Ed: It’s Reuters so the quotes are probably selective and the context a bit skewed. Still, very interesting.
Reuters
Pope Benedict spoke out on Friday against legal recognition for unmarried couples and “dismal theories” on the rights of gays to marry which he said stripped men and women of their innate sexual identity.
“I cannot hide my concern about legislation on de facto couples,” the Pope said in a Christmas address to the Rome clergy, weighing into a raging debate in Italy over what legal rights should be given to unmarried and gay couples.
Tensions have been rising in recent months between the Vatican and left-wing parties in Prime Minister Romano Prodi’s ruling coalition, which has pledged to grant some kind of legal recognition to unmarried couples.
Some centre-left politicians have scorned the Vatican for speaking out against the initiative, but the Pope said the Church had the right to be heard.
“If they say the Church shouldn’t interfere in these matters, then we can only reply: should mankind perhaps not interest us?” he said.
The Pope said granting legal recognition to unwed couples was a threat to traditional marriage, which required a higher level of commitment.
But he saved his strongest words for those who suggest gay couples should be put on the same level as a husband and wife.
“This tacitly accredits those dismal theories that strip all relevance from the masculinity and femininity of the human being as though it were a purely biological issue,” the Pope said.
Theories “according to which man should be able to decide autonomously what he is and what he isn’t,” end up with mankind destroying its own identity, he said.
Two parliamentarians in the ruling coalition this week outraged fellow lawmakers by placing four dolls representing homosexual couples near the baby Jesus in the official nativity scene in Italy’s parliament.
They said their gesture was to promote legal recognition for unmarried couples and the legalization of gay marriage.
I definitely know a different God than the one the Pope professes to know, understand and represent. I also know many great couples and families in de facto relationships, including same sex couples. These are all good people with strong caring relationships. These relationships do not in any way harm or diminish my marriage or family. What a weird and unfounded view the Pope has !
It is all too easy and cheap to manipulate the homophobe masses in a largely intolerant society. Yet this is exactly the agenda of the Pope and his impotent band of clerics. It is surly a sad spectacle when one with so much potential to do good is obsessed with building his power base at the expense of the marginalised. These were not the traits of Jesus or his message.
Mario, that is because you are trying to conform God to man. The Pope for all my disagreements with him and the Chruch he leads is at least trying to conform man to God.
To equate human identity with sexual desire is obscene. I could have just as loving and commited relationship with my dog if I so chose.
The vision of human sexuality contained in the Bible and the Church is sublime and unique. It is not always appreciated even within the Church and has been twisted into a horrible caricature even there on many occasions. Those caricatures do not obsure the fact that human sexuality is meant as an analog of God’s union with his creation through which the creation is given life and fructified. No sexual relationship or expression outside of monagomous marriage between a man and a woman is in accord with that analog. Outside of marriage sexuality becomes either debased sensuality intent merely on self-gratification or idolatry–worshipping the created thing more than the creator.
Here is the salient point from the Pope’s statement that you ought to contemplate:
Marriage: Not every scramentally recognized marriage is a marriage, no every union no so recognized is automatically not a marriage but one constant remains, a marriage must be between one man and one woman who are capable of entering into such a union. It cannot be a casual agreement to share for awhile until something better comes along.
The Pope is right. If marriage is seen as the union of persons in any kind of relationship, then marriage becomes whatever you want it to be; same sex, polyamorous, whatever. People love their animals and the animals, to the extent they can, return the love. Should these be considered “strong caring relationships”? Some pet owners would say yes.
No doubt some homosexual couplings are strong and caring. The same can be said for other kinds of relationships as well. As far as they work, well, they work I guess. My sense is that it is a lot better than being alone.
But is this a marriage? No. Can society maintain stability with the erosion of heterosexual marriage? No. Can society maintain any kind of moral coherence with different definitions of marriage? No. This is why you see such a strong reaction against the efforts to sanction homosexual marriage by liberals and conservatives alike almost universally in America.
This is not “homophobic” (a word that makes no sense BTW — fear of man?). Further, homosexuals are far from being “marginalized” in the culture given that as a class their income levels are way beyond the average income of middle class families. Couple this with no family responsibilities and many homosexuals sit quite well financially.
If by “marginalized” you mean homosexuals cannot marry, well, they can. They just cannot marry members of the same sex, just as a man cannot marry two women, his daughter, a minor, etc. It is simple, basic, morality.
Fr. Hans writes: “If marriage is seen as the union of persons in any kind of relationship, then marriage becomes whatever you want it to be . . .”
That’s not the argument. The argument is that two people, opposite or same sex, should be able to marry. I would argue that when two people are in a long-term committed relationship, they are in effect married — whether with legal sanction or not. I know one gay couple who have been together for around 25 years. Other than the lack of a legal document, in what sense are they not married?
Fr. Hans: ” . . . same sex, polyamorous, whatever.”
Marriage is defined by individual cultures. “And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” (Genesis 16:3). The word “wife” — ‘ishshah – is the same word used in connection with Abraham’s wife Sarai.
We’ve recently heard that the Bible is both divine and authoritative. The Bible says that Abraman was called the “friend of God” — the only person thus described. There is no indication that Abraham being married to two women somehow undermined traditional marriage, nor did in in fact undermine traditional marriage, nor did any of the other polygamous marriages in the Old Testament.
This is how things were done in that culture. Today our understanding is different, and we do not find such marriages acceptable.
Fr. Hans: “Can society maintain stability with the erosion of heterosexual marriage?”
The decline of heterosexual marriage has absolutely nothing to do with homosexual marriage. Divorce is very common, even among Christians. Cohabitation is common — less so among Christians, but not unheard of. And none of this has anything whatsoever to do with homosexual marriage.
Fr. Hans: “Further, homosexuals are far from being “marginalized” in the culture given that as a class their income levels are way beyond the average income of middle class families.”
I find that a rather remarkable statement. Talk about materialistic! If Orthodox Christians had good incomes, but couldn’t legally marry, would you say that they were not marginalized?
Fr. Hans: “If by “marginalized” you mean homosexuals cannot marry, well, they can.”
Yes, and they often end up like Ted Haggard. That’s your advice? They should marry people to whom they are not attracted, and then hope that everything works out Ok?
What the conservative Christians offer to homosexuals is that which they themselves could not and do not bear. Could you imagine a life in which you would never have a romantic relationship? In which you never experienced adult human physical affection? In which you never had a girlfriend? Never held hands? Never wrote a love note or sent a special valentine? Meanwhile, conservative Christians marry and divorce, even multiple times. “For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.”
Jim writes:
Let’s shift the focus from “two people” to “opposite sex.” Allow gay “marriage”, and you effectively redefine marriage to mean whatever you want it to mean. You stop at two homosexuals, the polyamourous types stop at — what?, three or four wives? I am sure they too have “long term, committed, relationships.”
Further, I think it is fine that some homosexuals establish long term, committed relationships. I just don’t see why we should pretend a same sex relationship is morally or culturally equivalent to heterosexual marriage traditionally understood just because they do.
The decline of heterosexual marriage has everything to do with the notion that no moral or cultural differences exist between traditional marriage and homosexual couplings. If traditional marriage were more faithfully practiced, this notion that homosexual couplings replicate the traditional form would be seen as shallow as it is.
One important dimension hidden from view includes that heterosexual marriage is the best way to raise children. Kids need a mom and dad, and that some parents split, or that the culture sanctions illegitimacy, doesn’t change this fact.
Homosexuals are precluded from this definition because homosexual physical coupling is closed to the creation of new life. Homosexual couples can replicate heterosexual couples but only artificially. Put more plainly, homosexual couples can only play at being family.
And the fact that some heterosexual couples can’t have children doesn’t change this reality. Heterosexual couples, to the extent they cannot have children for whatever reason, are considered the anomaly, not the norm.
You are putting the cart before the horse. You objection assumes homosexuals should be allowed to “marry” (or the marriage should be redefined to include homosexual couples). That question has not been settled so to conclude that homosexuals are “marginalized” as a result, well, it has that emotional ring that surrounds all appeals to victimhood, but not much more. Clearly, looking at the rejection of initiatives to force homosexual unions on the larger American population, many people would agree that defining marriage to a man and woman constitutes no marginalization whatsoever.
As for your scriptural exegesis, I thought you argued upstream scripture has no inherent authority. Why use it here?
The Pope’s comment’s strike me as harsh and unbalanced in one respect, They don’t address the alternatives that would be worse than gay marriage: lives of sexual promiscuity and self degradation, loneliness, depression and even suicide for the many people who consider themselves gay. If we are the loving human beings our Savior taugt us to be we would state that loving, monogamous relationships are far more preferable to those terrible alternatives.
There is a scale of desirable outcome and if the Chruch considers heterosexuality or chastity more desirable than gay marriage, than it should likewise consider mongamous caring relationships as preferable to sexual promiscuity and emotional torment driven by an absence of love and societal rejection.
I wish that comments by Christian leaders expressing disapproval for gay marriage could be balanced with expressions of the Church’s love and compassion for those who call themselves Gay.
I’m trying to follow the reasoning here. You imply that sanction gay “marriage” would decrease gay promiscuity. Really? Or are you arguing that gay “marriage” would prevent such psychological distress as “loneliness, depression and even suicide” for homosexuals. But if heterosexual marriage can’t promise this, what makes you think that homosexual marriage can? A bit too much Oprah here, I think.
Who do you think runs the lion’s share of AID’s hospices? You guessed it — the Catholic Church. I wish that people would eschew sentiment for clear headed thinking so that we could face the consequences of unbridled promiscuity in the culture with greater sobriety.
Unprotected: Sexual freedom is damaging to students
Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids
Gay Marriage — and Marriage
Holy crap(pun intended),
I can’t even believe all this I’m hearing. People need to get over themselves and over marriage for same sex couples. If your specific church doesn’t want to marry gay couples or if they do that is their business. The debate is over civil marriage which is a wholly secular institution and is about civil rights.
There is not a single LEGAL argument against it.
Fr. Hans writes: “Let’s shift the focus from ‘two people’ to ‘opposite sex.’ Allow gay ‘marriage’, and you effectively redefine marriage to mean whatever you want it to mean. You stop at two homosexuals, the polyamourous types stop at — what?, three or four wives? I am sure they too have ‘long term, committed, relationships.'”
Marriage is defined within the culture. That was my point about Abraham and other biblical polygamous marriages. It was also true of interracial marriage. At one point most of the states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage. It was considered immoral and unbiblical. The progeny of such marriages were considered “mongrels.”
The fact is that anyone, at any time, can make an argument for any kind of marriage. Some of those arguments may succeed, some may fail. Polygamy existed long before gay marriage. Apparently no one said to Abraham, “hey, if you have more than one wife then pretty soon the queers will want to marry.” Interracial marriage existed long before anyone made a case for homosexual marriage.
Fr. Hans: “Further, I think it is fine that some homosexuals establish long term, committed relationships. I just don’t see why we should pretend a same sex relationship is morally or culturally equivalent to heterosexual marriage traditionally understood just because they do.”
You don’t have to pretend anything. There are all sorts of marriages that are not morally and/or culturally equivalent to traditional heterosexual marriage. A 90 year old man can marry an 18 year old girl. Two people with multiple marriages and divorces can marry. Some women fall in love with and marry serial killers in prison. There are all sorts of marriage situations that raise eyebrows, but are nonetheless legal. Neither you nor the Orthodox church have to approve of any marriage of which you don’t want to approve. Elizabeth Taylor had a number of marriages, but no one looks to her as an example of how to live. The fact that a particular marriage is “legal” in no way implies that it is in any sense moral or traditional.
I approve of gay marriage mostly for practical reasons — taxes, benefits, inheritance, and the many other benefits that are available to spouses.
Fr. Hans: “Homosexuals are precluded from this definition because homosexual physical coupling is closed to the creation of new life. Homosexual couples can replicate heterosexual couples but only artificially. Put more plainly, homosexual couples can only play at being family.”
As do infertile couples. Interestingly, the Catholic and Orthodox churches oppose most forms of artificial reproduction, the only means of reproduction available to infertile couples.
Fr. Hans: “And the fact that some heterosexual couples can’t have children doesn’t change this reality. Heterosexual couples, to the extent they cannot have children for whatever reason, are considered the anomaly, not the norm.”
The “anomaly” consists of millions of couples. Here are the infertility figures I’ve seen:
age 15 – 24 – 4 percent
age 25 – 34 – 13.4 percent
age 35 – 44 – 21.3 percent
That is not an insignificant percentage of the population.
Fr. Hans: “As for your scriptural exegesis, I thought you argued upstream scripture has no inherent authority. Why use it here?”
Upstream I argued not that scripture has no authority, but that the authority of scripture is difficult to define. But it seems to me that when someone appeals to the authority of scripture, then with respect to this discussion that person has to account for the polygamy that was practiced by some of the Old Testament patriarchs.
Jim writes:
Yes, it is and until the last five years and, if the recent votes are any indication, only a small minority of people advocate jettisoning two thousand years of Western cultural tradition. As for interacial marriage, the eventual loosening of that cultural prohibition is actually in accord with the two thousand year tradition, not against it. (The same can be said for slavery.) Homosexual marriage doesn’t compare however, unless gender is considered of the same stuff as race, which clearly it is not. Distinctions matter.
Well sure, but again, none of the examples include same sex marriage. If a 90 year old man wanted to marry an 18 year old boy, it’s a completely different matter than a 90 year old marrying a girl (as inappropriate as that is) because in the latter at least the gender distinction is maintained. Further, citing out of the norm heterosexual examples doesn’t really address any salient points about same sex marriages — unless of course you define same sex marriage as nothing more than a violation of a cultural norm, which it seems is what you want to reduce the question to. But clearly it is more.
Again, distinctions matter. An infertile couple doesn’t violate the natural biological paradigm, even though they are unable to fulfill it. Homosexuality, however, is biologically closed to new life. This barrier is insurmountable except by artificial means, but even these means don’t negate the fundamental biological prohibition.
Glad to see it. But go back to the beginning: God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Would you oppose polygamy?
Note 9. Sorry Paul. The implicit claim that only secularists should have a voice about the public culture and the moral norms that shape it is not one substantiated by Western history. There is no reason to accept this restrictive claim.
The question nobody has asked here is “do homosexuals actually want to marry or even form committed relationships?”
Yes, they want marriage, but they do NOT want to marry or even commit to each other.
Statistics from all countries that have some form of relationship ‘registration’ show that on average less than 7% of homosexuals actually take up the option.
Take a look at some of the figures at: http://www.saltshakers.org.au/html/P/9/B/342/
They want marriage ‘rights’ in order to ‘normalise’ their relationships in society. As do those who advocate for a growing number of ‘other’ types of relationships.
We started on the slippery slop of destroying marriage when we gave the same ‘rights’ to de facto couples and easy divorce. Appeasing those who were unwilling to make a commitment to one person for life and stick at it was a sure sign we had lost the resolve to do it God’s way.
Any form of legal recognition of relationships that God (and Jesus) clearly call immoral will simply further undermine HIS natural laws of creation – He made them male and female.
Normalising same-sex relationships, or any other type of relationship, will be detrimental to the physical health and psychological well being of any society.
Fr Hans asks: “Would you oppose polygamy?”
Not to speak for anyone else here, but I would personally oppose polygamy for myself, and I wouldn’t “endorse” it for others as a way of life — the dynamics seem barely tolerable for most people. I would certainly oppose it in the legal sense when it involves minors or any form of coercion.
If you’re suggesting we should oppose it morally, I’d have to ask on what grounds. Scripture not only suggests that it was tolerated by God (given that there is no explicit law against it among the 100s of other Levitical laws involving the minutiae of life – adultery is the taking of another’s spouse), but that it was on occasions even blessed by God (see 2 Samuel 12:8 – implies God GAVE David his wives).
So either God never condemned it in Scripture, or He didn’t at one point and then did later. Either position suggests that we cannot appeal to some absolute moral standard from Scripture in terms of how to legislate or approach this issue. It’s just not there.
Breathtakingly obtuse, why polygamy is demeaning to women
James K, sometimes the blazingly obvious is the most difficult thing for you to see.
A Christian marriage is based on a life-long, mutally exclusive committment to the well-being of the other partner and to the well-being of the marriage unit and any children which may become part of the marriage unit. Although roles within the marriage may differ, traditional Christian teaching and Anglo-American law prior to WWII considered marriage to be a total partnership. Each partner had full ownership rights in all the property acquired by the marriage unit. The partners had reciprocal duties towards the other. Since children eventually leave the nest, it can be said that the most important relationship in one’s life is with one’s spouse, as psychologically healthy children go off to form their own marriage ties. Contrary to the claims of feminists, Christian marriage did more to protect women than the forms of marriage extant prior to the rise of Christianity. The great tragedy of the feminist movement was the destruction of the Christian model of marriage. The social cost of that near destruction is evident. The strongest predictor of anti-social behavior in males is a childhood spent in a household without a stable father figure, not poverty. Males need the guidance and the presence of an examplar to teach what a mature man should be.
Polygamy or polyandry is totally incompatible with the idea of the equality and equal dignity of men and women. Sharing one’s husband with other women is nothing any rational woman would welcome. Under monogamy a husband devotes himself to the well-being of one wife, all of his time and resources are availabe for that purpose. In many ways, one can say that marriage creates an agreement in which one spouse always has “first call” on the time and energy of the other spouse. One’s mate is the most important person in one’s life on a day to day basis and the person on whom one depends daily. Probably most important is that the children of the only wife in the marriage are not in de facto competition for family resources with the chidlren of a second or third wife in the “marriage” as is the case in the polygamous family.
I have read essays by Muslim women who concede that Muslim marriage IS NOT a “companionate marriage.” Polygamous marriages do not create the deep spiritual, psychological and physical bond between husband and wife that is created in a monogamous Christian marriage. The strongest ties in a polygamous society are between parent and child or between same-sex siblings, NOT between husband and wife. The reason is obvious. Any wife can be “replaced” as the current favorite at any time. The welfare of the children of any wife depends on whether she is the current favorite. Muslim women depend more on their sons for protection than their husbands. In many Muslim families a conflict arises between a son and a father, when a newer wife displaces the son’s mother as the father’s favorite. The family dynamic is entirely different and far less favorable to the security and stabilitiy of the life of the women in the family. Every Muslim women fears that her husband will take another wife and she will be relegated to “older wife” status, a very undifnified position in the household. “Older wives” are expected to serve as nannies and maids to the remainder of the family and their children are less favored with gifts and support.
You may claim that polygamous marriages do not have to follow the Muslim model but I assert that examination of any culture in which polygamy exists results in a denigration of the status of women. A woman is only one of several wives can never be seen to be the social equal of her husband. It is a oxymoron which nearly everybody understands. Westernized Muslim women in Europe and Canada are campaigning for the abolition of polygamy. Why do you think that is?
Missourian: Of course, polygamy frequently demeans women (although there are perhaps a few women who consent to such an arrangement). You’ll find no disagreement from me. However, what revolution occurred within the Judeo-Christian culture so that it essentially recreated itself and broke with its traditions in a way that polygamy became taboo? Was this due to internal or external influences? Perhaps both? I don’t have an answer.
Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.
Do you see my point? Scripture demanded no less than the death penalty for the improper burning of incense! When it states next to nothing regarding polygamy, one must see wonder how much of a moral error it was seen to be at that time.
Hi all, let me add in my two cents.
I happen to be gay, and a Ugandan. A very different culture from yours. Three generations ago, none of my forefathers knew anything about the sort of marriage that you are talking about. Of course they were not Christians.
Ok, forward to two generations ago. By that time, we had been colonised and ‘christiened’. The King of my tribe had (by constitution) to be an Anglican Christian. But he went on to have errrrr at least 60 wives and concubines.
Suprised? Maybe he was not Christian enough? But wasnt it Solomon who had in excess of 300 wives? and more concubines.
So?
The issue is that the concept or ideal of marriage as it is now is an ideal like all ideals.
I grew up in a polygamous family. My Catholic partner is convinced that my siblings who are not my mothers children are not my brothers and sisters. That is what he has learnt from his religion. I cannot accept that. And i cannot accept the force feeding of an ideal even if it is ‘marriage’. Maybe it can happen in the so called ‘Christian’ west, but to force an ideal down the throat of all humanity stinks of only one thing. Religion.
Oh, sorry. Loopy reasoning!
all the best and happy new year from beautiful Uganda
Fr. Hans writes: “Would you oppose polygamy?”
Sure, but the definition of marriage is something that is largely a cultural matter. My understanding is that in the U.S., opposition to polygamy is derived from the Mormon practice, in which wives were often abused, and many young girls were forced into marriages with older men.
Even St. Augustine suggests that what is considered acceptable in marriage is culturally determined:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm
Note in particular “in our times, and after the usage of Rome . . .”
Frankly, is it any wonder the church is losing millions of people each year as they desert an out of touch and hateful institution.
The bible is such a selective reference manual which for me is no more than a collection of fables. This manual is a great reference for hatemongers who use it to attack gays. I wonder if it would be acceptable to attack blacks or asians?
I despise the Roman Catholic church for it’s HATE preaching.
I shall reserve my thoughts and prayers for a god that does not hate based on sexuality and deny me the same basic freedoms that everyone else get as de facto.
Note 18. Well, yes, of course the definition of marriage is a cultural matter. That’s a given. The question is what are the ideas, values, beliefs, etc. that inform that definition. These differ which is why you see variations between cultures.
Father writees: “Who do you think runs the lion’s share of AID’s hospices? You guessed it — the Catholic Church.”
This is undoubtedly true, and the type of work that Christian Churches need to more energetically advertise and communicate to the rest of the world. As Christians we tend to think that our own good works are their own advertisement, but I think a lot more public relations savvy is needed to tell the story to the secular and non-Christian world.
In the media today, it is the most sensational and negative stories about Christianity that get the most play. There is the gay-bashing preacher’s sexual escapade with a male prostitute, for example, or the Archbishop’s pedophile Priest cover-up, or the Family Values coalition’s absurd and self-parodical attack on the TV cartoon Sponge-Bob. Pope Benedict’s reference to an obscure Byzantine Emperor’s opinion on Islam traveled around the world at lightening speed. As result those who have fallen from, or turned away from the Church or are hostile to Christianity, hear only the information that reinforces their preexisting negative opinion.
What non-Christians need to see is the loving face of Jesus shining brightly in the millions of faces belonging to the people who call themselves Christians. So from a PR point of view I think Pope Benedict should visit one of those AIDs hospices and make sure the visit is televised and broadcast throughout the world.
Dean, don’t expect a mainstream press that is largely hostile to Christianity to ever portray Christians in a positive light. It won’t happen. Scandals will be magnified, stupidities relentlessly mocked, and the simple good performed daily will be ignored. This is not universally true of course, but it is true enough that we can say a bias against Christianity exists in the MSM.
As for Pope Benedict’s statement, he was right on target. The swift negative reaction however, seems to be due more to the Islamic public relations machine (which strikes me as very sophisticated — someone needs to do an expose on what Westerners work for them) tapping into Western fears and carried forward by a compliant media. Western leaders, particularly religious leaders, have to be careful not to confuse the ill-formed religious perceptions of Western media elites with the reality on the ground.
Read Srdja Trifkovic’s Faith, Logos, and Antichrist: A Post Scriptum on Regensburg. He gets a lot right, IMO. Islam won’t allow discussion on this level among ther own and they want to impose the prohibition on the West as well.
It seems to me that Trifkovic is engaging is some dangerous speculation. Supporting what he believes are the basic thrust of Pope Benedict’s comments, Trifkovic, writes “It is therefore inevitable that imperialism is immanent to Islam”.
Pope Benedict may instead have been asking, “What are the intentions of the Islamic world?” and probably should have framed his comments as more of a question rather than a conclusion, putting the burden on the Islamic world to provide an answer. It is a extremely important question. How are we to interpret the ensuing furor by Muslims to the Pope’s remarks. Were they a protest that meant, no, they are not a violent faith, they do not seek the violent conversion of non-Muslims, as the Pope suggested? Or was it a deliberately agitated and orchestrated mob reaction to something misrepresented as a grave insult to their faith? If they want peace, than we should make Muslim leaders commit to peace. if they seek conflict and confrontation, than the rest of the world has a right to know.
Trifkovic’s conclusion is disturbing because it can be interpreted to suggest that the inevitable outcome of relations between the Christian and Muslim worlds is known and will be one of bloody confrontation. This provides fodder to those urging a militaristic approach. If you believe that Islam teaches its believers that there is a religious obligation to convert or kill non-Muslims, as Trifkovic concludes, then peaceful coexistence becomes impossible. At this point Trifkovic is no longer engaging in idle theological speculation, but advancing an argument with powerful charged geo-political implications
According to Johns Hopkins Professor and National Security expert Dr. Michael Vlahos:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/badguys/061129/why_were_losing_the_war.htm
Vlahos is quoted elsewhere:
http://warincontext.org/2006_12_31_archive.html#116776002586877388
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/badguys/061129/why_were_losing_the_war.htm
The “Islamofascist” threat is offered as evidence of an impending grand cataclysmic struggle of civilizations. This is a view that presents the world as black and white, with no shades of gray, one that disdains attempts at dialogue and moderation (the essence of Christian peacemaking) as delusional appeasement. Shades of gray may exist, upheaval that we see as motivated by religion may be economic in nature. There may be voices for moderation in Islam that we refuse to hear because that moderation is in conflict with our preconceptions about the militant nature of their faith.
We should remember before Constantine the early Christian Church grew not because of any militancy or state support, but because the humble, exemplary lives of it’s adherents stood in stark contrast to the violence and depravity of the rest of the Roman world around them. Similarly I believe we can defeat Islamic militancy not by emulating its worst features, but by discrediting it. Instead of serving as the bogeyman that validates the propaganda of the Islamic radicals, we should press the Muslim world into an ongoing dialogue so that we can better understand their grievances and/or hostile intentions.
Note 23.
“Interpreted to suggest” is too soft. Try something like: given Islamic theology, particularly the notion of the absolute transcendence of God where every word falls short of reaching God, and given that Islam must rule the world even through the sword, bloody conflict is inevitable. Say that and you are a lot closer to Trifkovic’s warning. Of course this does not mean all Muslims are jihadists. It does mean that no internal mechanism exists to restrain the militant jihadists which by some accounts number up to 20% of Muslims. So yes, we may be facing a threat with which peaceful coexistence is impossible — something Western culture has faced before with the Islamic world and had to beat back.
As for Vlahos, every culture has a narrative. In debunking the traditional narrative (which he treats with palpable scorn), he is merely seeking to replace it with another under the pretense of objectivity. The necessity for narrative is indisputable. Despise it and you undermine it. Undermine it enough and society (or in Vlahos’ case all of Western Civilization) falls.
His complaint is actually old hat (cultural Marxism) although it has wide currency, particularly in the academy. We heard it all through the Cold War (cultural Marxists revive it out in the face of a particularly implacable American foe, the Soviet Union then, Islamic aggression today), although it fell into disuse after Reagan’s masterful handling of the Soviet fall proved it wrong.
Your operative thesis Dean is that a person should to define themselves in contradistinction to their enemies. You argued the same thing upstream when you said the Pope should plan his actions to refute the charges of anti-Christian bigots in the media. In fact, the stronger the critique, the more the counter-program ought to be shaped by it you seem to say.
You need to realize that nothing can sate an antagonist. What is really needed is more self-confidence, even to the point of self-sacrifice (think early Christian martyrs here), which arises the deeper one reaches into his own tradition and understands it and lives it.
Contrary to Vlahos, the American narrative is by and large a noble one. Why do you think all the refugee movements of the last century looked to make America their home? Self-criticism, BTW, is part of that narrative.
Note 2-
“I could have just as loving and commited relationship with my dog if I so chose.”
Michael, I’m confused. Are you saying you could have just as loving and committed a relationship with your dog as with your wife? For the sake of all those involved, I hope that’s not true.
““This tacitly accredits those dismal theories that strip all relevance from the masculinity and femininity of the human being as though it were a purely biological issue,” the Pope said.”
I’m curious to hear what the Pope would have to say about genuine biological issues. He clearly won’t be spearheading any Vatican City gay-straight alliances, but what’s his stance on the small but not insignificant number of people who are born with ambiguous gender?
Although the popular term is “hermaphrodite,” true hermaphroditism is rare. The human species does, however, see live births of people with ambiguous genitals, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Klinefelter Syndrome, and occasional births of persons who possess both testicles and ovaries, or who are genetically XXY. Who are those people “allowed” to marry, within the Catholic Church, if at all? Does the Church forbid marriage altogether, or permit it based on the person’s phenotypic or genotypic gender? If there is doubt, does the Church account at all for the sex that a person is attracted to in those cases?
Does anyone know the Orthodox Church position on marriage and persons who are gender-ambiguous? I’m not talking here about people who are psychologically “transgdner,” but about people who are genetically or physically “intersex.”
Note 25. Phil writes:
I’m not speaking for Michael but I can help clear up your confusion. If marriage is solely a civil rights issues like gay marriage advocates claim it is, then anyone can claim discrimination who loves someone (or something) but cannot marry them (it). Marrying a dog is an extreme example, but only to make this point. Bringing it closer to home, polyamorous groups claim that a prohibition against polygamy violates their civil rights — which it does if marriage is solely a civil rights issue.
And, delving even further into reality, the truth is that gay rights and the Civil Rights Movement are two different things. Gay Marriage Far Removed From Civil Rights Movement
Phil, re note 25 believe it or not, there are people out there who prefer dogs to women and would fight for their “rights”. As Fr. Hans points out, I’m merely trying to illustrate what happens when a specific type of sexual desire becomes the source of human identity and therefore a “right”.
Phil, there is also the fact that out side of a male/female bond, the nature of sexual relations turns from a co-submission to one another into merely self-gratification. In fact, that is also the way non-marital sex between men and women turns out, self-gratification as Walter Trobisch points out.
If sex is merely self-gratification, and a particular style of self-gratification becomes thought of as intrinsic to human identity, all forms of self-gratification become intrinsic to to human identity.
The situations of genetic and emotional confusion would, within the Orthodox Church be looked at as a pastoral matter and dealt with individually.
Note 29-
You keep asserting that, yet I don’t get the impression that you’ve actually tried it out in order to report on it so thoroughly. Your explanation of the nature of non-male/female sex is circular: “Sex outside of the male/female bond is merely self-gratification, because sex outside of the male/female bond is merely self-gratification.”
I’m going to go out on a limb here and assert that your particular style of gratification (what a lot of people would call “sexual orientation”) is intrinsic to your identity. I’ll even assert that it’s intrinsic to Jacobse’s. If you are heterosexual, then that style is politically incidental, and if you’re celibate, then that style may be politically moot. But come one– how can you ignore the fact that for millions of heterosexuals, including Orthodox Christians, the fact that they are not gay or lesbian is an important part of their identity which they would vigorously defend if the opposite were suggested?
Why is it “intrinsic” to say that one is gay, but not to say that one isn’t?
Notes 27 (and 25)–
One thing I’m genuinely curious about is the Orthodox position on people who aren’t traditionally male or female, not because of choice, but because they were born with indistinct gender. Can they marry?
Phil, you say:
Without going into details that are no one’s business, I’ll just say, you are wrong.
Note 32-
I’m impressed. Would that all homosexuality opponents do such research.
I’m more impressed with those who are wise enough not to do such “research”. God forgives sin, but once we have fallen the original purity never quite returns, innocence is lost only once. Each bit of my “research” has cost me dearly in tears damaged friendships and lost love. I have seen others, not so fortunate as I, die in agony when their “research” became their life. It is not something to be flippant about.
I speak as I do in an attempt to say to others; “Do not trod the path I have trod if you value your self.”