The Scottish Episcopal Church (to which I now belong courtesy of living north of the border) has taken the decision to allow same-sex marriages to be conducted in its churches – this, the Guardian tells us ‘puts them on a collision course with other Anglican churches across the world’. That’s a moot point, since in the C of E and the American Episcopalian Church there is a good deal of support for the idea (indeed I thought the Episcopalians there had made that decision), but an unwillingness to risk breaking communion by pressing the issue. Like women priests and bishops, it is an idea too far at the moment; but those who are hostile are right, I think, to fear that within a decade or so, it will lead to the acceptance of gay marriage in church.
Why collision? On one side there is the view that the church has always taken the view that active homosexuality is sinful – it is there in the Bible, after all. As one pundit put it:
“As for Jesus not condemning homosexuality, nor did He condemn bestiality and necrophilia. . . . Christ did indeed condemn homosexuality, as does the Old Testament, St. Paul, the church fathers and all Christianity until a few liberal Protestants in the last decades of the 20th century who, frankly, are more concerned with political correctness than truth.”
On the other, is the view that this is discriminating against people who, modern science tells us, are not making a choice, but following their true nature.
In the aftermath of the horrible and tragic events at Orlando LGBTI ‘celebrities’ have been prominent in condemning the massacre. It saddens me that it should be discussed in terms of either homophobia or ISIS, as it seems to be both. Too often the tone of the conversation within Islam and Christianity on this subject has been, shall we say, unfortunate.
That quotation, with which I suspect many would agree, came from Michael Coren, who has subsequently written:
I have evolved on this single subject because I can no longer hide behind comfortable banalities, have realized that love triumphs judgment, and know that the conversation between Christians and gays has to transform — just as, to a large extent, the conversation between conservatives and gays has.
I am not prepared to throw around ugly terms like “sin” and “disordered” as if they were clumsy cudgels, or marginalize people and groups who often lead more moral lives than I do. I am sick and tired of defining the word of God by a single and not even particularly important subject.
The reaction, he says, was a loss of income and allegations he was gay himself – because, clearly, in the eyes of some Christians, no one but a gay person could think that the teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue was discriminatory. The abuse he received from Christians was, by his own account, horrid. As it happens, he is not gay, he simply feels, as do so many people, that gay people should be treated as straight people are by the churches. When Vicky Beeching came out as a lesbian, she, too, received huge amounts of abuse, and says she was very fearful about admitting she was a lesbian.
That seems to me all very sad. It is hard to see how much of the abuse could possibly be seen as loving the sinner but hating the sin. It shows, alas, yet again, that when it comes to looking judgmental and uncaring, some Christians don’t even realise what they are doing. I have yet to see ‘moderate Christians’ coming out and condemning those extremists who have trolled Vicky or Michael Coren. The only people Jesus spoke crossly about and to were those who behaved to others as though they were the righteous ones with a right to stand in judgment. God alone does that.
My own views on this? I can see both sides, but cannot think that it is worth pressing and breaking communion on this issue, any more than I can see that feeling otherwise (either way) justifies anyone behaving in a way which does not show the love of Christ. I would hope that all of our thoughts and prayers for the victims of Orlando would manifest that love.
Homosexuality is certainly a natural evil. However, since evil is a privation of the good we cannot say it is God’s fault. It falls under God’s permissive will to justify a greater good since evil is the privation of good and as such it is a condition of absence. And so evil, which is a defect of the action of a thing, is the fault of the agent.
If you say man is born evil that would imply that God, as a perfect agent, was perfectible and so capable of evil. Since evil must subsist within a thing as a condition of a lack of good then man in no ways can be completely evil: He would lack any and all potentiality. Since God is incapable of evil and as the first efficient cause of man he is not the author of evil since a defect of action is imputed to the agent of the action and so we see that man is the cause of evil not God.
Therefore man cannot be born evil. If man was evil and was void of free will then that would make God who is all good the author of sin. This is a contradiction in the nature of God and is, therefore, not possible.
Man is not born evil as nothing can exist as essentially bad since it would deny any potentiality to actualise itself since evil can only exist as a subject within a condition of good.
As a standard of measure against what good there is we would say blindness is a lack of sight, etc. If God is the author of evil then we could say God willed the sin of Lucifer and as such he foresaw the sin. However due to the element of free will existing in each cognisant being the fault lies in the agent who actualises the movement or choice. If God was the author of the Devil’s sin then we could say that God is not perfect and he is the cause of sin which by definition is a defect in the nature of a thing. This is contrary to the nature of God.
Therefore homosexual acts are evil since they frustrate the ordered end or final cause of sexual union which is procreation and the survival of the species.
Modern science is patently wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I take your reasoning – but then by that last token infertility would be evil, as that frustrates the ordered end of procreation.
LikeLike
No. I argue that homosexuality is an act of the will.
Infertility has genetic or pathological origins. God obviously allows these things, for His own reason; but it doesn’t follow that He positively wills them, and it certainly doesn’t follow that they are natural in the relevant sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course, one can argue anything, but I am not sure that gay people would agree with you – many of them feel it is not a ‘choice’.
LikeLike
Homosexual activists often cite this or that alleged “finding” that such a basis exists; someday they might even cite something plausible.
Even if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that there is such a basis, with respect to the question of the “naturalness” of homosexuality, this would prove nothing.
LikeLike
That depends on how one defines ‘natural’. You said it was an act of will, but I have never met a homosexual who said ‘I chose to be this way’; I have met dozens who feel they had no ‘choice’. We know there are examples in the animal kingdom. It might be that the definition of what is ‘natural’ is too narrow?
LikeLike
This is a thorny issue. We must love and at the same time speak to homosexuality as we do every other sin. One of the church’s roles in society is to speak into the moral fabric of society. We shirk that responsiblity to our own peril as much as we do if we fail to speak in love.
As far as homosexual marriage goes it is not an issue. The Bible is clear and inviolable on the subject of what marriage is regardless of what any denomination may decide. We don’t get to dictate to God how an institution He created and oversees is run though no culture has ever long kept to that standard.
I struggle constantly with how much I should say and not say on this issue. I realize that no matter what I say there are those who will say I said too much and some who will say I said too little.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think many of us feel the same, Joseph, so you are far from alone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you are right. It might be the largest issue driving our councils and synods in this church age.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It raises issues about what is ‘natural’, which are not at all easy to deal with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True story.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well good brother Joseph, I don’t have any trouble finding words to say.
Homosexuals, murderers, gluttons, adulterers, thiefs, were are all in the same boat. Love the sinner, of which I am one, and hate the sin.
If homosexuals want to live together, hey, go ahead. There are no laws against being gay. They have all the rights everyone has. But they want special laws to allow them to legally marry. I say, do not let them become legally married. Western society is already in a moral tailspin…why add to it on purpose? They can be together and what ever, and pretend to be married. Straights do it all the time. What next?….boys want to sue the Girl Scouts to let them in? There are two different kinds of people…girls and guys. They are different. We don’t let girls play in the NFL.
I have no prob telling a gay person that God loves them and Jesus stands at the door….but im against you all getting legally married. We don’t want you parading your perversion in the streets for our kids to see and think its OK.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My own feelings…for what it’s worth are that as far as marriage goes, we should not seek to redefine it. In that respect I line up with “conservatives” – much as I hate labels. The institution of the civil partnership was a useful way of communicating the idea of love and commitment without treading on the toes of marriage. As with all compromises, it failed to please either extreme, but I hope that for people of “moderation” and respect, it was understood as the best attempt that could be made to satisfy all sides.
When it comes to the word “love”, that is a different story. Being gay or bi or whichever other term one chooses to apply to oneself is not simply about sex, it is about love and relationship with other people. Love should be recognised for what it is – not explained away in terms of “perversion” and deviance.
I thank you, Jess, for another brave piece (though my own comments may see me cowering behind the barricade again…).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think most of those who would have made you cower are gone, and we’re left with those of us who agonise over this. I agree with you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I commented on good brother Servus sad site. He took down everything I said, which was if I might add were sedate and respectful. But the worst thing that can happen to a religion of lies is ……the truth. He erases my comment but keeps the ones of the Mary worshippers who twist scripture and misquote them. Lord have mercy….don’t point out that a Female deity worshipper misquoted scripture. Then, they persecute gay laymen in their own ranks…eg…firing a gay music director…while 90% of their fish hat costumed holymen are homosexual predators. Deny them communion because they are gay. Hell…its a 90% chance the boney fingered hand that hands out the Isis Horus and Seth crackers is attached to a homosexual.
LikeLike
After the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of redifining marriage I wrote a blog Moral Abyss: The Limits of #LoveWins
https://thoughtfullydetached.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/moral-abyss-the-limits-of-lovewins/
I mention it here because the idea that it is a wicked thing to suggest that people should refrain from acting in certain ways lies behind much of the rhetoric surrounding the horrible events in Orlando. The logic seems to be that the level of wickedness behind the killing and that behind opposing the redefinition of marriage are the same. All sins against the progressive consensus are mortal, none are venial. On my blog I argued that society as such does have a vested interest in what its members do and does restrict certain personal freedoms. There is always a debate about what these freedoms might be and there is no intrinsic reason why that debate should include, say, guns, alcohol, gambling and tobacco but not marriage and the family. It is a long way from that kind of debate to the massacre of innocent party goers. The link has been assumed but not demonstrated because it’s ideologically useful to do so, especially at a time of heightened emotion.
The Irish Republican Bernadette McAliskey used to have a policy in interviews of not answering questions about the most recent shooting, bombing or outrage in Ireland. Her reasoning was that the politics of the “latest atrocity” led nowhere but talking about underlying issues might lead somewhere. This might usefully be applied to many issues.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s a really thoughtful and helpful comment and a great and thought-provoking post- thank you. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Where are the gay Catholic seminarians, priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals? Having been a Jesuit for ten years, I know that there are many gay religious within the church. Why not come out in an act of solidarity?
A papacy that once promised an historic welcome of LGBT people, is closing its arms. Friendship is based on love, and Pope Francis has yet to reveal his love
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/16/after-orlando-pulse-massacre-pope-francis-prays-away-the-gay.html
LikeLike