Hatred and the chief of sinners

I am also Orthodox and I always stumble a bit over that prayer. I am a paralegal in a law firm that practices criminal defense. I have worked on cases involving pre-meditated murder, rape, and child molestation. I've often wondered the very same thing...I am more of sinner than our client who (allegedly) raped a 6 year old? It's hard to think of my spiritual state in those terms. But what you have written here has really helped me to understand. Thank you.

Very wise. Your writing is at its strongest at its most introspective.

It took me about five years before I even realized that I might need to forgive the 9/11 terrorists. I haven't made any progress in forgiving them, but it's curious that this is my own realization - no one is calling us to forgive them, as far as I can tell.

I had written this on the Reformed Chicks blog last week:

Those in need of the most are often the least likely to recognize their need. They are in fact the "poor in spirit" - they themselves don't even realize how poor.

I put myself in there.

"Poor in spirit" is probably similar language to "chief among sinners," but the latter expression is so clearly Pauline that I don't feel entitled to claim it along with him!

I hope I won't offend anyone here, but as a non-Christian, I am thankful that I don't have to try to talk myself into loving or forgiving people who have committed atrocities against innocent people.

I understand that letting go of anger is healthy at some point. I also understand that in normal circumstances forgiveness is a virtue.

But, I also believe that, at some point, forgiveness is immoral. Some things are simply not forgivable and love is misplaced.

It's fine to say we cannot judge other's sins, but isn't it also true that we cannot judge another's suffering? Who among us knows what it's like to stand on a ledge outside a window on the 100th floor? The agony of being forced to jump to one's death rather than be burned alive?

What right does anyone alive have to forgive or love a killer whose victim is not here to tell us what they suffered?

Back in the real world, unless Atta was truly insane, can anyone think of any upbringing that could render telling a malicious story about a neighbor as bad or worse that Atta's mass murder?

I don't go to an Orthodox church, but I do sit under preaching that looks at Paul a lot, and under pastors who understand the chief of sinners line.

One of the things that Paul says is that Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst. Now, if the Apostle Paul could say that . . . the APOSTLE PAUL, who wrote over half of the New Testament, and was one of the most amazing Christians I know . . . then who am I to think I am any better than him? I understand what Paul did before his conversion, but if anyone had an argument that he wasn't the worst of sinners, it was Paul.

One of the pastors I have sat under over the years put it in the following way: "I am the worst sinner I know". Which is definitely true of me.

Reminds me of the C.S. Lewis lines too, where he makes the point that if you meet two people, a grumpy, short tempered man, and a well tempered man, the short tempered man may be making better progress. After all, you don't know these people - the short tempered man may have had to do a lot of work in his own life to get to this point, whereas this comes easily to the well tempered man.

Finally, to the point dana is making: I can totally understand where you are coming from. If you don't believe in a God that will ultimately judge evil, then her position is the one to take. Why forgive when people do such evil? However, as Christians, we can leave the vengeance in the hands of God (Amen!). We don't have to carry that burden - we know that God will either punish sin in his Son if they are redeemed, or he will judge the person who committed the sin: either way, the wrong doing is made right.

Who among us knows what it's like to stand on a ledge outside a window on the 100th floor?

This consideration is probably holding me back significantly.

I remember feeling so unworthy to even mourn at the Children's Memorial at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem years back but still I found myself bawling my eyes out uncontrollably for unknown people long gone.

I said to my husband with me, "I don't know anything about them and I'm crying." He reassured me, "It's ok, it shows you're human." Because nothing human is foreign.

Beautiful reflection, Rod! Thanks for sharing. It's a difficult idea to grasp and central to Christianity. I have nothing to add that hasn't been said.

Jenny-

I've kinda been there and done that. And it can hurt your soul to see the horrible things people and do and do them to children. I know homicide detectives and prosecutors who get through their work many days with black humor because there's no other way unless you cry all day. But in providing a defense even for an awful human being in a sense your visiting kindess on someone in prison as Christ commended us to do. And know holding the state to it's burden to the best of your abilities is not the same as subborning perjury, and that I would never do(there are attorneys who, shall we say, feel otherwise). Unfortunately though that can involve crossexamining a victim, and that was not pleasant in some cases. I do very little criminal defense work any more in part because sometimes you get stuck on such assignments. But we cannot just throw people, even crimimals, to the wolf that can be the state.

Forgiveness of Atta? I dunno. Anger, hatred, it will always be there.People I know are gone, hopefully in a better place.Went to work Tuesday morning, never came home. Is it even my or anyone other than God's to forgive? Do the grieving families forgive? As it happens, the father of a dead 9/11 fireman who was a childhood friend passed away last week. By all accounts the father was very much at peace with his coming death after a long bout with cancer, confident he would have something better at the end of his painful days. I'd imagine he looked forward to seeing his son again and being at peace. I don't even know where that's going, but it's a thought.

"I bring all this up because I am bothered by the idea that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright passes off his hatred of oppressors as somehow Christian, and the idea that we should indulge it in light of what he's been through."

Rod, I'm saying this not to be coy, or cute, or play 'gawtcha!!": I really, really, REALLY want you to re-read this sentence before the next time you post about gay people.

Actually you very definitely are doing exactly that. Only the morally-deaf and intellectually-blind can think that first paragraph has any relevance to Rod's postings about homosexuality. The presupposition that Rod is "passing off hatred as Christianity" in re that topic is a chemically-pure example of the demeaning, false, arrogant and self-righteous claptrap that constitutes liberal discourse on that subject, indicative of a complete inability and/or refusal to engage what others actually say, instead. If Rod hated gay people, I'd know it, and I'd know it far better than you, dear.

Oh ... and in case anybody should care to note that my tone here is very different from Rod's reflection, let it be noted that I was not the one who chose to inject this subject or use Rod's reflection as a weapon against him.

Yeah, but you don't know me. So don't call me dear. You don't know my beliefs, or my politics.

A very powerful and insightful reflection, Rod.

People from Wright's generation bear psychological and spiritual scars from a level of oppression that whites simply cannot know. And the further we get from those bad old days, the less we are able to understand or appreciate the pain of them. I say this as a white man who pastored a black church for four years.

You ask the average white American when terrorism hit the US and they will say 9/11 or the OKC bombing. But terrorism was rampant in America long before that. Ask the people who lived in fear of lynching and who knew the law afforded them no protection...indeed, quite the opposite. Ask the families of the children killed at the Sixth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham by a Klan bomb. The list could go on and on...and it doesn't begin to address the daily indignities they faced.

Whites like to say, "That was then. Why can't you just get over it?"

It is a dismissive and condescending attitude from people who never knew that kind of daily terror and humiliation.

Obama is correct. Wright and others make the mistake of believing that America is static and unchanging, in large part because they see things through the harsh lens of that deep, abiding pain and fear. It's tragic, and it is wrong...but we would be fools and heartless fools, at that...if we did not recognize how deep such wounds go.

The presupposition that Rod is "passing off hatred as Christianity" in re that topic is a chemically-pure example of the demeaning, false, arrogant and self-righteous claptrap that constitutes liberal discourse on that subject,

To Elizabeth Anne's ear and heart, she hears hate. So there is disagreement about the context and temper of the comments. That's at the heart of the disagreement over Wright.

I find it utterly bizarre to describe Wright's comments as hateful. In only the most demeaning, false, arrogant, and self-righteous claptrap way that constitutes conservative discourse on the subject of race could it be considered hateful. Yet look out the outrage.

Isn't it possible, CM, that people may take Rod's comments on a wide-range of topics (including race, immigration, gays, decadence etc.) as "hateful," yet there is disagreement on context? Isn't the point of Rod's post that we are all sinners who should examine our behaviors and determine our own place as sinners?

Yes - humility. Yes - to letting go of anger. Yes - to realizing only God has the power to see into souls and hearts, and it is His place to judge, and I may not (or ever) know the whole story.

Here's one I'll add that I struggle with, but when I "get it", it really helps: it is hard work, for me, to keep an open mind; it is hard work, for me, to reach out to people I distrust; it is easy, for me, to resent having to make these efforts and to be lulled into a sense that I do it "for them". But I must do this for myself.

Taoist texts often have much to offer.

Deng Ming-Dao wrote:
Though others have faults,
Concentrate on your own.

Also, I am reminded of my favorite phrase from the book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: “We don’t see things as they are. We see things as we are.” If everyone really understood this, so many misunderstandings (including the Wright matter) could be avoided.

Rod,
I've been reading your blog for some time, but never posted.

This is, absolutely, the most deeply moving and powerful piece I've read here. We are called by Christ to love our enemies, and to see ourselves as we are. And without the most profound humility, we will remain blinded to ourselves, and unable to be truly free to be who He desires us to be.

I pray that you consider this to be the subject of your next book. You have the gift to connect the faith we aspire to with the reality of our lives. Consider the Holy Spirit may be calling you to such a great work.

I think that your post and Gov. Huckabee's comments are two of the best statements I've read or heard about this Rev. Wright matter. You both exhibited a strong sense of decency. I was never a big fan of Gov. Huckabee, but I now find myself reconsidering my first impressions about him. Your posts about him now seem clearer to me. Good work.

Since Obama has put race on the front page, check out this story about some very interesting blogs:

chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5633758.html

To Elizabeth Anne's ear and heart, she hears hate.

Then, she is wrong and in a particular way so transparently self-serving as to deserve no credit or deference from others ... unless your point is "whatever a liberal hears is true by virtue of his hearing it." This is not a disagreement over context, but a matter of fact (facts still do matter, right?)

Also, she and you cannot claim the personal privilege one has over one's own thoughts, because her statement was an attribution of thoughts in the minds of others. In fact it's the very opposite -- Rod is motivated by hate," i.e., the putting of evil thoughts into others' mind, is the presupposition of her and your whole passive-aggressive attack masquerading as spiritual advice.

As for comparison with the reflection -- tis to laugh. She and you are doing the very opposite of what the reflection was all about -- you're examining others' behavior and finding it wanting.

You are seriously understanding Rev. Wright's fruitcake quotient for the sake of ... again ... finding a way to attack others by comparing them to Wright. Rod has never said anything about homosexuals as factually insane and morally obtuse as Wright's comments about crack and AIDS.

I agree with Rod on this. He is the chief of all sinners. Followed by people who agree with him.

Oh wait. First Oprah...then Rod and his followers.

Although the Chinese now say the Dalai Lama fits in there somewhere, but I haven't worked out the order yet. I'll keep you all informed.

I want to try to explain Elizabeth Anne (without her prior permission, mind you!).

I know the "hate the sin love the sinner" rubric, but in the case of homosexuals that can be a difficult line to draw.

I have neighbors who are a homosexual couple, and as it happens they have two children (adopted). They are doing what every other family in the neighborhood is doing: working, taking their kids to school, supervising homework, attending school events, going on family vacations, and so on. My family is my whole life; their family is their whole life.

Trying to put myself in their place, suppose someone came to me and said, "Susan, we love you as God loves you; however, your 'marriage' and family are deeply offensive to Almighty God, and I call on you to renounce this sin, and especially to renounce the sexual relationship between you and your partner by which you most deeply express your mutual love and support. (Also, by the way, we oppose it that you have any mutual legal rights in connection with this alliance.)"

If I were extremely calm and discerning, I might be able to view this tirade not as an expression of "hate" but as an expression of love for me, however misguided. However, don't hold your breath until I reach that high plane of calm and discernment. Furthermore, at some point I'm going to think if not say, "What's it to you? Why don't you run off and manage your own affairs and leave us alone? (Besides, we've got homework to supervise, so you can leave now.)"

Am I to suppose or require that Brad and Jeff be more calm and discerning in this matter than I would be? That they would not perceive the fear and hostility which I believe would lie behind such a statement? (After all, if you're not afraid or hostile, why don't you mind your own business?)

I'm not meaning to accuse Rod or anyone else of "hate" here, only asking that all you straights try to put yourself in someone else's place, and understand how statements like the ones you-all are defending sound to a family like the one who lives next door to me.

According to you. Why do you get to decide what's in her heart about what she considers "hate"?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

I have said nothing at all about what's in others' hearts, confining myself to their public words ... please cite the exact words where I attribute motive to her, or stuff it. You know, words like this "To Elizabeth Anne's ear and heart, she hears hate." Which are ... um ... yours. I have reacted only to what she has done, which is to accuse Rod of hate. Something I know to be false.

The point is, lots of people heard what Wright said and didn't hear "hate." Lots of people read Rod and don't read "hate." But some people do find hate from both people.

I love the presupposed equivalence here, particularly from someone who has defended Wright with the Context Excuse but monotonously attacks Rod and conservatives at every excuse he can find. The fact that some people hold an opinion does not make it true or even worthy of consideration.

We can debate the merits of those positions, but it doesn't diminish the fact that people have different opinions about what they hear and read.

Where did I deny this? Of course people have different opinions. And some of them are false, you bank-robbing wife-swapping cannibal (hey ... that's just my opinion of you ... and everyone has them and they're all valid or worthy of consideration, right? No, actually.)

I realize that Rod has held you up as the "model" for how gays should live their lives, but that doesn't give you veto power over how Rod is perceived by others.

Neither he nor I have never said it did. But for that selfsame reason, gays and their enablers don't get veto power over the meaning of others' words or immunity from being called fools if they state foolish things. (It's the passive-aggressive double standard that gays and their enablers hold that is truly galling, stating as a fact that others "hate," while demanding respect for their own opinions and pleading "context, context, context" for the likes of Wright et al).

And JPL's 108pm note makes it patently obvious that on some level he certainly both hates and fears celibates, breeders, Christians, and a broad swath of our culture. Of course, he doesn't hate them in the "let's stuff them into ovens" sort of way. More in the "Oh God, the world would be SOOO much better, and I'd feel so much safer if they would just go away" kind of way. Isn't it such a *fun* game when we *both* get to play the Hate Card, and gently note others' insights to some areas of their behavior.

As for Susan:

(After all, if you're not afraid or hostile, why don't you mind your own business?) ... I'm not meaning to accuse Rod or anyone else of "hate" here...

No ... just fear and hostility.

And all I ask Susan that all you liberals try to put yourself in our place, and understand how statements like the ones you make sound to us.

This thread is a good example how Christianity can fit the left wing as well as the right. So much of what is written here sounds like political correctness.

We can't be too harsh on Ted Bundy because, but for the grace of God, I too might be hunting, torturing (for hours) and finally killing innocent people. We must offer him love and forgiveness because, after all, who knows what demons haunted him or the BTK killer, etc? (While some monstrous killers have truly been abused in their lives, in fact Ted Bundy and the BTK killer has normal upbringings. Nothing has been found to explain their depravity.)

And is Ted Bundy really worse than me? How do I know God won't judge my racist words more harshly than his 28 murders (with torture beforehand)? Therefore, aren't speech codes justified? Words are violence too say the censors.

Judge not says the Bible. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone says Jesus. But I simply don't see how society functions this way. We have no choice but to judge what is right and what is wrong and punish appropriately. We have to make distinctions between what is slightly wrong and what is depraved.

If we all go around believing that there is no difference between the two and that all of our souls are equally sick and sinful, ultimately we will lose that very ability to distinguish between right and wrong that conservatives say is essential for a moral society.

But if we're going to insist that any evidence of a contrary opinion about controversial topics is automatically an indication of "hate" then we've shut down any possibility of discourse, regardless of the temperance or intemperance of the speech involved. In other words, if there's really no difference at all between these statements: "Homosexual activity is always gravely sinful," and "White people are secretly manufacturing AIDS and pushing drugs in black neighborhoods to keep the black community from succeeding," then there's not much point in trying to talk to each other.

Bingo.

But if we're going to insist that any evidence of a contrary opinion about controversial topics is automatically an indication of "hate" then we've shut down any possibility of discourse, regardless of the temperance or intemperance of the speech involved.

So calling Wright "hateful" and not reflecting on ones own racism and hatefulness would fall into this category?

"Homosexual activity is always gravely sinful,"

If it began and ended there, yes. I'm not sure that's what she had in mind when reflecting on "hate" towards gays.

Susan:

How about the part I cited, in which you "only" accuse Rod of Fear and Hostility. Or how about calling a "tirade" the words you put in mouths of Christians in your 4th paragraph, the one starting "Trying to put myself..." (words that, while I could quibble with a formulation here or there, seem a passable if imperfect surmise of our side's thoughts). And how about the whole "personalizing" ("the nice hand-holding gay couple next door to me") presupposition of your note and its whole "we have to look at this issue from gays' POV" premise, which, while not hate per se, is certainly silly deck-stacking. How about the framing "why my family should be so offensive to anyone," which is intellectual base-stealing at best and an assumption of bad faith at worst. And if you want to see hostility, I should show you my Inbox or pre-moderation comboxes some time, but a gentleman wouldn't do that to a lady.

But Susan, Christians are only seeking to discriminate against homosexuals under the presupposition that "homosexual acts are not gravely sinful," which is just as much a disputable and disputed moral opinion as is "homosexual acts are gravely sinful." And homosexuals and their enablers are just as willing to "put their opinions into action" on the matter that "homosexual acts are not gravely sinful."

Susan,

I certainly agree with you about the separation of church and state. But as you know, laws reflect our moral beliefs which, for many of us, come from our religions.

I admit to having a particular aversion to the notion that we are all equally sinful---me or Ted Bundy, what's the difference? Humility is a virtue, but it doesn't have to fall into absurdity.

The notion that all sin is equivalent is especially troublesome when coupled with the doctrine I get from some Christians of exclusive salvation---only in Jesus. What I end up with then, is the notion that all sin is forgiven, murder, torture, anything except...not being a Christian.

"Your blindness is showing."

Given your hostility and incivility, I think this is a poor place to hash this out. You've inserted yourself in a fairly hostile manner in what was an interesting, challenging discussion. You should probably heed Erin's scolding since things didn't turn ugly or hostile until you became involved.

"But what we aren't supposed to do is equate their sins with the whole person. "

Rod, I am with you up to a point. I certainly wouldn't say that someone entire human value is defined by the time they stole a car. Most wrong doing should be forgiven. Even murder in some rare cases might qualify.

But, just my opinion, there are limits. I truly believe some things cannot be forgiven and really do define one's humanity. Cold blooded, premeditated murder of innocents in my mind stretches forgiveness beyond the breaking point. Obvious examples are M. Atta and Ted Bundy.

In other words, does any one side get to have the right to "nuance"?

since things didn't turn ugly or hostile until you became involved.

Bwahahaha ... I hate being right. This presupposes that Elizabeth Anne's note of 11:19 last night was not ugly or hostile. Exactly as I predicted this would go in the last graf of my first note at 11:51.

So now a question: where in this spectrum of hate vs. conviction would one put the statement that "gay marriage is part of the culture of death"? I personally find that statement hateful because I hear in it the implication that my partnership is not only personally sinful, but that it actually kills life or the life impulse.

Thanks, Jim, that's what I'm trying to say. Just proves that first hand statements work better than second hand statements.

What would I think if someone, anyone, sailed in and told me that my marriage of 41 years "is part of the culture of death"? Isn't that the real question here? How does that sound to you, to Brad, to Jeff?

Does it sound hateful? Is that too strong a word? Jim, you speak with more authority on that than I do.

"I'm contending that the opinion of some people (not everyone by any means) that gay behavior is "gravely sinful" (though not harmful to anyone else) is not a sufficient reason to invoke the sanctions of the law against gays, or to deny their families equal rights."

But Susan, your second parenthetical is the crux of the whole matter.

Who is to say that homosexual activity isn't harmful to anyone other than the people engaging in it? Is it harmful to society? Is it harmful for children to be raised without a mother or without a father because some people think they should have two parents of one gender? Is it harmful for other children to be read fairy tales at age five wherein a Prince marries another Prince? Is it harmful for other children to be taught that their parents are hateful and bigoted because they don't want their children to be read gay fairy tales in the classroom?

The truth of the matter is that we don't know if any of these things might be harmful--and we're considered "hateful" if we even raise the questions.

In point of fact, by drawing the comparison between the belief that homosexual acts are always gravely sinful and the racist beliefs others might hold, you've already defined the belief that homosexual acts are always gravely sinful as bigoted. There's no grounds for a good-faith conversation, then, since you think that only bigotry can hold the opinion that homosexual acts are gravely sinful--what you seek to do is to marginalize and exclude people who hold such views in exactly the same way that those who hold racist views have (justly) been marginalized and excluded.

Regarding Susan's points

(1) Yes, you addressed "fear and hostility," but only by saying "it feels that way if you are the target," which I then rebutted. To repeat: if "feels that way to the target" = "hostility" or "hate," then we might as well just pack it in because all opposition becomes a tirade. Further, the privileging of the hearer provides an overwhelming incentive for him to take offense and leaves the speaker neither with any way to defend himself against the charge nor any reasonable prior notice. Further, like populations with no exposure to a pathogen and thus no passive immunity, we'll all just have less and less tolerance (both meanings intended). All social intercourse becomes not simply walking on eggshells, but walking on eggshells with the eggs wanting to be cracked and their saying "we're cracked" becoming proof that they are cracked.

(2) As for how that sounds to me, what it sounds like is an attempt to marginalize (and eventually eradicate, intentionally or otherwise) Christianity, to marginalize the truth, to make falsehoods the basis of public policy and social culture (the two are different and equally relevant), to make me act on the basis of falsehoods, to enshrine as the social god the pernicious lie that is "the socially uninfluenced and uninfluencing act," and to redefine love and sex according to lies.

(3) What is wrong with "looking at things from someone else's point of view" is that whether this is good depends on who that someone else is and what his POV is. If a person is saying something false or immoral, then looking at things from his POV is bad. Further, it's a passive-aggressive game and a cheap sympathy ploy.

(4) It wasn't difficult to figure out that Brad and Jeff are real people. But citing their experience is deck-stacking because (a) it presupposes that the common good is defined through their eyes, (b) it presupposes that they are not committing a public act with social consequences by holding themselves out to the world as they are, and (c) it presupposes such homosexuals as you have constructed are typical (they are not; no statistical question about it) and so especially relevant to public policy.

(5) "Intellectual base-stealing" = "hiding your minor premises in language that sounds neutral but actually presupposes your own moral points." And the base stolen is in the term "my family." You gave another example of it when you put into Christians' mouths above "the sexual relationship between you and your partner by which you most deeply express your mutual love and support."

(6) The only reason I cited my Inbox and old comboxes is that you didn't seem especially aware that practicing gays can be the most viciously nasty people in the world, while having your antenna keenly honed for any sense of hostility from Christians.

But Erin, I did not say that your statement was bigoted. All I said was that as long as you agree that the statement some would say about Catholics and Catholicism was not bigoted either (i.e. that they were at the same level), I agree fully with your point. Sorry if that was expressed poorly. It probably was.

Who is to say that homosexual activity isn't harmful to anyone other than the people engaging in it? Is it harmful to society? Is it harmful for children to be raised without a mother or without a father because some people think they should have two parents of one gender? Is it harmful for other children to be read fairy tales at age five wherein a Prince marries another Prince? Is it harmful for other children to be taught that their parents are hateful and bigoted because they don't want their children to be read gay fairy tales in the classroom?

Wow, thank you!

Very good questions, Erin, to which, as you point out, we do not have the answers. I would only say that since the foundation of the earth some children have been raised without a father or without a mother, for a variety of reasons. I'd ask too, along the lines of your questions, if it's OK for the children next door to be taught that their parents are hateful and bigoted (or, substitute in, sinful)? I'd certainly object if my children were being taught, in public schools, that my marriage was perverted and invalid.

In point of fact, by drawing the comparison between the belief that homosexual acts are always gravely sinful and the racist beliefs others might hold, you've already defined the belief that homosexual acts are always gravely sinful as bigoted. There's no grounds for a good-faith conversation, then, since you think that only bigotry can hold the opinion that homosexual acts are gravely sinful--what you seek to do is to marginalize and exclude people who hold such views in exactly the same way that those who hold racist views have (justly) been marginalized and excluded.

Very good points. You're doing CourageMan's work for him.

To expand on what you say, there are a number of people who believe, and who think they have good scientific data for the belief, that people of African heritage are less intelligent than people of European heritage. Is this "bigoted"? I don't really know the answer to that, partly because I haven't examined the alleged data. (Just as I haven't examined the data that says that children are harmed by being raised in homosexual families or by reading gay-friendly fairy tales, largely because that data does not exist either way.)

I would never say that holding the opinion that homosexual behavior is always gravely sinful is "bigoted." If I've inadvertently said that, and I may have, I retract it. By the same token, saying, on the basis of the alleged scientific data, that blacks are dumber than whites is not bigoted either, assuming that the data supports that statement.

The problem, as I'm refining it in the process of this discussion - leave me some room for growth here! - is not the opinions you or anyone else holds. I may believe that men are inferior, per se, to women, or vice versa. I may believe that blacks are superior, per se, to whites (as the Reverend Wright apparently believes), or vice versa. I may think that homosexual acts are "always gravely sinful." (Or, that heterosexual intercourse is "always" rape, as some extreme feminists hold.) Whatever. As I said, opinion is free.

What the gays are objecting to, I believe, is legal discrimination. I can believe that blacks are per se inferior to whites, but I may not legally require them to use separate schools or separate drinking fountains. I may believe that heterosexual intercourse is always rape, but I may not, under our concept of government, prohibit such intercourse. I may believe that all women must cover everything but their eyes in public, but I may not impose that on women who do not share that conviction.

And I may not legitimately, I believe, deny the family who lives next door to me the legal protections that my family enjoys, simply because I believe them to be engaging in immoral activity. After all, the family across the street was formed when both members committed adultery against their respective spouses at the time, whereupon they divorced and remarried each other. That's sinful too, according to Jesus, and I may think them sinful, but in this country I cannot deny them equal protection of the law.

Regarding CourageMan:

(1) "Tirade" was a bad word, and I repent. You're right.

(2) As for how that sounds to me, what it sounds like is an attempt to marginalize (and eventually eradicate, intentionally or otherwise) Christianity, to marginalize the truth, to make falsehoods the basis of public policy and social culture (the two are different and equally relevant), to make me act on the basis of falsehoods, to enshrine as the social god the pernicious lie that is "the socially uninfluenced and uninfluencing act," and to redefine love and sex according to lies.

OK, but let's back off and take another run at this.

Suppose you were a very strict Muslim. And you believed that God requires women to show only their eyes (if that) in public. Would you not, when confronted with our society, say that our laws are an attempt to marginalize (and eventually eradicate, intentionally or otherwise) [Islam], to marginalize the truth, to make falsehoods the basis of public policy and social culture (the two are different and equally relevant)?

I think you would. And I also think that those of us who disagree with that formulation would assert, and assert vigorously, our right not to conform to your moral strictures.

(3) What is wrong with "looking at things from someone else's point of view" is that whether this is good depends on who that someone else is and what his POV is. If a person is saying something false or immoral, then looking at things from his POV is bad.

I just plain disagree with this. Looking at things from someone else's point of view, whether you think that what they are saying is "false or immoral" or not, is always good (if we can manage it). In fact, it's even more important in that case.

Further, it's a passive-aggressive game and a cheap sympathy ploy.

I pass over this in silence. Anyone who can't see through this accusation will not hear what I am saying.

(4)It wasn't difficult to figure out that Brad and Jeff are real people. But citing their experience is deck-stacking because (a) it presupposes that the common good is defined through their eyes, (b) it presupposes that they are not committing a public act with social consequences by holding themselves out to the world as they are, and (c) it presupposes such homosexuals as you have constructed are typical (they are not; no statistical question about it) and so especially relevant to public policy.

Perhaps the "common good" is not to be seen through Brad and Jeff's eyes. But an explanation of why not is then called for.

Of course they're committing a "public act with social consequences." They're parenting a couple of children, with faithfulness.

Are Brad and Jeff "typical"? A heterosexual society that "boasts" a 50% divorce rate (among the minority that even bother to get married in the first place - see statistics on children conceived outside of wedlock) has lost the right to ask the question.

(5) I'm still in the dark on this one.

(6) The only reason I cited my Inbox and old comboxes is that you didn't seem especially aware that practicing gays can be the most viciously nasty people in the world, while having your antenna keenly honed for any sense of hostility from Christians.

Of course. We're all sinners, as Rod observed. I never assumed that gay people are exempt from that "all."

Idea for CourageMan -

Don't call me or anyone "dear" unless you know us well. OK?

An apology to Erik and those similarly inclined, but I think the issues we are discussing here are of real importance.

CourageMan...demonstrating that discretion is NO part of his valor.

Ok, let's see.

Things I don't hate and fear:

* Celibates (more power to them! Whatever floats your boat. Beside, at least in your case, celibacy is doing all the rest of us a big, big favor. Darwin thanks you for your lack of contribution.)

* Breeders (I'm not even sure what the hell that is? People who breed? I'm fond of my parents? I have two boys? I'm hoping grandkids? But thanks for using some nice, hive-like word to describe human beings...I think. Anyway, no hate or fear there.)

* Christians (Nope, love many, many of them. Don't fear any. Feel sad for some others, who I think would make Baby Jesus cry with their ignorance and casual cruelty.)

* Broad swath etc. (Hmmm...hard to say. Paris Hilton, George Bush, Neo-cons in general, bigots, blowhards, hypocrites, ax murderers. I guess there's a swath to be had there. One for you. Of course, not being Christian, I'm not held to the standard that guys like you and Rod claim to be, so your kind of hoisted on your own petard with that win.)

That's three to one, so I'm afraid you lose the Hate Game. Thanks for playing. To improve your play next time, remember: Rod and your crew openly promote denying civil rights, ethnocentric belief structures, patriarchal domination systems, and regularly point out how entire groups of people are very likely going to Hell. I, on the other hand, just think you're kind of slow-witted and dishonest. I demand nothing of you, require no government intervention or restrictions toward you, nor that anything be done to you by society, and think that in the end the universe will work it all out and things will be fine.

So, in the immortal words of Jim Carrey: LOoooo...sssss...herrrr!

Susan:

"First of all, as Rod pointed out, he's not saying that "all sin is equivalent." Just that we're not in a position to figure out which sins are worse than others."

I am going out on a theological limb here, so if I am wrong, slap me down. But if I read the Pope's speech correctly, he pointed out that Logos means not only the Word, but also Reason. We have a right to expect God to behave in accordance with reason.

Reason tells us that some sins are worse than others. If I insult, I can apologize. If I steal, I can pay back what I stole and ask forgiveness. Murder is quite different.

Rod:

A further thought on the separation of sin and sinner. If I understand what you mean, I can agree that a car thief might one day risk his life to save a drowning child and God might prefer him to a man who never got a speeding ticket but also never gave of himself. And I think reason tells God would be correct. I am arrogant to "agree" with God, but I can't pretend not to have any thoughts on the question.

At some point, we define who we are by our actions.

Doesn't some sin, specifically the deliberate infliction of suffering upon an innocent actually tell us quite a bit about the human soul of the sinner? I know I am picking easy examples, but I think Muhammed Atta and Ted Bundy showed us who they really are.

At time for love and a time for hate. I think it was Leon Wieseltier who once wrote that sometimes (rarely) hatred simply means that we have properly understood the nature of what someone has done.

I think there's a lesson in this. Seems to me, the discussion switched from the idea of focusing on our own sins to pointing out others. What their sins are. Who's right. Who's not. This spins ad infinitum to what end?

Tonight we're going to Church, God-willing, never can be sure with all the boys. But when we get there we're going to focus on the Last Supper. The call of Christ to "Do this in remembrance of me". His non-violent response to persecution. His betrayal by close friends. His riducule by strangers. The attempts to destroy him both physically, emotionally, and spiritually. And Their seeming success in destroying the Christ.

And at that very moment, we are called to unite our life, our own sinfulness, to the Cross. We can also unite the sins of others. But the point is, I think, that we no longer carry them. We no longer carry the burden of the Church's abuse of Children. We no longer carry the pain that's been inflicted on us, knowingly or inadvertently. We place all of these burdens at the foot of Christ, we forgive as God forgives us and share in the Last Supper.

The mystery and power of a faithful letting go. In hope to receive the Redeeming love of God on Easter Sunday. Everything can go on that Holy Cross and be transformed. Burdens down. Eyes straight ahead. Wide Awake. No turning back, No turning back.

"Behold, Behold, the wood of the Cross. On which is hung our salvation. O come let us adore. Unless a grain of wheat does fall onto the ground and die.It shall remain but a single grain and not give life."

Pax Christi.

dana,

Reason tells us that some sins are worse than others. If I insult, I can apologize. If I steal, I can pay back what I stole and ask forgiveness. Murder is quite different.

Of course. This is the business of the State, which, not knowing the hearts of men, being in fact unable to know the hearts of men, nevertheless attempts to protect us all.

At some point, we define who we are by our actions.

Doesn't some sin, specifically the deliberate infliction of suffering upon an innocent actually tell us quite a bit about the human soul of the sinner?

Sure it does. The problem is, we can't factor in the mitigating circumstances. There may not be any; there may be a ton of them, but either way, how can we know? We can't.

The heart of Christ is quite different from the legitimate business of the State, which is protecting us all from the bad folks. The considerations of right and wrong in the eyes of God cannot rightly be made the basis of State policy.

Jim, JPL, CourageMan, Erin,

sefoley@foleyfoleylaw.com

Was Thomas Aquinas a great poet or what!

Apologies to the Orthodox, including our host. Those of you who read Latin, savor this, sweet on the tongue:

Pange, lingua, gloriosi
Corporis mysterium,
Sanguinisque pretiosi,
quem in mundi pretium
fructus ventris generosi
Rex effudit Gentium.

Nobis datus, nobis natus
ex intacta Virgine,
et in mundo conversatus,
sparso verbi semine,
sui moras incolatus
miro clausit ordine.

In supremae nocte coenae
recumbens cum fratribus
observata lege plene
cibis in legalibus,
cibum turbae duodenae
se dat suis manibus.

Verbum caro, panem verum
verbo carnem efficit:
fitque sanguis Christi merum,
et si sensus deficit,
ad firmandum cor sincerum
sola fides sufficit.

Tantum ergo Sacramentum
veneremur cernui:
et antiquum documentum
novo cedat ritui:
praestet fides supplementum
sensuum defectui.

Genitori, Genitoque
laus et jubilatio,
salus, honor, virtus quoque
sit et benedictio:
procedenti ab utroque
compar sit laudatio.

May God bless you all, as we begin the great liturgy, which begins tonight, and ends only at the end of the Vigil ceremony. One great action.

A personal note. Back in the day I used to go to a Benedictine monastery for the Triduum. When liturgical prayer works, you sit there and think,"Wow if I could say what I'm feeling which I can't, this would be it."

When it doesn't work, you think, "We're just going through the motions."

It's me. They do it the same every year. Exactly. I'd go down there (Big Sur) except I'm not there again yet. Me, get it? If it doesn't work for me, that's me, right?

Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.

God love you Rod for this beautiful post.

May the life, death and resurrection of Christ penetrate all of our lives to the deepest levels, and redeem us all from sin.

An aside.

In the course of my recent 10 day retreat in the Mojave desert, my jeep developed transmission problems. (Like $3000 worth of the same. Yikes!!)

So I ended up for two nights in Barstow. (Look it up.) And, lacking other entertainment, I turned on the TV.

On Discovery Channel was this guy allegedly seeking the "real historical" Jesus. Now we've gotten through the crucifixion.

So this guy, on camera, says, "I just can't explain the later energy and conviction of the apostles, that they converted the whole known world, and died for their belief."

His theory was, well, maybe after thinking the thing through, the apostles decided that the message was, we are all the kingdom.

Well, I don't know about you, but for me, this isn't a notion I would be willing to be crucified upside down for.

We surely wouldn't want to take the word of eyewitnesses for what really happened, huh?

But I have said before that my disagreement with gay marriage isn't based on the sinfulness of homosexual acts but on the fact that to redefine marriage in a way that it has never been defined before fundamentally and radically restructures society from its most basic level onward. Yes, serial divorce and rampant cohabitation have had deleterious effects, too, but in neither case has marriage been redefined to have nothing whatsoever to do with the inherent duties and obligations a man and a woman have toward their own biological offspring, and the State's interest in seeing that as many people as possible accept those duties and obligations instead of leaving their offspring on the State's hands, so to speak.

Get back to me later on this. It's important.

Love ya. Blessed Triduum.

Rod:

Write that book. You have a real gift here, one that transcends all this political BS.

GREAT original post.

Write that book.

It was a good post, on an important topic. I'm glad more people will get to see it. I wonder how it will work in a secularized version, though - maybe you could post that as well?

Pat

Per Rod: "I pulled my scheduled Sunday column today and replaced it with a rewritten (and more secularized) version of this post."

This was a great post, Rod; your more secularized Sunday column version, not so much: It contained a strong implication that those of us who don't believe the President spouted "lies and foolishness" to get us into war are, unlike you, still "angry, blind and stupid."

I waited to comment until this thread had played itself out because I didn't want to rain on your parade.