(Untitled)

[catholic_heart]

This is going to be a difficult post to make, because as personal as I've gotten in many posts, this will be the most personal of them all. It's mostly in response to the recent post on homosexuality, which for whatever reason seems to bring out the worst in us. We are a gay-obsessed society, and the truth is that isn't just limited to Christians

Comments

[flipao_maria]

Okay, I am going to open myself up a little bit and my experiences being in the GLBT community

[pastorlenny]

heterosexual relationships are just as broken and fallen as homosexual relationships in this country

I might state this a little more strongly and say that the magnitude of the threat posed to the Church by problematic heterosexuality is several orders of magnitude greater than that posed by problematic homosexuality. Based on my not-inconsiderable experience -- which I will egotistically contrast to much of the theorizing I see going on in LJ lately -- I will specifically cite divorce, porn, adultery, pedophilia, and lack of sexual intimacy in marriage as several of the most dangerous current threats to both personal faith and the life of the Body.

[napoleonofnerds]

That's an interesting and I think important point - Jesus is unequivocal in his condemnation of divorce. Even the Roman Catholic Church has half-conceded this point. If homosexuals should give up sex, can't straight people give up starter wives?

[solaecclesia]

Half-conceded? The Catholic Church has always held divorce to be contrary to the moral law, the Catechism 2384:

"Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself. "

[sybbis]

Thank you so much for sharing all of this, and I respect that immensely so none of what follows is meant to be harsh, just some additional thoughts.

I think for those of us who aren't from Catholic backgrounds, there are some problems with that approach, primarily that celibacy isn't what most Protestants expect anyone to endure. Our pastors often have spouses and children. So this doesn't work well with my mindset because I believe that celibacy is certainly acceptable for those who do not have those desires--and some men and women don't--but I don't believe it's an appropriate restriction to be applied to any large segment of the population. Paul called for those who could be celibate to be celibate... not for any particular group to be celibate and then feel constantly miserable over their struggles

[catholic_heart]

Well, I was just thinking that the celibacy of Catholic priests, nuns and brothers might offer all Christians a place to look with regards to how to successfully manage the celibate life. While it is true that there are some Christians who do not regard homosexual sex as a sin at all, I think the majority do, and from a pastoral perspective, perhaps seeing what works for those who voluntarily choose celibacy, and what enables them to discover the depths of God's love in a unique way in the celibate life might offer guidance as we seek to encourage our gay sisters and brothers who do desire to live a celibate life.

[lordhellebore]

Would you clarify for me what you mean with "terminal heart issue"? I'm not sure I understand that.

[napoleonofnerds]

In a better grounded theological discussion, he would probably say "unrepentant state of mortal sin."

[lordhellebore]

That would be a phrase I understand, thank you.

[arago_sama]

The overarching theme/points you made in your last two paragraphs are, to me, very important as a whole about a Christian's life and how they apply the Bible to it. I wrote about this a week or so ago. A lot of people search for only condemnation of others on top of facts they find in the Bible, and since they think they've found life for themselves, they don't want others to have it. In essence, they remove Christ from the Bible, or better yet, they remove the Word from the Word. When that happens, the Bible is not a book about life but of death. The same is applicable for all issues, including this. People don't want to take the time to help nurture and encourage repentance and reconciliation, but just flat out condemn. No bueno.

This probably has an effect on the issues that filpao_maria talks about with, say, the divorce rate. People may get married due to mistakes but don't want to lose their self-righteousness or ability to appear better than others. It's no wonder then, if that's the case, that some Christians can have higher

[lordhellebore]

Thank you for posting this. We both know that we still disagree completely on this, but I appreciate you recognising the heterosexual privilege in Christianity.

[catholic_heart]

"heterosexual privilege"

That's a really good way of putting it.

[napoleonofnerds]

That's the typical sociological construction, parallel to "white privilege" or "male privilege." I prefer to talk about it as a double-standard because I think privilege can make it seem too confrontational, while a double-standard properly locates it as a claim about what is just.