But there is a religious vision that dissents from this cafeteria-style theology. In 2008, it often comes into conflict with trendier views on the flashpoint issue of sexuality — perhaps the greatest preoccupation of our age.
For 2,000 years, Christianity has taught that God had a purpose in creating human beings as male and female. He gave the two sexes complementary bodies and natures so that they could become “one flesh,” and in the process generate new life. The faithful, committed sexual love of man and woman holds a special dignity in Christian teaching, which sees it as mirroring God’s love for humanity.
In recent years, however, a different vision of sexuality has grown fashionable. In this view, sex of all kinds — whether straight, gay or otherwise — is best understood as a vehicle for pleasure and self-expression. Today, this vision of sex dominates our entertainment industry, is taught in our schools and inspires events such as gay pride celebrations.
The column is excellent, and the comments are illuminating.
[blockquote]Clearly, there is hatred here. But it is not coming from the Catholic Church. Rather, it’s a tool of those who are trying to compel the church to conform to their personal demands with caricatures and public mockery.[/blockquote]
Brilliantly the truth…f.inally someone says it and prints it! HAtred is not fron the Church it is from those who are looking to change the Church to affirm their sin so they don’t have to conform to God.
Kendall,
Wow! This is top drawer stuff. I am going to link this on my blog. Thank you for posting it.
Yours in ICXC
John
Remember always: You are not invited to tolerate, you are required to APPROVE and CELEBRATE.
I think I’ve found a new hero. Great, concise writing. Should be widely distributed. Thanks, Kendall, for posting it.
I find the use of words like “trendy” and “fashionable” to be pointlessly demeaning, and undermine her larger argument. Whether the modern(ist) viewpoint is right or wrong, it’s not simply a fashion statement. (In any case, I was happy to see the day when mixed race water fountains and swimming pools became fashionable!).
RE: #6 –
Race is not in the same category as sexuality. Despite repeated shrill demands that we pretend they are.
#7 — I’m not suggesting race and sexuality are equivalent, but the decision to be on one side or the other can be, in my experience and observation, just as difficult. To demean the position as “trendy” and “fashionable” is, whatever the other merits of the case, simply uncharitable rhetoric. It may feel good for her to say it (just as the mindless on the other side feel good after saying their opponents are unthinking bigots who simply don’t have it in them to question social tradition), but it just guarantees she can only preach to her own choir.
Of course you suggest an equivalency between race and sexuality, by the use of the parenthetical statement and the connecting phrase “In any case…” Perhaps if you’d modified your sentence to include the caveat that race relations and the civil rights era were completely without bearing in the conversation…as it is, you’re the one who introduced race into the conversation. Why squawk about others’ rhetoric when yours is so imprecise? Charity begins at home. Besides that, I believe the author can make a valid point using the word “fashionable.” It’s my opinion (and I think it’s a good one) that a great deal of effort has gone forth to sensitize citizens to gay issues through the popular media, and the popular media is far from immutable. If this is the case, then the word “fashionable” isn’t demeaning.
I’m not sure anybody cares about whether I wrote my first comment particularly well, but my point was to suggest how using loaded terms like “trendy” and “fashionable” made it impossible to talk with people who disagreed with you — as using a word like “fashionable” to talk about desegregation would be seen to be inappropriate to 99% of the modern audience, and would brand you a clown. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. Let me stipulate that I should have written the parenthetical part more carefully.
But the substance of my point remains — if all she wanted was to get “right ons” from people who already agree with her, then she chose the right terms. Otherwise, not so much.
Sorry, let me continue here. I think of myself as a moderate in this debate. I have an opinion, but I believe people on both sides can be acting in good faith. I believe many people on both sides have made courageous, heart wrenching choices — often enough against their immediate best interests — to make the decisions they have made. I believe speaking in charity is more likely to further our mission as Christians, not to mention as human beings. Blanket statements that accuse people who disagree with you of being trendy or fashionable (or bigoted or hateful) do not, to my mind, proclaim the nearness of God’s Kingdom.