Sin in a Time of Accompaniment

While becoming a Christian, I was given a lot of space to figure out what needed to change in my life. No one handed me a stern list of my sins. No one suggested that I discern ways of minimizing the gap between my life and the demands of the gospel, either. Traditional Christian morality, for me, was treasure hidden in a field (with map and digging implements provided), not moral nourishment force-fed to me while I was strapped helplessly to a gurney.

In a similar vein, I know priests who vocally support maintaining the prohibition on divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion, though they don’t enforce it firmly in their own parishes. Presumably, they think shaming someone in front of parishioners who don’t know their marital situation is more harmful than an unworthy communion. One can disagree with the prudence of their decision. But these supporters of traditional discipline are not the modern-day Pharisees of progressive demonology, who care only for enforcing rules.

The attitude of these priests reflects, for the most part, the historic Catholic modus operandi: on the one hand, clear and demanding moral standards, known to all (or easily discoverable by all who care to know); on the other hand, a lackadaisical approach to enforcing those standards. In other words, a preference for the Southern European approach to rules over the Anglo-Saxon model that demands law be rigorously enforced or else scrapped.

This modus operandi is delicately balanced, however. When moral standards themselves are relativized, what emerges is not a Church in which everyone simply moves on from the idea of mortal sin. It’s a Church in which remaining moral standards are increasingly contradictory. When one group is excused from obedience to law, more exacting standards are required elsewhere, in an attempt to re-balance the mystic scales of justice—deflecting attention to the sins of group B to excuse the sins of group A.

Consequently, the current direction in the Church is not (as conservatives fear) toward adopting progressive sexual mores, but more in the direction of conservative Protestantism—which, for the most part, has jettisoned or twisted biblical teaching that conflicts with those aspects of the sexual revolution that appeal to heterosexual males, while ramping up the opprobrium against everyone else. While gay evangelical teens kill themselves in despair, heterosexual adults who shame them live indistinguishably from non-Christians.

The same approach is gaining a foothold in the Catholic Church. Want heterosexual sex without its natural consequences? No need to breed like rabbits. Having an affair? We’ll accompany you while you discern how your new sex life accords with God’s will. Want to cohabitate? Your relationship might have the grace of a marriage anyway. But a Google news search for “gay teacher fired by Catholic school” returns over 13,000 results.

This double standard seems well represented at high levels in the Church. I was unenthusiastic about the 2014 Synod interim report, which spoke of welcoming the “gifts and qualities” of gay people, but it is revealing that the 2015 Synod junked this language while waving through an ambiguous compromise on the communion question. Some prelates who take a hard line on homosexuality are evidently willing to soft-pedal Catholic teaching on adultery.

Practically, it matters little whether this hypocrisy was officially authorized by the Synod or Amoris Laetitia. Post–Vatican II, faithful Catholics expended enormous energy vindicating the orthodoxy of conciliar teaching on liturgy, for example, while around them statues were smashed, altars bulldozed, and racks of clown costumes wheeled into the sacristy. It will be the spirit of the Synod that the average Catholic must live with.

To call remarriage after divorce “adultery” now invites the accusation of “black-and-white” thinking, a failure to see the world in the “shades of gray” lauded by Amoris Laetitia’s self-appointed partisans. But here’s the thing about gray: It’s dull.

Recall the story of Paul Verlaine. A major French Catholic poet of the fin de siècle, Verlaine abandoned his wife for a homosexual affair with the younger poet Arthur Rimbaud. After a quarrel violent enough to warrant police attention, Verlaine was imprisoned for sodomy. In prison, he underwent a dramatic conversion to Catholicism, and he spent the rest of his life oscillating between periods of fervent devotion and drunken escapades with prostitutes. He was widely celebrated as an artist, not only for his frank erotic poetry, but also for what some literary critics have called the most magnificent Christian verse in the French tongue.

Imagine, however, that Verlaine had lived not in the 1870s but in the 2070s, that he had converted into a Church stripped of black-and-white thinking about sin and grace, in which priests are schooled in the arts of “discernment” and “accompaniment.” Verlaine could then have been assisted to appreciate the positive dimensions of his relationship with Rimbaud (or of his encounters with prostitutes), relax, and let go of the rigid moral thinking that left him racked with guilt.

A twenty-first-century Verlaine would live a more respectable, bourgeois life, but he would lack the humility—the virtue—inculcated through repeatedly turning back to God. Verlaine’s life was squalid, but he lived it within a drama of sin and redemption that gave it direction and meaning; a life lived in blacks, whites, and bold colors, not shades of gray.

“Whoever believes that my faith is insincere,” Verlaine said, “does not know the ecstasy of receiving within his body the very flesh of the Lord. It is for me a delight which makes my head spin: it is a physical sensation. … [T]he last time I received Holy Communion, I felt myself instantly clean, washed of all my sins.” Without the tug-of-war between sin and grace in the soul, this kind of experience of the Eucharist is inaccessible.

If we tried translating Verlaine’s spiritual writing into the language of accompaniment and integration, we would be exchanging great religious art (in contemplating which we understand something vital about the human condition) for soulless bureaucratic jargon.

The disappearance of the Verlaine-style “bad Catholic” from the contemporary Catholic landscape is not a sign that everyone became holy in the 1970s. It is a serious impoverishment. Those who are forgiven little, love little. Sin is ugly, but it is part of the moral economy that makes grace intelligible. Without it, the narrative of salvation history looks somewhat ridiculous, for what do we need saving from? There can be something beautiful about the life of someone who genuinely struggles with sin instead of making excuses, and beauty is indicative of truth.

“The Catholic Church,” Oscar Wilde famously quipped, is “for saints and sinners. For respectable people, the Anglican Church will do.” The Catholic Church is very much for adulterers, too (though they cannot be communicants without a firm purpose of amendment)—no matter how much the new regime may wish to redefine adultery out of existence.

The RCC might want to start cleaning up its act before accusing conservative Protestants.

The first error this poor Catholic apologist resorts to is that of attacking Protestants, in which they include all non-Catholic groups calling themselves "Christian - as if they were a monolithic liberal group, ignoring the vast difference btwn them. One would thus think they would affirm the conservatives who separate from the liberals which Protestants, unlike RCs, can do, but instead they attack them for having these (necessary) divisions.

The second error is that when any distinction is made here it is actually those of the conservative class that are used as illustrating the problems with Protestants.

Of course, the intent of this is to protect the imaginary premise that if the RCC (and they know what that means despite feigned ignorance) would just stop being like those damned Protestants it would be one big happy conservative party, being unified faith and morals. And which is the third error.

For actually they need to become more like historical evangelicals, who even in the present declension are yet the class most unified major religious group in core beliefs and moral views, if not as the prima NT church, which Rome stands in even more contrast to in faith (doctrine) and moral (practice).

The fourth error is that the RC apologist actually essentially blames the problem on RC ecclesiology, in stating "on the one hand, clear and demanding moral standards, known to all (or easily discoverable by all who care to know); on the other hand, a lackadaisical approach to enforcing those standards."

Thus he sees that problem as being with leadership not enforcing moral standards, yet this is because in Roman Catholicism, rather than looking to unchanging Scripture as the supreme law, the one basic duty of the multitude is to simply follow the pastors as docile sheep, and it is they who in the contemporary context provide the interpretation for the flock as to what RC teaching means. And thus since the pastors overall treat even proabortion, prosodimite public figure as members in life and in death, then so much the rest, in addition to any divorcees, and providing such a liberal criteria for annulment can leave the RC as wondering if such were ever even married (or if he or she is).

Finally, he cites "while gay evangelical teens kill themselves in despair" yet i am quite sure more homosexual Catholics tragically end up doing so (mainly lesbians), consistent with the overall character of Catholics versus evangelicals, as per the stats you were looking for, by the grace of God.

Revised:

The first error this poor Catholic apologist resorts to is that of attacking Protestants, which RCs typically include all non-Catholic groups calling themselves "Christian" as - as if they were a monolithic liberal group, ignoring the vast difference btwn them. (And one would thus think they would affirm the conservatives who separate from the liberals which Protestants, unlike RCs, can do, but instead they attack them for having
these necessary divisions.)

The second error is that when any distinction is made here it is actually those of the conservative class
that are used as illustrating the problems with Protestants.

Of course, the intent of this is to protect the imaginary premise that if the RCs would just stop being like those damned Protestants it would be one big happy conservative party, being unified faith and morals. And which is the third error.

The fourth error is that while the RC apologist blames the problem on a failure of Catholic leadership, in stating "on the one hand, clear and demanding moral standards, known to all (or easily discoverable by all
who care to know); on the other hand, a lackadaisical approach to enforcing those standards." this is actually essentially a problem with RC ecclesiology,

He sees that problem as being with leadership not enforcing moral standards, yet this is because in Roman Catholicism, rather than looking to unchanging Scripture as the supreme law, the one basic duty of the multitude is to simply follow the pastors as docile sheep, and it is they who in the contemporary context provide the interpretation for the flock as to what RC teaching means.

And thus since the pastors overall treat even proabortion, prosodimite public figure as members in life and in death, then so must the rest, in addition to any divorcees, and providing such a liberal criteria for
annulments can leave the RC as wondering if such were ever even married (or if he or she is).

Finally, while he cites "while gay evangelical teens kill themselves in despair" yet i am quite sure more homosexual Catholics tragically end up doing so (mainly lesbians), consistent with the overall character of Catholics versus evangelicals, as per the stats you were looking for, by the grace of God.

Found in STATS....

50 percent of Protestants affirmed gambling was a sin, versus 15 percent of Catholics;

that getting drunk was a sin: 63 percent of Protestants, 28 percent of Catholics;

gossip: 70 percent to 45 percent:

homosexual activity or sex: 72 percent to 42 percent. Ellison Research, March 11, 2008 http://ellisonresearch.com/releases/20080311.htm http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080312/study-behaviors-americans-consider-sinful.htm

A BIBLICAL Message to "gay" & LGBT folks EVERYWHERE!

Genesis 13:13

Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

Leviticus niv

18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

20:13 If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Psalms 12:8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.

Doonesbury Cartoon for Feb/08/2013

Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

Ezekiel 16:49-50
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Romans 1 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

18 The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.

24 Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. 29 They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite.

2 Peter 2

1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

But there IS hope!!!

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...

The Health Risks of gay sex.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.