Read Part I of "An Exchange on Gay Christians"
Read Annie's response to Part I.
It's much the kind of response I was hoping for.
Good. 🙂
The question is whether demanding celibacy of someone not called to be a priest isn't "inhumane." It is pretty easy, and not very charitable, for a heterosexual, from the fortunate heights of normalcy, to condemn a homosexual to that fate.
In the past half-century, relations between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have been growing ever closer and oriented ever more toward possible reunion. Perhaps the greatest hope of the late Holy Father John Paul II, of happy memory, was the reunion of these two oldest Churches of Christendom. In his many efforts to bridge the doctrinal and cultural divides which separate the Churches, he was successful in fostering much greater mutual respect, if not any actual reunification. Understandably, the steps taken by the Holy Father’s predecessor have excited much hope for reunion. However, it is my belief that the steps taken, on each side, toward the noble goal of rebuilding the single pre-schism Church, truly amount to little more than window-dressing, with no substantial gains made.
Not to be a party-pooper, but there is a huge list of very important things that need to be cleared up before reunion can be effected.
In compiling this list, I have provided a brief summary of each point. In order to shorten this article to a readable length, I have eliminated source citations. If you would like a citation on a particular point, please let me know in the comments section or via e-mail.
I invite your commentary.
A few days ago, Annie "Amba" Gottlieb, prompted by comments on a post she wrote about a gay Christian marriage ceremony, issued a challenge to me via email. I accepted and ended up having in interesting exchange with her about gay Christians and homosexuality in general. At her suggestion, we've decided to make our conversation public in its entirety (The only bits that have been cut out were irrelevant to the topic at hand.). I couldn't have written a better introduction than hers, so here are some highlights.
"[T]he stark irreconcilability of the two world views contending, is not new….What is new – and an emergent characteristic of the blogosphere at its best — is that, beginning in the Comments, passionate, open disagreement does not descend into a flame war. We can reject and even despise each other’s world views, yet we’re still talking, with respect – even with friendship. And this is a principle we hold almost as strongly as our convictions about religion, homosexuality, and marriage."
Without further ado, let the conversation begin. 🙂
Witnessing all the recent hubbub about new English mass translation that’s just been approved by US bishops and the ever-present tensions between rival Bible translators, I thought the following quite from Peter Berger’s The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion might provoke interesting discussion.
"The social world constitutes a nomos both objectively and subjectively. The objective nomos is given in the process of objectivation as such. the fact of language, even if taken by itself, can readily be seen as the imposition of order upon experience. Language nomizes by imposing differentiation and structure upon the ongoing flux of experience. As an item of experience is named, it is ipso facto, taken out of this flux and given stability as the entity so named. Language further provides a fundamental order of relationships by the addition of syntax and grammar to vocabulary. It is impossible to use language without participating in its order. Every empirical language may be said to constitute a nomos in the making, or, with equal validity, as the historical consequence of the nomizing activity of generations of men. The original nomizing act is to say that an item is this, and thus not that. As this original incorporation of the item into the order that includes other items is followed by sharper linguistic designations (the item is male and not female, singular and not plural, a noun and not a verb, and so forth), the nomizing act intends a comprehensive order of all items that may be linguistically objectivated, that is, intends a totalizing nomos.
What I primarily take from this is the importance of word choice for the recording and transmission of information, i.e., order. When we translate Scripture or liturgies to modern languages, we must be mindful of a few important questions.
"If you know someone gullible enough to take a pulp airport novel as ‘evidence’ that Jesus Christ was not divine—but rather a horn-dog rabbi eager to “hook-up” with a former hooker, in order to father a race of bumbling French kings…do you really think the answer is to argue with him? Using, you know, reason? You might just as well pick up the book, smack him on the nose and say ‘No! Bad! No! Very bad!’ That’s likely to be more effective, and a heck of a lot more fun."
(Fedora Tip: Dom Bettinelli)