For the Roman Church, the revealed Word of God, sacred tradition and natural law all combine to teach that genital sexual acts between two persons of the same sex are always wrong and are always a sin against God under any conditions. Strong inclinations and desires to perform such acts represent a grave disorder in the affections of a person, for a mature person’s affections in sexual attraction are naturally ordered towards the opposite sex. In the case of the priest his affections are ordered by grace towards the congregation of Christ’s flock, which is the Bride of Christ, and he is a spiritual father to the flock. This means that a man who is active as an homosexual or even a man who is not mature in his affections (though he is celibate) should not to be ordained to the priesthood.
For the Episcopal Church, the Bible and modern experience [ = active human experience of homosexual acts in the context of the judgments of scientists, doctors, state legislators etc.] combine to teach that genital, sexual acts between two persons of the same sex are normally wrong and always sinful; however, when the two persons are bound in same-sex affection and in a covenanted partnership based on faithfulness to one another, then they can be holy and blessed of God. Strong inclinations and desires to have sexual encounters with persons of the same sex are to be seen, in most cases, as simply the result of how a person is “wired” (either towards the opposite sex or the same sex or both sexes). Such feelings are not to be seen as disordered but as according to orientation. This means that a man who is in a faithful, covenanted same-sex union, and is in other ways suitably gifted, is eligible for ordination as a priest and consecration as a bishop. Also eligible is the person who has the orientation but who chooses to remain celibate. In this context, maturity in affections is considered to be dependent upon orientation, not objective natural law.
Now obviously the position of the Episcopal Church is more in line with what is accepted and in place in western society, law and culture. In fact is it a kind of moral refinement of it. For it accepts the human rights of the person who claims that he or she has a permanent sexual orientation towards his or her own sex (gender). In fact it sees these rights as “God-given” and therefore feels led by the divine Spirit to install and uphold these rights while also proclaiming simultaneously the virtues of chastity and faithfulness. In doing all this, the Episcopal Church accepts that sodomy [=fornication] and child-molestation are wrong and sinful, and it insists that only permanent, faithful and covenanted same-sex relations come within the orbit of God’s blessing within the Church of God.
The position of the Roman Catholic Church is and will be very hard to implement in the West because of the secular, liberal society and because there are now and there will be senior priests who will find it difficult to implement the rules and who will claim that God enlightens us through modern knowledge (e.g. from psychiatry & social sciences) and that from here we learn that the mental health of some persons requires that they be in same-sex relations for that is how they are made and “wired.”
What I think is useful to observe is this: That there is a sense in which it is easier for the Roman Catholic Church to stand firm (at least in the hierarchy and this is where in its polity it matters) on homosexuality because it has taken consistently tough positions all the time with regard to sexuality. For example,
- Ordination. It has said the most wonderful things about women as God’s creation and as made in his image and after his likeness, and it allows women great authority in convents and places of education, but it has resolutely and clearly stated that it is not the will of Christ the Lord for a woman to be a presbyter or an episcopos. A woman, not even the Blessed Virgin Mary, can be an icon of Christ for he was/is male in his human nature and he is the Bridegroom of the Church, his Bride. In contrast, pressed along by the human rights movement and the women’s liberation movement, the Episcopal Church began to ordain women as presbyters and bishops in the 1970s. [And having done this it is very difficult to say “No” to other demands from the human rights movement- e.g. rights for “gays”.]
- Marriage. The teaching concerning Marriage in the Catechism of the R.C Church is that a man and a woman, in the presence of the priest and with God’s blessing, make a covenant to live together as one flesh until death breaks the union. As one flesh they are to be companions one with another and to procreate and thus share with God in his creative work. No second marriage is possible in church for either unless the spouse has died. Thus marriage is presented as a sacrament and without the blessing of the Church it is not Christian marriage. [This is why annulments are given to those who were in civil marriages and have been divorced if they desire to be faithful Catholics and to enter into Christian marriage and if there are no impediments for this. Regrettably, in America, this use of annulments has been over-done and is an embarrassment for many devout Catholics.] In contrast, the Episcopal Church officially accepts the right of a person, clergy or lay, after divorce to be remarried in church, and makes little or no use of annulments, for it has in essence accepted the basic doctrine of the divorce culture that each person has a right to a second or third marriage if this is reasonably possible. And further, unlike the R C Church, it recognizes marriages performed by the state or by other churches as real and true marriages. In this context to deny rights to homosexual couples is difficult!
- Birth control. The R.C. Church has clear teaching that the use of artificial birth control is wrong for it stands in the way of God’s work of cooperating with his creatures in the holy work of creation. Further, the Church insists that the use of abortion as a means of birth control is also wrong and sinful. [The fact that some Catholics disobey the Church teaching does not change the fact of the teaching.] In contrast, the Episcopal Church appears to accept the right of couples to use all forms of birth control and also to use abortion as a means thereunto as well. This is in part because procreation is not seen as a primary but a general, and not required, purpose of marriage.
One may suggest that because the Episcopal Church -- and most Protestant Churches – have taken positions based on human rights and psychotherapeutical fulfillment in the developing of their doctrine in the twentieth century, that they will never be able to stand firm on anything of a moral nature that is being challenged in the modern, secularist world.
This is why, I fear, that in reforming groups within the main-line/old-line Churches there is a tacit acceptance of the reality of birth control, abortion, serial monogamy and women’s ordination, and a general refusal to put them on the agenda for serious reform. It is easier for the time being to draw the line at the “gay” agenda and to insist on evangelism and church growth under the Lordship of Christ and on the authority of Scripture. In fact, it would appear there is avoidance of some basic issues not because of wicked intent but because they seem to be without easy or immediate solution, and it seems better to avoid them and press on with what can be done and for which people will give contributions! Regrettably but realistically, this situation is a natural breeding ground for the making of converts to Roman Catholicism and/or to Orthodoxy, or for causing conservatives to enter the progressive, liberal camp, or, even, for people to leave institutional religion altogether in despair!
petertoon@msn.com December 1, 2005
No comments:
Post a Comment