tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post5046789282061665208..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Learn your Faith, find your courageLeila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger358125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-49606237625605112902013-06-05T21:53:09.539-07:002013-06-05T21:53:09.539-07:00Frank,
Thanks for your responses. To broadly answ...Frank,<br /><br />Thanks for your responses. To broadly answer your submissions, all those Catholic texts you quote as allegedly supporting Rowan Williams' outlandish propositions actually do no such thing. A text outside of its proper context is a pretext for misunderstanding. All Catholic teaching on sexuality and marriage refers invariably to the union between two different and complementary human beings - a man and a woman - who in their conjugal intimacy take a major step towards achieving perfect union (becoming "one") and being fruitful (participating in the economy of Creation). Homosexual unions achieve no such thing because they naturally can't; it is blindingly obvious that the very physiology of two men or two women preempt it. Men are men, and women are women, distinct from each other at multiple levels, despite all of the recent bizarre social constructs of "gender neutrality". At best the "couple" in a homosexual relationship is a "pair", more or less doubling up on each other physically, mentally, emotionally and psychologically. There is little or no natural complementarity between such "partners", hence the essential meaning of "marriage" (two beings becoming one - as opposed to teaming up as a pair) is radically distorted in such a coupling - to the point of redundancy.<br /><br />Genuine analogies between marriage and the Christian divine mysteries are always characterized by fruitful love. Christ's marriage to the Church spawns recreated children in God's family. The Holy Spirit's overshadowing of the Blessed Virgin produces The Incarnation as its fruit in her womb. Even the love between God the Father and God the Son is embodied by a third other that proceeds from them - the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, by whose workings all Creation arises. What can/does "gay marriage" produce except synthetic constructs presented as "union" and "family" and "offspring"? Children, most self evidently, can't have two real fathers or two real mothers. They just can't. To pretend otherwise is, frankly, corrupt in the extreme.<br /><br />If I have some time (and I really don't now) I'll try and respond to the detailed "rebuttals" you've made to the points I made about the errors in Rowan Williams' teachings as I see them.Francis Choudhuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01146223983345452362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-91694035701372796042013-06-04T11:48:16.774-07:002013-06-04T11:48:16.774-07:00(Part 3/3--forgot to number the other 2!)
Finally...(Part 3/3--forgot to number the other 2!)<br /><br />Finally, a group of your rebuttals perplexed me, because you say you’re an orthodox Catholic, and I take that to mean that you hold certain beliefs. So it surprises me, for example, when you write:<br /><br />“We’re hard wired with sexual desire (as are other living beings) precisely for procreation and survival of the species. There is no other deep and profound ‘meaning’ to sexual desire, just as there is no other deep and profound meaning to eating save nourishment…”<br /><br />Leila can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that this not Catholic teaching. Both Humanae Vitae and the Catechism acknowledge another "deep and profound meaning" for sex: its unitive significance.<br /><br />Now, Leila and I differ on whether or not the unitive aspect can be divided from the procreative one (or what it means to divide the two meanings), but I'm fairly sure that we agree that the purpose of sex is multifaceted. <br /><br />You also surprise me when you write:<br /><br />“I must let myself be formed by the perceptions of others? Being created in the image and likeness of God himself is not sufficient to give me my core and crucial identity?”<br /><br />First off, you’re still misconstruing Williams’ argument: again, he’s not saying you *must* get married and be formed by the perceptions of a spouse. You pulled that out of thin air.<br /><br />But for those of us that are married, our spouses do shape us; any married person can tell you that. And Williams is talking about marriage as it illuminates God’s love for us, which is exactly what John Paul II does in his Theology of the Body.<br /><br />In fact, this is a place (one of many) where JPII says basically the same thing as Williams: “Man becomes the image of God not so much in the moment of solitude as in the moment of communion."<br /><br />And John Paul II repeatedly uses the same language of spouses “forming” each other, as when he says that “The Church as such is formed by Christ; it is constituted by him in its essential part, as the body is by the head… As already stated, the author of the letter to Ephesians has introduced the supplementary analogy of the head and the body within the limits of the analogy of marriage.”<br /><br />And, too, I think you’re precisely wrong (from the Catholic perspective) when you say that love does not consist in giving identity to an other. Here’s John Paul II: “In a certain sense, love makes the ‘I’ of the other person his own ‘I’: the ‘I’ of the wife, I would say, becomes through love the ‘I’ of the husband.”<br /><br />Love, for both Williams and JPII, consists of giving identity to (and taking identity from) your beloved. In marriage, that’s one meaning of two becoming one flesh. If you don’t agree with Williams at least that far, then you’re disagreeing with John Paul II.<br /><br />That's all I've got time for today. If you'd like to continue talking, I encourage you to think about "The Body's Grace" in conversation (rather than competition) with the Theology of the Body. Like your namesake Pope Francis says, you need to build bridges, not walls.<br /><br />Also, I plan on writing a post on my blog (scholarlytexan.blogspot.com) in the next few days about "The Body's Grace" and the sex/food metaphor you use. Stop by if you'd like.Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08177378357148360987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-22601747220100074552013-06-04T11:22:27.994-07:002013-06-04T11:22:27.994-07:00Here are some other things that Williams doesn’t s...Here are some other things that Williams doesn’t say:<br /><br />1. He doesn’t say that transitory relationships are healthy. He says that it’s unreal and silly to assume that transitory relationships “have the nature of sin and nothing else” (emphasis in original). You see the difference, right?<br /><br />He’s not advocating transitory sexual encounters anymore than Paul is advocating sin when he says, “Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.” By your reasoning, Paul is suggesting that hey, we should sin all the time so we get more grace. But Paul specifically argues against that in Romans 6, saying “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!”<br /><br />And Williams argues against it, too: he says that Sarah Layton finds “no lasting joy,” and that the purpose of a Christian community is to teach us that we are occasions of joy. Ergo the purpose of a Christian community is to help its members avoid situations like Sarah Layton’s.<br /><br />Neither Paul, nor Rowan Williams, is contradicting himself. Instead, each is addressing two separate facts: 1) that sin is bad and 2) that even sin (through actual grace) can lead to habitual (sanctifying) grace.<br /><br />Literature is full of examples of this, btw, especially from Catholic writers like Walker Percy and Flannery O’Connor.<br /><br />2. He doesn’t say that “transitory partnering,” like Sarah Layton’s, necessarily leads to commitment. It doesn’t for Sarah Layton!<br /><br />3. He’s not saying you should have one-night stands or visit brothels. To the contrary, he says that those are attempts to run away from the risk of exposed spontaneity, and that sexual activity without risk is perversion. <br />Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08177378357148360987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-12067863421576314522013-06-04T11:16:15.539-07:002013-06-04T11:16:15.539-07:00Francis, many of your rebuttals are answered withi...Francis, many of your rebuttals are answered within the text of the essay.<br /> <br />You said: “My body, Archbishop, is the sacred temple of the Holy Spirit. It is His indwelling in me that gives me joy and makes me precious, lovable, and irreplaceable…”<br /><br />Right. And from the beginning of the essay, Williams makes clear that the “other” for all of us is God. Sex is a means through which, in our bodies, we understand that love. This is an echo of the Theology of the Body, in which John Paul II says that salvation teaches us about marriage (and sex) and, in turn, marriage (and sex) teaches us about salvation. Nowhere does JPII, or Williams, say it’s the *only* means by which we understand that love.<br /><br />“That sexual intimacy is not some essential activity for joy or fulfillment or knowledge of self is proven by countless virgins and celibates who do not, repeat do not, have traumatic identity or functional crises due to lack of sexual liaisons.”<br /><br />Again, nowhere does Williams say that sex is essential for joy or fulfillment. Nowhere. In fact, he includes a lengthy passage about the celibate life, starting with the sentence: “lt is perhaps because of our need to keep that perspective clear before us that the community needs some who are called beyond or aside from the ordinary patterns of sexual relation to put their identities direct into the hands of God in the single life.”<br /><br />Then he goes on for about 500 words about the celibate vocation. Did you miss that section?<br /><br />“It is almost unbelievable to me that someone at the level of the head of the Church of England can suggest that we are incomplete or unlovable if perchance no one finds ‘joy’ in our bodies.”<br /><br />Don’t believe it. Williams doesn’t say that. <br /><br />“What a wicked and scandalous proposition!”<br /><br />Good thing he didn't say it, then.<br /><br />The same problem, ignoring the text, shows up in this rebuttal:<br /><br />“Poor Rowan. He clean forgot to spell out what exactly the ‘good deal’ in the Bible is that ‘steers us away from assuming that reproductive sex is a norm’. I, for one, would certainly be interested to know!”<br /><br />If you’re truly interested, you could just re-read the preceding seven paragraphs, in which Williams mentions the Book of Hosea, 1 Samuel 8, 1 Corinthians 7:4, Ephesians 5:21-33, and the many times Jesus and Paul analogize marriage to the relationship of Jesus and the Church. If you disagree with his readings of those texts, say how; but to say Williams doesn’t offer biblical support for his case is to lie. <br /><br />Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08177378357148360987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-24321413748521463782013-06-04T10:57:24.254-07:002013-06-04T10:57:24.254-07:00Hi, Leila!
First, thanks for your prayers. Second...Hi, Leila!<br /><br />First, thanks for your prayers. Second, sorry for the slow response. I was traveling last week and then, this weekend, when I sat down to type out a reply, I spilled coffee all over my laptop and put it out of commission. Ugh. <br /><br />Since you asked, I'll respond to a few of the misreadings Francis makes in his rebuttals. I hope that's not the end of your engagement with the essay, though. Even if you disagree with some of Williams' conclusions, there's a lot to like in there (even for a Catholic!). My favorite aspect of the essay is Williams’ description of marriage as an embrace of vulnerability, as a deepening of sexual risk rather than a move towards sexual safety. I think that's both a beautiful and a useful idea.Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08177378357148360987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-53977334143123480232013-05-28T23:50:54.511-07:002013-05-28T23:50:54.511-07:00I showed my husband the Archbishop's treatise ...I showed my husband the Archbishop's treatise on "grace" and he was as troubled by it as I was. I keep paraphrasing in my mind that line from Princess Bride: "I don't think that word means what you think it means", lol.<br /><br />He needs to read up on the Christian understanding of grace because he has gone 180 degrees in the opposite direction.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45955543910061169092013-05-28T01:22:25.564-07:002013-05-28T01:22:25.564-07:00Francis, thank you for wading through all that by ...Francis, thank you for wading through all that by the Anglican Archbishop (he's arguing from a "Church which accepts the legitimacy of contraception" -- nope, that was Sanger the Anglicans followed with her "no gods, no masters" slogan, not the Church Christ founded, which does <i>not</i> accept the "legitimacy of contraception". But I digress). I have pretty much bowed out here, but I am still reading and would love to hear Frank's take on your very pointed analysis. <br /><br />Thanks, gentlemen!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-2803072105096146752013-05-27T18:10:06.989-07:002013-05-27T18:10:06.989-07:00But I hope that you, too, have a blessed week! :)
...But I hope that you, too, have a blessed week! :)<br /><br />And please, please, I hope one day you realize that Jesus left the arbiter and proclaimer and protector of His Truth on earth, and that arbiter is neither you, nor me, nor Beck, nor Williams. But it's here nonetheless ("I will not leave you orphans"), and we are bound to obey the Church He left. "He who hears you, hears me." I pray, pray, pray you have that epiphany one day! You seem sincere, and Lauren and Jaris speak highly of you! :)Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-82595058572591799362013-05-27T18:05:10.698-07:002013-05-27T18:05:10.698-07:00I'm glad it made you happy, but I'm not su...I'm glad it made you happy, but I'm not sure why, lol! But like I said, it's just so sad, precisely because they think they are onto something important, or real, or novel. Meanwhile, the Truth will not change, and like every other heresy (there is no new sin), theirs will be obliterated by the glory of Christ's perfect Truth. If sodomy can be the basis for holy marriage, then Lucifer is still the "Light Bearer". <br /><br />I will pray for all of them, and may the Lord have mercy on us all. <br /><br />"<b>Woe</b> to those who call good evil and evil good."<br /><br />None of us can say that we have not been warned.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-40811492978327578932013-05-26T14:51:34.541-07:002013-05-26T14:51:34.541-07:00You read them? Thank you thank you thank you!!!
O...You read them? Thank you thank you thank you!!!<br /><br />Of course I disagree, and I don't think there's anything wounded about Beck or Williams. I see lots of joy in both pieces. And there's certainly no desperation; just are two straight, married (presumably chaste) men putting words to the beauty of sex and marriage, as they know it. And neither piece would mean anything to me if they didn't also match what I know about sex and marriage.<br /><br />But that's all I'll say about that--like you said, we're done arguing on this thread. I'm overjoyed that you read those links! Thank you again, and have a happy, blessed week!! Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08177378357148360987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-14252349196539972462013-05-26T06:09:57.271-07:002013-05-26T06:09:57.271-07:00[PART 4 of 4]
"If we are afraid of facing th...[PART 4 of 4]<br /><br />"If we are afraid of facing the reality of same-sex love because it compels us to think through the processes of bodily desire and delight in their own right, perhaps we ought to be more cautious about appealing to Scripture as legitimating only procreative heterosexuality."<br /><br />Hey, Rowan, we aren’t “afraid” of same-sex love any more than we’re afraid of some proposition that the sun is both round and square. We reject same-sex activity on the basis of commonsense, reasoning and experience, not out of some alleged fear of some wonderful, exotic, Williamsonian unknown!<br /><br />"In fact, of course, in a church which accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous texts, or on a problematic and non-scriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures."<br /><br />a) "Very ambiguous texts" condemning homosexuality, huh? Surely, Archbishop, you wouldn't want us to point you in the direction of some of the Bible's stark and unmistakably explicit passages on the matter? Not a good look for an archbishop to be taught the basics of scripture (or simple comprehension/cognition), now is it?<br /><br />b) We do have regard to different (and complementary) psychological structures (accepting that men and women are different psychologically) when we advocate heterosexual unions – in which two become one, in all senses of the term, to the full actualization and fruitfulness of both. To claim that we do not exhibit regard for psychological structures of people is a mischievous misrepresentation at best, and a bald faced lie at worst, quite demeaning of its erudite propagator.Francis Choudhuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01146223983345452362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-50844767860498762492013-05-26T06:08:28.215-07:002013-05-26T06:08:28.215-07:00[PART 3 of 4]
“Same-sex love annoyingly poses the...[PART 3 of 4]<br /><br />“Same-sex love annoyingly poses the question of what the meaning of desire is in itself, not considered as instrumental to some other process (the peopling of the world); and this immediately brings us up against the possibility not only of pain and humiliation without any clear payoff', but - just as worryingly - of non-functional joy: or, to put it less starkly, joy whose material "production" is an embodied person aware of grace.”<br /><br />We’re hard wired with sexual desire (as are other living beings) precisely for procreation and survival of the species. There is no other deep and profound “meaning” to sexual desire, just as there is no other deep and profound meaning to eating save nourishment (although both are, naturally, pleasurable activities). If there was, and food or sex was multifaceted in its purpose, then we’d all be forgiven (and mighty sorry eventually) for gluttony (or promiscuity). That sexual intimacy is not some essential activity for joy or fulfilment or knowledge of self (as the archbishop is so desperately trying to make it out to be) is proven by countless virgins and celibates who do not, repeat do not, have traumatic identity or functional crises due to lack of sexual liaisons.<br /><br />“And he goes on to note that the same holds for the New Testament, which "is notably nonbiological in its emphasis": Jesus and Paul equally discuss marriage without using procreation as a rational or functional justification.”<br />Of course Jesus and Paul didn’t need to mention procreation as a rational or functional justification for marriage. Neither was in the business of stating the blindingly obvious! Even their pagan audiences knew that much already! In the very first chapter of Genesis, which is the very first book of Scripture, we read “male and female he created them”. And this is immediately followed by “Be fruitful and multiply”. What more evidence for the divine coupling of gender/sex with procreation does Archbishop Williams need?<br /><br />“Paul's strong words in 1 Corinthians 7.4 about partners in marriage surrendering the individual "ownership" of their bodies carry a more remarkable revaluation of sexuality than anything else in the Christian Scriptures. And the use of marital imagery for Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5, for all its blatant assumption of male authority, still insists on the relational and personally creative element in the metaphor (''In loving his wife a man loves himself. For no one ever hated his own body").”<br /><br />“Blatant assumption of male authority"? Huh? Dear Archbishop, we Christians worship a God Who is Father, not a mother or a goddess. And He sent us His Son, not some daughter or princess, to Whom “all authority has been given, in heaven and on earth”. Eve was created out of the side of Adam. She was flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone - not the other way around. Having pointed out all that, this authority is indeed shared with/delegated to the opposite sex, most prominently in the case of the Mother of God. Is this Rowan Williams even Christian? Really!<br /><br />“In other words, if we are looking for a sexual ethic that can be seriously informed by our Bible, there is a good deal to steer us away from assuming that reproductive sex is a norm, however important and theologically significant it may be.<br />Poor Rowan. He clean forgot to spell out what exactly the “good deal” in the Bible is that “steers us away from assuming that reproductive sex is a norm”. I, for one, would certainly be interested to know!Francis Choudhuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01146223983345452362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-56232577103140846922013-05-26T06:06:15.385-07:002013-05-26T06:06:15.385-07:00[PART 2 of 4]
“Yet the realities of our experienc...[PART 2 of 4]<br /><br />“Yet the realities of our experience in looking for such possibilities suggest pretty clearly that an absolute declaration that every sexual partnership must conform to the pattern of commitment or else have the nature of sin and nothing else is unreal and silly. People do discover - as does Sarah Layton - a grace in encounters fraught with transitoriness and without much "promising" (in any sense): it may be just this that prompts them to want the fuller, longer exploration of the body's grace that faithfulness offers. Recognising this - which is no more than recognising the facts of a lot of people's histories, heterosexual or homosexual, in our society - ought to be something we can do without generating anxieties about weakening or compromising the focal significance of commitment and promise in our Christian understanding and "moral imagining" of what sexual bonding can be.”<br /><br />The guy is contradicting himself! First he says (assumedly healthy) sexual partnerships can be marked by “transitoriness”. Does he mean I should hang out in brothels to experience a range of “transitory” sexual experiences – which will assist some way in my “homecoming” to my identity, value and purpose in life? That there’s some hidden “grace” in bedding multiple partners or fly-by- night “lovers”? Then the archbishop, after preaching this garbage, seeks to clothe himself with a veneer of respectability: he goes on to wax lyrical about commitment and promise. Given that he claims to be able to “recognize the facts of a lot of people’s histories, heterosexual or homosexual” how come he is yet to work out that “transitory partnering” (which he justifies as leading to a desire for “fuller, longer exploration of the body’s grace that faithfulness offers”) - especially when unfettered as it is today - actually diminishes the urge to commitment and promise, as amply demonstrated by the widespread unmarried coupling and soaring divorce numbers today? The logic he's using here is like that of Obama's convoluted argument that freer/unfettered abortions actually reduces the number of abortions!<br /><br />“We are led into the knowledge that our identity is being made in the relations of bodies, not by the private exercise of will or fantasy: we belong with and to each other, not to our "private" selves (as Paul said of mutual sexual commitment), and yet are not instruments for each other's gratification."<br /><br />Is the Archbishop advocating polygamy or free sex here? If my identity is "being made" in the "relations of bodies", then the more bodily relations I have, the more exhaustively and effectively my identity would be "made" and its fullness revealed to me, right? <br /><br />Love (we having been created principally to love) is willing the good of the other – and consists neither in giving identity to an other or (principally) providing pleasure to an other. We are not on this earth or in this body for its base pleasures. Williams actually admits this: we “are not instruments for each other's gratification.”<br /><br />“But, as I hinted earlier, the body's grace itself only makes human sense if we have a language of grace in the first place; and that depends on having a language of creation and redemption.”<br /><br />How is the language of creation better spoken than by the language of pro-creation? <br /><br />“It is impossible, when we're trying to reflect on sexuality, not to ask just where the massive cultural and religious anxiety about same-sex relationships that is so prevalent at the moment comes from;”<br /><br />What? For millennia humans have been “anxious” about (i.e. abhorred) same sex relationships, across all cultures and religions. Even pagan marriages never encompassed same sex coupling! The archbishops is writing as though this universal rejection of the ab-normal has suddenly been whipped up by some wicked fringe homophobic group(s) in the last decade or so!Francis Choudhuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01146223983345452362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-66274053402471293242013-05-26T06:03:48.672-07:002013-05-26T06:03:48.672-07:00[PART 1 of 4]
Frank,
I've just finished rea...[PART 1 of 4]<br /><br />Frank,<br /><br />I've just finished reading Archbishop William's arguments re the "Body's grace". His entire proposition is so littered with fictions, half truths, misrepresentations and frankly, (most transparent) amateur sophistries, it beggars belief - coming as it does from a man of his stature.<br /><br />I append some of my reactions to/rebuttals of some of his wilder statements - which are in inverted commas. (Wish someone would tell me how to format text when writing to this blog, such as by bolding, coloring or italicizing...)<br /><br />“But here we have a particularly intense case of the helplessness of the ego alone. For my body to be the cause of joy, the end of homecoming, for me, it must be there for someone else, be perceived, accepted, nurtured; and that means being given over to the creation of joy in that other, because only as directed to the enjoyment, the happiness, of the other does it become unreservedly lovable.”<br /><br />My body, Archbishop, is the sacred temple of the Holy Spirit. It is His indwelling in me that gives me joy and makes me precious, lovable and irreplaceable – to myself, and hopefully, to others who can see me for who and what I truly am. Indeed, this is where justice and human rights ultimately originate – not in my pleasure-giving capacity or utilitarian value to others, but in the knowledge that we are all equally valued children of God. It is almost unbelievable to me that someone at the level of the head of the Church of England can suggest that we are incomplete or unlovable if perchance no one finds "joy" in our bodies. Tell that to the person who is struggling with a negative self image due to, say, obesity, or severe disfigurement, or a major disability (precluding any scope for sexual engagement). Tell them that their lives cannot be fulfilled because their bodies aren’t really available to be “perceived, accepted, nurtured” and enjoyed by others. What a wicked and scandalous proposition!<br /><br />“There is more to expose, and a sustaining of the will to let oneself be formed by the perceptions of another.”<br /><br />You have to wonder what the good archbishop was smoking when he wrote this! I must let myself be formed by the perceptions of others? Being created in the image and likeness of God Himself is not sufficient to give me my core and crucial identity?Francis Choudhuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01146223983345452362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-65484325915319185392013-05-26T00:06:27.611-07:002013-05-26T00:06:27.611-07:00Frank, thank you. I read the first two links, and ...Frank, thank you. I read the first two links, and I am familiar with Sullivan's work. What I am left with in reading them is a profound sense of sadness, at the level of my soul. They are so misguided, so wounded. Trying so desperately to patch acceptance of homosexual acts onto the white garment of Christian chastity (married and unmarried). It is not working and will never work. It is painful to read these attempts.<br /><br />Jesus said to His Apostles: "He who hears you, hears me." The successors to the Apostles make up the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. All else is false doctrine, meant to divert souls away from Truth, Goodness, Beauty, as preserved and proclaimed in the Deposit of Faith. It is the prince of this world who would make homosexual acts look attractive and holy, as is the sacred marital act.<br /><br />Mortal sin, such as homosexual acts and other acts against purity and chastity, put Our Lord on the Cross. Sin, no matter how we dress it up, is still sulphuric, ugly, deadly.<br /><br />Seriously, I know you mean well, but my heart breaks for these people. They are tragically misguided (I hope not willfully evil), and I am so grateful that the City on the Hill cannot be hidden, so that each of us can find the truth, even up to our dying day. God is that merciful. Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-50289060318341623912013-05-18T11:20:50.548-07:002013-05-18T11:20:50.548-07:00Francis,
First, I meant to apologize earlier for...Francis, <br /><br />First, I meant to apologize earlier for the term “right wing Catholics.” That was a sloppy shorthand, and I realize it might have mischaracterized you. I’m glad you came back so I could remember to say that.<br /><br />Second, “The Body’s Grace” and the writings of Beattie and Sullivan aren’t assertions. They’re arguments. I’m not asking you or Leila to accept them on their authors’ authority. I’m asking you to read them and wrestle with their ideas. Since your beliefs are amply defensible, this shouldn’t be daunting.<br /><br />Best,<br />Frank<br />Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08177378357148360987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-89475450559180106392013-05-04T00:42:14.395-07:002013-05-04T00:42:14.395-07:00Frank,
Leila is a Catholic. Like me. Our truths (f...Frank,<br />Leila is a Catholic. Like me. Our truths (for that is what they are) are specific, eternal and amply defensible. The proclamations of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who (sort of) leads a "church" (as the temporal Queen of England allows him to) which was concocted to facilitate the sinful lusts of King Henry VIII, have no bearing on what Catholics (true Christians) believe. Nor do the assertions of a near-billion other wayward "Christians" (many Catholics included) on what is unassailable, immutable Truth. If you want to argue Truth, address us as Catholics, and drop the "proofs" and rationalizations from apostate Christians. They exist, just as liars and misguided folks exist in all segments of society. Their ever-evolving opinions are neither here nor there where absolute truths are concerned. I applaud your dialogue with Truth. Stick with it, friend.Francis Choudhuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01146223983345452362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-59123498607793221282013-04-27T08:22:04.827-07:002013-04-27T08:22:04.827-07:00“Frank, forgive me, but I am fading fast from this...“Frank, forgive me, but I am fading fast from this conversation.”<br /><br />No problem. I’ll just say thanks again for the great conversation. It’s always a pleasure.<br /><br />Can I ask one favor on my way out? I really do try to read the things you recommend in these threads, and I learn from them and they shape my thinking on these topics. If you really, really want clarity on the Christian argument for gay marriage, it would be awesome if you would read “The Body’s Grace,” by Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury ( http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/08/24/3301238.htm ). <br /><br />Here’s a nice analysis of it that Rachel Held Evans recently posted on her blog: http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/sexuality-and-the-christian-body-part-2-grace-election-by-richard-beck <br /><br />I would also love it if you would read Andrew Sullivan’s Virtually Normal or The Conservative Soul, or Tina Beattie’s very short “Humanae Vitae: Nature, sex and reason in conflict,” which you can access in pdf form here: https://sites.google.com/site/tinabeattie/articlesinthetablet <br /><br />Best, and thanks one more time for your site! <br /><br />Frank<br />Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08177378357148360987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-55780406806180698442013-04-26T23:58:34.796-07:002013-04-26T23:58:34.796-07:00“I am satisfied with the explanations in the artic...<i>“I am satisfied with the explanations in the article linked,”<br /><br />So you’re just going to ignore the article I linked from ewtn.com, which said something very different?</i><br /><br />Actually, the articles both came to the same conclusion! In fact, what a great EWTN article. Thanks for linking it! The sin of usury was/is in the moral principle of non-exploitation. <br /><br />Not sure if this is even a good analogy (because it's strictly doctrinal, not an issue of Christian morality), but here's a try. There was a time when cremation was forbidden for Christians. It was assumed that cremation was a denial of the doctrine of the bodily resurrection at the end of time. The sin, in other words, was in the denial of the resurrection, not in the cremation itself. Nowadays, one can be cremated as a Catholic (though it is not preferred), due to economic reasons (it's cheaper than a bodily burial by far!), <i>as long as the cremation is not done as a statement against the doctrine of the resurrection of the body</i>. So, the act of cremation is now allowed, but the to deny the future resurrection of our bodies would still be a sin.<br /><br />All of the above can in no way be applied to sexual sins. Homosexual acts, like every other sexual sin, will never, ever be moral acts. The Church will never change her teachings on the moral law, nor on the nature of the sacraments, of which Matrimony is one. <br /><br />As to the unhealthy nature of active homosexuality, I really can't help you there if you cannot see. In addition to all the mental/physical health risks to gay men, lesbians are generally obese and at a higher risk for 'hazardous drinking' (according to the government, which is now studying why). "Healthy lifestyle" has never been equated with "homosexual lifestyle", for very good reasons. You will dispute me. That is fine. I am satisfied that we have reached our clarity here, and I have to put this comment thread to bed now.<br /><br />But I can assure you that there will be no reversals of the moral law. Let's be perfectly honest: If the men in charge of the Church for 20 centuries have not declared masturbation moral in all that time, you can be pretty sure that the Holy Spirit is keeping Truth supernaturally protected. :)<br /><br />Many blessings, Frank!<br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-52840976637561348522013-04-26T23:18:11.330-07:002013-04-26T23:18:11.330-07:00Putting aside what seems like a backhanded jab at ...<i>Putting aside what seems like a backhanded jab at me, I’m glad you love your marriage. That’s awesome.</i><br /><br />Sorry if you thought it was a jab. I haven't the energy to go back and read all the thread (or load all the comments again and try to find them), but as far as I can remember, you were implying that if a spouse lovingly performed the "conjugal duty" even when he/she was tired, then that was akin to the spouse raping him/her. Seemed outrageous to me, so I am glad that you clarified that that's not what you meant.<br /><br /><i>I could introduce you to my sister-in-law and her wife, let you see how well they complement each other, point out all the ways they’ve been good for each other, show you all of the ways their relationship has benefitted my family, my wife, my daughter, me, society… </i><br /><br />And the same can be said for many lovely and kind (not being facetious) cohabiting couples, polygamous families, even adulterers (what if a man's wife is in a coma and he falls for the widow down the street?). None of that makes fornication, polygamy or adultery moral. <br /><br />As to the paradoxes:<br /><br /><i>GAH!!! That’s what I’m SAYING! I’m saying that it IS true, even though it’s difficult for us to comprehend how it can be true. </i><br /><br />Except that the examples you gave were NOT contradictory! You analogized those non-contradictions to a REAL contradiction that had mutually exclusive claims, i.e., two things that literally CANNOT both be true at the same time (unlike your paradoxes)!<br /><br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-11477440865343973932013-04-26T23:04:40.815-07:002013-04-26T23:04:40.815-07:00"Can you tell me, without resorting to circul..."Can you tell me, without resorting to circular logic or 'Tradition says,' why it’s inherently better for that sperm to die inside of a man’s body than outside of it?"<br /><br />You fundamentally misunderstand. There is no "inherently better or worse" when speaking of the *location* where sperm die. Sperm die outside the man's body all the time <i>where no sin is involved</i> (they die in the woman's body, they die after falling out of a woman's body after intercourse, they die outside the man's body during involuntary nocturnal emissions, etc.). <br /><br />When you are speaking of "right and wrong" (morality) -- that comes with the act and intention of the actor; a person's <i>will</i>. Sex is <b>sacred</b> in a way that other acts are not because it is the very act that creates new human life. It creates persons who are made in the image and likeness of God himself and who are made to live for eternity. When one deliberately chooses to debase or defile the act (which is like lining a birdcage with a Renoir), it is a sin. It is not inherently about *where* sperm die. It has to do with where and how and why a man deliberately <i>chooses</i> to deposit his sperm. Meaning, it is in the man's heart where the sin lies. <br /><br />If a man uses his sexual faculty to pleasure himself alone for example, he is defiling the very act that is meant to be an act of self-giving to the "other". Sex is not meant to be a solitary act. It is meant to be a unitive act, and we can see that by the very design of our bodies. To debase sex like that and use the faculty selfishly is the sin. We get big hints from biology and Natural Law if we are not blessed with Christian knowledge, which is why not only Christians, but the orthodox of every single religion that condemn homosexual acts, and atheist regimes as well. <br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-37261650017685119242013-04-26T23:01:24.963-07:002013-04-26T23:01:24.963-07:00Frank, forgive me, but I am fading fast from this ...Frank, forgive me, but I am fading fast from this conversation. I have moved on to about twenty others around the web, and at some point something has to give (I can't spread myself that thin). This will have to be my last reply on this thread. <br /><br />Yes, the Holy Family is an exception to just about every rule! Mary gave birth to God, and she conceived by the Holy Spirit. Not the norm! But their exceptional marriage does not imply that sodomy is holy and good! To use their marriage (and the Virgin's purity) as an argument for sodomy-based marriage is just … unspeakable and offensive. <br /><br />And it may just be my tired brain, but was there an actual answer in all your quotes and questions? You never said: What is it that makes someone "capable" of marriage? Let me try it this way: "________ makes a person capable of marriage." (You fill in the blank with what Jesus was talking about.)<br /><br />BLUNT LANGUAGE AHEAD:<br /><br />"And I’m sure that my feet, knees, and head weren’t designed to propel a ball while running full speed around a crowded stretch of grass."<br /><br />What? Feet, knees and heads can't be used to kick, propel, and play a game with a ball? Who has ever claimed such a thing? No one that I have ever heard of, no matter creed, era, race, class, or gender. I've never heard such an objection raised. <br /><br />"It’s human nature to use our bodies, creatively sometimes, towards our own flourishing."<br /><br />There is never a time when placing one's penis (which transmits life) in another man's anus (which expels human excrement) leads to human flourishing. Quite the opposite. It is a mortal sin against human dignity. We can be creative with our bodies, and we can also defile our bodies, too. I am sure, for example, that porn actors and producers take pride in their creativity, and believe themselves flourishing, even while they defile themselves and offend God.<br /><br />Chris West holds one (non-binding) opinion, and Janet Smith holds another (as do many other moral theologians). There is no definitive teaching on that issue that I know of, though I lean toward the "no". Tellingly, neither West nor his critics believe that gay sex (or ejaculation in the anus or mouth) is moral. They all hold that such acts are gravely sinful (as is any homosexual contact). So, still no leeway for gay "marriage" or homosexual acts at all, even from West! He does not bolster your case one iota.<br /><br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-58324960888534062032013-04-26T10:33:01.569-07:002013-04-26T10:33:01.569-07:00“You never answered this: ’What did Jesus mean whe...“You never answered this: ’What did Jesus mean when He said that some were either born or made ‘incapable’ of marriage?’”<br /><br />You’re the one avoiding my response, so I’ll try again.<br /><br />“What is the ‘capability’ they need, Frank?” <br /><br />To quote from the article you posted, by Christopher Eden at catholiclane.com: “A man’s ability to be united to his wife, sexually, was what made him a candidate for marriage. If he was unable to achieve sexual union because of a) birth defect, b) castration, or c) a vow of celibacy; then marriage was not his vocation.”<br /><br />“Hint: Mary and Joseph had it.”<br /><br />Now I’m going to quote from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the Blessed Virgin Mary: “As to Mary, St. Luke (1:34) tells us that she answered the angel announcing the birth of Jesus Christ: "how shall this be done, because I know not man". These words can hardly be understood, unless we assume that Mary had made a vow of virginity; for, when she spoke them, she was betrothed to St. Joseph. [41] The most opportune occasion for such a vow was her presentation in the Temple.”<br /><br />Now I’m going to quote you again: “Hint: Mary and Joseph had it.” <br /><br />Now I’m going to quote Eden again, with ellipses added: “If he was unable to achieve sexual union because of… a vow of celibacy; then marriage was not his vocation.”<br /><br />Now I’m going to quote New Advent again: “These words can hardly be understood, unless we assume that Mary had made a vow of virginity”<br /><br />Back to Eden: “a vow of celibacy”<br /><br />Back to New Advent: “a vow of virginity”<br /><br />Getting it yet? Do you still think Jesus was making a no-exceptions rule?<br /><br />In fact, Matthew 19:12 is often used by Catholics to defend the goodness of Mary’s perpetual virginity (see: http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/12/was-mary-unwed-mother.html ). You can’t do that AND say that Jesus is excluding those people from marriage in that particular verse.<br /><br />And there’s another problem with your reading of that passage, which is that people who have been castrated CAN perform “the marital act” (see: http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/castration-effects ). They just 1) can’t produce kids (which we agree is not an impediment to marriage) and 2) generally don’t want to have sex. <br /> <br />“Is there no compromise in marriage for you, then? Because most folks, I believe, would actually see it as loving and good to gift oneself to one’s beloved, even if the day (week, month, year) has left one very tired and uninterested in sex.”<br /><br />John Paul II said that Mary had a “deep desire” to remain a virgin. That’s very different than the normal ups and downs of a regular marriage. If I’m worn out and my wife convinces me to have sex anyway, it only works because we both know that, at the deepest level, I desire her. The tiredness is temporary and on the surface. She’s not acting against my will, or changing my will—she’s reminding me of my deepest will, expressed when we accepted each other in marriage. <br /><br />“I’m just praising God right now for the marriage I have. If nothing else, you have made me very grateful for my dear husband!”<br /><br />Putting aside what seems like a backhanded jab at me, I’m glad you love your marriage. That’s awesome.<br /><br />Take care!<br />Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08177378357148360987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-10406499751435924002013-04-26T10:30:02.761-07:002013-04-26T10:30:02.761-07:00“I'm going to go out on a limb here, Frank and...“I'm going to go out on a limb here, Frank and say that I am sure that biology still shows us that the reproductive organs were not meant for use in the digestive tract.”<br /><br />And I’m sure that my feet, knees, and head weren’t designed to propel a ball while running full speed around a crowded stretch of grass. That doesn’t mean it’s sinful for me to play soccer. It’s human nature to use our bodies, creatively sometimes, towards our own flourishing.<br /><br />(BLUNT LANGUAGE AHEAD)<br /><br />Going further, I’m curious about what you consider “natural” in human sex, because I’m aware that there’s debate about that even within Catholicism. <br /><br />On the one hand there are folks like Christopher West, who basically says that any act can be okay for a married couple as long as, in the end, the semen ends up in the vagina. I *thought that was your position when you were emphasizing the purpose of sperm, and when you said that the mouth can be used creatively to express love (after all, kissing your partner’s genitals is no less natural than kissing other parts of their body).<br /><br />But I also know that there’s another camp within Catholicism, represented here (http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marital-foreplay.htm ) that argues that “manual sexual acts, or oral sexual acts, or anal sexual acts” are all off-limits, even when they lead to p-i-v sex. And the reasoning there is based on the “purpose” of the sexual organs—which is what you seem to be getting at when you say that “the reproductive organs were not meant for use in the digestive tract.”<br /><br />Christopher West specifically rejects that reasoning, writing that although there are “important health and aesthetic considerations that can’t be overlooked,” “There's nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse.”<br /><br />West’s view allows a lot more room for creative expression which, again, is part of human nature. But I’m not sure if you accept or reject that view, since your arguments fall on both sides.<br /><br />“Yep, absolutely [sperm] was designed to die if it did not meet the egg at some point. Yes.” <br /><br />Can you tell me, without resorting to circular logic or “Tradition says,” why it’s inherently better for that sperm to die inside of a man’s body than outside of it?<br /><br />“Goodness, there is a plethora of social science and medical facts on this…”<br /><br />The things I've seen on this blog have been shoddy, out-of-context, out-of-date, and often willfully malicious “studies” (usually by Paul Cameron) that don’t support the conclusion that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy. But if you’ve got something doesn’t fit that description, I'd love to see it. <br /><br />“I’ve linked to the LGBT Medical Association…”<br /><br />Lauren and I had a long conversation a couple of years ago on her blog about that statement. You might even have participated. We can re-do that conversation if you insist, but again, it doesn’t support the conclusions you’re trying pull from it. <br /><br />More…<br />Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08177378357148360987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-6497279635061368112013-04-26T10:27:41.965-07:002013-04-26T10:27:41.965-07:00Leila,
Sorry to come back to this after everyone e...Leila,<br />Sorry to come back to this after everyone else has moved on. I got really busy over the past two weeks, but I did want to stop back by to address some of your final points.<br /><br />First, this is important:<br /><br />“Well that second sentence [homosexuality isn’t inherently destructive] is simply your subjective opinion.”<br /><br />No, it’s objective truth, but I know that it’s beyond my power to convince you of that. That’s the gap that we’re left with, and it’s the most frustrating aspect of this conversation. I could introduce you to my sister-in-law and her wife, let you see how well they complement each other, point out all the ways they’ve been good for each other, show you all of the ways their relationship has benefitted my family, my wife, my daughter, me, society… And you would still tell me that in some invisible way they’re rotting on the inside because of their “destructive” acts. I can’t disprove the invisible, so all I can do is pray that someday you’ll open your eyes to reality.<br /><br />And, yes, I take seriously the injunction against calling good evil and evil good. I hope and pray that you do, too, and that you think about those words every single time you say that Alan’s marriage is evil, or that my sister-in-law’s is.<br /><br />Now some quick responses:<br /><br />[Following the Dictionary Definition of paradox.] “These statements you gave as examples are all true, even if at first glance they seem opposed to common sense.”<br /><br />GAH!!! That’s what I’m SAYING! I’m saying that it IS true, even though it’s difficult for us to comprehend how it can be true. <br /><br />“Re: usury, I am not an expert on the history of economics/monetary theory, etc., and you may be.”<br />You don’t need to be an expert. This is simple stuff: money has always had the potential to be fruitful, and some people have always recognized that. Look at the Parable of the Talents. <br /><br />“I am satisfied with the explanations in the article linked,”<br /><br />So you’re just going to ignore the article I linked from ewtn.com, which said something very different?<br /><br />“Economic systems and even money itself are man-made, … But the human body is not man-made.”<br /><br />This is beside the point. Yes, money is man-made, as are condoms and sex toys. But the injunction against usury comes from God, as does the imperative to use our sexuality for good. <br /><br />Believe it or not, I have no interest in “proving” that the Catholic Church has changed its dogma. In my last post I said “of course” it hasn’t. But Noonan presents real, thorny questions in his books and articles—questions about how an act can be considered innately sinful in one historical moment and totally fine in another. And you HAVE to deal with those questions if you’re going to insist that homosexual relationships can never be considered okay in the future, or that a church loses all authority if it allows same-sex acts.<br /><br />More…<br />Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08177378357148360987noreply@blogger.com