Showing posts with label chastity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chastity. Show all posts

Thursday, February 21, 2019

What Would an Byzantine Response Be?

CWR: Celibacy, Chastity, Same-Sex Attraction, Priesthood: Some Necessary Distinctions by Peter M.J. Stravinskas
In the hyper-sexualized society we Christians inhabit, chastity is as counter-cultural today as it was for the early Christians in the decadent Roman Empire.

Fr. Stravinskas refers to this article: “Celibacy and Priests with Same-Sex Attraction” by Ryan M. Williams.

“The Church has always counseled against ordaining those who have same-sex attraction.” On the surface, that would seem to be the case, but a bit of history and psychology might be helpful here. It is undoubtedly true that “the Church has always counseled against ordaining” not “those who have same-sex attraction” but those who act out that attraction. Indeed, “homosexuality” and/or “same-sex attraction” are modern concepts. Prior to the nineteenth century, those categories cannot be found. What made one be considered a homosexual was the fact that one engaged in homosexual activity. Does a man with same-sex attraction who marries a woman contract a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church? Canonical praxis would suggest an affirmative response, which is to say that his “orientation” may make his marriage to a woman more difficult but not necessarily impossible.

Are there however unresolved psychological issues that lie at the origin of the same-sex attraction, which would be an obstacle to effective ministry? This is not a question of a modern "identity" but rather of whether one is psychologically healthy -- even if it is a relative standard (and not the same as holiness or virtuousness) it would seem to be a necessary foundation for public ministry.

(As for the counter-example of the man with SSA who marries a woman -- could not the existence of SSA be later cited as a ground for an annulment, should "things not work out"?)

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

The Patristic View of Sex or Marital Relations

Was there a consensus?

James Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe
Google Books

Mentioned here by someone who is not particularly orthodox, iirc.

Still, is some sort of revision necessary, not for the basic precepts regarding our sexual powers, but with respect to our attitudees and understanding of the virtues pertaining to those powers and marital relations?

The conjugal act: as God originally intended or a concession to the Fall?

Infants and children may need sensible signs of affection and touch by parents for their emotional/mental health and to flourish, and this may be true of adults to an extent that we may not realize. Would we say that this is merely concupiscence, our desire to touch and to be touched? In so far as it is non-rational, maybe some would. (Concupiscence is not just a condition of the sexual appetite but of the appetite for nutrition as well, and what else? Hunger, indeed.) A consequence of the fall, an increased animality or manifestation of the "sensitive" aspect of the soul? Maybe, maybe not. But a real feature of human beings in this world, nonetheless. So why wouldn't it be the case with how men and women, or husbands and wives relate to one another? Is something to be condemned or criticized or merely permitted because it is "too" carnal, or not "spiritual" enough? What if there is a natural teleology to certain acts of touch that we may be tempted to dismiss because we think we shouldn't need them?

Tuesday, August 02, 2016

Problems with The Meeting Point

LifeSite

And it is meant to be taught to mixed classes? Incredible.

Friday, July 29, 2016