Reason rarely seems to be used today when debating real moral and theological issues in society. One can wrongly point at others with regards to the culture's downfall but I believe we need to look very hard at our own selves and do some house-cleaning in our own hearts first. A bit of spiritual inventory is greatly needed. I hear phrases that "we" Catholics that is, need to catch up with the times a bit on issues as the one below. The recent Equality Bill is going to do an enormous amount of social damage and the primacy of the sacrament of marriage and sacrificial commitment of a man and a woman living out this vocation in covenant love is quickly becoming the most odd way of speaking.According to the papers this morning (see below), same-sex couples are now permitted to use religious language and use religious buildings for their civil partnerships. But, no matter how many human laws we implement, no matter how much of the population agrees with the new move, in the eyes of God marriage will always and only ever be between one man and one woman in a faithful monogamous relationship with a view to pro-creation. The latest is another move for the culture of death to reject life since there is no possibility of the reproduction of life between same-sex couples. That is something that all the Equality Laws in the world will never be able to change. Marriage between a man and a woman is an embracing of life and the reading this Lent remind all Christians to choose life and not death.
Gay couples will be able to marry in church after the House of Lords last night lifted a ban on same sex unions in religious premises.
The vote wipes out one of the final distinctions between marriage and civil partnerships.
It provoked warnings that it would undermine the institution of marriage.
The move – backed by some Church of England bishops – was hailed as a breakthrough last night by gay rights campaigners.
But it is seen by church traditionalists as a damaging step on the road to forcing churches to marry gay people against their will.
It is likely to be opposed by the Pope, who has already criticised government policies on homosexuality, when he makes his first visit as Pontiff to the UK later this year.
The amendment to the Equality Bill does not force churches to accept civil partnership ceremonies.
But it lifts the barrier that had been in place preventing homosexual blessings in churches and also the prohibition on religious language being used in such ceremonies.
It is likely to lead to pressure from the gay community for the church to recognise same sex partnerships.
The Church of England will maintain its official opposition to blessings and civil partnerships but the vote is likely to mean that some pro-gay clergy simply ignore the official policy.
4 comments:
"no matter how many human laws we implement, no matter how much of the population agrees with the new move, in the eyes of God..."
It never ceases to amaze me that so many human beings are so certain about what God's view on a subject is, given that they tend to be the same human beings who garner their views from records of one or more human societies which implemented those views as laws.
Theology is simply: finding ways out of having to commit to unpalatable views our ancestors held, whilst avoiding having to stop believing in the God our ancestors believed in. This is why St Paul is a great theologian, and it's why study of the great Church Councils is important. The whole point of Catholicism is to ensure that change happens so slowly that it is only implemented when the alternative is the destruction of the Church; the counter-reformation shows this, the Church's relationship with science shows it, and within our lifetimes the Church's view on sexuality will show this, I am sure.
Anonymous,
Thanks for the comment. It seems to me that what you are saying is that there is no absolute morality other than the will of the human being in this regard. You seem to be denying reason as well as the moral law. I think your definition of what theology is misses the mark of the purpose of theology which is to come to know and love God more in the person of his Son Jesus Christ. What we as humans do not have the right and freedom to do is to fashion God after our own image and seek to control his mind on issues we "feel" are the important ones for society. God is either God and beyond my reason or he isn't worthy of my worship. I know him to be so and therefore in the mystery of his love and will for my life, I gladly and humbly ask for his will to become my will. This is the heart of the prayer Jesus taught us; is it not? So, what makes you so "sure" that the Church can change a leapard's spots to make it into a zebra?
Ok, there are a few of points here, so I'll try to address them as clearly as possible:
1) On what theology is: I agree that your point expresses something of what Christian theology is, however it also suggests that there is no theology other than Christian theology. This is a problem because Christian theology grew out of Jewish theology and was seriously affected by Jewish, Islamic and Hellenistic theologies (as well as philosophical ideas). Thus I hold my definition to be more, well, definitive. Umbrella.
2) On the source of morality (A): it is logically erroneous to suppose that I would be denying reason and the moral law if I believed that the will of the human being is the only thing which determines morality. The most famous tradition(s) in moral philosophy that affirm the human will as source of morality focus on reason as the source of a moral law (e.g. Kant).
3) On the source of morality (B): As it happens, I think that morality is determined by what there is reason to do or avoid based on all the relevant facts. Since God has perfect rationality and knowledge and humans do not, it follows that I think that God is the ultimate authority on morality. However, the only access we have to God's moral thoughts are through several layers of human interpretation and prejudice, so I also believe that we have to reason for ourselves over morality; moral decisions are fundamentally about dialogue, not dictation. If I believed that morality was about dictation and not dialogue, I would (ceteris paribus) convert to Islam, since their holy book claims to be dictated by God, whereas Judaism and Christianity's holy books do not and thus by their own lights must involve dialogue with one's own culture in order to interpret them.
4) What makes me so sure that the Church can change spots: it has been doing so for the entire span of its existence, and I see no reason to stop now; nothing has happened in the last hundred years that makes me think "Aha! That's the bit we were waiting for; now we definitely have everything right." In particular, I think the concept of Papal Infallibility was a piece of outrageous theological hubris which may yet ensure the destruction of the Church in the unlikely event that enough people ever think that it represents the will of God.
A composite question for you:
The Church has in the past believed in a geocentric creationist universe rather than a heliocentric evolutionist universe; it has also propounded the idea that the Jews should be reviled as Christ-killers (or more politely deicides - my apologies to any Jewish readers). Do you believe that these represent the view of God or were culturally conditioned? If the latter, why should the belief that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered be different in any respect other than that the Church has not *yet* changed its mind?
Apolgoies for not signing off the first comment, by the way,
Stuart
Stuart, this is just a quick note to say that I am not ignoring your questions but I am very ill with a virus...Once I am better I intend to respond.
Post a Comment