Andrew Sullivan reveals his next move:
He says his next battle is to "turn Christianity against the fundamentalists". For him, "their certainty is the real blasphemy; their desire to control the lives of others the real heresy; their simple depiction of the Godhead proof positive they do not really understand him." In the Gospels, the men who set themselves up as arbiters of moral correctness are often the furthest from God, he says, while Jesus urges people to see beyond fetishising rules and commandments to their own conscience. This is the flag Sullivan will carry into battle as a paladin against the Palins.
I had wondered when Andrew was going to get around to explaining Catholicism to the Pope, and showing why the clear commands of Scripture against, and two millenia of plain Christian moral teaching got it wrong on gay sex. Hey, if George W. Bush can claim that "we don't torture," despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and still find an audience of true believers, I'm sure Andrew will be able to convince homophiles that Christianity couldn't possibly be against homosexuality, because that's not the kind of thing Christianity could possibly be against. There's enough casuistry and question-begging to go around for everybody.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
It's increasingly clear, Rod, that you haven't read so much as a single work by any of the plethora of Christian and non-Christian authors on the subject of Christian teaching and homosexuality. At least not any of the authors who don't write from your own perspective.
I had thought you'd be able to approach this with at least a shred of dignity and respect for persons, even if you didn't come down on the same side of the issue. But this "Doggone, I gots Tradition on my side!" mentality is nothing but the last gasp of the losing side.
Rod
I would suggest you read (the late) John Boswell's book entitled "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" before making absolute statements about the "clear teaching of Scripture and nearly 2,000 years of the entire church's (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) understanding of the prohibition against homosexuality" The only thing "clear" is that you are wrong in stating there is 2000 years of Scripture and church understanding that proscribe homosexuality.
As for your debate/discussion with Tony Jones -- shame you skipped out and then took it up with Andrew Sullivan. It was a low class move. I think you owe him an apology.
As for the constant harping about same-sex marriage, and gays wanting to destroy the universe -- besides being repetitive and unenlightening, it brings back memories from my childhood in rural Maryland. Our very conservative Catholic congressman (Bob Bauman) used to gay bash prolifically, as part of his "moral" crusades and it worked well for him until he was caught trying soliciting "services" from a male prostitute. I guess he was Ted Haggard's role model. Anyways, he claimed it was the alcohol, said he would be cured in "rehab". Guess you can't pray away the gay. His dishonesty destroyed his marriage and his political career in the end. That's the problem with closets!
I read years later about him, that he had fled for awhile to San Francisco but returned. Having been a gay-basher, he found it hard to make friends (SURPRISE!).
Perhaps Andrew is wrong the lecture the pope about it, but its also wrong to suggest the different branches of the church are unwilling to alter 2000 years of Christian teaching -- Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. This Episcopalian can say my church has pretty much moved on and past this issue to acceptance. A similar thing is happening in the Lutheran Church. ditto Presybeterians. Even though Methodists keep voting in favor of the traditional teaching on sexuality, fully 1/3 to 40 % of their members vote the other way at the general convention. Perhaps mainline Protestantism does not have the huge numbers of Rome, Orthodoxy or more conservative Protestants. But, Andrew's ideas are fully in line with official church teaching in several denominations, and when you add them all up (episcopal + lutheran + UCC, etc), you are talking at least 10 million folks, just in the USA. Never mind the dominant forms of Christianity in the Nordic countries or England.
You wondered, Rod, "when Andrew [Sullivan] was going to get around to...explaining" why the church "got it wrong" on gay sex. Apparenly you haven't read his writings over the past decade. I suggest srarting with VIRTUALLY NORMAL (1995). And while you're at the library, check out the writings of two other thoughtful Catholic authors on the subject: James Alison, and the late Dominican priest Gareth Moore. Moore, in his book, A QUESTION OF TRUTH, is especially good on the tired old natural law argument. Your "two millenia of plain Christian moral teaching" "got it wrong" on the status of women, on the Jews, on freedom of conscience, on racial equality, and, well, I'm just getting started.
May I also suggest, while we are making reading suggestions, reading the book What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by professor and CATHOLIC PRIEST Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D. (ONE of his Ph.D.s is in systematic theology.) It's nice and short, only about 140 pages, and it lays out the basic theological arguments very well.
So is this Catholic priest also wrong to speak out about this, using the Bible and the historical reference and context thereof to argue his point?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.