Homosexuality ~ A Deep Confliction in my Heart

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

So bottom line, what you are saying is: I will not take up my cross, die to self, and radically, completely and faithfully follow Jesus Christ. You are guilty of putting limitations on the extent of God’s live and making God conform to your own likeness and preference. Yours is a distorted and false gospel that leads one away from Jesus Christ.

That’s not at all what I said, setter, but it is your interpretation of what I said, and that’s fine. I won’t argue with you. I can explain myself to you, as I’ve attempted above. But I don’t actually expect to convince you of anything.

To you, my cross is my sexuality, which requires of me celibacy as the only faithful response–anything less, to you, is sin, damnation, rejection of God, of Christ, of his church. To me (and given all I’ve written above), my sexuality is not my particular cross (but is part of my “burden” in this life only insofar as all of our lives represent crosses we must bear) and, moreover, does not require celibacy as the only faithful response. It requires responsibility, but not necessarily celibacy.

We will not convince each other, I’m afraid. You say I am limiting God’s love, I say you are. You claim your position represents the Truth insofar as it has been articulated by the infallible Magesterium of the Roman Church. I say it’s absolutely correct for you as a Roman Catholic to believe that, but that I do not share your ecclesiology and therefore do not believe that the Magesterium’s teaching on this point is entirely representative of the Truth. You would counter that that’s entirely inconsistent with the Roman understanding of the infallible nature of the ordinary teaching authority of the Magesterium. I would say, yes it is, and as a Roman Catholic, you should not agree with me.

That’s the just the way it is.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[setter]

In reference to your previous posts, I don’t think fear of hell is a particularly good justification for belief. I really don’t. It’s a good thing to awaken an impulse of self-preservation, but as a means to a relationship with the God who says we must lose everything (including ourselves) in order to find ourselves (i.e., find ourselves in him through Christ), it’s rather poor. That’s not a relationship. That’s just saving your neck.

Bunk. Why do you think there is so much sin running rampart these days? Why do you think that so many Catholics (and other denomination Christians) believe that they can cuddle and minimize serious and patterns of comfortable sin and not face a day of reckoning that may very well be to the peril of their eternal soul? What is lacking is a mature sense and balance of a holy fear of offending God. God is God, He is not our buddy or associate who looks the other way when we sin in the sight of His eyes. Unrepentent serious sin and sin patterns are an offense and stench to Him.

“Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God.” 2 Corinthians 7: 1

 

[setter]

To you, my cross is my sexuality, which requires of me celibacy as the only faithful response–anything less, to you, is sin, damnation, rejection of God, of Christ, of his church. To me (and given all I’ve written above), my sexuality is not my particular cross (but is part of my “burden” in this life only insofar as all of our lives represent crosses we must bear) and, moreover, does not require celibacy as the only faithful response. It requires responsibility, but not necessarily celibacy.

You might as well make it a clean sweep and refute clear scripture while you are at it:

“…just as Sodom and Gomor’rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones.” **Jude 1: 7-8 **

“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. …Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.” Romans 1: 24-28, 32

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You might as well make it a clean sweep and refute clear scripture while you are at it:

I mentioned Jude above–the “unnatural lust” to which Jude refers (translated sometimes “lusting after strange flesh”) is a desire for intercourse with angels. The S&G reference is therefore entirely appropriate there.

My take on Romans (which is not merely my own personal interpretation) is above as well.

I am not refuting clear scripture, therefore. I respect the fact that you think that I am. However I can assure you (though I realize the assurance is likely to seem empty to you) that I am not.

Regarding your other post:

Bunk. Why do you think there is so much sin running rampart these days? Why do you think that so many Catholics (and other denomination Christians) believe that they can cuddle and minimize serious and patterns of comfortable sin and not face a day of reckoning that may very well be to the peril of their eternal soul? What is lacking is a mature sense and balance of a holy fear of offending God. God is God, He is not our buddy or associate who looks the other way when we sin in the sight of His eyes. Unrepentent serious sin and sin patterns are an offense and stench to Him.

I’m not positing a cuddly permissive God in place of a wrathful vengeful one. Both images are entirely unsatisfactory. Do you know Pseudo-Dionysius’ masterwork “The Divine Names”? It’s a classic of apophatic theology. It’s worth a read. Reflection on it is very helpful when one is attempting to stay away from sentimentalizing images of God.

And ultimately, this image you have of God who is smelling sin (as if sin had a positive existence anyway–do you remove the light in a room by switching it off, or do you add darkness?) like it was a burning casserole is still very sentimental–that is, it is entirely a construction of your particular religious sentiment. It can only be metaphorical, and the metaphor must be recognized to have limitations if we’re dealing with an Infinite and Ineffable God.

I do not deny that the fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom. But that fear is awe, not Machiavellian abject fear of power. Do you see the difference? I think they’re often confused, to the detriment of the former and the unjust ennobling of the latter.

You are right: God is not our buddy. He’s our God. And, in the words of John, He is Love. The Lover of Our Souls, in fact. That’s awesome. And Terribly Good.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[blessedtoo]

I’ve gone on enough, but I hope that gives you some sense as to where I’m coming from here.

I appreciate that very thoughtful reply and of course, I disagree with you on just about every point. I would be happy to debate each issue with you but I think it boils down to this.

Being an Anglican (and admittedly on the more “liberal” side of things) I don’t really find my interpretation all that radical. It’s not just mine. I didn’t weasel my way into it.

To this I would simply say that if you were raised in the Anglican Church, and this is what and all you know, then I can understand your reluctance to consider what the Church has to offer on any spiritual matter. We all have allegiance to the faith of our youth and often it takes a divine intervention before we consider another path. However, if you chose the Anglican Church, and particularly the liberal side, I would have to question how you could justify selecting a church primarily because it’s “rules” work best for your lifestyle.

Origen’s standard answers this criticism–there are more ways to interpret scripture than just looking at the literal surface of the text.

I find it interesting that you have quoted Origen continuously throughout this thread, considering that Origen, a Catholic, held these views:

In the preface to the “De principiis” Origen laid down a rule thus formulated in the translation of Rufinus: “Illa sola credenda est veritas quae in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione”. The same norm is expressed almost in equivalent terms n many other passages, e.g., "non debemus credere nisi quemadmodum per successionem Ecclesiae Dei tradiderunt nobis (In Matt., ser. 46, Migne, XIII, 1667). In accordance with those principles Origen constantly appeals to ecclesiastical preaching, ecclesiastical teaching, and the ecclesiastical rule of faith (kanon). He accepts only four Canonical Gospels because tradition does not receive more; he admits the necessity of baptism of infants because it is in accordance with the practice of the Church founded on Apostolic tradition; **he warns the interpreter of the Holy Scripture, not to rely on his own judgment, but “on the rule of the Church instituted by Christ”. For, he adds, we have only two lights to guide us here below, Christ and the Church; the Church reflects faithfully the light received from Christ, **as the moon reflects the rays of the sun. The distinctive mark of the Catholic is to belong to the Church, to depend on the Church outside of which there is no salvation; on the contrary, he who leaves the Church walks in darkness, he is a heretic. It is through the principle of authority that Origen is wont to unmask and combat doctrinal errors. It is the principle of authority, too, that he invokes when he enumerates the dogmas of faith. A man animated with such sentiments may have made mistakes, because he is human, but his disposition of mind is essentially Catholic and he does not deserve to be ranked among the promoters of heresy.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Notice:

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.