Tuesday, March 23, 2021

Blessing gay unions and the Catholic Left

A tale of two apologists.

First, the Shea.  Naturally Mark waded into this one as we all could guess.  He wasn't alone.  Many I saw on the more radical leftwing segment of the Church swung into action.  A couple openly condemned it, but most did what Mark appears to be doing here, and that's stating variations on 'next year and then Jerusalem.'  That is Development of Doctrine, the key teaching upon which the whole of liberal Protestant denominations came to be founded, is the capstone.  

With development of doctrine you have a real thing - just read the Bible.  And ostensibly this real thing is alive and well and forever teaching us what parts of old doctrines need discarded or rewritten.  It was such a powerful force in mainline Protestantism that I remember debating issues with leaders from those denominations who had no problem saying that they didn't know how to square, say, gay marriage with Jesus' claim God made marriage around man and woman, but they could assume development of doctrine and discover Jesus never actually said such a thing after all. It became a 'get out of jail free' card when it comes to changing things around to keep with the times. 

For Mark, he doesn't give an actual, definitive answer to where the Church will go from here. Thankfully the Church has embraced the post-Freudian idea that we are defined by our sexual desires, and that those are likely as much a part of God's plan for us as any other charism.  Therefore as long as no penetration is involved, all is blessing and glory where our sexual inclinations are concerned.  It's just that pesky no physical sex part that's the tricky point.  To this, Mark appears to argue that it's about the sex and the sacraments.  The sex is about the person, and the sacraments are for the person not the other way around, and since someday the sacraments will pass but the dignity of the person will not, well, you do the math. 

The second piece is from Dawn Eden, who has openly apologized for the harm she caused by standing up to modern, liberal values and beliefs.  In this piece, she makes it about love.  God is love and love is love, and all you need is love, and I am the walrus and a hard day's night and all.  It's about the love and the chastity.  Once again, the gift of same sex desires can be gloriously lived out in love because that's what it's all about.   Exactly why this desire leads to a sinful act if fulfilled and yet we insist God doesn't tempt us to sin, I'm not sure.  But it's about the love, and that's good enough.  Naturally her piece tends toward that approach in which we insist same sex attraction shouldn't be treated any differently than any other sinful inclination all while treating it differently than we treat any other sinful inclination. 

Now, I will not wade into the meat and potatoes of this.  Others far more versed and schooled in the nitty-gritty can do the heavy lifting.  I will note that much of what they are saying is merely what the Church teaches, and has been teaching for many years now.  There is development of doctrine.  There is modifying in light of new discoveries.  There is, for want of a better phrase, keeping up with the Jonses.  When the world zigs, the Church had best zig with it lest it zag in the wrong direction and be laughed at, or worse.  I'm at a loss to figure how someone could say that hasn't been the Church's approach for quite some time.  And it isn't alone.  That's where many religions have been since it appeared humanity entered into a new age of finally discovering how things really work. 

But what struck me in both of these was something I've noticed that is common when debating various topics driven by the modern Left.  Notice that in both, there is no question as to the motives of the LGBTQ community, openly gay believers, gay activists, or anything.  They are pure as the wind driven (but not white) snow.  There is no dealing with the seedier sides, or possibility that it is all part of a much larger revolution aiming at the very heart of the Faith.  There is not even the possibility that anything but the pure quest for love and God is at the heart of everything to do with this call to challenge the Church's teachings regarding one of the most fundamental beliefs in the Christian stockpile: the very definition of humanity, its relations with itself and subsequently with God.

Nope.  Dawn doesn't go into much regarding detractors or those troubled by the Church's direction.  Mark, of course, makes it clear where the bad motives are.  Echoing my former ethics professor David Gushee, he assumes it's always been about the kindly liberals pushing forward against the ever clinging conservatives fighting the Left's true revelations due to their wicked ways.  And in a way not at all foreign to Pope Francis, he can assume the motives for not jumping on the good ship Leftism are the most reprehensible, while the inner intentions of those individuals indulging in even full out gay sex (or abortion, or any 'sin of the left') should never be questioned or judged.

That is, IMHO, one of the most powerful weapons in the Left's arsenal, that every debate begins with the assumption of the Left's infallibility and blameless motives.  So true is what the Left proposes, so clear the evils the Left is attempting to fix, so blameless the Left's designs, that any resistance can only be attributed to the most questionable, if not the most evil, of reasons.  Just pick a topic: immigration, socialism, gay rights, transgender rights, Covid lockdowns, gun control - the list is endless.  

After all, it's how Pope Francis could so easily accept the decidedly progressive spin on Global Warming.  Are there scientists who question the mainline narrative regarding climate change?  Sure.  But if you recall, Pope Francis had no problem dismissing them as a wretched brood likely on the fossil fuel industry dole, and therefore not as purely motivated as those who march to the MMGW beat.  Same here.  Same anywhere in which we approach issues driven by the modern Left.  And that, kiddies, is a powerful attack that those who would resist the directions in which we are going have yet to overcome. 

One more thing.  During my sojourn with the Orthodox, I will say it has done a better job resisting the 'times changes, churches change' approach to the world.  Better, but not solid. Now, after about two generations of post-Soviet believers, the up and coming wee ones are itching to join the West in at least this regard, and shuffle off some old, antiquated notions about genders, sex and 'reproductive health' if nothing else.  How long the Orthodox can hold out is anyone's guess.  If they are smart, they'll look long and hard and see where too much of that has gotten the West.  But then, if Catholics were smart, they would look at where too much of that got all of those dying Protestant denominations. 

20 comments:

  1. Development of doctrine does not mean formlessness of doctrine. It is analogous to the life of Christ Himself. He was born a baby, then grew up to be a man, which He was when He died and was resurrected. He was not born a baby, grew up to be a water buffalo, died a crocodile, and was resurrected as a cabbage.

    If the development of doctrine were a slave to American fashion, or French fashion, or Japanese fashion, or even the fashion of all mankind together, I would not stake anything important on it -- certainly not my soul -- because only a simpleton believes in the infallibility of fashionable society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. That's probably why those traditions that have used DoD to ditch all those pesky truths end up in traditions that are dying away. Something about staying with a tradition with no core values or truth claims becomes rather pointless after awhile.

      Delete
  2. The late comedian Patrice O'Neil had a vulgar routine about "Women, what would you do for your man if you couldn't use your [guess the part] any more?"

    The punchline to the joke (on youtube if you want to find it) is that the audience usually answers with alternative sexual acts. Patrice points out nobody ever answers him with something like "I'd become a good cook." or "I'd learn to play video games with him." or anything else.

    This comes to my mind when I read things like you posted. I want to ask these folks: if you took away the sex, would anything remain? After all, there's strong hints in the Bible and it was my understanding that there would be no sex in Heaven. So we can even make the question less vulgar now: Setting aside the question of sin, what of who you are would actually be in Heaven once your sexual activity is removed as a consideration?

    But then I'll freely admit, that's a question probably due all of us. There will be no politics in Heaven. Probably no video games. Is anything left of me as a person to go once the pointless stuff is no more? Things to think on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me translate that into something less vulgar, while at the same time needling David Griffey. Suppose you went into a sports bar in Columbus, Ohio some Saturday in late October and asked the patrons what they would do if they could not watch college football. I suspect most would say they would watch college basketball, or college baseball, or whatever other sport the Buckeyes might be playing. Very few would say, "Well, I suppose I would finally learn topology, or how to speak and write Russian, or I would have more time to properly examine the Tully Monster fossils." From this, you would perhaps wonder just what remains of a university if you take away intercollegiate competition, and how we could be happy in heaven without college football.

      JUST MAYBE you are taking enthusiasts a little too seriously when they themselves know they are being silly.

      Delete
    2. Your change up kind of worked right up until the end there. For one thing, there's nothing about sports in Heaven so for all we know, games of competition might be in the afterlife.

      Conversely Jesus Himself talks about sex in Matthew 22. Maybe there's a bit of wiggle room, but there's also just the plain observation that reproduction isn't needed in a land of eternal life. Right about there you went off the rails and kind of missed the point.

      Delete
    3. Saints in Heaven run out of their 4 years of eligibility very quickly.

      Delete
    4. I dunno. "A day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day..."

      I'm not even that into sportsball but even I have to admit the thought of the ultimate all-star game has some appeal.

      Delete
    5. I'm not at all sure to what extent you are being serious with any of this. If you mean that most of us are rather silly about one thing or another and that we tend to congregate into groups that are silly in the same way, I agree; but of course this silliness can become essentially idolatry. I remember a song about how "If Heaven ain't a lot like Dixie I don't wanna go." There never has been and never will be any nation on earth with a greater claim to our love than God Himself, which sadly means anyone who literally has that attitude need not worry too much about going to Heaven; he's not headed that way. If you think that idolatrous attitude towards sexual intercourse, or towards sports or gambling or Dixie or whatever is CORRECT, then I strongly disagree.

      Delete
    6. I can't figure out what you're on about either. You think being gay is just a silly group that people congregate into? You don't think a lot of people haven't centered their lives around being gay and made it a central focus to their own detriment? Because oh boy can I provide a lot of examples proving otherwise.

      Delete
    7. Your original comment about "late comedian Patrice O'Neil" did not seem to be about gays, but about heterosexual sex obsession -- perhaps even in the relationship between man and wife. This is backed up by your reference to Scripture; Matthew 22:30 says, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven," but sexual intercourse is not directly mentioned, because that is sinful outside of marriage, and OF COURSE there is no sin in Heaven (or more specifically after the general resurrection, when the dead will have their bodies again, which are kind of important to the sex act). My point, then, was that one can overindulge in even a licit good, and this overindulgence is silly at best and idolatrous at worst.

      If one is obsessed with something that is NOT even a licit good, the situation is worse. In fact the situation reminds me of a scene from the first season of Blackadder in which Edmund, having been made Archbishop of Canterbury, persuades Lord Graveney that he really would prefer Hell over Heaven, because in Hell Graveney would be able to spend an eternity indulging in murder, pillage, and adultery. The scene from Blackadder is of course a joke, but like most good jokes it contains a kernel of truth, and that is that many people -- most people, it seems -- prefer sin over Heaven.

      So please clarify: when you write, "Setting aside the question of sin, what of who you are would actually be in Heaven once your sexual activity is removed as a consideration?" do you intend that to be understood as a profound question, or is a question meant to highlight the foolishness of thinking that Heaven MUST be all about indulging in our worldly passions?

      Let's not confuse Heaven with Asgard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9gbueGxBf0.

      Delete
    8. Nate, it does make you wonder about an era that has sacrificed so much on the altar of our libidos. It makes you wonder how many will be in heaven to deal with the question.

      Howard, we'd probably just go play backyard football.

      Delete
    9. Very true, Dave. Remind me sometime to show you some of the comment sections of the internet. It actually seems like many young people are longing for a bit of restraint and prudity.

      Delete
    10. They usually are. I think we purposefully sell youth short for our own designs, not because it's good for them or even what they want.

      Delete
  3. Thank you for reminding me Howard just how pointless discussing anything on the internet is any more because people apparently don't bother reading a damn thing anybody writes.

    Dave, in response to your post, may also be a good time to revisit Screwtape propose a toast.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I assume your non-sequiturs arise from exactly that cause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude it was mostly trying to follow whatever points you were going on about. You're the one who looked at a post about "people should strive to be more than just their sexual appetites" and started talking about college football.

      Delete
    2. Nate, Howard, I read through your entire conversation and I'm not entirely sure what you two are even arguing about. Is this a debate over whether gay sex is a sin or not? Is this a debate over whether or not people in Heaven play football? I'm confused

      Delete
  5. It is really quite simple. To bless(?) sin is blasphemy. Unconfessed serious sin consigns one to hell (with apologies to Blackadder) for eternity. Put matters in that light to the learned clerics and see how many of them persist in that belief and practice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sometimes it's almost as if we've long passed the time where many of the Church's leaders, and many in the Church, believe that.

      Delete

Let me know your thoughts