I am delighted that +Nichols has at last brought an end to the long-running scandal of the Soho Masses (about which I have blogged on more than one occasion, most recently here)
I assume that the original intention of this pastoral provision was to reach out to those experiencing same-sex attraction and other difficulties with their sexual and social life, and better incorporate them into the Church, to help them to face the difficulties they encounter in a truly Christian way: that is, in conformity with the Gospel and the teaching of the Church.
However, in practice, they have deviated far from that ideal. Terence Weldon, one of the prime movers of the whole set up, runs the blog Queering the Church which gives you some idea of their (or at least his) agenda, and perverted theology. It is clearly a long way from anything that could be recognisable as according with Catholic teaching.
It is also interesting that he is seeing the move to Farm Street as an opportunity for what he calls 'Catholic LGBT ministry' to be 'strengthened, and expanded.'
However, as his blog reveals, his idea of Catholic LGBT ministry is a long way from Catholic.
So whilst I welcome the end of this particular source of scandal, I will watch what happens at Farm Street with great interest - as will, I am sure, +Nichols, and of course our excellent Nuncio.
Sunday Mass Readings
-
Sunday, November 24Christ the King – SolemnityRoman Ordinary calendar St.
Andrew Dung-Lac and His Companions Book of Daniel 7,13-14. As the visions
during ...
16 hours ago
.jpg)
4 comments:
Catholic males such as yourself and unfortunately those in authority such as Archbishop Nichols are reducing sexuality to a ' faculty'... This is nothing but an ignorant, dualistic and androcentric understanding of sexuality, which in truth actually encompasses the entire person, and is not merely a 'faculty'. All we have had over the years of biblical hermeneutics and doctrine formation in the Church, is an androcentric perspective, and more often than not, it is one of a reductionist, physical understanding of sexuality, isolating it to a 'faculty', and entirely ignoring the wider frame work of sexuality, in that it is about relationship, friendship, solidarity, companionship, agape love and mutual understanding and affection... Not just 'a faculty' for genitality and procreation. May God help this man and all those including yourself who so ignorantly oppose God's wonderful creation of gay people, who are just as capable of loving in as pure and holy a manner as the worshiped heterosexuals in this hetero supremist world of ignorant, male minds who reduce sexuality to geniality and marriage to requiring particular biological functions below the waist. We are being taken back to the dark days of slavery and the subjugation of women, by continuing the ostracization of gay people, and stripping them of their dignity by condemning their God given sexuality. May Jesus Christ show you the truth.
rcjoy7
On the contrary, I would maintain it is those who assert a 'gay identity' who reduce the complexity of the human person to a single dimension.
I am more than happy for men to enjoy 'relationship, friendship, solidarity, companionship, agape love and mutual understanding and affection' amongst themselves. It is specifically the sexual expression of intimacy between people of the same sex that is proscribed, and the sexual desire for someone of the same sex that is rightly designated a disorder.
I quite agree that men who experience same sex attraction can love in a pure and holy manner: that is one manifestation of the virtue called chastity, and I know men who exercise that with heroic virtue.
It is clear from Scripture, tradition, the magisterium and biology that sexual congress is designed as a heterosexual and procreative action; all your long words and prejudicial language notwithstanding.
How wrong you are; still you are reducing sexuality to an act. Sexuality encompasses all of those things, such as companionship, mutual affection, solidarity, and friendship. It i quite clear from scripture, when read within its cultural-historical context, that God does NOT condemn loving relationships between those of the same-sex. The Magisterium, and yourself, are guilty of an androcentric bias, in your biblical hermeneutics, that saturates the truth with lies. To call the love between two people a disorder, is the only reductionism and disprder here. You imply that only the heterosexual relationship is the norm, and seem to think that biology supports this? Quite the contrary, as biology has clearly shown that same-sex orientation is a natural part of creation. You place opposite gender combination over and above love, and seem to think it is a pre-requisite for righteous sexual love, which is sadly idolatrous. You are also mistaken in thinking that chastity between men who love one another implies that their relationship is non sexual, once again displaying the fact that you have a very reductionist understanding of sexuality. Same-sex couples may love in a pure and holy manner even when they make love, by uniting in body and soul. Your view of genitality is clearly one that is looked upon with unclean thoughts. 'He that thinks it unclean in his heart...' In the same way, a loving sexual relationship may be void of genitality (which might I add is not dependent upon opposite gender to define its righteousness, but upon a life-long intended, loving relationship) and still be sexual. Sexuality is how human beings express themselves in reaching out to find their significant other, in love, friendship, companionship etc. to reach outwards to their significant other. It is not, as you seem to think, all about genital contact. The Bible, and science, is quite clear that same-sex relationships are natural. Jesus speaks of the eunuchs in Matthew 19, 'they are born so from their mother's womb'. Eunuch was a term used to refer to gay men in much Greek literature of Jesus' time on earth. 1 John 4.16 says 'Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them'.
Sadly your interpretation of the Bible, and of sexuality it seems, is merely formed through a reductionist androcentric bias which the Magistrtium is also guilty of. Once again showing the problem and sinfulness of men trying to rule over women (as God warned Eve in Genesis) and excluding women from the interpretation of scripture in order to to from doctrine. The majority of the opposition to same-sex love, are heterosexual males. Why? Simply fear of the feminine. The female-female relationship is a strong female solidarity that undermines the fallen patriarchal system. In the same way, the male-male relationship is seen as a threat, in that the man is 'taking on the role of a woman'. There are false doctrines within the Magisterium, and the notion of same-sex love being 'disordered' is one of them. LOVE does not depend upon opposite gender combination, it is idolatry to think so. Galatians 3.28 washes away the fallen system of the patriarch - 'there is no longer male and female, you are all one in Christ.' Stop reducing the love of same-sex couples, to a disorder, because of their biological functions below the waist. The primary purpose of sexuality is the unitive, not the procreative, because without the unitive, there is no procreative. The fact is, God has made some of his creation gay, and it is God's beautiful and diverse creation. Love does not depend upon gender.
What a confused ramble.
You misunderstand and therefore (doubtless inadvertently) misrepresent my position, and do not make yours clear.
However, if you are not prepared to accept the clear teaching of Sacred Scripture on the procreative purpose of human sexuality, fail to understand that creation as we experience it is post-Fall, refuse the authority of the Church as the Christ-appointed interpreter of Sacred Scripture, and resort to a hermeneutic of interpretation that is saturated in a political philosophy antithetical to Christianity, then I struggle to see on what basis we can have any intelligent dialogue.
Post a Comment