Posted on 06/18/2014 12:16:25 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
When I became Catholic in 1998, as a college sophomore, I didn't know any other gay Christians. I'd been raised in a kind of pointillist Reform Judaism...
This sheltered upbringing may help explain my sunny undergraduate confidence that even though I knew of literally nobody else who had ever tried to be both unashamedly gay and obediently Catholic, I was totally going to do it. No problem, guys, I got this.
[snip]
[M]any Christian churches are beginning to integrate gay marriage into their theology... With so many more options for gay Christians, why [not] just de-pope myself?
It's that I fell in love with the Catholic Church....I didn't switch from atheistic post-Judaism to "belief in God," but to Catholicism: the Incarnation and the Crucifixion...her insistence that seemingly irreconcilable needs could both be met in God's overwhelming love: justice and mercy, reason and mystery, a savior who is fully God and also fully human. I didn't expect to understand every element of the faith. It is a lot bigger than I am.
[snip]
At the time of my baptism...I figured, everybody has to sacrifice something. God doesn't promise that He'll only ask you for the sacrifices you agree with and understand.
[snip]
Right now, the Biblical witness seems pretty clear. Both opposite-sex and same-sex love are used, in the Bible, as images of God's love. The opposite-sex love is found in marriage—sexually exclusive marriage, an image which recurs not only in the Song of Songs but in the prophets and in the New Testament—and the same-sex love is friendship. Both of these forms of love are considered real and beautiful; neither is better than the other. But they're not interchangeable.
Moreover, Genesis names sexual difference as the only difference which was present in Eden...
(Much more at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
So the main reason I’m planning on celibacy for the foreseeable future is just that I’m Catholic and lesbian and them’s the rules, bud.
I do not judge her salvation, that is Jesus call, but really look at the fruit. This is an article with an agenda. It has some nice words that we want to hear but be wise.
When she is ashamed to even discuss her past life, then she is truly broken, it will no longer be about her.
And who's not included on that list...?
I want to jump in and add--- the the benefit of those who don't know Melinda Selmys --- she's a married "gay" woman who's married to a MAAN. Like marriage as defined by Divine and Natural Law! And they have had six kids the usual way! Her husband explains the gay thing's in the capital-P Past: "My wife used to be a dyke."
It's true her thoughts are sometimes a little zig-zagged and too touchy for my taste. Nevertheless there are people of a like-tempermental sort, moody and sensitive and contrarian, perhaps, who strongly "get" what she says, and what they "get" is they don't have to act out on lesbianism. And that "not having to act out" is a good thing.
Agape, as in love thy neighbor as thy self, is not filial love.
The author was attempting to elevate her addiction.
.
The author was presenting us a sophistry; I’m amazed that you don’t see it.
Actually, what He said was “NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU, go and soon no more” - and that was after He showed up all of those who were condemning her to be HYPOCRITES.
Did you FORGET that part?
And AGAIN, he spoke the TRUTH, revealing the sin. Did you FORGET that part?
Interesting. In post 92 you said you were leaving. That would have been your best move. Because here you have jumped the shark. I will restrain the natural impulse to pummel the knave who speaks such calumny to my wife. Will have to do with a simple "Shame on you."
That may be the wrongest of millions and millions of wrong things I have read in the RF over the years.
There should be a prize.
Here's a good quote:
"But I think gay Catholics can also offer a necessary witness to the broader society. By leading lives of fruitful, creative love, we can offer proof that sexual restraint isn't a death sentence (or an especially boring form of masochism)."
If Tushnet were attached to "gay" as her "real identity," she would take precisely the opposite tack: she would identify celibacy as "a death sentence" (this is killing my real self!) or an act of masochism (this is torturing who I really am!) But she doesn't do that, she does the opposite: see, I'm celibate and it didn't kill me. It didn't distort me. Because my sex drive is not the "real" "me".
Moreover, she's just got 1800 words here, and she can't put in everything she has felt, thought or believed. She's done a lot more writing, in which she develops her thoughts in more detail, and some of it is even linked to this article. For instance, in the hyperlink connected to the words "Bitter laugh," you find this:
"Becoming Catholic, I should say, was in part about accepting that I could be loved by Someone who genuinely knew everything about me. In order to be really Catholic you have to accept healing and love, and there are times when that's very hard for me, still."
So I'm reminding people that she's not a snapshot or a freezeframe: she's a video, a moving picture.
A Christian in the making, which is what I would like to claim, hopefully, for myself, in God's good mercy and in His good time.
No, he specifically said "vein." See?
UYM: I’m not going to battle “wits” with somebody who continues to use the Lord’s name in vein.
UYM is against intravenous Lord usage. Probably opposes "mainline" denominations for the same reason. :-)
By the way, I’m not Catholic but this is an inspiring story. God bless you for posting this!
May the Lord bless you up one side and down the other. Thanks for the good will and a good laugh!
Marie, I find your input on this thread most enlightening.
May God keep your husband safe and may you both be reunited very soon!
Welcome! :-)
You certainly ARE judging her salvation.
Your position is that she has not met your personal requirements to be accepted, because in your opinion, she is still a sinner. You are EXACTLY as one of those who holds a stone, and to whom Jesus said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
The teaching could not possibly be clearer, and your rejection of it could not possibly be more brazen.
And Jesus's teaching about what will happen to YOU could not be more clear: you will be held to YOUR OWN criteria by God.
IMHO, Jesus didn't come for her as much as he came for the likes of you. Because your judgement criteria existed BEFORE Jesus arrived, while her surrender to Jesus, to the limits she is able, is the Dispensation of Grace that Jesus gave us BY arriving.
She has done what she can, and offered herself to Jesus's mercy.
You judge her efforts as inadequate.
So why do you need Jesus? The Sanhedrin would agree completely with you. What more do you need than that?
We are clearly called to evaluate the fruit. To correct people and speak the truth to them.
We are called to hold our selves to the same standard we as we look at others. That is my interpretation, not to stop judging because it might offend someone. The ones that truly have loved me spoke the truth to me, they did not worry about offending me. And yes, some even told me I was heading to hell.......................... (God bless them)
You have a worldly view of “judge not lest ye be judged” Judging salvation is Gods area, but I can look at the fruit and am commanded to.
You think I am harsh, wait till Jesus shows up, a lot of people are going be surprised.
There is a difference between going to Church to continue in a sanctification process by God, cleaning up a scarred soul, and instead unrepentantly identifying oneself with sin without turning away from known sin.
The the latter case, sanctification isn’t possible, but in the former case, it is preconditioned upon turning away from sin and returning to God on His terms.
Yes, this has happened to others. I suppose it will become more common.
I once had a large group of people at my house, including J. and M. who were ladies in their 30s, and good friends. After they left, someone asked me: “Are they partners?”
There seemed no reason for this question. They are a real pair of friends, so a lot of their conversation is “When we were at the beach that time ...” and “A new cafe is going to open, we must try it ...” But that is a long way from being partners, I would have thought.
I don't think you are harsh, I think you are foolish. I think you are seizing the wrong end of the teachngs for your personal satisfaction, and in order to avoid the change that Grace would otherwise work in you should you adopt humility - of which I see none.
Your standards - by your own admittance - allow no mercy and no forgiveness AT ALL, for whom - where - when - can be judged on this Earth as free from sin? And yet without that absolute purity, your standards require damning, rather than loving.
Because that's what they are - YOUR standards. And they don't require Jesus, and they don't acknowledge Jesus. As I pointed out, the Sanhedrin had the same standards - damnation for lack of perfection. Jesus pointed out the hypocrisy of your position. jesus pointed out that damnation is NOT YOUR BUSINESS, and that what you are ACTUALLY seeing in her eye is a SPECK, but you don't realize it because of the LOG in YOUR eye.
Jesus called that reflecting on lack of humility the TRUTH.
You will be judged as you judge - that's also what Jesus called the TRUTH.
So just thank God you're perfect, because you're in for a surprise if you're not.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
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.