Thursday, March 04, 2004
Homosexuality and Christianity/ FMA
Responsa from Dave: “You claim that the Catholic Church, in the last fifty years, “evolved” to allow divorce. It did not. The Church does not and cannot allow divorce, because of the “clear and unequivocal statement of Jesus.”
Oz: That was not my statement. I said:
“Fifty years ago, neither the Anglican nor the Catholic Church would remarry a divorced person – now both do this. The Church evolved, and even against a clear and unequivocal statement of Jesus.” This is fact: 50 years ago divorced people were damaged goods, contaminated, and discriminated against in the marriage rite. This is no longer true.
Dave: “The Church does, however, grant annulments, which are not the same as divorces. An annulment is a decree that the marriage in question is and was not valid in the eyes of God. Since there was no marriage, there is no divorce.”
Oz: Come now, my friend. I will agree that annulments are symbolically exactly what you describe – and within the first year of marriage I would even say they can be very effective tool of maintaining a sanctity of ceremony and a gravity of the separation, but it is quite obvious to all empiricism, annulments are in practice a doctrinal circumnavigation of Jesus’ clear intent.
Dave: “Although you specifically say it was not homosexual love, you imply that the "very special relationship between two men" is an argument against condemning homosexual behavior. It is, of course, not.”
Oz: A fair point, but I mentioned the relationship to illustrate that the early Church was not so awash in anti-homosexual sentiment and fear that it felt compelled to expunge or tone down the loving relationship depicted in the Gospel of John. I have no doubt that by St. Augustine’s time such things would have been redacted out.
Dave: “Jesus preached strongly about marriage and the sinfulness of fornication, as you have noted. But He also told us what marriage is. He says, in the passage you reference where He condemns divorce, Mark 10:1-12, "But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'. So they are no longer two but one flesh". Jesus states, therefore, marriage is between one man and one woman, citing the complementarity of the sexes no less. Since homosexual behavior necessarily falls outside of the confines of marriage, then, homosexuality is necessarily always sinful.”
Oz: Yes, I understand the emphasis. But again – homosexuality is not singled out, either by Jesus or Paul – and Bible Belt Christians now take family vacations to Las Vegas and Britney can get a quickie divorce and scurry back to the loving arms of the Church – but two people of the same sex can’t legally commit their lives to each other? I firmly believe that my Lord and Savior is far more horrified by a casual, flippant treatment of a sacred institution by supposedly “God-fearing” heteros than two men or two women wanting to enter into a social contract with the utmost reverence. As far as the level of true Sin, the level of affront to God, the level of indecency involved? I will take a heartfelt Gay marriage over Britney any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com
Responsa from Dave: “You claim that the Catholic Church, in the last fifty years, “evolved” to allow divorce. It did not. The Church does not and cannot allow divorce, because of the “clear and unequivocal statement of Jesus.”
Oz: That was not my statement. I said:
“Fifty years ago, neither the Anglican nor the Catholic Church would remarry a divorced person – now both do this. The Church evolved, and even against a clear and unequivocal statement of Jesus.” This is fact: 50 years ago divorced people were damaged goods, contaminated, and discriminated against in the marriage rite. This is no longer true.
Dave: “The Church does, however, grant annulments, which are not the same as divorces. An annulment is a decree that the marriage in question is and was not valid in the eyes of God. Since there was no marriage, there is no divorce.”
Oz: Come now, my friend. I will agree that annulments are symbolically exactly what you describe – and within the first year of marriage I would even say they can be very effective tool of maintaining a sanctity of ceremony and a gravity of the separation, but it is quite obvious to all empiricism, annulments are in practice a doctrinal circumnavigation of Jesus’ clear intent.
Dave: “Although you specifically say it was not homosexual love, you imply that the "very special relationship between two men" is an argument against condemning homosexual behavior. It is, of course, not.”
Oz: A fair point, but I mentioned the relationship to illustrate that the early Church was not so awash in anti-homosexual sentiment and fear that it felt compelled to expunge or tone down the loving relationship depicted in the Gospel of John. I have no doubt that by St. Augustine’s time such things would have been redacted out.
Dave: “Jesus preached strongly about marriage and the sinfulness of fornication, as you have noted. But He also told us what marriage is. He says, in the passage you reference where He condemns divorce, Mark 10:1-12, "But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'. So they are no longer two but one flesh". Jesus states, therefore, marriage is between one man and one woman, citing the complementarity of the sexes no less. Since homosexual behavior necessarily falls outside of the confines of marriage, then, homosexuality is necessarily always sinful.”
Oz: Yes, I understand the emphasis. But again – homosexuality is not singled out, either by Jesus or Paul – and Bible Belt Christians now take family vacations to Las Vegas and Britney can get a quickie divorce and scurry back to the loving arms of the Church – but two people of the same sex can’t legally commit their lives to each other? I firmly believe that my Lord and Savior is far more horrified by a casual, flippant treatment of a sacred institution by supposedly “God-fearing” heteros than two men or two women wanting to enter into a social contract with the utmost reverence. As far as the level of true Sin, the level of affront to God, the level of indecency involved? I will take a heartfelt Gay marriage over Britney any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com
