Saturday, February 7, 2009

The Gay Thing.

I'm writing this blog for my dearest Amanda, who shocked the heck out of me tonight by proclaiming not once, but twice, that pastors should be prevented from preaching that homosexuality is wrong, and that their churches should be shut down, as they are proclaiming hate speech, which is illegal in this country.
Whew. There are so many things wrong with that line of thinking I'm having a hard time putting my thoughts in line, but let's start here:

Homosexuality, as a whole, as an issue, is about PEOPLE. The concern, I'm certain, that persons like Amanda experience when hearing that we are proclaiming in churches that being gay is wrong is that we are vilifying people. And she might be totally shocked and surprised to know that I'm actually in agreement there.

The Roman Catholic Church, in all her wisdom (hehe) has defined the issue in a manner that I am quite certain most protestants and evangelicals have never considered, and I would like to share it here.

When we say "homosexuality," in Roman Catholic Churches, we are talking about the physical homosexual act-- an action in which two persons who are the same sex engage in sexual behavior. THIS is what we preach against, teach against, and warn against. THIS is what priests expect to hear in the confessional and what makes us avert our eyes in shock.

What "homosexuality" as a term used to define a sin does NOT encompass is what we Catholics call SSA. Same Sex Attraction. The Church teaches that there is NO SIN... I repeat, NOT a sin, to be found in the "natural" inclination that some persons have to attraction towards another person of a similar sex. Persons with SSA, like ALL people, should be treated equally, respectfully, and in a manner which fully honors their inherent human dignity. Persons with SSA should do exactly what is required for people withOUT SSA..... look for ways to live a chaste life.

As a married woman, I am just as called to chastity as a person with SSA might be. Chastity is not excused for heterosexuals. Chastity is an evangelical counsel, something which is required in order to become "perfect," (as our heavenly Father is perfect.) Spending some time getting to know the idea of "Evangelical counsels" would be very beneficial here.
It is NOT required of all people. Chastity is not binding to all men, nor is it binding to all believers. Chastity, like it's brothers poverty and obedience, is required only of those who wish to be "perfect."

Me? I certainly wish to become perfect. As a part of my calling as a Catholic, a Wife, and a Carmelite, I have made Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience a goal and purpose. But that's me. I live a consecrated life.
All other believers (and indeed, nonbelievers!) are CALLED to be consecrated to the Lord, but that doesn't mean that they all will respond to that calling.
I certainly don't expect everyone on the planet to wake up one morning saying "gee, poverty, chastity, and obedience! Sounds great! Sign me up!"

Because of this, I cannot in good conscience "force" anyone to accept that the performance of homosexual actions will injure or harm their soul. Of this, the Church is fully aware. Our job is to be OPEN to people with SSA in such a way that they might feel welcome and loved in our community, not rejected, not marginalized, not loathed. Likewise, our job is to take a firm stance against anything which might project the image or idea that taking those sexual actions of homosexuality will result in anything good, or noble, or honorable. This does NOT negate the nobility or honor of the person with SSA, but rather affirms that this person is special in God's eyes and is loved, for "whom the Lord loves, He disciplines."

In our church, for example, there is a person who attends mass each week in drag. This person comes and is welcomed into the community. At the sign of the peace, this person is hugged, and handshaked, and given the "kiss of peace." BUT this person, because of his actions, must willingly submit to the Church's decision that he shall not recieve communion until he has come to terms with his call to chastity. Pursuing a life in drag, for this person, means blending gender and furthering the cause of other persons who also dress in drag because of SSA. This person may not even be HAVING a homosexual relationship, but the very nature of his attire tells us that he is still seeking to somehow identify with persons who commit these acts, and because of that idenitifcation, he must wait until he himself is ready to identify with Christ and His Church alone.

These things are not said or done to demean a person or diminish their human worth. Christianity welcomes the sinner and asks that room be made for any who would come to the table. But we cannot be saved if we do not first repent--- recognizing that we actually NEED a savior because of our sin. We cannot be filled if we do not first come empty.

Each and every person, Straight, or SSA, seated in our pews daily must come to this realization on their own. The Church welcomes those who are still journeying towards this realization--- after all, we are a pilgrim church.

Nevertheless, we must take care not to give the impression that we are like the Athenians Paul was so horrified by on his missions trip--- where absolutely anything goes.

In this issue, like many of the "hotbed" political issues facing the Church today, we must take care to remember that we are here for PEOPLE, not machines, not objects, not THINGS which we can simply place in this pile or that pile and move on with our lives.
I remember a day not long ago when I was waiting in line for the confessional. A hispanic girl in short jean shorts and the lowest cut top I'd ever seen walked into the Church actually carrying a starbucks cup. She swayed seductively up to the cross and passed the altar and tabernacle without a hint of reverence. She popped her gum and lifted her sunglasses atop her head. The beautiful silence of the sanctuary where I was praying with my covered head was interrupted by the echoing, loud clickety clack of her platform heels. And my inital response, I'll admit, was to snort and judge. Who in the heck did she think she was profaning my sacred moment like that? But the Lord quickly showed me the darkness of my heart as the girl lit a candle and began to pray earnestly. He gave me a Word of Knowledge about her...... that allowed me to see that this was the first time in a long time that she had a need that had brought her to a Church. And who would I be? The welcoming, smiling person she encountered on her way out who reminded her that we were happy she was here? Or the person who sneered and judged. Lord, let me always be a welcoming light.

So what of the same-sex couple who persists in coming to church, day in and day out, for years on end? Many Christians would say that these persons should eventually be ostracized-- after all, they've been "exposed to the truth" and persist in their sin, right? But the Catholic Church has a different response. As long as this couple lives, it is our duty to smile the smile of welcome, day in, and day out, and to open our doors. It is our duty to love, to serve, and to honor these beautiful, precious people in whom we should see the face of Jesus.
This couple may not be able to recieve our Lord because the pre-requisite repentance has not been reached, but this couple should be always made to feel at home in the pews of our Parishes.

You see, preaching against homosexuality doesn't mean that we think people are objects, machines, or things. It certainly wouldn't create a culture of hate crimes or danger for these precious souls. It creates an environment in which thoughtful dialogue, both internal and external, should be reached. It creates a safe space where these moral issues can be discussed far from fear of anger or retaliation or judgement or disgust. Most of all, it creates an avenue for God to move hearts more towards love and more towards kindness and compassion.... because both heterosexuals and persons with SSA will encounter in our Churches a God who loved them more than they even love themselves and each other. And THAT is what this is all about.

7 comments:

  1. Well, I suppose that it's good that you're thinking of people, as opposed to the concentration on the sin that fills so much of this conversation.

    However, you're still intent on the concept of "homosexuality as sin," which, while understandable, is in itself, wrong.

    Consider this: the primary sources for this belief are two mistranslated verses from Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13.

    If you go back to the source material, in Ancient Hebrew, you'll find that the verb used on the "mankind" side of the equation is shakab, and the one used for "womankind" is mishkab. And shakab, in its sexual sense, is used when you are talking about forcible sex (such as, say, rape), or any sex against the will of the victim.

    For example, shakab is also the word used in Genesis 34:2, when Shechem defiles Hamor the Hivite; and in 2 Samuel 13:14 - "...but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her." And in Isaiah 13:16 - "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." It's even used in Exodus 22:19, "Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death."

    There are references to consensual sex in the Bible, but none of them, if you look at the source material (before the translation errors crept in) use the word shakab. So the correct translation of the passages from Leviticus is an exhortation against homosexual rape: "Thou shalt not force sexual congress on a man, as (or instead of) with a woman."

    Personally, I prefer the Word of God over the Mistranslation of God. Simply because you happen to disapprove of homosexuality, you shouldn't push your own prejudices as the teachings of the Lord.

    "But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men." (Matthew 15:9)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks so much for the thoughtful comment!
    I did want to interject with a couple of ideas. The first being that those passages in Leviticus are certainly not the basis for which we would consider homosexuality a sin.
    Even if your explanation of the two key passages in leviticus WERE accurate, I would tell you that the following two verses also make it extremely clear:

    1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

    Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

    I would add that I personally had no distaste for homosexuality. I myself have been a practicing bisexual in the past and had no qualms about it whatsoever until God's Word began to change my heart. My own "feelings" about homosexuality have no bearing on what Scripture clearly states, and I, for one, believe that we should mold ourselves more and more each day to conform to what God's infallible Word says "perfect" looks like, as opposed to looking for ways in which we can make God's Word fit our own thoughts or feelings. But that's me.

    Again, I very much appreciate your thoughtful comment.

    Blessings to you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for your comments. I've heard them many times :)
    I find that there is no shortage in this world of persons who prefer to take the whole bible except Paul as "truth" or who like to attribute those passages which are a bit more difficult to swallow as "typically Pauline and not inspired" or to invent any number of alleged "abuses of translation" to explain away their misunderstanding of scripture. As such, I'm quite certain that you have, at your fingertips any number of references and teachings which you may feel free to use to make your point.

    As far as I stand, I'm siding with the Roman Catholic Church, which in her wisdom states the following things about Christianity and Homosexuality:

    2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms throughout the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which present homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Gen. 19:1-29, Rom. 1:24-27, 1 Cor. 6:10, 1Tim. 1:10], tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered [Persona Humana 8]. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

    What's wonderful about that is that I can look to scripture and see in it that homosexuality is clearly wrong, but as the Catechism rightly points out, if there was any doubt in my mind I am fortunate to have Sacred Tradition on which to fall back-- the Church Fathers, from day one, have always spoken out against homosexual activity and named it for what it is, a sin.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I actually forgot to point out that one may also use philosophy to come to an understanding of the negative effects of homosexuality-- one need only appeal to "the beginning" in which He made them male and female, and commanded them to fill the earth and have dominion over it.
    Homosexuality completely undermines our created sexual nature, removing our ability to be "open to life" and to properly educate that life once we recieve it.
    A homosexual society will simply not thrive.
    Likewise, we can look at what God intended for man in marriage, and see the beauty of the picture of love he has painted--- our sexuality being an integral part of that picture--- and realize that homosexuality distorts that picture into something unrecognizable and ultimately, destructive.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So, your argument is, you will not believe it, because you prefer not to. And because the Catholic Church, which made the translation error in the first place, has continued to assert that they are correct.

    That's actually very sad.

    Deuteronomy 29:4

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, not quite. My stance is, I will not believe it because I don't think it's a valid argument. I think it's "reading into" things that aren't there and I also think it's conveniently removing things that are. I think the argument is incontextual and misleading. I think it's very obvious, when we appeal to the beginning, that God created us for productive heterosexual relationships that mirror the fruitful, loving relationship in the Holy Trinity.
    I also think, obviously, that the Church cannot err, since Scripture says that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. What it comes down to is that I just think your argument is unconvincing. But I very much appreciate you taking the time to write out your thoughts, and I wish you peace on your journey, friend.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I really appreciate this! I've often tried to explain that the argument "The Catholic Church hates gays!!" is just not true. It brings home the message of love that the Church brings. I love belonging to a church that asks the same of every member...even something as important (and difficult, at times) as living chastely.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you so much for your comments! I look forward to hearing from you.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...