Here's the news today. I won't say necessarily that there are no conservative Protestants who treat a homosexual inclination itself as a leprosy, or that no one faces an unjust ostracism based on their experience of sexual attraction. In point of fact, despite some raucous debate among orthodox Catholics about the licitness of supporting clergy and potential clergy who experience SSA, I am comfortable with the Catholic reflection on homosexuality (that is, what the Church teaches). I don't necessarily agree with Fr. Z that a priest should "man up" and that he shouldn't ever say he experiences these temptations. If crosses were easy, Our Lord would have had no need for St. Simon and his consolation.
Still, I think it's manipulative and dishonest to say that a vote against accepting gay marriage is a Christian refusal to "see" my LGBTQIA brothers and sisters. It begs the question, when the central question is, What do I believe about the moral licitness of homosexual sexual activity? A person who believes that the natural law reflection upon human sexual activity, and the Scriptural exegesis that undergirds the traditional Christian teaching is wrong, should simply assert that. Do you notice how a gay-affirming stance is rhetorically focused on acceptance of persons? There is a hidden premise that homosexual behaviors (or other disordered actions common to all people) are intrinsic to the human person.
In the end, it is either sinful to engage in homosexual relations, or it is not. We could debate the pastoral engagement of people who experience sexual attraction non-conventionally all day long. It still remains a separate question to consider the licitness of particular acts.
Finally, if the Church is conceived of as fundamentally invisible, and does not speak authoritatively on faith and morals, the aspiration of "Christian love" and the "gospel" will remain unrealized. More specifically, such a "Church" has to be agnostic on the sexual moral questions, since it functionally renders these ethical questions as "non-essential." That is, this notional Church contains those who believe these particular acts are sinful, AND those who who believe these particular acts are not sinful.
Frankly, it causes me to pray for the visible union and communion of all Christians in the Catholic Church, and the conversion of Catholics who remain unconvinced as to the truth of what the Catholic Church teaches.
Still, I think it's manipulative and dishonest to say that a vote against accepting gay marriage is a Christian refusal to "see" my LGBTQIA brothers and sisters. It begs the question, when the central question is, What do I believe about the moral licitness of homosexual sexual activity? A person who believes that the natural law reflection upon human sexual activity, and the Scriptural exegesis that undergirds the traditional Christian teaching is wrong, should simply assert that. Do you notice how a gay-affirming stance is rhetorically focused on acceptance of persons? There is a hidden premise that homosexual behaviors (or other disordered actions common to all people) are intrinsic to the human person.
In the end, it is either sinful to engage in homosexual relations, or it is not. We could debate the pastoral engagement of people who experience sexual attraction non-conventionally all day long. It still remains a separate question to consider the licitness of particular acts.
Finally, if the Church is conceived of as fundamentally invisible, and does not speak authoritatively on faith and morals, the aspiration of "Christian love" and the "gospel" will remain unrealized. More specifically, such a "Church" has to be agnostic on the sexual moral questions, since it functionally renders these ethical questions as "non-essential." That is, this notional Church contains those who believe these particular acts are sinful, AND those who who believe these particular acts are not sinful.
Frankly, it causes me to pray for the visible union and communion of all Christians in the Catholic Church, and the conversion of Catholics who remain unconvinced as to the truth of what the Catholic Church teaches.
Comments