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 ...
LOL! Well, at least I didn't get a 'Well, bless your little heart'
I agree. Prayer up!
What's stopping you?This isn't an issue I deal with (not to mention I can't really write very well), so my words wouldn't carry much punch or persuasion. But, yes, Christ in the Eucharist can heal our pains, and is the best starting point ("In a world where there is so much noise, so much bewilderment, there is a need for silent adoration of Jesus concealed in the Host. Be assiduous in the prayer of adoration and teach it to the faithful. It is a source of comfort and light, particularly to those who are suffering..." -Pope Benedict XVI) for any affliction.
There have been times in our cultural history when it was very common for women to form close tender friendships in which there was no suggestion of perversion. In the 18th century (roughly the colonial period) you have diaries in which women grieve over being separated from the affectionate love of their women friends (e.g. I remember reading a pastor's wife crushed in spirits because another matron of the congregation was "moving away from my embrace") or sending notes full of sighing and kisses.
It was the way thy expressed themsleves. It was NOT misconstrued as lewdness.
You also have men with perfectly honorable and deeply emotional bonds to other men, such as schoolmate, athletes, especially soldiers. The very pattern of David and Jonathan.
Can't even approach the depth, sweetness or nobility of that kind of attachment now. It would all be interpreted as gay, gay, gay.
Only 14 years into it, I already hate the 21st century.
No, I know too - I poked fun at her for it, but that was all... pokin' fun. I am among the most vehement against the Roman church, but I will assert with full confidence that my FRiend, Mrs. Dono is in possession of a very high caliber of character, informed not only by her faith, but also by her Southern heritage. Considering her even temperament and well-mannered deportment, I will rise to say that your accusation against her is wholly without merit.
She most certainly DID NOT take the Messiah's name in vain. The turn of phrase was funny to me, simply because I know what she meant, and because it would be so very much against her character to have imposed such an epithet.
If my original post on the subject is what sent you down this particular rabbit hole, I will retract it publicly and with all haste, with a sincere apology to Mrs. Dono.
BTW, Eve T. briefly mentioned St. Aelred in her article. He is the patron saint of spiritual friendship (a 12th century Cistercian Abbot in Yorkshire)--- wrongly made a mascot by the Gay Pride faction, which makes me pretty angry --- anyway, Aelred is a great heavenly ally, and I found a wonderful icon for him I thought you'd enjoy.
Thank you.
I think the issue is bigger than “gay pride” or anything to do with homosexuality. Before the mass emergence of public homosexuality, relationships between males and females had been reduced to the lowest common denominator. It seems to me that our society considers sexual desire our most significant, deepest, or highest feeling. (Sorry, I’m having trouble with expression!) Anything else two people might share ... compassion, shared interests, moral admiration, intellectual delight ... is chopped liver. The “real thing” is the genital urge.
I think this leaves every relationship deprived, as if a whole society had nothing to eat but Soylent Green. Sexual desire is very inclined to solipsism, covering other people’s individuality with the viewer’s judgment of, “I want to have sex with this.”
By emphasizing all the goods one can enjoy in life, including loving relationships, while refraining from genital activity, writers such as Ms. Tushnet are pointing out an important source of human flourishing.
[article:] 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.
How do you respond to the above? Perversion is still her main identity. Notice those words foreseeable future, she is still justifying and hedging her bets. 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.
First off, I cannot imagine her burden particularly, so I cannot speak to it perfectly. But I can associate it to my own. I still VERY MUCH would like to wrap my legs around a hawg and beat feet for Sturgis every year. I still LOVE a good tailgate party, and there is something in me that to this day, rises up in glee at the thought of battle. When the berries and cherries are in the rearview, my first reaction is to punch the 'git gone' pedal, and I would still to this day enjoy the ensuing pursuit, if it were to occur. I enjoy flirting with women, I cuss too much, and Sunday clothes make me itch.
That is still all my 'main identity. And I confess it loudly, and without shame, because those things I have done have been turned to victory in Messiah. No bow-tie preacher can begin to touch the sinners in Sturgis, but I can. No elder of the church is gonna get everyone around the campfire into a deep discussion about YHWH, but I can. Can the church reach the lawbreaker sitting in his cell? Really? But I can, because I been there, done that, and I know the road out of it.
Like her, I participate, but I am (mostly) abstinent. I don't drink no more, I don't tear down the bar no more, its been a couple decades since I was last in cuffs. But Yeshua has made me, by my confession, and His grace, the ultimate infiltrator. And I will preach him to those misbegotten folks who are what I was. In that, my past sins are turned to victories for him.
I will never be able to preach to the choir. Church ladies have that covered, and that is not what He has made me to do.
You "get" our sister Eve Tushnet, the gay Catholic celibate.
I get it. I get YOU, roamer_1, you old ex-outlaw.
Thank you for giving us all this renewed connection to the Holy Spirit, this honest ((((whoosh)))) of grace.
>> “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.” <<
.
Exactly, and that is why AA, and similar orgs, are wrong to the core, and spiritually destructive. They teach that one can learn to avoid their sin without fully gaining victory over it.
.
That was an excellent post, roamer_1.
I’d just like to observe that you might not understand the lives of “church ladies” all that well ...
I would also like to add this is an outstanding post. Well done. This is the true, daily human struggle we all face and (hopefully) take up as our daily cross.
Again, bravo.
She puts a lot of "natives" to shame in the embracing of the good in that heritage. I must add my thanks for your stepping up to her defense. It means something. It means a lot.
Regarding the thread as a whole, it's alarming and quite discouraging to see how poor basic reading comprehension can be. It's a reminder to me to read carefully and to think things through.
Wonderful link.
“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.
...are you asserting that she believes generalized homosexuality equates to mere friendship...?
...are you asserting that she believes generalized homosexuality equates to mere friendship...?
CA-Con will answer this but if I may jump in, I think Tushnet is saying marriage is for a man and a woman, friendship for two men or two women.
She is not implying a homosexual relationship between the two men or the two women, because she is getting this from the recurring images and themes "in the prophets and in the New Testament," and these images and themes are of course not homosexual, because genital contact or erotic lust between men and between women are condemned in both the OT and the NT.
She is not here using "same sex" to mean "homosexual" --- she's using it to mean, "two people of the same sex."
...are you asserting that she believes generalized homosexuality equates to mere friendship...?
CA-Con will answer this but if I may jump in, I think Tushnet is saying marriage is for a man and a woman, friendship for two men or two women.
She is not implying a homosexual relationship between the two men or the two women, because she is getting this from the recurring images and themes "in the prophets and in the New Testament," and these images and themes are of course not homosexual, because genital contact or erotic lust between men and between women are condemned in both the OT and the NT.
She is not here using "same sex" to mean "homosexual" --- she's using it to mean, "two people of the same sex.
That’s right, she did. Just like an “alcoholic” can lead a fruitful life if he/she doesn’t succumb to that temptation and again start drinking. I think you had better understand that there is the mindset that once an alcoholic always an alcoholic whether they drink or not. Once a gay always a gay whether they act on that temptation or not. I’m not sure I agree with that mindset but it’s what it is for those who believe it. The sin part is succumbing to the temptation.
>>Sorry, but the thought of sexual deviance is just as bad as the act.<<
Would you please put in print for us that you have never had a sinful thought in your life? Perhaps just a note claiming how you currently have no temptations in your life.
>>Refer to Jesus speaking in 5 Matthew 28:29...<<
You had better go back and read that verse again. It includes “If your right eye causes you to sin,”. If you think for one minute that I believe you have never been tempted by the other sex you had better guess again. And if I ever meet you and you have both eyes I will consider you a hypocrite.
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.