My position is much like the Archbishop of Canterbury. I don’t think that homosexuals who live in committed relationships are automatically perverted sinners. I think much good fruit can and has come from such unions. But I would would be hesitant to push this down the church’s throat. I don’t see any pressing need to push the envelope by blessing gays unions. Such actions wouldn’t improve the lives of gay people. They are already accepted members of TEC. Formally blessing their unions doesn’t help them in any way except to make them the objects of scorn and ridicule by those disagree with the way they are living. The only meaningful result of such an action will be alienating conservatives.
You’re in bad company, VARC. This guy is a milk-toast coward and due to his weak leadership and trying to let everyone have it their own way, Anglicanism is more fractured and spinning into oblivion than ever unfortunately. I can’t believe that you would think two men who share sodomy together could produce any sort of positive fruit of any kind. You do sound like Rowan Williams, unwilling to call a spade a spade. It’s not evil, but it’s not worth endorsing? It’s like how Obama extolls the acceptability and rationality of abortion but wants to make it “rare?” HUH? If you think it bears good fruit, why are you scared to endorse the unions? Most likely you know in your heart that this does not constitute a real relationship in God’s eyes and that it’s wrong but you’re unwilling to tell these folks they’re doing something wrong. Our culture has branded us homophobes when we say such things. You sound conflicted.
It’s always kind interesting to discuss religion with you because we kind of passed each other on the way out of the doors of our respective churches. I’m pretty happy where I’m at now. How bout you?
It is indeed interesting. I don’t mean that sarcastically or in a nasty way and I trust you don’t either, VARC. We did evidently go in different directions but the one thing I must say is that despite my definite going in circles about things like purgatory or indulgences, infallibility or ecclesiology, I have always sought to follow the scriptures and the morality of Christianity faithfully without trying to second guess the apostles or fathers. I have an ‘err on the side of caution’ button that I keep pressed. If the scriptures, fathers, traditions, and 2000 years of Church history have said women’s ordination is absurd and evil, I tend to stick with that determination. If some Lambeth conference and a bunch of liberal talking heads get together in the 70’s and say it’s ok, that’s not good enough for me. Guys like St. Paul, Augustine of Hippo, the popes like John Paul II, etc. who are intellectual heavyweights and obviously are inspired theologians tell me that homosexuality is disordered and sinful and so does scripture, tradition, and reason, then I’ll take that over the brain trust of guys like Shelby Spong, Jefforts-Schiori, and ambivalent folks like Rowan. And in the end I follow these opinions not because of self-fullfilling prophesies but because they’re the right thing to do. I personally could care less if women have power all in all. I’m not a chauvenist in the slightest. Anyone I know will tell you that. And I’m not one of those guys who gets his fuses blown at the sight of an altar girl at church. I’m just not chauvenistic, but when I see the overwhelming evidence against W.O. over a vast two millenia of opinions and theology, I err on the side of caution. I do so also in abortion and with other biggie issues.
Your analysis is different. You look at St. Paul through the lens of his own personal prejudices and failings. You see his works, his epistles, as prejudiced with his own bigotry toward women that his contemporary culture gave to him as being his reasoning on things. You see his opposition to homosexuality as some flawed reasoning the poor guy had because of his limited understandings and shorcomings in science. I don’t see it that way. How do you separate his inspired statements from his prejudiced cultural weaknesses? The answer is simple. When you agree with him, you’ll say it’s inspired of the Holy Spirit. When you disagree with him and it’s uncomfortable in this day and age of 2009 to say that homosexuality is a sin, you’ll go with the, ‘well heck, Paul didn’t have a clue, he was a bigot due to the times’ argument. Paul himself tells us that his epistles are inspired by the Holy Spirit and that he is not writing merely of his own accord. Paul makes it abundantly clear that God Himself is deeply guiding his work and his words and his life. Holistically I am going to follow Paul and listen to what the Church of this age has to say about his teachings.
To answer your question about whether I’m happy with where I am. Yes, overall. I would be lying if I said I prefer this language and music of my Catholic parish to my old Anglican one. I’ve stated that to you before. It’s one of the pearls of Anglicanism, that lovely liturgy. I miss Anglican fellowship and pastoral care, no doubt. I miss my old rector. He was a neat guy. On the other hand, I am gratified to be at a Catholic parish where we have AN ENORMOUS CROWD at every confession day. There are roughly 80-90 people at confession each of the two days it is offered and it’s tough to get in! That’s a good sign. We now have perpetual Adoration in a lovely chapel that wasn’t there before. I have a good relationship with the assistant priest, Father Rod, and there is much more going on at the parish than when I left it in the early 90’s. Do I get perturbed at things? Heck, yeah. I don’t like several little things about my parish that get on our nerves. But I was the same at the Anglican parish I attended. There is no perfect parish. Philosophically I am a Roman Catholic. I struggle with some issues but when it boils down to faith, morality, theology, I trust the popes and bishops and traditions of Catholicism hands-down over Anglican churches that you must concede are in utter chaos and many in a tailspin. When I see the morality of TEC, it makes my own struggles with Catholicism easier to bear and I realize that it’s not the Church that is being stubborn, but me. I’m a happy guy on many levels, but I think there is always room for improvement in the Catholic Church.
How dare he!