quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Helminiak's careful scholarship notwithstanding, I'm not convinced that the Bible takes a more liberal view of homosexuality than has traditionally been maintained. Biblical teachings on charity and justice offer more hope for acceptance of homosexuals than do attempts to show that the Bible doesn't really regard it as ethically objectionable.

I know this discussion addresses only the issue of homosexuality in the light of biblical exegesis. I won't address that argument.

I do want to point out that that is not Helminiak's only argument against church teaching regarding homosexuality. He summarizes others here.

I would agree that biblical teachings on justice and charity offer some hope for the acceptance of homosexuals in the form of pastoral sensitivty, even within an anthropological framework that employs classicism, natural law and legalism.

Interestingly, Helminiak cites the questionable distinction, as drawn in church teaching, between artificial contraception and the rhythm method, as evidence against any interpretation that the church's true position considers the procreative aspect indispensable to sexual acts. In my view, Helminiak is correct in that such a distinction is questionable; that distinction is incoherent, indeed. However, there is no question, in my mind, that the church still considers the procreative aspect essential to sexual acts, even as it has now better recognized the unitive aspect, too. The rhythm method, I would think, represents an accomodation derived from pastoral sensitivity (read compassion) and not from revised formulations of natural law. An analogous response might hold some promise for our homosexual sisters and brothers.

There is yet more hope for all of us (well, maybe our great grandchildren) insofar as Catholic social teaching has experienced three rather seismic shifts in methodology. In Catholic social teaching, Charles Curran describes three methodological shifts in emphasis from: 1) classicism to historical consciousness 2) natural law to personalism and 3) legalism to relationality-responsibility. I will consider Catholic sexual teaching much more credible and eminently more transparent to human reason when its methodologies are similarly revised. Such a revision would offer even more hope for acceptance of homosexuals .

Good post, JB. I respect Helminiak's work, as you know, but I think his homosexual bias influences his reflections, in places. E.g., from the link on his web site that you cited:

quote:

The Argument of �Complementarity� is NOT Coherent

Supposedly, complementarity of the sexes is a God-ordained requirement for sexual relationships. But �masculinity� and �femininity� are stereotypes. Personality traits in real people are mixed and cover the map.

It's just plain disingenuous to reduce masculinity and femininity to stereotypical attitudes without considering the reality of biological males and females. One would think the presence of two genders would have some relevance in a reflection on "complementarity."

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
One would think the presence of two genders would have some relevance in a reflection on "complementarity."

A lot turns, too, on how broadly or narrowly one conceives of such realities as complementarity, procreativity and generativity. Also, when defining norms, questions arise regarding: necessary? sufficient? absolute? conditional? continuum? degrees? adequate? less adequate? less than adequate? ideal? less than ideal? optimal? suboptimal? serious? grave? venial? more or less relevant? negative? positive? comparative? superlative? ontic or premoral or moral? pastorally acceptable?

As a moral object, homoerotic behavior seems to be a very sticky ethical widget. The discussion gets more (for some) or less (for others) problematical when it expands beyond such analyses of whether or not it is intrinsically disordered and/or what pastoral responses are called for, to issues like parenting and marriage.

The way I read Helminiak's argument, he objects to the narrowness of the church's conception of complementarity. He is saying it is, on its face, too strictly biologistic or physicalistic. If complementarity is so narrowly defined, then one's logical argument ends up being circular and question begging, hence, incoherent. In this sense, then, he is not so much saying that gender differences are irrelevant as he is saying that other more psychological characteristics are also relevant. He is implicitly suggesting, then, as I interpet him, that the church should just drop the term/criterion of complementarity and just say what it means, which is that homosexual behavior is wrong because it is not heterosexual. And this, of course, is not explanatory.

I take your point about masculinity and femininity and the reality of the two genders; masculinity and femininity must be more broadly conceived than as mere stereotypes.

My critique of Helminiak's book on homosexuality was based more on what I understand Scripture to be emphasizing as what we might call "God's plan for human sexuality." Jesus states it clearly in Mt. 19: 3-6:

quote:

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?"

He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, '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. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

That's pretty clear. God created male and female for each other; marriage is for man and woman to become one; the covenant is sacred and God intended it to be permanent. The Bible is not ambiguous about this, especially the meaning of "male" and "female." We all know what that means. And there's no confusion in Scripture concerning the divine intent for human sexuality, and how it is to be expressed. Helminiak's book suggests that the teaching is not so clear, and homosexuality per se wasn't really condemned. I don't buy it.

Ethical teaching based on natural law is another matter, but Helminiak didn't write a book on homosexuality and natural law. That's my beef.

from Phil's post above:

------------------------------------------

The Argument of �Complementarity� is NOT Coherent

Supposedly, complementarity of the sexes is a God-ordained requirement for sexual relationships. But �masculinity� and �femininity� are stereotypes. Personality traits in real people are mixed and cover the map.
----------------------------------------------------

It's just plain disingenuous to reduce masculinity and femininity to stereotypical attitudes without considering the reality of biological males and females. One would think the presence of two genders would have some relevance in a reflection on "complementarity."

--------------------------------------

Phil -- In my experience, when you see this kind of cognitive slippage in an otherwise very intelligent and articulate person, it's usually the result of some unconsious defense....a web of intellectual rationalizations, perhaps, to shout down the obvious against which they are fighting.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Ethical teaching based on natural law is another matter, but Helminiak didn't write a book on homosexuality and natural law. That's my beef. [/qb]

That's why I wrote:

quote:

I know this discussion addresses only the issue of homosexuality in the light of biblical exegesis. I won't address that argument.

Catholics look for guidance in their value-realization strategies (those values being truth, beauty, goodness and unity; those human spheres of concern corresponding to Lonergan's intellectual, affective, moral and social conversions) in the light of scripture, tradition, magisterium-sensus fidelium, reason (e.g. philosophy) and experience (e.g. biological & behavioral sciences, individual testimonies).

When it comes to moral concerns, I receive from scripture the imperative of a Spirit-inspired Christ-centering in all that we are and all that we do, along with the most grand moral precepts and the most general of norms. Otherwise, especially when it comes to morality, for specific and concrete guidance, reason and experience, in my view, have more relevance, a LOT more. As for the most important moral precepts and the most general norms, those have sources other than scripture, anyway. Thus the battle of proof-texts hasn't been very high on my ethical radar screen.

Johnboy wrote: When it comes to moral concerns, I receive from scripture the imperative of a Spirit-inspired Christ-centering in all that we are and all that we do, along with the most grand moral precepts and the most general of norms.

I think that's very well-stated, JB. Same here. And I agree that reason and experience carry much weight when considering specific moral actions. Thus we've sometimes seen prohibitions operative in biblical times completely reversed as times changed (e.g., the Hebrew prohibition of usury). Helminiak and many others are stating that something along the same lines ought to happen re. homosexuality. The discussion is indeed taking place, even here on this forum.

From Shasha: Phil -- In my experience, when you see this kind of cognitive slippage in an otherwise very intelligent and articulate person, it's usually the result of some unconsious defense....a web of intellectual rationalizations, perhaps, to shout down the obvious against which they are fighting.

That could well be the case, Shasha. It almost seems from going over his web site today that the homosexuality issue has become the most important area of concern for him. I seem to recall reading somewhere that he left the priesthood over this issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] The discussion is indeed taking place, even here on this forum. [/qb]

Thanks for the heads up on your Amazon review, Phil.

Phil -- even more disturbing to me is his website section on how homosexuality is NOT a sickness. He completely ignores the empirical research, clinical reports, and personal testimonies showing that some homosexuals can and do change their orientation to heterosexuality. Hasn't this guy ever heard of NARTH?

I can see standing up for civil rights, speaking up against hate-crimes, loving the different, but *distorting reality* to make a point?

Oh well...perhaps another guy battling with the outside world a personal unrest which is going on in the inside?

Shasha, you might check out this discussion from sometime back. It seems you're aware of some of the same resources w.c. had mentioned.

I just finished reading a book where the same topic of homosexuality was interwoven within it, but not the main topic. The book is titled "Putting on the Mind of Christ", by Jim Marion. Instead of using biblical exegesis to find acceptance of homosexuality within Christianity, the author chooses to use his own spiritual journey and experiences to demonstrate that homosexuality is acceptable to Jesus. What I found really ironic is that the author does a wonderful job of giving his interpreation of the meaning of "the Kingdom of God" (which I found to be extremely insightful), which has room for the expression of his homosexuality within it, but he chooses to ignore Paul's exhoration that the homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. [I am not homophobic, and it must be an excruciating existence to live with those types of feelings and desire to have an authentic walk with Jesus Christ.]

Blessings,

Caneman

Good to see you here again, Caneman.

I'm familiar with Marion's work and had an extensive dialogue with him on this board about another of his works. You can find it here.
- http://shalomplace.com/res/psr-marion.pdf

Lots of problems emerge when we make experience the criterion of truth.

I've just learnt that there's a woman who was made a bishop of the lutheran Church in Sweden, and that she's out as a lesbian, living together with another Lutheran pastor.
I'm wondering what it means for the ecumenical dialogue of Christian churches. For Catholic Church homosexual behavior is generally not accepted, and for, at least some, Lutherans it can be accepted. They believe they can be holy while engaging in homosexual relationships, love, sex, living together etc.
Is it possible that Christian churches are so far from each other in the moral area, that they differ so much in discernment of morality of such relationships? Does it say anything about the possible gravity of the matter?
(Of course, we can say that they are just wrong, they can say that we are wrong - but still - we share faith in one Lord and we believe we can participate in His holiness).

I know that the subject is not new, but - any thoughts?

Yes, lots and lots and lots of thoughts have been shared on this topic, here:

- https://shalomplace.org/eve/for...?r=80910475#80910475

- and

https://shalomplace.org/eve/for...10135/m/11410295/p/1

It's a complicated topic, for sure. The ELCA branch of the Lutheran church here in the U.S. has recently addressed the issue, and, from what I can understand of it, has left it up to local congregations to decide if they will accept clergy who are in active, homosexual relationships.