Friday, June 16, 2006

up all night

I've been up all night (its 4:00 a.m.) getting ready for the movers who will be arriving in about four hours. I couldn't stay away from Larry King Live though. Larry had on his show +Gene Robinson, +Frank Griswold, David Anderson+, and sundry representatives from other Christian groups (a Catholic priest, a well-spoken Southern Baptist, a lesbian UCC Pastor, and a gay, conservative, lay Catholic).

Here are my thoughts: +Griswold came across as really weird. +Robinson came across as being a nice guy. Canon Anderson came across as not a very good spokesman, letting a number of rhetorical opportunities slip by, and occasionally sliding into seeming incoherence. The Baptist did pretty well. The lesbian UCC pastor was pretty lackluster. The RC priest did alright; seemed nicer but just as orthodox as Canon Anderson. Larry seemed clearly to sympathize with the liberals.

The program reminded me of what I believe: (1) That its not fair for homosexual Christians to have an exemption from their particular sinful proclivities. What about my sinful proclivities? Why don't I get any exemptions? What's so special about homosexual sex such that it isn't subject to moral critique, whereas simple fornication or bygamy is? Its not as if people don't have innate inclinations to fornicate and bygamize. (2) The gay, lay Catholic kept talking about how sex is just a small part of his gayness, that its more about love and commitment and friendship and what not. But if that's so, then what's so terrible about the conservative position? It only targets a very small part of being gay (i.e. sex). What conservative is against gay people being commited, being friends, or loving one another? (3) The notion that a homosexual orientation is a "part of who gays are" is a diabolical lie. Sexual attraction, homo or hetero, is not a part of who anyone is fundamentally. That would mean that without that homo or hetero inclination, they would stop being who they are. But that is incoherent. If I stop or start having a particular sexual inclination (a.k.a. "orientation"), I won't thereby stop or start being Father WB. On this score, +Robinson, +Griswold and co. need to go back and take a crash course on Aristotelian Metaphysics. That's not something I would normally recommend, but I think it would really help in their cases.

PS: Another thing: Bishop Robinson mentioned Jesus ministry among those "on the margins," and the fact that he was always associating with tax collectors and sinners. But the problem in ECUSA is not that people want to be with gays and lesbians -- that would be terrific -- but that they want to say that these people, qua gay and lesbian, are actually not sinners. And that is a very deep point of difference between their ministries and that of our Lord. Our Lord's own commentary about his ministry among those on the margins was that they need a physician, that they are spiritually sick (Mark 2.17). Our Lord's ministry was all about repentance, turning from sin (Matthew 4.17), and his consistent message to those on the margins to whom he ministered and among whom he healed, was, without condemnation: "go and sin no more" (John 8.11). It was NOT "Go, for you have not been sinning to begin with."

And you can get the transcript of Larry King Live here.


mmbx said...

Very well stated, Fr. You are a very good spokesman for orthodoxy. Too bad Larry King didn't have you there!

Pontificator said...

Trackback Pontifications

ruidh said...

On this score, +Robinson, +Griswold and co. need to go back and take a crash course on Aristotelian Metaphysics. That's not something I would normally recommend, but I think it would really help in their cases.

Aristotelian Metasphysics is such complete and utter nonsense, I have to look for ulterior motives why someone would suggest such a useless exercise.

Aristotelian Metaphysics is so completely out of phase with a modern worldview as to do nothing but raise cognitive dissonance whenever it comes up. AM is part of the problem, not the solution.