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp). It says:

“Homosexual desires [by this they mean attractions and temptations], however, are not sinful in themselves.”

Off topic. Please stay on topic.