This subject always comes up as probably the most difficult of the Catholic Church's teachings to accept. I've mentioned this before, but since there's a lot of blogging of the anniversary of Pope Paul VI's HV, here is a quick reminder.
If you read and study either the Bible or the Qur'an, you will not find any orientation toward individual salvation. That's right... salvation is always described on a societal and community basis. SIN most certainly is discussed on an individual basis, as are the Gospels that relate the events and teachings in Jesus' life. Just to be clear, I am not saying that souls are not saved one at a time. But God's laws are not written with individual salvation in mind. God's laws are written so that the human species can survive and thrive as his children.
Therefore, God's "bar is raised higher" than the individual salvation, or sin, of any one person. God did not sit down and go, "Hmm, what is the list of things that all good individuals must do to be saved." God gave prohibitions and teachings to the "community of the faithful," starting with the chosen people, the Israelites. God's first words to Adam and Eve after they sinned regarded how humans as a whole would live, not just the sinners, or the obedient.
Birth control and homosexual behavior therefore fall under the category of God's admonitions for the survival and thriving as people as a whole. I described in a previous post that Biblical "gays" would never have dreamed of wanting a "gay lifestyle," for the most part, because individual sex acts and desires were by choice subordinated by the predominant desire of all men to have a wife and children. That's why there is condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible, but not a lot of stories or parables about individual sexual acts. God's not as concerned about individual sexual preferences but God is very concerned about how humanity and its society as a whole will, and there's no nice way to put it, will be allowed to continue.
So the Catholic Church continues to uphold the standard that God himself established for the community of the faithful (and humanity as a whole) to continue its well being. Those dogmas are the hardest to follow and God knows that, obviously. Therefore the Church cannot and should not "soften" or "modernize" its interpretation of the expectations by God of humans. However, when giving spiritual direction I advise that on an individual basis, these are the areas where one is most likely to be able to "take one's chances" with God.
God certainly understands family planning and spacing of births. Also, society has changed so that people are irresponsible toward supporting babies and single parents. So it is understandable, but not allowable dogma, that individuals make decisions about birth control and sex acts that are prohibited by God and his Church. If a person is leading a modest and virtuous life, but makes individual choices about birth control or individual sex acts, "I like your odds," if you know what I mean. Someone who "takes a chance" and is otherwise very pious and observant but practices artificial birth control in a family setting sure has "better odds" of being forgiven than someone who repeatedly aborts in order to be sexually promiscuous.
I have a headache from the terrible mood and violence of the times, and also the living conditions I've had to endure for years now, so I'm not going to go into detail on this subject. I mostly wanted to get it out there so you can start to think about how the Church is not supposed to "lower the bar" because it has a responsibility toward humanity as a whole to keep it right where God set it. However, there are certain sins that one can see that Jesus, for example, had a merciful view of, and thus one can understand being pious and yet "chancing it with God's mercy" in those areas. I think you get my point. Part of being judicious is keeping one's mouth shut and not high profiling those areas where you are "taking a chance with God's mercy." That way you do not tempt others to follow you in sin, when they may not be so well positioned in their internal virtue and morality. That's why I repeatedly admonish my gay friends to not "promote the lifestyle." Likewise I do not think that those on birth control should rub the priest's nose in it, or their parish, touting themselves as enlightened and modern. I think it should be confessed, obviously, but not advertised as an area where debate is valid, because it is not. God knows all and sets standards for humans for a reason. It is not a "report card" for one by one salvation, as many seem to think today. It is the conditions under which God will offer his protection for the continuation of humanity. Period.
Showing posts with label gay history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay history. Show all posts
Monday, July 28, 2008
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Gays today compared to Biblical times
I've had a series of blogs that attempt to help readers, especially young people, to be more intellectual in their discernment of fact from fiction, and in making mature decisions regarding their policy decisions. Here is one that helps gays, especially young ones, better understand that they are victims of a great misconception.
Let us compare gays today to gays during Biblical times, since much of the misunderstanding and hot debate is around "what Jesus would think" and "what the Bible says." But you cannot possibly interpret the Bible without understanding it's "lingo," in other words, the language it is written in during the cultural times within which it is set.
Gays today live in a society where people either earn their living via jobs and paychecks, or through social services, private wealth, or some other support network. In Biblical times the family unit was your ENTIRE source of "income." No one "had jobs" or "earned paychecks." The "treasure" was your family, both the size of it (more hands and feet to feed more people) and the agricultural or craftsman know how that was entirely taught from parent to child.
Gays were not "oppressed" and the last thing that they wanted was to be "free to be gay." Gays were family men. They would have dropped their "gayness" in a New York minute if it meant that they no longer had a family. A man and a woman's wealth was their children. Examples of where dowries and so forth meant additional children were a burden was a minority position in remote cultures during Biblical times. 99% of society could not wait to get married and have children. Children were loved and treasured, if not for the reasons that some do in more affluent times (when you can just dote on them and raise them privileged) nowadays, then certainly for the two reasons that 1) your family heritage, whether it was farming, shepherding, or even being a slave was passed on, with hope that the next generation could purchase one's way out of slavery, or till a larger field, or gather a larger herd and 2) more hands could do more work. Remember, there were no "mod cons" back then. Both men and women needed children to help with food gathering and preparation, kindling for fire, drawing water, making clothes, hunting, helping their parents in their craft trade, etc.
So what is condemned in the Bible is the vast minority of people who would want a lifestyle that was completely unproductive. This is why it's called "spilling the seed on the ground" and other what you might think are quaint phrases. But what they meant is that they understood that the vast majority of people who have a gay tendency were also able to have families and indeed, would starve and perish without them. So it was only the few who wanted to live a total hedonistic "gay" style that would have been forbidden and to whom these quaint phrases really address themselves. Trust me, if a guy was married, had kids, but then also had a gay tendency on the side, this was not so uncommon nor was this a threat to his own survival (as far as having a family to support and in turn be supported by, such as agriculture for example) nor to the community. What people did not want, and this is where both God and Jesus are quite clear, is that the "gay" sexual drives overcome the common sense reality that people needed families with children in order for themselves and the entire community to survive. Remember, the Bible is just as tough on prostitutes. Notice the Bible does not zing a woman who gets a little action on the side (not that this would be approved of, or happen a lot, but the stuff that makes it into the Bible and has God's attention are things that are anti-life and anti-human survivability).
I hope this helps you in your personal contemplation and research to better understand the context of the reality of how to scratch out not only a living but survival in those days. No sane man who was "gay" would have traded having a wife and children to run around and have his "gayness." Men with "gay" tendencies back in Biblical times would think, for the most part, that gay men today are insane and irresponsible, and have a death wish. (And that would be even more so true with women who had what we would call "lesbian" tendencies today. They would never have given up having a normal family and children in order to "actualize their lesbian sisterhood.") The poorest Biblical man had enormous pride in his family, both his wife and his sons and daughters, and that is true if the Biblical times man was totally straight or had what we would call today "gay" tendencies. Life was very short back then (someone who lived into their fifties was considered old). Rich or poor, one's legacy and reason for being (and means of survival) was having a spouse and having children.
This is why in the only passage that one can glean Jesus' attitude toward gays he calls them "eunuchs." Jesus is not being literal, as in these are castrated men, because he says "some are born that way." Jesus calls them eunuchs because anyone who could not or would not have children (unless they were of a hermit or otherwise austere religious life choice) really stood out as a rarity in that society. In other words, "gay" men did not by and large choose to be "eunuchs," which means someone who cannot father a child. Jesus uses the word "eunuch" because the disgust with a totally gay lifestyle would come from their shirking their own family survivability and that of their whole community (everyone depended on each other for water, farming, and pastoral livelihoods). So Jesus says that there are three types of eunuchs, where eunuch means "men who do not father": ones who are born that way (so gay that they cannot be aroused by a woman or totally biologically, like a testical birth defect, unable to father children), made so by society (castrated) or by choice (here he refers not to gays but to those men who refuse to be fathers because they have dedicated themselves to a life style that is solitary, usually for contemplative religious reasons). There were lots of single Jewish men without children, but they were not gay, they were usually men who were very zealous regarding religion. An example of this would be Saul who became St. Paul. The other obvious example and role model for many is St. John the Baptist. Biblical times had a rich community and tradition of male single men who were hermits, zealots, preachers or scholars. They therefore were "eunuchs" "by choice" because they would not father children. Jesus is saying this is OK, because a calling is worth pursuing, even if it means that not everyone is to "be fruitful and multiply." "Choice" in the Bible does not mean what choice does today. Choice today tends to mean "options." In Biblical times people had few options and did not want options. They wanted a spouse, children, and a way to expand and support their family and its holdings, or gain freedom if they were slaves.
See, you must understand that the Bible and God's entire interest is toward the survivability and wholesomeness of humanity. God is less concerned with individual intimate acts than he is about the destruction of the family and of love for children turning to indifference or even hatred. So during those times the vast majority of men who had some sort of gay tendency would never have thought of themselves as either "gay" or being "eunuchs from birth" because they would virtually all of them been happy to have a wife and children. Doing so was their survivability, their treasure, and their vocation. Gay urges would not at all represent either their overall personality or their "lifestyle choice."
Let us compare gays today to gays during Biblical times, since much of the misunderstanding and hot debate is around "what Jesus would think" and "what the Bible says." But you cannot possibly interpret the Bible without understanding it's "lingo," in other words, the language it is written in during the cultural times within which it is set.
Gays today live in a society where people either earn their living via jobs and paychecks, or through social services, private wealth, or some other support network. In Biblical times the family unit was your ENTIRE source of "income." No one "had jobs" or "earned paychecks." The "treasure" was your family, both the size of it (more hands and feet to feed more people) and the agricultural or craftsman know how that was entirely taught from parent to child.
Gays were not "oppressed" and the last thing that they wanted was to be "free to be gay." Gays were family men. They would have dropped their "gayness" in a New York minute if it meant that they no longer had a family. A man and a woman's wealth was their children. Examples of where dowries and so forth meant additional children were a burden was a minority position in remote cultures during Biblical times. 99% of society could not wait to get married and have children. Children were loved and treasured, if not for the reasons that some do in more affluent times (when you can just dote on them and raise them privileged) nowadays, then certainly for the two reasons that 1) your family heritage, whether it was farming, shepherding, or even being a slave was passed on, with hope that the next generation could purchase one's way out of slavery, or till a larger field, or gather a larger herd and 2) more hands could do more work. Remember, there were no "mod cons" back then. Both men and women needed children to help with food gathering and preparation, kindling for fire, drawing water, making clothes, hunting, helping their parents in their craft trade, etc.
So what is condemned in the Bible is the vast minority of people who would want a lifestyle that was completely unproductive. This is why it's called "spilling the seed on the ground" and other what you might think are quaint phrases. But what they meant is that they understood that the vast majority of people who have a gay tendency were also able to have families and indeed, would starve and perish without them. So it was only the few who wanted to live a total hedonistic "gay" style that would have been forbidden and to whom these quaint phrases really address themselves. Trust me, if a guy was married, had kids, but then also had a gay tendency on the side, this was not so uncommon nor was this a threat to his own survival (as far as having a family to support and in turn be supported by, such as agriculture for example) nor to the community. What people did not want, and this is where both God and Jesus are quite clear, is that the "gay" sexual drives overcome the common sense reality that people needed families with children in order for themselves and the entire community to survive. Remember, the Bible is just as tough on prostitutes. Notice the Bible does not zing a woman who gets a little action on the side (not that this would be approved of, or happen a lot, but the stuff that makes it into the Bible and has God's attention are things that are anti-life and anti-human survivability).
I hope this helps you in your personal contemplation and research to better understand the context of the reality of how to scratch out not only a living but survival in those days. No sane man who was "gay" would have traded having a wife and children to run around and have his "gayness." Men with "gay" tendencies back in Biblical times would think, for the most part, that gay men today are insane and irresponsible, and have a death wish. (And that would be even more so true with women who had what we would call "lesbian" tendencies today. They would never have given up having a normal family and children in order to "actualize their lesbian sisterhood.") The poorest Biblical man had enormous pride in his family, both his wife and his sons and daughters, and that is true if the Biblical times man was totally straight or had what we would call today "gay" tendencies. Life was very short back then (someone who lived into their fifties was considered old). Rich or poor, one's legacy and reason for being (and means of survival) was having a spouse and having children.
This is why in the only passage that one can glean Jesus' attitude toward gays he calls them "eunuchs." Jesus is not being literal, as in these are castrated men, because he says "some are born that way." Jesus calls them eunuchs because anyone who could not or would not have children (unless they were of a hermit or otherwise austere religious life choice) really stood out as a rarity in that society. In other words, "gay" men did not by and large choose to be "eunuchs," which means someone who cannot father a child. Jesus uses the word "eunuch" because the disgust with a totally gay lifestyle would come from their shirking their own family survivability and that of their whole community (everyone depended on each other for water, farming, and pastoral livelihoods). So Jesus says that there are three types of eunuchs, where eunuch means "men who do not father": ones who are born that way (so gay that they cannot be aroused by a woman or totally biologically, like a testical birth defect, unable to father children), made so by society (castrated) or by choice (here he refers not to gays but to those men who refuse to be fathers because they have dedicated themselves to a life style that is solitary, usually for contemplative religious reasons). There were lots of single Jewish men without children, but they were not gay, they were usually men who were very zealous regarding religion. An example of this would be Saul who became St. Paul. The other obvious example and role model for many is St. John the Baptist. Biblical times had a rich community and tradition of male single men who were hermits, zealots, preachers or scholars. They therefore were "eunuchs" "by choice" because they would not father children. Jesus is saying this is OK, because a calling is worth pursuing, even if it means that not everyone is to "be fruitful and multiply." "Choice" in the Bible does not mean what choice does today. Choice today tends to mean "options." In Biblical times people had few options and did not want options. They wanted a spouse, children, and a way to expand and support their family and its holdings, or gain freedom if they were slaves.
See, you must understand that the Bible and God's entire interest is toward the survivability and wholesomeness of humanity. God is less concerned with individual intimate acts than he is about the destruction of the family and of love for children turning to indifference or even hatred. So during those times the vast majority of men who had some sort of gay tendency would never have thought of themselves as either "gay" or being "eunuchs from birth" because they would virtually all of them been happy to have a wife and children. Doing so was their survivability, their treasure, and their vocation. Gay urges would not at all represent either their overall personality or their "lifestyle choice."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
