Gay AND Catholic?

[The Cellar Bar]

can anyone remind me of how to post up images here - it's driving me mental!!

[The Cellar Bar]

[The Cellar Bar]

The way I see it, we are all 'broken' to one extent or another. Jesus came to heal our brokenness. I've searched myself and concluded that a homosexual expression of my sexuality would make me very unhappy and reverse the progress I have made. I do not see how it would not inflict physical, emotional and spiritual damage.

You are not broken, macgamer!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the name of everything you might understand in such terms - in the name of everything merciful, junk that thought out of your head once and for all. You are not broken, you are not faulty, you are not defective. If nothing else - in terms once again that you will understand - you are made in God's image. And just how can it be, therefore, in your terms that you and by implication, your God, is faulty?

I hate harping back to this but I urge you to read the texts on this - for yourself. Not through the interpretation of another human being with an agenda. But straightforwardly in a literal and historic context.

First off- the (in)famous I Corinthians verses that you have probably read more than I have. Read "that" verse" again. And then cast your eyes one single solitary verse up and read what is also said of "drunkards crooks and liars". And then tell me why it is that Paul chooses to list those first if they don't constitute a worse "unrighteousness" than what follows? Yet for some reason, the Church that followed some time later persists in its obsessive attention to sex and sexuality.

And then read the verse in an historical and literary context. Paul does not declare "homosexuality" to be "unrighteouss" or "unGodly". Like I've said already, the key word is "fornication" Like I said, from "fornix" which is Latin for an arch. Because that's where the hookers and others hung out. And fornication back then consisted of consorting and hiring the services of a professional who worked "under the arches". Nothing more whatsoever. And what he was criticising - declaring "unrighteous" - was the act of either a man or a woman in a marriage reaching out beyond the marriage for those services. Note the fact of even that - either a man OR a woman. Not just a man. And he lists the categories of "adulterating" a marriage as facts of life back then. There is not one single word or suggestion in any of it that the services or "sexualities" of those involved are "unrighteous". They are accepted basically as facts of life, things that do occur and are widely known. But there is no moral imprecation whatsoever attached to them. But ONLY in looking for them outside of a relationship you have attached yourself to.

That's probably the element that enrages me more than anything else. Show me one single reference by Christ to the fact that "homosexuality" is "unrighteous" or anything resembling an abomination. Because I haven't ever been able to find one. I tried to point you to Lot's dilemma. Again, even back then, an accepted fact of life that drew no imprecation on it. Don't go by some definition and "understanding" of later human beings with an axe to grind. Read instead the Sermon on the Mount. Because you will get a far clearer understanding of what your Christ believed in and cherished than you will from any later distortions.

The fact is that up until about 1250, homosexuality was never ever seen as an issue even in the Church. I can think of one Cistercian worthy who even promoted it. But for some reason, from about 1250 onwards, an onslaught seemed to emerge against the practice just as it did against women and a variety of other members of society. Christ man, the word "homosexuality" didn't even exist until some German twonk came up with it in the 19th century!!

You therefore have a choice. To be honest, standing on the outside, I wouldn't even call it a choice. You can either read understand and embrace what the founder of your Church - Jesus Christ - taught. Or the distortions put upon it by others later who, basically, had the temerity to adjust what He said for their own purposes. It never fails to astonish me just why Catholicism is obsessd with all things "sexual". I'm not being facetious or looking to demean your faith, but in some ways I'm not surprised given the fact the He himself is essentially the illegitimate son of an unmarried teenager. That is simply a matter of fact. I don't intend to suggest that I'm denigrating your faith because of it. In fact, what I've just said above should give you some indication what I think of such an attitude.

You are not "broken" my friend. You are who you are. Your dilemma, what you have gone through until you "recognised" who you are and the hurt and heartache it has brought to you has nothing whatsoever to do with what your founder taught. And the destruction and brutality that those "revised" views have brought down on others before you is surely a greater betrayal of those ideals than anything you misguidedly feel you have visited on you and your Church.Trust that teaching, those ideals and views. I'm straight. Always have been and comfortable and confident enough to believe that I won't have to face what you have had to endure. But believe me my friend - with apologies for anything that might sound flippant - you sure as hell are not broken!!!!

[macgamer]

You are not broken, macgamer!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the name of everything you might understand in such terms - in the name of everything merciful, junk that thought out of your head once and for all. You are not broken, you are not faulty, you are not defective. If nothing else - in terms once again that you will understand - you are made in God's image. And just how can it be, therefore, in your terms that you and by implication, your God, is faulty?

You are assuming that I was 'made this way' by God. I was not. I've stressed before that there is nothing essential or definitive about my attraction. It is just personality trait which is a product of my psychological development whose propensity is affected by some unknown degree of genetic contribution.

God does not see us through these human labels of 'gay' or 'straight', just creatures whom he loves having been created in his image a likeness. However, creation has been 'disfigured' in many different ways by the Fall, which is why Jesus came.

You spoke about the Beatitudes, Jesus, following that had some harsh terms of those just following the letter of the Law. He clarified the true meaning of 'thou shalt not commit adultery',

'You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I tell you that he who casts his eyes on a woman so as to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye is the occasion of your falling into sin, pluck it out and cast it away from you; better to lose one part of your body than to have the whole cast into hell. And if your right hand is an occasion of falling, cut it off and cast it away from you; better to lose one of your limbs than to have your whole body cast into hell.'

It is about the spirit of the Law. Jesus is speaking clearly about the viritue of chastity which is more than just external actions but internal thoughts and dispositions.

In Mark's Gospel, too, purity of heart and mind is clearly what Jesus is calling for,

'Listen to me, all of you, and grasp this; Nothing that finds its way into a man from outside can make him unclean; what makes a man unclean is what comes out of a man. Listen, you that have ears to hear with.'

I'll give you another Bible quotation,

'And I tell you that he who puts away his wife, not for any unfaithfulness of hers, and so marries another, commits adultery; and he too commits adultery, who marries her after she has been put away.' At this, his disciples said to him, 'If the case stands so between man and wife, it is better not to marry at all.'

'That conclusion,' he said, 'cannot be taken in by everybody, but only by those who have the gift. There are some eunuchs, who were so born from the mother's womb, some were made so by men, and some have made themselves so for love of the kingdom of heaven; take this in, you whose hearts are large enough for it.'

It is clear to me that genital expression of sexuality is for reproduction. Other uses go against this beautiful and self-evident function which spring from its form. I do not think Jesus just means 'eunuchs' in the literal term, but also those metaphorical eunuchs, celibates who renounce marriage for the Kingdom. Perhaps those other 'eunuchs' are those who cannot be married, like me perhaps.

Look, I have searched myself. I have identified my weaknesses and recognised aspects, such as addictive behaviours, which only a strong dependence on God's grace and mercy can resolve. I must commit myself to Him in order for Him to help me. I must express this commitment by being chaste and faithful to Him. Chastity is more than just not having sex. Indeed, even married couples are called to exercise a chastity of mind and heart. Chastity is a great gift.

I fall frequently in mind and solitary deeds with my struggle to be chaste. I realise that it is no use beating oneself up about it or becoming disheartened. When I fail, I am reminded of my dependence on God's grace. As the Psalmist says (Psalm 50[51]), 'Here, O God, is my sacrifice, a broken spirit; a heart that is humbled and contrite you, O God, will never disdain.'

But believe me my friend - with apologies for anything that might sound flippant - you sure as hell are not broken!!!!

I recognise your concern and true regard for me. I thank you for that and it is touching. However, please believe me, my friend, when I tell you that I do not hate myself or think myself as some sort of freak. No, I see the good in my God-given sexuality despite the purturbations. I try to see the good in apparently 'bad' or aspects of suffering. If my SSA is my cross, then I should take it up joyfully and allow Jesus to save me with it.

A Catholic blogger with SSA put it well when he said, 'God does not love me inspite of my SAA, but because of it.'

Perhaps some good will come of my SSA. Perhaps it will give me the opportunity to bring the love of Christ to more people than if I had married or chosen to have entered into same-sex relationships.

[The Cellar Bar]

Thanks for the reply, macgamer. I appreciate the fact that you at least read it and saw fit to reply.

One does bother/concern me is the appearance of words such as "weakness" and "struggle" and "suffering" and "unclean" and "crosses to bear" through your reply and it still concerns me that you seem to be willing to accept who you are in terms such as those. What I'd tried to do throughout was to convince you otherwise. And to at least try and point you towards what I understand the texts to mean.

I agree - and possibly understand - the references to the different forms of "eunuch" and the way in which they can be interpreted. But I would say and ask again.....where within those texts is there any presumption or requirement which involves any of those states of mind? I see nothing in them which suggests that once someone accepts the notion of "service to the Kingdom" that this is some form of punishment or lesser alternative. All that text says is that for various reasons, some men are not inclined to marriage. Marriage itself. Not entered into for the sole and specific purpose of ONLY reproducing but simply the actual fact of a relationship between a man and a woman. Beyond that, I read or see nothing that suggests that that failure to want to requires some form of suffering or anguish on the part of those men who don't feel inclined, for whatever reason, to do so.

But your general view of yourself, is that since you have recognised in yourself a "disinclination" to follow the path of a relationship with a woman, that you are therefore required to serve some form of penance. Which, with what you see as help and support from Jesus, you will survive and somehow "make good" what you see as a failure on your part to live up to some sort of expectation to "go forth and multiply". To somehow make up for what you actually describe as a "disfigurement". I see nothing in that actual text that implies or requires any such thing. To me the text is nothing more than an observation of fact - that some men feel inclined to marry, others don't for whatever reason and still others who choose not to in order to further spread the word of their faith. But even there - in those who choose service to the Kingdom - where is there any suggestion whatsoever as to their sexuality and that they do this to "make up" for not being heterosexual? Why do you believe or seek to imply that those who essentially "enter Orders" do so because they are homosexual? Where in any of that is there some sort of "grading", any moralising evaluation of the three "categories", any suggestion that the last of those options is in itself some form of penance for failing to fall into the first category? Because I can't see it or "hear" it. He even concludes the observation with the words "take this in, you whose hearts are large enough for it.'" - i.e. get your heads round the fact that not everyone is inclined to get married and learn to live with it and accept it in others if you've got the heart (and the brains) for it.

That's possibly the part I find most frustrating when I hear of another human being having to face something that isn't actually implied in the bedrock of his faith. The point is that you have chosen to impose that view on your own circumstances, assisted by the way in which that observation has been interpreted and passed on to you, not by your Jesus, but by your present day teachers and the general environment in which you have attended to the teachings.

I'm not only straight - I'm also an agnostic And from that observation point, the one thing that I feel sure that your Jesus would not have recognised was the bias and emphasis that has been grafted onto your faith in favour of pain and suffering and grief and anguish and despair. Of abstention and doing without. You talk of it yourself as if it were some virtue to deprive yourself of various things. But I find nothing in the New Testament that makes that an imperative. I find nothing in it where your Jesus demands that on account of the fact that "I am about to sacrifice my life for your sake you are to spend the rest of your life mourning that and recreating in practically everything you do, an equivalent form of suffering just so you don't forget what I went through for you" I read plenty about care and love for others, of the beauty of life, of how life can be bountiful and rich in what it brings to people. Of the imperative to live among and care for and be aware of your responsibility to others and not just yourself. All that is there in His teaching. But not a great deal in the way of self-inflicted pain, flagellation and the willingness to repress your innermost feelings and values because some other human being has deemed them to be wrong. The man essentially celebrated and participaed in life for getting on for 32 years and suffered for three hours at the end of it. Which part do you think He might want people to put the accent on? When Jesus talks of "what makes a man unclean is what comes out of a man"' there's no suggestion whatsoever that the "uncleanliness" is a man revealing his homosexual nature. It's an injunction to be aware that we are all capable of acts which are "inhuman" and cruel and hurtful either by word or by deed and it is our duty to be aware of that and mitigate how we deal with others.

All I can say is please do not ever judge yourself as being someone as "faulty" as require some extra penance on your part to make good what has been twisted or broken since you were conceived. If you don't feel the inclination to marry and bring on the next generation then fine. Like the Man said " "take this in, you whose hearts are large enough for it.' the goy isn't inclined to have kids, get over it already!! Do what you choose to do because it is in you - not because you feel duty-bound to make up for some failure you perceive on your part. Because - I repeat - there is none!!!!

[macgamer]

Thanks for the reply, macgamer. I appreciate the fact that you at least read it and saw fit to reply.

You made an effort to engage with me and so I thought I owed it a reply. My discussing this issue here helps me as it has helped me to discuss it with non-Catholic friends. It is a testing of my beliefs and convictions which are, I agree, ask a lot from me. However, I am happy to do it for I have one who will share my burden,

[quote=Matthew 11"]
'Come to me, all you that labour and are burdened; I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon yourselves, and learn from me; I am gentle and humble of heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.'[/quote]
When I try to carry the burden alone I fall, if I allow Jesus and friends to help me I able to continue.

One does bother/concern me is the appearance of words such as "weakness" and "struggle" and "suffering" and "unclean" and "crosses to bear" through your reply and it still concerns me that you seem to be willing to accept who you are in terms such as those. What I'd tried to do throughout was to convince you otherwise. And to at least try and point you towards what I understand the texts to mean.

Jesus speaks of His followers needing to access their own cross,

From that time onwards Jesus began to make it known to his disciples that he must go up to Jerusalem, and there, with much ill usage from the chief priests and elders and scribes, must be put to death, and rise again on the third day. Whereupon Peter, drawing him to his side, began remonstrating with him; 'Never, Lord, he said; no such thing shall befall you.' At which he turned round and said to Peter, 'Back, Satan; you are a stone in my path; for these thoughts of yours are man's, not God's.' Jesus also said to his disciples, 'If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me. The man who tries to save his life shall lose it; it is the man who loses his life for my sake that will secure it. How is a man the better for it, if he gains the whole world at the cost of losing his own soul? For a man's soul, what price can be high enough? The Son of Man will come hereafter in his Father's glory with his angels about him, and he will recompense everyone, then, according to his works. Believe me, there are those standing here who will not taste of death before they have seen the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.'

All that text says is that for various reasons, some men are not inclined to marriage. Marriage itself. Not entered into for the sole and specific purpose of ONLY reproducing but simply the actual fact of a relationship between a man and a woman.

I would reply with the beautiful description in Genesis of the union between a man and woman,

Adam said, 'Here, at last, is bone that comes from mine, flesh that comes from mine; it shall be called Woman, this thing that was taken out of Man.' That is why a man is destined to leave father and mother, and cling to his wife instead, so that the two become one flesh. Both went naked, Adam and his wife, and thought it no shame.

This complementarity and unity is not achieved by same-sex attempts at genital union.

Beyond that, I read or see nothing that suggests that that failure to want to requires some form of suffering or anguish on the part of those men who don't feel inclined, for whatever reason, to do so.

St Paul expresses the need to subjugate the flesh to the will, but this requires training. This training could be understood as penance or one's cross.

All that I do, I do for the sake of the gospel promises, to win myself a share in them. You know well enough that when men run in a race, the race is for all, but the prize for one; run, then, for victory. Every athlete must keep all his appetites under control; and he does it to win a crown that fades, whereas ours is imperishable. So I do not run my course like a man in doubt of his goal; I do not fight my battle like a man who wastes his blows on the air. I buffet my own body, and make it my slave; or I, who have preached to others, may myself be rejected as worthless.

But your general view of yourself, is that since you have recognised in yourself a "disinclination" to follow the path of a relationship with a woman, that you are therefore required to serve some form of penance. Which, with what you see as help and support from Jesus, you will survive and somehow "make good" what you see as a failure on your part to live up to some sort of expectation to "go forth and multiply". To somehow make up for what you actually describe as a "disfigurement". I see nothing in that actual text that implies or requires any such thing.

That's not quite right. Everyone, as St Paul reminds us, should be in 'spiritual training'. The spirit may be willing but the flesh is most certainly weak. Therefore, we must subjugate the flesh to the will of the spirit. I see my rejection of the opportunities for genital pleasure as a free offering to God out of love, not to make up for something that I cannot change.

Why do you believe or seek to imply that those who essentially "enter Orders" do so because they are homosexual? Where in any of that is there some sort of "grading", any moralising evaluation of the three "categories", any suggestion that the last of those options is in itself some form of penance for failing to fall into the first category?

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that those who join the priesthood or religious order are necessarily homosexual -- not at all. However, it may be an option for some with SSA. I'm certainly thinking about the latter. However, it must be for the right reasons not just to escape SSA. You were right to query that and I must continue to analyse my motives. I know I want to serve the Lord and His people, it discerning how best I may do that and how God would prefer me to do that.

That's possibly the part I find most frustrating when I hear of another human being having to face something that isn't actually implied in the bedrock of his faith. The point is that you have chosen to impose that view on your own circumstances, assisted by the way in which that observation has been interpreted and passed on to you, not by your Jesus, but by your present day teachers and the general environment in which you have attended to the teachings.

Of course this isn't the bedrock of my faith. Jesus and His salvific sacrifice is. However, Jesus came to complete the Law, not undo it. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to inspire and guide the apostles who I understand to be the early Church. He also said to Peter that whatever he made loose or bound on earth would apply in heaven. That is a huge amount of trust in a man who denied Him three times. Thankfully, Jesus send He would send the Holy Spirit.

I'm not only straight - I'm also an agnostic And from that observation point, the one thing that I feel sure that your Jesus would not have recognised was the bias and emphasis that has been grafted onto your faith in favour of pain and suffering and grief and anguish and despair. Of abstention and doing without. You talk of it yourself as if it were some virtue to deprive yourself of various things. But I find nothing in the New Testament that makes that an imperative.

Really? What about the 40 days of fasting Jesus Himself undertook in the desert as preparation for His ministry? Or when his disciples asking Him why they could not cast out a particular devil replied, 'There is no way of casting out such spirits as this except by prayer and fasting.' (Mk 9). I find it strange that you do not acknowledge that the human experience will always be tainted by pain and suffering at some point. If you want to take a cynical view of religion, addressing the human condition with its pain, suffering and death is what religion is for.

I find nothing in it where your Jesus demands that on account of the fact that "I am about to sacrifice my life for your sake you are to spend the rest of your life mourning that and recreating in practically everything you do, an equivalent form of suffering just so you don't forget what I went through for you" I read plenty about care and love for others, of the beauty of life, of how life can be bountiful and rich in what it brings to people. Of the imperative to live among and care for and be aware of your responsibility to others and not just yourself. All that is there in His teaching. But not a great deal in the way of self-inflicted pain, flagellation and the willingness to repress your innermost feelings and values because some other human being has deemed them to be wrong.

How can we not be grateful for Christ's loving sacrifice and then acutely aware of our own contribution to Christ's burden of taking the sin of mankind past, present and future onto His shoulders when we meditate on the Passion or examine our own conscience?

I'm against self-inflicted pain arising from a neurotic self-loathing as much as you. Penance and abstinence has been a part of Christian spirituality and presumably a continuation from Jewish customs. When these practices such as fasting, asbtinence or vigils are carried out with the intention of bringing oneself closer to Christ and loosening one's attachment to the flesh and earthly matter, then there are salutory. However, if the penances are not free but, as I said, arising from a conflicted psyche then they are of no help whatsoever.

All I can say is please do not ever judge yourself as being someone as "faulty" as require some extra penance on your part to make good what has been twisted or broken since you were conceived. If you don't feel the inclination to marry and bring on the next generation then fine. Like the Man said " "take this in, you whose hearts are large enough for it.' the goy isn't inclined to have kids, get over it already!! Do what you choose to do because it is in you - not because you feel duty-bound to make up for some failure you perceive on your part. Because - I repeat - there is none!!!!

Thank-you, I sense genuine concern there. I do try to avoid terms like 'faulty', 'disorder' or 'broken' because they are inappropriate to how I see myself now. Yes, that was part of my previous mentality and it was very wrong. When I said 'brokenness', it was the merely a way of expressing that human nature is not always inclined to good, but is frequently inclined to sin and rebellion against God. That is why we are in need of redemption and to be sustained by continual graces from God.

I just want people to realise that I do not hate myself and that choosing to be chaste is from a realisation of the beauty of human sexuality. Is there any instinsically good thing that cannot be misused or misdirected? Gay people who who choose a same-sex genital expression of their sexuality are, as I see it, seeking a good thing, viz., love and complementary union, in the wrong way and which cannot be truly complementary.

I understand their need for love and Jesus does too. My heart is filled with compassion and love as I am sure the Sacred Heart of Jesus is too. More is expected of me because I have been blessed with the conscience I have. I hope you can come to understand that mine is a sincere conscientious objection. It is love that people want and need most of all, sex is just one way of expressing it.

[RedCelt69]

The Cellar Bar, no wall of text that you offer will make any difference to macgamer's position. He worships the church, not Jesus, and his church is built upon St Paul and Aquinas. The Vatican and macgamer find it difficult to change their position; dead men can't change their minds.

[The Cellar Bar]

hey macgamer - ands thanks for the reply.

First off - I would agree with your description of the "joining together of Adam and Eve". Agree in no small measure because it pretty much reflects what I said myself. But I would repeat the question - where in either of our descriptions does it specify, make an imperative, of procreation being the one and only reason for that union in the first place. Because in neither of our descriptions is there any such implication. That union only refers to the joy and strength that comes about between a man and a woman. It doesn't imply or demand offspring as a result. So in that respect, your adjunct to it, that same sex genital unions can't - don't - result in the same sense of community and care doesn't apply. That is the result of the "education" you have received and acepted from other human beings at a later date to the original texts being written. It certainly does not appear in the text themselves.

Equally, and on perhaps a different note, what I find more interesting about that quote is the fact that it reflects what already existed at the time of writing in very many other sects and groups at the time. What I find more interesting and revealing is that the source of the Adam and Eve story is an understanding then of essentially who we are. Other sects at the time wrote that on examination what was revealed was that there is an Adam and an Eve in ALL of us. That there is an Adam who represents the male side of EACH of our natures - thoughtful, rational, clinical, dispassionate in analysing situations. And that there is an Eve - peceived as caring, selfless, emotional, compassionate. And that in their attempt to explain perceived differences between Human kind and the rest of the animal kingdom, that it was only when we emerged with both an Adam and an Eve in ALL of us that we became human beings. That to me if nothing else is an incredibly perceptive and insightful understanding of what makes us the way we are. It's at least 5,000 years old yet it recognises the nature of ALL of us. That the Church should then take it and translate it into what became an essentially mysoginistic view where Eve become some sort of adjunct to man is part of my problem with how texts can be distorted for later agendas.

But I'd also still raise questions as to why you accept that there is an imperative to concentrate and almost delight in the concept of pain and misery and suffering as some way to remain fixed in one's faith. You talk of "fasting" in terms of suffering and discomfort. Yet none of that is implied in the way that Jesus talks of it. As it is, there are two elements in the nature of "fasting" Both major religions from there - both Judaism and Islam - have periods set aside for "fasting". No matter how much it is now wrapped up in some sort of religious service, it was in fact an entirely intelligent process that reflects an understanding of the importance of "a healthy mind in a healthy body". It was recognised waaay back then, that it did us no harm whatsoever to periodically stand back from our normal diet and essentially give our bodies a chance to detox. That was all it was ever intended to do!! It was never intended to play some sort of religious salute to (y)our Creator and remind oneself of the value of pain and suffering. It has more to do with the admonitions in Numbers in terms of diet, personal hygiene and a whole raft of instructions on how to prepare food properly, when it was safe to eat particular kinds of meat. There is nothing contained in any of that thati mplied that "fasting" - what you seem to imply is painful starvation was a bonus in terms of religious practice.

Equally, it was also well known then that the human body reacted to excessive fasting in a way that WAS regarded as a religious bonus. We know now that when put under such conditions of stress that the body produces a natural form of LSD. That we are in fact capable of essentially "tripping" if we push ourselves hard enough that way. Plenty of other sects used the same ploy to enable themsleves to come closer to the innate "Truth" of the Universe etc etc etc. And that is precisely what Jesus chose to do as well. He used precisely the same device to withdraw from outside interference and allow his mind to achieve another "plane" But again - AGAIN - there is no suggestion that He went out with the intention of suffering, being in pain, being distressed or anything of the kind. He spoke with the Devil - others probably have managed to speak with Jim Morrison, Buddah, seen snakes where none of us lesser mortals see them and anything else that our mind chooses to see while under such an influence. But it was certainly not associated with anything in the way of pain or suffering and general discomfort!It was designed to achieve what He would have looked on as a positive result.

And I would say the same for your interpretation of "taking up the Cross". I used the phrase "having a Cross to bear" And that it different. His view, his invitation, is for other to "take up their Cross" Just as others have questioned whether it would be better "to take up arms"!! To actively and deliberately choose to "take up a cause" and work towards a goal regardless of the threats or hurdles that are set in your way. That is completely different from the perception of having "a cross to bear" which conjures up all the images of a beaten and bloodied Christ being aasaulted with a weight that virtually crushes him to the ground and have to drag this weight on a journey towards death. I can't think of a more daunting fate ...but the point is that "Onward Christian Soldiers" is no dirge!! It is an uplifting powerful positive message set traditionally to an equally powerful uplifting tune that is designed to raise spirits, cause heads to come up and shoulders to be flexed in anticipation of an oncoming confrontation. Rather than the message of constantly being preached at to the wonders and importance of the Stations of the Cross and how dreadfully (Y)Our Lord suffered and how we at least ought to attempt the same in our lesser mortal efforts to be worthy. Like I said, which would you rather exalt and hold up as some form of hope - the positive message of 32 years of someone's life and teaching...or three hours at the end of it which were characterised by brutality and suffering and pain? Which is why it concerns me that you consider that "If my SSA is my cross, then I should take it up joyfully and allow Jesus to save me with it" Why save? And save you from what precisely because I have yet to read anything in any Scriptural text that suggests that you have been dumped with anything to "bear" from which you need saving? That is still you persisting in believing that somehow you are betraying or falling short in your adherence to His faith and teaching.

Essentially, I don't believe you have anything you need to seek penance for. Or for you to somehow feel you need to dedicate yourself EVEN MORE to in order to redress some sort of perceived "failing" that comes from within you and not from how (your) God made you. I have this suspicion for a start that had this author of a "New Covenant" with God's people had some severe, incurable reservations about men who did not feel inclined to marry, then we would have known all about it. Instead of some having to fish around and have some obsessive rant and rail against homosexuals and sex in general. Yet there is nothing. Like I said, read Corinthians again. And then tell me why, that despite being named first and being some form of unrighteous element in our society, that thieves liars and drunkards haven't received the same vicious fatal opprobium from which homosexuals have suffered? They are self-evidently at least as "unrighteous" as homosexuals since they figure FIRST, yet seem to have been passed over when it comes to discrimination and hatred in our society? Wonder why?

ONE element of your life is causing you concern. Essentially your view that you are not in a position to father children. Basically - big deal. Other elements of your life suggest a concern for others, an "extended" intelligence, massive amounts of insight into the human lot. You probably are also capable of forming trusting positive relationships with men and women in public and make a contribution to their lives. Given all of that, I'd suggest that you use those God-given talents and "serve" your God by influencing this world by "taking up your Cross" through those talents.

Dammit man, you say it yourself - "It is love that people want and need most of all, sex is just one way of expressing it." Now fuckin' get out there and do something about it!!

[macgamer]

First off - I would agree with your description of the "joining together of Adam and Eve". Agree in no small measure because it pretty much reflects what I said myself. But I would repeat the question - where in either of our descriptions does it specify, make an imperative, of procreation being the one and only reason for that union in the first place.

Alas, we are not without original sin. The inclination to evil or to seek good things in wrong or selfish ways is something we have to face until our time on this earth ends. The account in Genesis of our 'first parents' is an interesting one. Their expression of sexuality is presumably without such conflicts. You can see the difference in their attitude to their sexuality after their Fall. They experience shame and after the expulsion from the Garden it gets much worse with their offspring, Cain and Abel.

It should be noted that chastity is needed in marriage too, insomuch as it is always seeking the good of the other and never at their expense. For married Catholics who do not use contraception, sexual abstinence is required. This demands self-control and deep emotional communication between the couple.

Other sects at the time wrote that on examination what was revealed was that there is an Adam and an Eve in ALL of us. That there is an Adam who represents the male side of EACH of our natures - thoughtful, rational, clinical, dispassionate in analysing situations. And that there is an Eve - peceived as caring, selfless, emotional, compassionate. And that in their attempt to explain perceived differences between Human kind and the rest of the animal kingdom, that it was only when we emerged with both an Adam and an Eve in ALL of us that we became human beings. That to me if nothing else is an incredibly perceptive and insightful understanding of what makes us the way we are. It's at least 5,000 years old yet it recognises the nature of ALL of us. That the Church should then take it and translate it into what became an essentially mysoginistic view where Eve become some sort of adjunct to man is part of my problem with how texts can be distorted for later agendas.

I have never been taught that it was Eve's fault. If anything, Adam comes across as the weakest. Eve passes him the apple and he eats it unquestioningly. I've read plenty of times in Catholic philosophy, albeit contemporary, of our nature being composed of 'anima' and 'animus', female and male qualities which are necessary for us to relate to both sexes properly.

Because in neither of our descriptions is there any such implication. That union only refers to the joy and strength that comes about between a man and a woman. It doesn't imply or demand offspring as a result. So in that respect, your adjunct to it, that same sex genital unions can't - don't - result in the same sense of community and care doesn't apply. That is the result of the "education" you have received and acepted from other human beings at a later date to the original texts being written. It certainly does not appear in the text themselves.

Earlier, God speaks to His other creatures and mandates them to, 'increase and multiply.' Moreover, it is obvious and self-evident that sex and attraction has evolved for procreation. To deny that is to deny a biological fact. Same-sex gential union is certainly not complementary when one considers the how the genitals of each sex have evolved to meet those of their corresponding opposites. These, for me, are undeniable facts and inform me that the attraction I experience is maladaptive from a biological sense.

Mercifully, philosophies such as eugenics are no longer in vogue. Most people respect and see in each other an intrinsic human dignity. I see it myself and others.

But I'd also still raise questions as to why you accept that there is an imperative to concentrate and almost delight in the concept of pain and misery and suffering as some way to remain fixed in one's faith. You talk of "fasting" in terms of suffering and discomfort. Yet none of that is implied in the way that Jesus talks of it. As it is, there are two elements in the nature of "fasting" Both major religions from there - both Judaism and Islam - have periods set aside for "fasting". No matter how much it is now wrapped up in some sort of religious service, it was in fact an entirely intelligent process that reflects an understanding of the importance of "a healthy mind in a healthy body". It was recognised waaay back then, that it did us no harm whatsoever to periodically stand back from our normal diet and essentially give our bodies a chance to detox. That was all it was ever intended to do!! It was never intended to play some sort of religious salute to (y)our Creator and remind oneself of the value of pain and suffering. It has more to do with the admonitions in Numbers in terms of diet, personal hygiene and a whole raft of instructions on how to prepare food properly, when it was safe to eat particular kinds of meat. There is nothing contained in any of that thati mplied that "fasting" - what you seem to imply is painful starvation was a bonus in terms of religious practice.

You may be interested to know that the Church traditionally calls Lent a 'joyful season'. Church thinking on Jesus' 40-day fast is not that He didn't eat anything for 40 days, but rather reduced his food intake substantially. The purpose of fasting for Catholics is not to inflict pain intentionally, although fasting can be uncomfortable when one feels the pangs of hunger. It is to strengthen self-control and to disconnect ourselves from the flesh and the world to focus on God. The 'suffering' of it is a side-effect which can allow us to share in the suffering of Christ for us, but also as solidarity with those who do not have enough to eat most of the time.

[Edit for orthodoxy: Fasting etc. is a penance. This is connected with the Catholic theology of Purgatory, temporal punishment (time spent in Purgatory) due to sins forgiven and indulgences. Penances are carried out to bring about 'indulgence' which is reparation for the sins that have been forgiven us in confession]

It was designed to achieve what He would have looked on as a positive result.

Undoubtedly, fasting is for a positive outcome.

Which is why it concerns me that you consider that "If my SSA is my cross, then I should take it up joyfully and allow Jesus to save me with it" Why save? And save you from what precisely because I have yet to read anything in any Scriptural text that suggests that you have been dumped with anything to "bear" from which you need saving? That is still you persisting in believing that somehow you are betraying or falling short in your adherence to His faith and teaching.

No, you are misinterpreting what I wrote. When I wrote 'save', I meant 'save' as in Christ's salvation of me and all people. Evangelicals are wont to speak of Christ as being their personal saviour. They are correct to think of Him that way. Therefore, when I connected 'save' and SSA, I was suggesting that instead of thinking SSA as something which will damn me, I should see my SSA has the mode by which Christ will save me.

As I quoted that Catholic blogger with SSA, 'Jesus does not love me inspite of my SSA, but because of it.'

And then tell me why, that despite being named first and being some form of unrighteous element in our society, that thieves liars and drunkards haven't received the same vicious fatal opprobium from which homosexuals have suffered? They are self-evidently at least as "unrighteous" as homosexuals since they figure FIRST, yet seem to have been passed over when it comes to discrimination and hatred in our society? Wonder why?

Yes, there is a grave injustice there. However, I would say that marriage until recently was considered a necessary part of society by which to bring forth the next generation, or for cynical families to secure political or temporal gain. I refer you again to the self-evident realisation that despite all sincere love same-sex couples may have for each other, they can never have the procreative and complementary aspects instrinsic to heterosexual relationships.

ONE element of your life is causing you concern. Essentially your view that you are not in a position to father children. Basically - big deal. Other elements of your life suggest a concern for others, an "extended" intelligence, massive amounts of insight into the human lot. You probably are also capable of forming trusting positive relationships with men and women in public and make a contribution to their lives. Given all of that, I'd suggest that you use those God-given talents and "serve" your God by influencing this world by "taking up your Cross" through those talents.

Thank-you, I agree with you. I most certainly intend to try my best. Recently, I have experienced a miraculous transformation in my life. Thank-you for observing what I now realise is true of myself, namely that I am able to form trusting relationships with men and women.

In male friends who have helped me, I have seen their paternal instincts triggered when they have supported me or given me advice. You do not need to have biological children to be a 'spiritual father' to other people. I lacked a good emotional connection to my father, so I've sought male bonding and affirmation of my masculinity from male friends I trust. The exchange has been mutually beneficial.

Dammit man, you say it yourself - "It is love that people want and need most of all, sex is just one way of expressing it." Now fuckin' get out there and do something about it!!

Yes well, the sex can be put to one side and I very much intend to reach out to people and friends with greater emotional generosity.

Thanks for this exchange, hopefully you understand me better as I understand that sometimes opposition is borne out of concern.

[macgamer]

Of course, that's what's believed. By 2007 it became far too much to bear, the massive, elaborate house of cards collapsed. I quickly lost faith. Fortunately, I didn't lose my identity.

I'm sorry to hear that. Faith is not just subscribing to a list of beliefs and theology. It is a gift from God which is accepted freely has the power to bring about inner transformations and drives people to seek a personal relationship with God. Last year, despite the hellish nature of it, bore great spiritual fruit and demonstrated to me what a personal relationship with God can be like. Lively faith need to be sustained by participation in the sacraments, openness with God and mental prayer (akin to meditation) in which one can bring our problems to God and be attentive to His voice.

I'm curious, what were your stumbling blocks? Don't feel obliged to discuss it.

You can still recognise the origins, the effect, the importance and personal significance of Catholicism, the cultural momentum of it in your life without wholly subscribing and forcing yourself to do the (frankly unnecessary [or should I say 'Frankly unnecessary'? ] ) mental acrobatics just to justify the facts of your existence (SSA) with vast, Byzantine edifice that's a massive hangover from two-thousand years of other peoples' existence (Church)?

That may have be a justifying comment to make to me about six months ago or more and you may have convinced me then. Now, I have reconciled by SSA with my faith. I see no conflict. Sex is for marriage and children, I'm not called to that vocation. This does not mean I must deny myself love and affection.

There's a compatibility issue in there and, truth be told, I think Apostasy's the word you're in need of.

Join me, reclaim it. It needn't be complete renunciation of everything, it could be a temporary Heresy until someone on the other side meets you halfway and says "Well, it turns out that accepting SSA isn't the abomination we thought it was". When that happens, you can happily go back to not having to pick & mix your beliefs from the Creed and everything else that followed it.

As Jesus replied to Peter's remonstrations,

Back, Satan; you are a stone in my path; for these thoughts of yours are man's, not God's.

Again I see that there is concern in your words. However, as I've written before, I am one who needs philosophical consistency. If I start picking and choosing between the bits I find easy or hard the consistency is lost. I'd find it more consistent to be an atheist if I started rejecting a few bits of Catholicism here and there.

Corrections have been made in the past. It's not to say that you're in charge of them, but that association with the Church is key. You can renounce parts of it (openly and in dialogue with the church, if you can) and de facto be renouncing the whole of it, but if you're able to recognise what's alright and what's not...I can't see the harm.)

Remind me of some major theological 'corrections'.

[The Cellar Bar]

Alas, we are not without original sin. The inclination to evil or to seek good things in wrong or selfish ways is something we have to face until our time on this earth ends. The account in Genesis of our 'first parents' is an interesting one. Their expression of sexuality is presumably without such conflicts. You can see the difference in their attitude to their sexuality after their Fall. They experience shame and after the expulsion from the Garden it gets much worse with their offspring, Cain and Abel.

I'd agree macgamer. The only problem is that none of that is specified in the story of Adam and Eve's "Fall from Grace". It is a presumption based on a later "translation" and interpretation of what was a story already extant in the Middle East long before Genesis. Look again at the story and you'll see that the "creature" that tempted Eve was the serpent. Otherwise variously described elsewhere as the "dragon" or the "snake". And the "original sin" came about when "Eve" - the thinking, enquiring part of who we are "ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge". As in, we became sentient human beings capable of analysing and thinking for ourselves. The "serpent" motif refers to an ancient tradition that devolved all knowledge and understanding to the constellation Draco. Draco's path through the skies is circumpolar - ie it seems to revolve around the Pole Star and effects a seemingly "snake-like" path as a result. Being "tempted" therefore by "the serpent" is a figurative way of describing how Mankind began the process of investigation and science in the world around us.

That image, that reference has persisted throughout the ages. The stories of George and the Dragon reflects that success of "Christianity" in being victorious over what were regarded as pagan cults. The story of St. Patrick driving the snkaes from Ireland is yet another reference to the "serpent" of Draco and similar success in establishing "Christianity" over other cults. What's unfortunate for your version of "Chrisianity" is that it is also reflected in the "miracle" of Jesus casting his staff on the ground and it turning into a serpent. It wasn't a miracle - it was a representation of the fact that at some point Jesus was "promoted" - elevated - by the Essenes group to which he belonged to the status of healer. Just a pity in that respect that even the Bible uses the motif of the serpent as a form of "advance" in his career to a position of respect because of the skills of healing and medicine and knowledge that it referred to. It is also the very reason why every single medical association throughout the world - including the BMA - uses the motif of a serpent coiled around a staff as their logo! It goes waay back to the story of Draco and the healing powers it is believed to enshrine.

Equally, on an historical note and far more intereesting to the likes of me is that the story of Cain and Abel seems to refer back to some sort of upheaval in the way mankind was developing. Look carefully at that story and you will see that Cain was a farmer and Abel was a shepherd. Two quite distinct forms of life style. And regardless of the way in which the story is couched what I find more interesting is the fact that at some point there was a "war" of some kind in which the farmers seemed to prevail over the nomadic, sheep and goat following population in terms of land use. Cain (the farmers) "killed" Abel (the nomadic tribesmen) Similar to the deadly bush wars that dominated American history during the 19th century between the so-called "sod-busters" and the cattle ranchers. That confrontation seems to have been extensive enough that it even makes the pages of the Bible!! That for me is far more important - and far more useful - than the fact that it occured at all is due to some "Fall of Grace" through the process of us actually becoming who we are. If "original sin" is anything it is in fact the process of us becoming "Homo Sapiens" - inquisitive, perceptive, capable of reasoned thought, aware that we can actually procreate ourselves and don't depend on a God to provide us with "more of the same" when required. It's an impossible directive - how can a God possibly enjoin people to go forth and multiply.....and then fling us out of some Paradise when we work out for ourselves how to do it!! Original Sin would seem to consist of being able to be "Creators" ourselves.

[Frank]

Faith is not just subscribing to a list of beliefs and theology. It is a gift from God which is accepted freely has the power to bring about inner transformations and drives people to seek a personal relationship with God. Last year, despite the hellish nature of it, bore great spiritual fruit and demonstrated to me what a personal relationship with God can be like. Lively faith need to be sustained by participation in the sacraments, openness with God and mental prayer (akin to meditation) in which one can bring our problems to God and be attentive to His voice.

I'm curious, what were your stumbling blocks? Don't feel obliged to discuss it.

Mental prayer is a key one. To retell the 'chain of events', by 2006 I was seriously rekindling my faith after a quieter (arguably more personal, but more distant from the Church) period early in St Andrews. (Attending the Sunday services in Sallies, taking bread and wine with friends [notably many an atheist or worse] quietly and in my own way felt far truer to 'doing this in memory of Him'; though that's very much a 'pick & mix' branch which didn't feel at all, as you say, consistent.)

By late 2006 & early 2007, faith became something of a secondary matter. Academically I was in big trouble, socially I was borderline...an arsehole. My faith was the last 'core' to come under scrutiny, by summer 2007. I'd not been to Church in a while, I was quietly distanced from pretty much everything and, broadly speaking, I was quite at ease with things - there'd been repairs made. Turning my mind to the roots of the problems, eventually scrutiny did fall on faith and what I actually believed.

As early as 2003/2004 it'd become blatantly apparent, in my esteem, that God 'had a lot of explaining to do'. I had faith there's a good case for the defence, but the simple truths were starting to manifest in a few ways - Catholics and Catholic doctrines seemed no better than any other thing. To put it simply, my cultural upbringing was Catholic, the traditions I was immersed in were Catholic, but superstitiously? When it comes to the ultimate nature of anything? The moral authorities?

I simply had no 'practical' faith in Catholicism. (There was a very real moment where I paused half-way through work, carrying boxes and was almost ran over by a forklift truck whilst preoccupied with the single, revelatory thought "I don't believe in God.")

Also the distinction between mental prayer (akin to meditation, as you say) and talking to one's self seemed immensely minuscule when thought of from a hypothetical place outside my own head.

In that regard, my faith really is/was a list of things to which I subscribe. The declaration of faith in reciting the Nicaean Creed is pretty blatant, really. (And it underlines my general contentment with the idea that, in Catholicism, the supremely important 'artefact of belief' isn't the Bible, or even the Church as an institution [though it's pretty potent], but the community of Christ as laid down by, err, Christ. E.g. looking back, the important bits are commemorating the last supper, enacting the sacraments, doing those with faith in God.)

Of course, when embracing that faith, there's no danger whatsoever that I could've viewed it like that in anything except an academic sense. (And, notably, I never did actually memorise the Creed... ) Well, that's not quite accurate. With faith, it seemed so obvious, so fundamental. So...natural. As I became more aware of the...intellectual scaffolding that was constructed to support that faith, I more and more became aware that the scaffolding was more than the faith 'hidden' beneath it, to paint a crappy analogy.

(To round out the story: after almost being ran over and developing the anecdote where "that job was so bad, I lost religion!" [they were contemporaneous, but I don't think there was substantial causal connection], I soon after went off on a big ol' holiday with some money an old neighbour'd set aside when I were a wean for my 21st. The series of escapades involved a trip to Manchester [into an 18 bed dorm to wait for the plane...managed to unwittingly pick Gay Pride weekend...], Magaluf with old school friends [horrific, as you can imagine, but pleasant time with friends], Barcelona, Nice, Rome, the Vatican, Albania for a week, Skopje, Belgrade, Budapest, Warsaw [and a visit to Auschwitz], Frankfurt, Prasis, Bruges then Rosyth.

The point of this aside is the visit to the Vatican. It came just over a month after making the 'discovery' of the absence/fleeing of my faith. 'Neath the [gargantuan] statue of St Andrew in St Peter's and in the surroundings, I made my last three 'proper' prayers; saying my 'goodbyes' as it were. Since then, at best, it's been the odd bit of talking to myself.

In effect it became something of a pilgrimage. Also whilst waiting in the big square under some arches, I noticed a tour guide get shat on by a pigeon. Being a good [if faithless] sort, I offered a wetwipe or two as they were in the top of my bag. Whilst chatting for a bit, she said "It must be karma!". I thought to myself: "In here? I suspect it'd be something else..."

So, yes, tears otherwise strode for the massive loss, but the realisation is pretty powerful. A sort of...inversely numinous experience or three. It'd be easy to describe it as 'closing my eyes' or 'blocking God out', but it very much felt a lot more like opening my eyes and seeing the thing I thought was there...wasn't. Like stabilisers on a bike or...this. Gently but profoundly absurd, to an extent.)

That may have be a justifying comment to make to me about six months ago or more and you may have convinced me then. Now, I have reconciled by SSA with my faith. I see no conflict. Sex is for marriage and children, I'm not called to that vocation. This does not mean I must deny myself love and affection.

Quite so. Though by my above analogy, I'd be half-tempted to suggest something like "Well that just means your scaffolding is now well built and well patched". I heartily sympathise with the suspicion of 'easy answers', the simply integrity of not wanting to settle for an answer or shy away from something because it's too big or too complex to be correct. (E.g. an awfully hamfisted application of [a badly misunderstood] Occam's Razor. "It's too difficult therefore it's wrong! I demand easy answers.")

Sex isn't for marriage and children though, of course. I've used it (along with a few prophylactics) for neither. (Then again, I wash my hands to prevent me contaminating things and I cook food & drink filtered, treated water. None of this I see as particularly unnatural. [I do invoke demons for my cheese-on-toast though; that is unnatural, I'll grant.])

As I'm sure you've encountered and considered before: my argument & viewpoint would nowadays be along the lines of the Church's moral authority not being 100%...provided you step away from it. Of course, you wouldn't really even be tempted to step away from it, as the belief you hold as a Catholic (or at least the beliefs I held) indicate a certainty, a towering conviction that the Church's moral authority is pretty close to absolute...and in the 'odd' bits (e.g. the oft-touted paedophiles) are 'accommodated' by other reasoning (they are sinners, they are headed hellwards, it's a complete non-sequitar and misunderstanding of what Catholicism actually preaches in terms of communal, institutional responsibility & authority, etc).

To put it more simply, the scaffolding can be replaced with (what in my mind feels & seems to be) a far more solid and consistent scaffolding, a more essential and 'sensible' framework which doesn't require wacky beliefs or tie you down to unnecessary edifices. (Sufficient & necessary?)

I'd say that my morality, my integrity and my conviction is much stronger now than it was before. There's still a profound faith in certain things (compassion, humour), a fair distaste/disapproval for rampant indulgence and compromising integrity, a severe dislike of inconsistency and so forth. (It's perhaps no surprise that I paint my 'ideal' as stoicism, even though I'm as good a [textbook] stoic as I ever was good as a [textbook] Catholic.)

Back, Satan; you are a stone in my path; for these thoughts of yours are man's, not God's.

Again I see that there is concern in your words. However, as I've written before, I am one who needs philosophical consistency. If I start picking and choosing between the bits I find easy or hard the consistency is lost. I'd find it more consistent to be an atheist if I started rejecting a few bits of Catholicism here and there.

Ditto. Unfortunately my penchant for mental acrobatics and metaphysical engineering is completely insufficient to the task of advanced theology, philosophy or even bloody theoretical physics. (Hence my present state of affairs in having done nothing in particular with my undergraduate degree...)

I think there's value, though, in not placing consistency highest amongst your concerns. To (slightly facetiously) paint it as a problem solving technique, you'll always be checking for consistency, but at the risk of ignoring such wonderful things as elegance, amusement and even something simple like relevance.

Corrections have been made in the past. It's not to say that you're in charge of them, but that association with the Church is key. You can renounce parts of it (openly and in dialogue with the church, if you can) and de facto be renouncing the whole of it, but if you're able to recognise what's alright and what's not...I can't see the harm.)

Remind me of some major theological 'corrections'.

Pithily, the Jesus' answer to "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?", strikes me as a big ol' correction, but that surely highlights my own ignorance of/amateurism in theology, not something that's likely to inspire you to throw of your shackles and embrace Xenu.

More pithily still: eat some fish on a Friday.

The repeated schisming of Christianity is a pretty difficult one to reconcile for me. It's certainly the case that I was quite happy to believe that Catholicism is blatantly the correct/original one. But then, more seriously, I think there's an intriguing case to made for its hijacking of that mantle - I can't quite see how the Quakers are 'doing it wrong', except for the fact that they're separate from the Church. To play with it in an even more unhelpful way, it's worth considering the decisions made throughout - why settle for the specifics of the Councils of Nicaea? There's (surely) a massive political shenanigan afoot there, bringing us to the "these thoughts of yours are man's, not God's" line of thinking.

Sorry to hijack the thread, o'course. I realise that except inadvertently ending up in the middle of Gay Pride four and a half years ago, this has very little to do with being Gay & Catholic. (Call it serendipity.)

[RedCelt69]

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...

...sex is the motion of flesh on flesh. It is a handshake; a slightly messy handshake, as we are but a bag of chemicals that sometimes excrete. Of course, sex is a very enjoyable motion of flesh on flesh, but joy is merely a trick of the mind - the release of chemicals that stimulate the neurons that sit on top of our central nervous system.

Ascribing sex as something belonging on a pedestal is the act of a virginal mind that sees it as something above and beyond a sensory trigger for a sensory mind.

The universe doesn't care which orifice you use. The universe doesn't care about anything.

You are but you, a pinprick of existence in a vastness of non-existence.

If you choose to use that brief existence as a platform for self-flagellation and the denial of the pleasures that are available to you, it is your loss. And you come here to advertise that loss... why, exactly? To receive pity? To proselytise? To feel better about your loss, and to strengthen your self-denial? Every action has a motive. What's your motive, macgamer?

[macgamer]

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...

...sex is the motion of flesh on flesh. It is a handshake; a slightly messy handshake, as we are but a bag of chemicals that sometimes excrete. Of course, sex is a very enjoyable motion of flesh on flesh, but joy is merely a trick of the mind - the release of chemicals that stimulate the neurons that sit on top of our central nervous system.

Indeed, but can biochemistry or neuroscience explain consciousness or love? You say every action has a motive, well every action has a function too.

Ascribing sex as something belonging on a pedestal is the act of a virginal mind that sees it as something above and beyond a sensory trigger for a sensory mind.

Nothing beyond its evolved adaptive function.

The universe doesn't care which orifice you use. The universe doesn't care about anything.

You are but you, a pinprick of existence in a vastness of non-existence.

So much for humanism. Sounds more like satanism to me. I would not like to live in a society organised along your mindset or philosophy. It sounds miserable, meaningless, depressing and nihilistic, where there is no instrinsic worth in anything or anyone.

'Love? Why that is just a function of a particular combination and concentration of neurotransmitters in the brain. Consciousness? That is the sum total of all cognitive processes that create the phenomenon we understand as consciousness -- try not to think too much about that.'

How could hold such a society together without degenerating into anarchy? Why of course an all powerful state that knows truly what is best for its citizens. Faith and trust is taken from 'God' and placed in the idol which is the state. You deride the supposed blindness my faith and supposed subjugation of my freedom, but do you have the integrity to see any of these things in yourself?

If you choose to use that brief existence as a platform for self-flagellation and the denial of the pleasures that are available to you, it is your loss. And you come here to advertise that loss... why, exactly? To receive pity? To proselytise? To feel better about your loss, and to strengthen your self-denial? Every action has a motive. What's your motive, macgamer?

Yes, perhaps there is a portion of all those things in my motives. I try to check myself for those motives, but I realise that I am not perfect, that I have weakness, that there are many people better than me and always will be. I do not deny my limitations and neither do I trump my perceived strengths. Search yourself. Can you identify schadenfreude and the bully within yourself? Do you take pleasure in crushing other people? What does that say about you? What are your motives?

I come here to hear other points of view. To test my own opinions with people who disagree with me vehemently. It is a sort of training. If I cannot explain and justify my position to others how could I continue to hold them?

Self-pity and the seeking of pity should be avoided it is not mature behaviour. I'd imagine few people can search themselves and claim that this tendency has been eradicated completely.

Yes, partly to proselytise too. To show to people that there is a diversity of approaches to life. Others may find it interesting if not convincing. I find the reaction of others interesting too. I am able to refine my presentation afterwards.

Even if I took up Frank's offer of apostacy, I'd still remain chaste. I've learnt much about myself, how I developed during childhood and how this contributes to my subconscious motives. I've a much better understanding of why I have certain desires and the consequences of feeding them. Wild_Quinine suggested that I might be one of those people who should or can never have a physical relationship. To a certain extent that is true for me even if you were to strip away my moral convinctions. Genital expression would not serve me well physically or emotionally. I find it curious that you feel you know me better than I know myself. Whilst this can be possible with close friends, I doubt it of you.

Strange as it might seem to you, RedCelt69, even you serve a purpose in my life. I'm not entirely sure how that will square with your nihilism. I'm much happier with my hope, even if you see it as pitiable self-deception lacking in intellectual rigour.

[/quote]
My response is best expressed by the words of the Psalmist,

BLESS the Lord, my soul; O Lord my God, what magnificence is yours! Glory and beauty are your clothing. The light is a garment you do wrap about you, the heavens a curtain your hand unfolds. The waters of heaven are your ante-chamber, the clouds your chariot; on the wings of the wind you do come and go. You will have your angels be like the winds, the servants that wait on you like a flame of fire.

The earth you have planted on its own firm base, undisturbed for all time. The deep once covered it, like a cloak; the waters stood high above the mountains, then cowered before your rebuking word, fled away at your voice of thunder, leaving the mountain heights to rise, the valleys to sink into their appointed place! And to these waters you have given a frontier they may not pass; never must they flow back, and cover the earth again. Yet there shall be torrents flooding the glens, watercourses among the hills that give drink to every wild beast; here the wild asses may slake their thirst. The birds of heaven, too, will roost beside them; vocal is every bough with their music.

From your high dwelling-place you do send rain upon the hills; your hand gives earth all her plenty. Grass must grow for the cattle; for man, too, she must put forth her shoots, if he is to bring corn out from her bosom; if there is to be wine that will rejoice man's heart, oil to make his face shine and bread that will keep man's strength from failing. Moisture there must be for the forest trees, for the cedars of Lebanon, trees of the Lord's own planting. Here it is the birds build their nests; the stork makes its home in the fir-branches; finds refuge there such as the goats find in the high hills, the coney in its cave.

He has given us the moon for our calendar; the sun knows well the hour of his setting. You do decree darkness, and the night falls; in the night all the forest is astir with prowling beasts; the young lions go roaring after their prey, God's pensioners, asking for their food. Then the sun rises, and they slink away to lie down in their dens, while man goes abroad to toil and drudge till the evening. What diversity, Lord, in your creatures! What wisdom has designed them all! There is nothing on earth but gives proof of your creative power.

There lies the vast ocean, stretching wide on every hand; this, too, is peopled with living things past number, great creatures and small; the ships pass them on their course. Leviathan himself is among them; him, too, you have created to roam there at his pleasure. And all look to you to send them their food at the appointed time; it is through your gift they find it, your hand opens, and all are filled with content. But see, you hide your face, and they are dismayed; you take their life from them, and they breathe no more, go back to the dust they came from. Then you send forth your spirit, and there is fresh creation; you do repeople the face of earth.

Glory be to the Lord for ever; still let him take delight in his creatures. One glance from him makes earth tremble; at his touch, the mountains are wreathed in smoke. While life lasts, I will sing in the Lord's honour; my praise shall be his while I have breath to praise him; oh, may this prayer with him find acceptance, in whom is all my content! Perish all sinners from the land, let the wrong-doers be forgotten! But you, my soul, bless the Lord. Alleluia.

[macgamer]

It wasn't a miracle - it was a representation of the fact that at some point Jesus was "promoted" - elevated - by the Essenes group to which he belonged to the status of healer. Just a pity in that respect that even the Bible uses the motif of the serpent as a form of "advance" in his career to a position of respect because of the skills of healing and medicine and knowledge that it referred to. It is also the very reason why every single medical association throughout the world - including the BMA - uses the motif of a serpent coiled around a staff as their logo! It goes waay back to the story of Draco and the healing powers it is believed to enshrine.

I always thought it was a reference to Moses and the construction of a bronze serpent in Exodus for healing from serpent bites.

[The Cellar Bar]

the community of Christ as laid down by, err, Christ. E.g. looking back, the important bits are commemorating the last supper, enacting the sacraments, doing those with faith in God.)

Pound to a penny, if there is such a thing as the Second Coming, then one of the real problems that will take some explaining, is just how the enactment of drinking someone's blood and eating their flesh has any part in the original "Christianity". It's otherwise known as cannabalism and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that it would have been invoked by your Jesus if he had been allowed a say. It's an abhorrent notion to most....but for true proper Jews it flies in the face of injunctions in the Old Testament in Numbers(?) about not even sucking your finger if you cut yourself to stem the flow of blood.

Yet one of many distortions that a bunch of Gentiles made in executing the leader of the seditionists who were planning the expulsion of the Gentiles from their land and setting up a new Kingdom of God based on the Torah and then taking the tenets of the religion, distorting them virtually beyond recognition. And then spending a "useful" 9 or 10 centuries slaughtering the other members of their Founder's people because "they killed Jesus"

If you want to follow the teachings of Christ then read the texts....and then convert to Judaism. Thereafter, like I said, if there is a Second Coming, then sit down with Him and spend a couple of decades explaining what the hell happened to his teaching in the intervening two millenia.

[The Cellar Bar]

I always thought it was a reference to Moses and the construction of a bronze serpent in Exodus for healing from serpent bites.

aye macgamer - you're right. It actually goes even further back than that when Aaron was involved in a "Battle of Serpents" with the Pharoah's "wise men". As a representation of the strength of their argument over theirs. And Moses then devised a serpent coiled around his staff to show his worthies to lead the Hebrews in the Exodus. Whichever way it was, it was designed - and recognised - as a sign of wisdom and healing and knowledge that goes waay back. It was essentially a sign used to indicate the power and the knowledge to cure not just snake bites but ALL ailments.

Note too as a point of historical fact, that the Hebrews were led out of the Exodus by the combined efforts of Moses and Aaron - Moses a the temporal leader or King and Aaron as the spiritual leader. That was the prophesy, that was the necessity right up until the time of Jesus. That the Kingdom of God on Earth was to be established and then governed by TWO Messiahs - one temporal and one spiritual. That was why to the Jews that the death of John the Baptiser - Jesus cousin - was so devastating. Jesus was seen as the rightful King of the Jews - INRI - and John was to be the spiritual leader and between them they would rule the new Kingdom. Leading to the fact that James, Jesus brother, then took on the mantle.

[macgamer]

(To round out the story: after almost being ran over and developing the anecdote where "that job was so bad, I lost religion!" [they were contemporaneous, but I don't think there was substantial causal connection], I soon after went off on a big ol' holiday with some money an old neighbour'd set aside when I were a wean for my 21st. The series of escapades involved a trip to Manchester [into an 18 bed dorm to wait for the plane...managed to unwittingly pick Gay Pride weekend...], Magaluf with old school friends [horrific, as you can imagine, but pleasant time with friends], Barcelona, Nice, Rome, the Vatican, Albania for a week, Skopje, Belgrade, Budapest, Warsaw [and a visit to Auschwitz], Frankfurt, Prasis, Bruges then Rosyth.

Quite a holiday! Yes, I too, have managed to pick Gay Pride weekend in Manchester during my visit there. I was in a bar with friends and after a while started to look around and remarked, 'There aren't many women in here.' After further rumination we determined the reason. You said four and half years ago. Hmm, I can't remember the exact year of my visit. It would be an interesting coincidence...

So, yes, tears otherwise strode for the massive loss, but the realisation is pretty powerful. A sort of...inversely numinous experience or three. It'd be easy to describe it as 'closing my eyes' or 'blocking God out', but it very much felt a lot more like opening my eyes and seeing the thing I thought was there...wasn't. Like stabilisers on a bike or...this. Gently but profoundly absurd, to an extent.)

I'm sorry that you came to that decision. Faith is a gift which can only take root if accepted and nurtured. I have not always been a good gardener of my soul, allowing it to become more and more parched in a strange logic that this would help. I would ask whether you feel deep down whether you have this 'knowing' that God does not exist since you spoke of the numinous. During a retreat in early March, I had a numious experience of 'knowing' that God existed. It is very difficult to explain. There is just a peaceful calm that envelops you and God's existence seems to be there.

Quite so. Though by my above analogy, I'd be half-tempted to suggest something like "Well that just means your scaffolding is now well built and well patched". I heartily sympathise with the suspicion of 'easy answers', the simply integrity of not wanting to settle for an answer or shy away from something because it's too big or too complex to be correct. (E.g. an awfully hamfisted application of [a badly misunderstood] Occam's Razor. "It's too difficult therefore it's wrong! I demand easy answers.")

Thank-you. The 'scaffolding' collapsed entirely during my depression. Although, it wasn't my conscience that collapsed, rather my unsustainable multi-level denial or half-admission of my SSA. Now I accept the SSA and see myself differently without any self-loathing.

Sex isn't for marriage and children though, of course. I've used it (along with a few prophylactics) for neither. (Then again, I wash my hands to prevent me contaminating things and I cook food & drink filtered, treated water. None of this I see as particularly unnatural. [I do invoke demons for my cheese-on-toast though; that is unnatural, I'll grant.])

I'm find it curious how people can deny or dismiss the centrality of the evolved adaptive function of sex: reproduction. The denial or dismissmal of this importance is, for me, a rationalisation mechanism. It is this issue which I fail to get across to people, but I would say it partly a lack of understanding on my part on how deeply or not people think about this issue, if at all.

As I'm sure you've encountered and considered before: my argument & viewpoint would nowadays be along the lines of the Church's moral authority not being 100%...provided you step away from it. Of course, you wouldn't really even be tempted to step away from it, as the belief you hold as a Catholic (or at least the beliefs I held) indicate a certainty, a towering conviction that the Church's moral authority is pretty close to absolute...and in the 'odd' bits (e.g. the oft-touted paedophiles) are 'accommodated' by other reasoning (they are sinners, they are headed hellwards, it's a complete non-sequitar and misunderstanding of what Catholicism actually preaches in terms of communal, institutional responsibility & authority, etc).

Thank-you for being magnanimous and understanding.

To put it more simply, the scaffolding can be replaced with (what in my mind feels & seems to be) a far more solid and consistent scaffolding, a more essential and 'sensible' framework which doesn't require wacky beliefs or tie you down to unnecessary edifices. (Sufficient & necessary?)

I'd say that my morality, my integrity and my conviction is much stronger now than it was before. There's still a profound faith in certain things (compassion, humour), a fair distaste/disapproval for rampant indulgence and compromising integrity, a severe dislike of inconsistency and so forth. (It's perhaps no surprise that I paint my 'ideal' as stoicism, even though I'm as good a [textbook] stoic as I ever was good as a [textbook] Catholic.)

It is your conscience to exercise. The role of the Church for Catholics is in the formation of our conscience. A strong conscience, as you put it, needs to have a sensible / rational framework in order to be robust to challenges. I would say that the Church has helped to form a solid conscience in me, not to say that I do not violate or ignore it occasionally through sin. I've much respect for stocism.

I think there's value, though, in not placing consistency highest amongst your concerns. To (slightly facetiously) paint it as a problem solving technique, you'll always be checking for consistency, but at the risk of ignoring such wonderful things as elegance, amusement and even something simple like relevance.

That's an interesting point, sometimes I can be too preoccupied with ethical or moral 'problem solving'. Although as a PhD student of biology, problem solving (of a different kind) is what I do!

Pithily, the Jesus' answer to "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?", strikes me as a big ol' correction, but that surely highlights my own ignorance of/amateurism in theology, not something that's likely to inspire you to throw of your shackles and embrace Xenu.

Thinking about the Decalogue, you can divide the Commandments into two types, loving God and loving one's neighbour. Jesus, by stressing those those two main concepts, is probably demonstrating that if you apply them to one's entire life it covers far more than a strict, literal observance of the original ten. Well, that's my tuppance.

More pithily still: eat some fish on a Friday.

Ah, but I do. Surely you know of the nickname for Catholics? Fisheaters. According to Aristotelian philosophy fish occupied a significantly different classification to land animals, this lead moral theologians such as St Thomas Aquinas, who integrated Greek philosophy with Christian thought, to consider fish as being excluded from 'meat' of land animals. This also meant beavers were considered fish in Quebec for a while. So Friday penance - abstinence from meat - meant that fish could be eaten and still fulfil the abstinence. That's why is traditional to eat fish on Fridays. Yes, a bit legalistic I admit.

The repeated schisming of Christianity is a pretty difficult one to reconcile for me. It's certainly the case that I was quite happy to believe that Catholicism is blatantly the correct/original one. But then, more seriously, I think there's an intriguing case to made for its hijacking of that mantle - I can't quite see how the Quakers are 'doing it wrong', except for the fact that they're separate from the Church. To play with it in an even more unhelpful way, it's worth considering the decisions made throughout - why settle for the specifics of the Councils of Nicaea? There's (surely) a massive political shenanigan afoot there, bringing us to the "these thoughts of yours are man's, not God's" line of thinking.

Well, people are involved in the Church so things like this happen. It is interesting to consider the 'schism' of 1054. The Orthodox Churches took part in the Council of Florence and nearly settled their differences with Rome. I suppose you should think about the Nicaean Creed and whether any of it is egregiously unscriptural.

Sorry to hijack the thread, o'course. I realise that except inadvertently ending up in the middle of Gay Pride four and a half years ago, this has very little to do with being Gay & Catholic. (Call it serendipity.)

Good to discuss this with you! Thanks for sharing.

[macgamer]

Note too as a point of historical fact, that the Hebrews were led out of the Exodus by the combined efforts of Moses and Aaron - Moses a the temporal leader or King and Aaron as the spiritual leader. That was the prophesy, that was the necessity right up until the time of Jesus. That the Kingdom of God on Earth was to be established and then governed by TWO Messiahs - one temporal and one spiritual. That was why to the Jews that the death of John the Baptiser - Jesus cousin - was so devastating. Jesus was seen as the rightful King of the Jews - INRI - and John was to be the spiritual leader and between them they would rule the new Kingdom. Leading to the fact that James, Jesus brother, then took on the mantle.

Many Jews were disappointed that Jesus was not their King who came to exert temporal power. Jesus said to Pilate, 'My Kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my people would have fought to prevent me being handed over.'

More interestingly, in earlier texts. Barabbas, which means 'Son of the Father', was referred to 'Jesus Barabbas'. This is somewhat preseved when Pilate refers to Jesus as, 'Jesus whom you call the Christ'. Barabbas is that temporal leader who was captured for trying to overthrow the Roman occupation.

[macgamer]

Pound to a penny, if there is such a thing as the Second Coming, then one of the real problems that will take some explaining, is just how the enactment of drinking someone's blood and eating their flesh has any part in the original "Christianity". It's otherwise known as cannabalism and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that it would have been invoked by your Jesus if he had been allowed a say. It's an abhorrent notion to most....but for true proper Jews it flies in the face of injunctions in the Old Testament in Numbers(?) about not even sucking your finger if you cut yourself to stem the flow of blood.

The Jews were quite incredulous when Jesus spoke of this,

'Believe me when I tell you this; the man who has faith in me enjoys eternal life. It is I who am the bread of life. Your fathers, who ate manna in the desert, died none the less; the bread which comes down from heaven is such that he who eats of it never dies. I myself am the living bread that has come down from heaven. If any one eats of this bread, he shall live for ever. And now, what is this bread which I am to give? It is my flesh, given for the life of the world.' Then the Jews fell to disputing with one another, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Whereupon Jesus said to them, 'Believe me when I tell you this; you can have no life in yourselves, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood. The man who eats my flesh and drinks my blood enjoys eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, lives continually in me, and I in him. As I live because of the Father, the living Father who has sent me, so he who eats me will live, in his turn, because of me. Such is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not as it was with your fathers, who ate manna and died none the less; the man who eats this bread will live eternally.'
He said all this while he was teaching in the synagogue, at Capharnaum. And there were many of his disciples who said, when they heard it, 'This is strange talk, who can be expected to listen to it?' But Jesus, inwardly aware that his disciples were complaining over it, said to them, 'Does this try your faith? What will you make of it, if you see the Son of Man ascending to the place where he was before? Only the spirit gives life; the flesh is of no avail; and the words I have been speaking to you are spirit, and life.' But there are some, even among you, who do not believe. Jesus knew from the first which were those who did not believe, and which of them was to betray him. And he went on to say, That is what I meant when I told you that nobody can come to me unless he has received the gift from my Father. After this, many of his disciples went back to their old ways, and walked no more in his company.