The Experiences of Homosexual Trads
#99
Hannon Wrote:Claiming to be not simply an accidental nineteenth-century invention but a timeless truth about human sexual nature, this framework puts on airs, deceiving those who adopt its labels into believing that such distinctions are worth far more than they really are.

This seems to be the crux of the article posted by Vox. I am very impressed by the author's dismantling of what is essentially a Victorian construct.

As a whole, this article is quite the extravaganza in terms of destroying long-held assumptions. I'm edified to think that there's no such thing as X-o-sexuality. Human quiddity comes before anything else. What are we in se, qua humanity? We are made in the image and likeness of God - a mirror of the one who is the express image of the Father, who is truth, beauty, goodness, and perfection. The Father begets the Son, and although this is far from human sexuality, the metaphor itself already teaches us about the teleological purpose of sex. We are also dust and ashes, and the pleasures of this world - also formed of the dust of Nothingness, as it were - are vanity. What does last? The creation and forming of a new human soul in a new human body, which comes only from sex between a man and a woman.

I am glad Mr. Hannon addresses the overall vision of humanity, rather than the petty political struggles of our era. It's certainly true that the 19th-century shift in vision to heteronormativity is nonsense, because it's arbitrary. I am, however, made very uncomfortable and fearful about the future, thanks to this article. Why? It forces me to look at myself as a "human person", not as a "gay person". This makes things much more difficult, as it means I cannot just accept my SSA... unless he's saying some people just have incurable SSA as a function of God's providence. Still, there's no easy resting in his hypothesis, and I think it urges SSA-sufferers to become fully human in their actions and desires...

Quote: There is a third reason this categorization should be disposed of, this one theological: It is at odds with the freedom for which Christ set us free. My future prior in religious life, Fr. Hugh Barbour of the Norbertine Fathers, has expanded on this idea in an essay in Chronicles Magazine , entitled “Do Homosexuals Exist? Or, Where Do We Go from Here?” As Fr. Prior argues, “Traditional moral theology evaluated acts, and did not generalize so unsatisfyingly about the tendencies that lead to these acts. That was left to the casuistry of occasions of sin, and to spiritual direction. If the sin is theft, then is the standard of evaluation kleptomania? If drunkenness, alcoholism? If sloth, clinical depression?” Even orthodox Christians, he writes,

    have given in to the custom of treating sexual inclinations as identities. Pastorally, we are meant to preach the freedom whereby Christ has made us free. In treating the sin of sodomy as a prima facie proof of an identity, are we not, in the guise of compassion and sensitivity, helping bind the sinner to his sinful inclination, and so laying on him a burden that is too great to bear without perhaps moving a finger to lift it?

Self-describing as a “homosexual” tends to multiply occasions of sin for those who adopt the label—provoking, in Prior’s words, an unnecessary “dramatization of the temptation.” Whereas the infusion of the theological virtues sets the Christian free, identifying as homosexual only further enslaves the sinner.

This is absolutely beautiful. It reminds us that labels like "homosexual" and "heterosexual" already create a new jew-gentile wall of separation - a wall which has been torn down by Christ. We actually put a burden of a new Law on ourselves when we use these titles for our very identity. My goodness! Saint Paul would be angry (and so would the Galatian saints).

Thank you Vox.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The Experiences of Homosexual Trads - by Heorot - 03-05-2014, 08:46 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)