Peace Be With You...

I submit the following humbly as a response to the following:

The fourth issue of The Australian Ejournal of Theology (February, 2005) contains its usual wide variety and wonderful array of reflections on theological issues ranging from systematic, biblical, sacramental-liturgical, moral-ethical and practical-pastoral areas of theology to interdisciplinary, interfaith, intercultural and gender issues. I wish to draw your attention to Brian Johnstone CSsR The Truth about Homosexuality: A Reply to Gareth Moore OP Academia Alfonsiana, Rome, Italy.The article can be accessed at http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_4/johnstone.htm

Here is my response:

I was first struck by how dismissive Brian Johnstone was regarding what he has called the alternative interpretations of the Scripture, declaring simply that there are just diversive opinions, in a sense, and thusly nothing can be concluded from the passages. This dimisses the careful exgesis I've read regarding these passages when, as suggested by St. Augustine in On Christian Doctrine, going to the original language, homosexuality does not appear to be dealt with directly or mentioned directly.

The following are an excellent discussion of the same:
Leviticus Ch 18 verse 22
St Paul's Lists of Sins
Romans Ch 1 verse 26-27
Homosexuality and Scripture

By declaring differing opinions on interpretation, Johnstone conveniently, in my humble opinion, finds a way to say that Scripture alone does not condone homosexuality. He does not explicitly state that it does not condemn homosexuality. It seems to me that the choice of phrasing is phased so not to separate from what is the teaching of the roman catholic church.

I think it would go a long way for the roman catholic church to remove prejudice against gays to accept the possibility/probability of these interpretations. Afterall, it is not sinful to be gay.

The remainder of Johnstone's response, though seemingly written as a new way to approach this question, is as old as the church itself. I feel that Augustine would be quite familiar with these arguments. It is highly reliant, though selectively so,on Tradition. The selectivity is upon the sexual act or genetalia. What is it with the roman catholic church's obsession woith genitalia?

"The late Cardinal Hulme rightly complained of society's obsession with sex, and confusion of sex with love:

It strikes me that in our society's .... seemingly endless obsession with sex .... what we are witnessing is the peddling of unreal fantasies about what it is to be human, false promises of what makes for human happiness .... I am struck by the fact that it coincides with a loneliness which many people seem to experience. There are no doubt many influences at work, but might not one reason for this be that far from reflecting experience of genuine love and human intimacy, it seems to offer a fantasy in compensation for the lack of such experiences? .... How can we rescue the word "love" from being .... synonymous with the word sex"? [A speech given to "Marriage Care" in 1996]" Quoted in "Pharsea"

Actually, I welcome this discussion of "symbolism". But, unlike Johnstone and those within and without the roman catholic church that persists on focusing on genetalia, the focus should broaden, and, as we shall see, this does include official teachings of the catholic chuch. I cannot say it better than "Pharsea" so I quote him here:

"What purpose is served by rationalizing the love of one's life partner in such a manner? I think that very few people look for a life partner with engendering children as the prime consideration. Obviously gay-folk do not. I find it difficult to believe that many heterosexuals do either. I would expect that for most people it is more about loneliness, commitment, fun, happiness, security and so on. The Roman Catechism teaches:
"First of all, nature itself by an instinct implanted in both sexes impels them to such companionship, and this is further encouraged by the hope of mutual assistance in bearing more easily the discomforts of life and the infirmities of old age." [Catechism of the Council of Trent: "On Marriage"]
Human love is often portrayed by the Church as a reflection of the inner life of God [FC#11]. On the one hand, its most disinterested or self-sacrificial form "charity" is often portrayed as its perfect embodiment. On the other, its most exclusive and possessive form "Married Love" is sometimes held up as an alternate epitome, just as St Paul describes marriage as an icon of the love of Jesus for His People [FC#13]. When it is said that the Spirit renders Man and Woman capable of loving each other as Christ loves His People [FC#19], it is not clear whether the thought is that erotic love is essentially excellent and apt for this purpose, or that it is essentially base and so has to be elevated by grace! The following quotation from St Alfonsus sadly suggests that the latter is intended:
Marital intercourse also has the purpose of increasing love between the spouses and subduing concupiscence. Due to its violence, carnal pleasure tends to dominate and subjugate the mind. However, this effect is normally absent in matrimony, as St. Alphonsus Liguori explains: “Fornication is always evil, even when, at times and per accidens, a fornicator may raise his children well. The reason is because .... it is against natural law to subject reason to the flesh, as happens in fornication, for the sake of pleasure. But in matrimony, even if the same pleasure is present, God disposes, in His special providence, that such disorder will not occur” [D. Neyraguet, Compendio de la Teologia Moral de S. Alfonso de Ligorio (Madrid: Viuda de Palacios e Hijos Editores, 1852), p. 236].Nevertheless, while physiologically sex is clearly for (final cause) reproduction; psychologically intercourse is for (final cause) love...This secondary psycho-spiritual purpose of (all) human loving (to manifest ever more exactly God's inner Life in the world) is theologically more significant than, and prior to its primary biological purpose. As Pius XI puts it:
This mutual moulding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof. [Pius XI: "Casti Connubii" #24]Hope for the Future.So what hope is there for the future? In the short term, I fear none. The Church is so confused that it will take a good deal of agonized reflection to sort the mess out; and the Church is in no fit state to do this. It seems to me that at present wholly artificial battle lines are being drawn up between "liberal" and "conservative" forces in the Church. The field to be fought on is liberty and individualism vs authority and conformity. Given that Jesus said "My burden is light", "The truth will set you free", and "If you love me, you will obey my commandments; this is my commandment: that you love one another", any such confrontation is absurd. Nevertheless, because the area of sexual ethics is the only one in which the hierarchy has taken a stand against popular sentiment, to give ground here would be to yield up the last bastion to the enemy! So even though the Pope is fighting the wrong battle, he cannot afford (to be seen) to lose it!
In the medium term, the Magisterium's falsely woven tapestry may just fall apart. This will happen if the Vatican's attempt to rationalize its opposition to contraception and hatred of homosexuality forces it to promulgate a doctrine of marriage so mechanistic, functionalist, inhumane and ignoble that even its most staunch supporters realize something is amiss. This would transform an issue that is remote from the consciences and interests of most Catholics into one that is of paramount importance to the large majority. I have documented indications that such a process, leading to the degradation of the doctrine of marriage, is underway elsewhere.
In the long term, I am very hopeful. The Church has been indifferent, if not accepting, of gay people and their feelings for a longer period of time than it has been hostile to them. Jesus taught that love transcended biology and family and was the end of life, not the means to reproduce it. Similar teaching of this character, once revealed in its true light as no more than worldly prejudice that had infected the Church rather than Gospel doctrine, has been quietly forgotten. Official teaching on usury, slavery, antisemitism and terra-centricity are the obvious examples. I believe that the present fashion to conduct ethical analysis in terms of concrete acts that are intrinsically good or evil rather than in terms of the application of objective general principles (e.g. of Compassion, Equity and Justice) in particular contexts is essentially incoherent, will eventually be revealed to be nonsense and so will fail. While the forceful reiteration of the official teaching on homosexuality is bad news for those trying to change it, the 1986 Letter as also the 2003 document on "Gay Marriage" does acknowledge the pre-eminence of the methodologies employed by those striving for change. In the end, this agreement on methodology is crucial and will have more effect than the content of particular documents. "

May the Peace of God bring us to Tolerance of All!