A shame really. This country was beautifully conceived, grew mightily to adulthood, accomplished wonderous things in maturity (space flight, defeat of totalitarianism, technological wonders, etc...) and is growing sick and twisted in it's old age. I have this really bad feeling that Dubya will be the last great POTUS (unless by some miracle Condi, Jeb or Ridge can defeat Hillary) and the final descent will begin.
The Logic of Anglicanism
Many ordinary Christians are scratching their heads at the recent fuss within the Anglican Church. How on earth did they get to that point? How could seemingly prayerful, intelligent and decent bishops wind up supporting open homosexuality?
The answer is very revealing for Catholics. One part of the answer is that this is simply political correctness of our secular society infecting the church. The real answer is more interesting.
Rowan Williams--the new Archbishop of Canterbury--wrote about the homosexuality issue in an essay called 'The Body's Grace.' He concludes with these words,
In a church that accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous biblical texts, or on a problematic and nonscriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures.
In other words, accept contraception and you cannot logically ban homosexuality. If sex is for recreation not procreation, then the homosexually inclined person should be able to enjoy sexual activity too.
Williams is no slouch theologically. He's followed his own logic home. Paradoxically, he has proved Paul VI's point and shown Humanae Vitae to be a prophetically wise encyclical.
If only more of our Catholic theologians were as bright as Rowan Williams. He has understood the effects of accepting contraception quite clearly. He's drawn a disastrously wrong conclusion of course, but he's done so honestly and logically from his own starting point.
Mr. Longenecker requests your prayers for him tomorrow.
"Please remember a prayer for me tomorrow afternoon (British time) as I have been invited to appear on a BBC World Service programme to discuss the Anglican homosexual issue from a Catholic point of view. Pray that I may speak with clarity, charity and a sense of humour.
The programme will be broadcast over the weekend. I'll post details here later on how to tune in."
All of these [homosexual] types . . . . are of course human beings, who, like the rest of us, must play the best game they can with the cards Nature has dealt them. No decent person would wish to inflict on them any more unahpppiness than their mismatched bodies and psyches have already burdened them with. at the same time, there is circumstantial evidence that complete acceptance and equality for all sexual orientations may have antisocial consequences, so that the obloquy aimed at sexual variance by every society prior to our own may have had some stronger foundations than mere blind prejudice. Male homosexuality, inparticular, seems to possess some quality of being intrinsically subversive when let loose in long-established institutions, especially male-dominated ones. The courtsof at least two English kings offer support to this thesis, as does the postwar Brisish Secret Service, and more recently the Roman Catholic priesthood. I should like to see some adverturous sociologist research these outward aspects with as m uch diligence and humanity as Michael Bailey has applied to his study of the inward ones.
Stanley Kurtz, in an article on NRO in May 2002, develops the theme of the connections between gay marriage and the gay priesthood. I don't know if was ever posted on FR, but it's still timely for those interested in the subject. Gay Priests and Gay Marriage.
All hail the Judges! Bow before your new masters!