The traditional Christian view is that homosexual acts are grievously sinful. This was expressed recently by Vice President Pence and it precipitated an immediate response from the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg. Making an assessment of his own same-sex “marriage” to Chasten Glezman, he states: “Being married to Chasten has made me a better human being because it has made me more compassionate, more understanding, more self-aware and more decent. My marriage to Chasten has made me a better man. And yes, Mr. Vice President (Pence), it has moved me closer to God.”
What should be the response of a traditional Christian who is well aware that the revelation of God in Scripture and in creation, itself, stipulates that homosexuality is a grievous sin and that it can cost us a share in Christ’s kingdom? Some churchmen contend that the Church herself can overrule the testimony from the Bible; however, the Pope and Magisterium may interpret Scripture and Tradition but do not have the authority to revoke or reverse revealed doctrines.
Some authorities claim that the harsh stand against homosexuality in the Bible reflects not the mind of God but the bigotry of men. If this be entirely the case then the whole question of biblical inerrancy is called into question. What is or is not inspired by God then becomes dubious.
Some authorities assert that there are certain teachings and practices in the Bible and in the life of the Church where we see a development over time in our understanding, as with the institution of slavery. While this is true, critics would quickly add that such development must be organic or natural (as when various biblical themes interplay against each other) and cannot be forced. Those who would promote a radical anti-patriarchal feminism have sought to fabricate a new divine archetype. There is a return to the goddess or the Lord (in some cases) is viewed less as a man and more as an androgynous human. Could the God proposed by Buttigieg be of this sort— a deity fashioned precisely for homosexuals? The problem in both cases is the forfeiture of what is real and the substitution of human fancy. While there are subjective elements to our discipleship, Catholic Christianity demands attention for what is objectively real. This is a necessary symptom of our belief in the incarnation and resurrection. Either Jesus is God made man or we are still in our sins. Only God has the power to save us. Either Jesus rose from the dead or we are the greatest of fools who will be soon forgotten in our graves. None of this can be left to empty myth or to a sentimental feeling or to a drunken hallucination. Either the story of salvation is true or we are lost and the Gospel is a lie.
If he has not fashioned a new god, could it be that Buttigieg is ignorant of his deity’s demands? Could he be in psychological denial as to what the Judeo-Christian faith and its deity demand? Could he have bought into the notion that biblical moral teachings are somewhat capricious and that all that matters is that we try to be “kind” or “compassionate” or “nice”? Some politicians think that they can legislate morality at will to satisfy their current agenda. Unless one has the gift of reading souls, no one can truly know whether Buttigieg is closer to God or not. This is despite the fact that those of us who believe in an objective order would insist that homosexual acts constitute the matter of mortal sin. How can one be close to God if one has severed his personal and communal relationship with Christ through sin? Sin is a declaration of the person to God and to his fellow men— he is saying not merely that he hates God but that he is indifferent to him and toward anything he commands.
I cannot say I have heard much rhetoric of an alternative deity as I have from the camp of radical feminists. This group hates men and raises abortion to the level of an infernal sacrament. It is for this reason that many Christians view abortion as the return to the practice of human sacrifice. The innocents are being devoured by demons (masquerading as deities).
When we see rallies for militant homosexuals, they are also often associated with the new atheism and its tendency toward sacrilege and the vulgar or profane. Homosexuals have a widespread tendency toward promiscuity and multiple partners. The Christians among them seem to yearn for a particular friendship. Many have noted that while of the same gender, men and women alike in these same-sex bonds seem to mimic heterosexual polarities: one is more manly or dominant and the other is more feminine or passive. Most Christians who struggle with homosexuality tend to stay clear of much of the more blatant and overt shenanigans. They are not cross dressers and the notion of spitting the sacred host into the face of priests (as was done to the late John Cardinal O’Connor is repugnant to them). They tend to steer away from public expressions of intimacy. They deplore violence and emotionally are easily hurt. They love the Church but often feel that the Church does not want them. They struggle with the judgment that they are welcome but only as long as they remain chaste and celibate. While it might sound like a stereotype, they are attracted to ritual and sacred music. They delight in liturgies that are aesthetically beautiful and which raise hearts to heaven. As a group they are attracted to churches with set ceremonials and find comfort in familiarity.
Catholicism cannot affirm disordered homosexual acts as akin to the marital act between a man and woman. The Church does not have the authority to ratify as good or neutral what is deemed by both divine positive law and natural law as wrong and sinful. As with our COURAGE program, we can assist them to live out a chaste celibate love. We can partner with them in prayer and service. They should not define themselves principally by the same-sex attraction with which they struggle. They may not be called to marriage but they are called to holiness. They should not engage in homosexual acts but they are called to love and to have friendships. There is a place for them in the Church. It is best that homosexuals not enter the priesthood; however, priests can rightly model for them lives of celibate service. God will give his children the gifts and the strength they need to be good and holy.
What can we affirm? First, we should accept as genuine the religious sense that they have. They should seek to remain in a state of grace so as to make the most of faith study, prayer and the sacraments. Second, love needs to be expressed and our parishes have many initiatives where they can participate. They have generous and selfless hearts. Third, the church would be the first to promote friendship or brotherhood or sisterhood. Love does not have to be sexual. The sacrifice of Jesus shows us the true depths of a love and passion that eclipses all other loves, including the passionate intimacy of spouses. The covenant of lovers points toward that greater covenant that is merited by the blood of the Cross.
There is something of a mystery when we speak of the God who has revealed himself and the God we know. The saving acts of God take place in history but the presence of God is not locked in the past. As Catholics, we would make a case for the Christian deity or the Trinity. We would insist that God is real and one; that he is the author of all things; that he cares about us; that he has inserted himself into human history; that he has shown his face to us; that he has redeemed us from the folly of sin and death; and that he has established a community of faith to proclaim the truth and to perpetuate his saving work in Christ. We argue from faith, philosophy and even science that God objectively exists apart from whatever many might subjectively believe or not believe. While Christians would seek to live in peace with others, we would not personally tolerate or regard as also real the various opposing notions of deities or the negation of atheism. Tension often arises because belief is not easily captured between church walls but tends to saturate the society in which one lives, influencing human values and how people would express them.
Many early Christians became martyrs in the pagan Roman Empire because they refused to worship mythical deities or the emperors. These deities were interpreted by the ancient Church fathers as false gods or worse as demons in disguise. When we read the later pagan authors, they blamed the fall of the empire upon the rise of Christianity and how it had reinvented or replaced the deities they previously followed. Their arguments were somewhat pragmatic because even during its heyday, many Romans went through the prescribed motions but really placed no faith in the false deities and their “soap opera” lives. But the acceptance of Christianity had a profound impact upon the values of Rome. There was a definite moral shift. Today, many are again recreating our understanding of a deity while growing numbers are complaining that the whole notion of a God has served its purpose and should now be discarded. As before, many say they believe but in truth there is nothing about their behavior that would convict them as Christ’s disciples.
Within the context of Christianity, many would say that revisionists have no right to reinvent God and to modify or to reverse his moral teachings. Leaning toward the subjective, they would counter the argument by a preponderance of questions.
For further reading…
Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Bible, Bishops, Catholic, Commandments, Confession, Conscience, Discipleship, Faith, Family, God, Homosexuality, Pope, Pope Francis, Priests, Pro-Life, Uncategorized | 7 Comments »
Blogger Priest 