Good Orthodox smackdown

I find it sad and distressing that you apparently think that the Orthodox bishops' action -- refusing to engage in dialogue -- is praise worthy. I've written a bit more about some first impressions of your weblog in an entry in my own weblog. The entry is called "The Viscious Bloggers" Peace and blessings... Joe

Joe, was that "vicious" or "viscous"? I wouldn't want to come across as some slippery character!

Anyway, refusing to participate in the conventional ecumenical dialogues is itself a form of communication. PECUSA's recent actions communicate steady disrespect for the faith of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican communions, so all in all, the communication is becoming more honest, although less pleasant.

Honest and unpleasant... or the posturing and pretense of a pouting child? I guess it depends on one's point of view. I suspect that behind the bishops' mask of righteous anger is a lot of fear and sadness that the beliefs they are holding onto with such a tight grip are losing the battle. It's the bishops' behavior, not that of the Episcopals, that strikes me this observer as "unchristian".

core beliefs shouldnot be discussed toomany churchesare having a munich type "discussion" with the world. why should churches give in to 21st century social mores and not say ancient pagan peoples exposing babies, polygamy, etc?

I'll take your words to heart, Joe -- I could certainly stand to be more charitable, here and elsewhere. If you're put off by the tone of the posts, you might want to take it with a block of salt, as I don't think anyone here takes themselves too seriously. Besides, you wouldn't come back if the writing were boring, would you?

On your blog, you write, "It seems to me that Christianity has very limited resources for articulating any kind of rich, nuanced, spiritually meaningful vision for what it means to be a sexual and embodied human being, gay or straight."

You might be interested to know that there is a prominent Catholic philosopher and priest who has written extensively on the connection between the body and the soul, and how sexual expression in the Christian context is a metaphor for God's love for humanity. He's been called a radical by many, and rightfully so -- his insights penetrate into the heart of what it means to be human and Christian.

You might be surprised to learn that this man is the current Holy Father, Pope John Paul II. You can read more about his perspective, called the "theology of the body," here and here.

Truth - never needs an apology.

IMHO - you were not uncharitible, just honest. How much "dialogue" must be endured. ECUSA made their position known, no ifs ands or buts. Why is it uncharitable for the other side to do so.

For the record: I don't think Richard was being uncharitable. Joe Perez criticized all of us, and I could see why he might think our tone was inappropriate at times. I don't think it is, but I wanted to tell him that I understood his point.

Truth never needs an apology, but it does need a strong measure of tact to make it palatable for those who have not yet accepted it.

Thanks for the links, Eric. I've bookmarked them and intend to read them. I think they'll be useful for an essay on the roots of the ideology of heterosexual supremacy in Christianity.

You also might want to think about how the loaded phrase "heterosexual supremacy" -- with its plain allusion to "white supremacy" -- might, in your words elsewhere, "fan the flames of hate" toward Christians.

By using the phrase "heterosexual supremacy", I mean to truthfully describe the Christian doctrine that claims the superiority of heterosexuality over homosexuality. If you know of a better term for describing Christianity's advoacy of the moral superiority of heterosexuals, I'm all ears.

There ya go again, putting words in other people's mouths ("moral superiority of heterosexuals"). The Church doesn't pretend that there are two groups of people, one morally superior to another: rather, it indicates certain actions as immoral.

You need to watch out about that: you might be more readily tempted to reject Church teaching if you misrepresent it first.

My bad. I should have written "moral superiority of heterosexuality", not "heterosexuals". But you err in stating that the Church teaches only of the sinfulness of actions. It also teaches that the homosexual orientation is an objective disorder. I don't think I'm making a terribly original claim here to say that Christianity teaches the moral superiority of heterosexuality over homosexuality! If there's a way of capturing that idea that is less offensive than "heterosexual supremacy", I'm listening.

Joe, an "objective disorder" isn't sinful. If someone is schitzophrenic, that's also an "objective disorder." A tendency towards alcoholism, or excessive gambling, or any other sinful behavior carries no moral weight.

You're not stating your planted axiom: that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are modes of sexual attraction and expression, and as such more or less equivalent. To say one is better than the other is the same as saying white people are better than darker-skinned people.

To the contrary, the Church teaches that human sexuality is for creating emotional bonds between a husband and wife, and procreation. Neither of those ends are served by homosexual activity. The Church condemns plenty of other sexual sins that aren't specifically homosexual: quasi-marital living arrangements, masturbation, consuming pornography, etc.

If you want a phrase that encapsulates the Church's teaching, how about "heterosexual normality"?

Thanks for clarifying.

Calling homosexual orientation "an objective disorder" doesn't make it moral or immoral. As the Catechism acknowledges (paragraph 2358), homosexual orientation is not chosen. It's not blameworthy to have one's feelings.

I think it's fair to say that orthodox Catholic thought treats homosexual attraction as a type of dysfunction, so that heterosexual attraction is accepted as normal human emotional functioning and homosexual attraction is regarded as contrary to that norm. Of course for a person who seeks chastity, such an orientation is a burden.

While "moral superiority" isn't quite the right term, heterosexuality has a kind of "superiority", a power that homosexuality does not have: it disposes men and women to form couples and make a lifelong commitment of dedicated love to a person radically different from oneself -- different by the physical fact that the other is of the opposite sex. The Church sees this as God's design for the human couple. The bodily difference of the spouses who give themselves to each other becomes a sacramental sign of the love of God, who as Creator is radically different from man.

First of all, I want to say that I am a Catholic who experiences same-sex attractions, but I have chosen to follow Christ's call to chastity that the Church tirelessly and fearlessly echoes. And I have to say that I was glad to see the Orthodox response to the consecration of Mr. Robinson. I wish the Catholic Church would respond similarly, because the Episcopal Church needs to know in no uncertain terms that they cannot get away with this and still enjoy the friendship of the conservative and mainstream Christian churches.

That said, I don't think our Church or any church should stop cooperating with others when it comes to humanitarian aid. But I wholeheartedly agree that dialogue -- theological, religious, public, whatever -- should end with the Episcopal Church until it renounces its grave sin in this matter and defrocks Mr. Robinson.

I'm humbled by your courage, Nathan, in going against a culture that is constantly telling you to give in to your desires.

It isn't easy. I appreciate that, Eric. :)

Thank you Eric and RC for helping me to find more accurate language for characterizing Christian teaching. While "moral" superiority is not the best way to describe Church's teachings, there is a clear teaching of superiority of heterosexuality over homosexuality for the wide variety of reasons mentioned. As you know that is the basis for my description of Christianity as advancing the view of heterosexual supremacy. I don't think that's an uncharitable or offensive phrase, or one that disparages the Christian religion. You're not stating your planted axiom: that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are modes of sexual attraction and expression, and as such more or less equivalent. As for an unstated axiom that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent, I would say that's almost right as a statement of my actual assumption, but not quite. I suggest instead that both modes of sexual expression are not equivalent but different and natural to persons of a specific given nature, each with distinct divinely-sanctioned ends and purposes, and there is no rational basis for assigning a value judgment such as superior or inferior to either. That is my view, and as you have seen from my weblog I don't base these views on a post-Christian theological perspective.

Yikes, that post was terribly edited! Please ignore it. Here's the real post:

Thank you Eric and RC for helping me to find more accurate language for characterizing Christian teaching. While "moral" superiority is not the best way to describe Church's teachings, there is a clear teaching of superiority of heterosexuality over homosexuality for the wide variety of reasons mentioned. As you know that is the basis for my description of Christianity as advancing the view of heterosexual supremacy. I don't think that's an uncharitable or offensive phrase, or one that disparages the Christian religion.

You wrote: "You're not stating your planted axiom: that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are modes of sexual attraction and expression, and as such more or less equivalent." As for an unstated axiom that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent, I would say that's almost right as a statement of my actual assumption, but not quite. I suggest instead that both modes of sexual expression are not equivalent but different and natural to persons of a specific given nature, each with distinct divinely-sanctioned ends and purposes, and there is no rational basis for assigning a value judgment such as superior or inferior to either. That is my view, and as you have seen from my weblog I don't base these views on Christian theology, but rather a post-Christian view.

IMHO, the word "supremacy" is still not quite right, because it's a word about power relations and it suggests that one party is oppressing another.

I suppose some people think that such oppression is the case, but if so the thesis should be argued openly and not loaded into the terminology.

Is there a better word to describe the belief that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality than "supremacy"? Merriam-Webster defines "supremacy": the quality or state of being supreme; also : supreme authority or power. Thus the term captures the idea that heterosexuality is regarded by some to be superior to homosexuality without necessarily implying that heterosexuals have power over homosexuals (although that is arguably true in various societies at various levels). Thus the term is neutral in the sense that it is also possible to describe a belief system as being "homosexuality supremacist", or describe a person who believes in the superiority of gays as a "homosexual supremacist". I haven't seen any thinker who could be called a homosexual supremacist since my college days when I read a bit of lesbian feminist thought from the 1970s. Nevertheless, the term "supremacy" still strikes me as the most accurate term. "Heterosexual normality", for example, doesn't work. Saying that a sexual orientation is normal is not the same thing as saying that it's superior. Normal does not necessarily imply normativity, it can be used in a value-neutral sense.

Why does it matter? It's simply a matter of clarity and accuracy. Quite simply, I think heterosexual supremacy is a useful term for categorizing and analyzing various belief systems in relation to sexual orientation. I think it's far more accurate and enlightening for example to say that orthodox Roman Catholic teaching advocates heterosexual supremacy than to say that it's anti-gay or homophobic. Anti-gay doesn't describe what the belief system is for, only one negative aspect of what it is against. Furthermore, it's far too vague. Homophobic is worse than useless IMJ (in my judgment) when it's used to describe anything other than a fear of homosexuals. I do not believe it should be used to label belief systems.

Maybe it would be good to look for a term that's more specific about what the Church's belief is, rather than simply saying the Church holds heterosexuality to be "superior" to homosexuality. Terms such as "sacramentality of the body" or "of the marital act" -- or, for that matter, the Pope's now well-known term "theology of the body" -- provide a more specific focus.

Hope this helps.

LOL. RC, that's an interesting thought, but I have a feeling it would be like trying to catch a fish with bare hands. Christian teaching on heterosexuality and homosexuality has gone through many countless variations over the centuries. Exactly why homosexuality (or other sexual acts) are thought to be sinful seems to vary depending on the century, circumstances, denomination, and theologian. Just about the only constancy is the conclusion that heterosexuality is superior, not the rationale for the conclusion, in my judgment. Thanks for the good food for thought, it's been an enjoyable conversation.