Saturday, 5 January 2013


This post was going to be a ramble about the mess the Anglicans have got themselves into with with allowing the appointment of gay but celibate Bishops.  However Joe has written very well on the subject and that is not really the ground I wish to cover.  The main point in writing is a moan, I've made it before, about the whole notion of sexuality.  I will define sexuality as an attachment to the sexual function of our bodies and I will say now that it is the notion of sexuality that has so damaged these modern times and led to great damage in the Catholic Church as well as elsewhere.  It doesn't say anywhere in the Beatitudes, "Blessed be the straight".  Yes GAY does stand for "good as you", yes it is just as good as any other sexual orientation, it is good for nothing.

We need to stop thinking about our sexuality completely. Any attachment to sexuality does not aid chastity. The sexual act is confined to the marriage bed and should in the first place be conducted by virgins, in other words, those innocent of any prior attachment to their sexuality.  That is Church teaching, that is as it should be for those trying to live as members of the Body of Christ; say the Litany of the Holy Name, then tell me I'm wrong.

Sadly we live in a  world where we are increasingly being made to sexualise ourselves and define ourselves by our orientation.  This orientation contains a lot of nurture. We are told that masturbation is healthy.  It isn't: it makes you spiritually blind. Being rampantly heterosexual is not healthy, procuring any contract with a member of the opposite sex purely out of lust and sexual vigour is not Christian. Yet we are encouraged to develop our sexual orientation and walk down the street as a sexual being.  We encourage ourselves to say "I'm gay/straight, I'm attracted to that person, I wonder if that man/woman would be interested in me?".  Increasingly it may also explain why some women so like the company of openly gay men, the men see them as sexual beings but "not their type" so  the parties involved feel sexual and safe. These relationships are often very materialistic, revolving around shopping and entertainment.....

What happened in Sodom and Gomorrah may suggest that homosexual lust is worse than heterosexual.  The male inhabitants were so keen on satisfying their desires that when the angels visit Lot, they can only think about having intercourse with them, no doubt because of their beauty.  However when the cities are destroyed, it is Lot's wife who turns round to look back with a hint of nostalgia.  Perhaps the sexual proclivity of the women was just as bad, or maybe there were just some very good shoe shops that had bitten the dust.

The horrifying story of the Levite and his wife at the end of the book of Judges has a similar echo.  Perhaps it it more horrifying because these were all sons of Israel and had received the Law. The inhabitants of the Benjaminate town wish to have intercourse with the Levite.  On many grounds this is a crime too horrible for words as the Levite is a conduit to God as any priest is irrespective of his own holiness.  To prevent this happening the old man who has put them up for the night offers his virgin daughter, they don't accept this, but do accept the Levite's wife who they rape till she is dead.  Again this suggest the lusts are not purely homosexual, but that lust is lust is lust and will find an outlay in something eventually.

So what do we do if we find that our sexuality has become so ingrained in our being that it is very difficult to let go of it, as we must if we are to be truly chaste.  Do we suffer our pain at not being able to satisfy our sexuality?  This seems to be what many in the Church would have us do. However I'm not convinced. It can't be a suffering pleasing to God, it is not a suffering like that of Christ, or the devil would have tempted Him with a sexual temptation.  The most masculine men and the most feminine women you will ever meet are those in complete mastery of their sexual function, those for whom sexuality has been conquered, and this often puts them in the dangerous position of being very sexually attractive to others. 

I'll throw a little question at you to make my final point.  Consider yourself a first century Ephesian silversmith  who has just converted to the Faith due in the main part to the grace flowing through the teachings of St Paul.  Your life is not good and you tell God all about your suffering. God will listen attentively and his angels will comfort you as you tell Him about your loss of business due to your conversion, your increasing poverty and the sickness in your family as you tell Him how much you love Him and how you will do His will. However, when you tell Him how much you are missing your visits to the temple of Diana of the Ephesians and the "priestesses" therein, can you really tell Him that and say in the same breath that you love Him?


Ttony said...

Coo! You don't do a whimical piece about birds and flowers with a "Thought For The Day" paradox-but-not-too-paradoxical last sentence, do you?

(If the silversmith's attachment isn't to the cult of Diana but to the belonging to a society from which he has voluntarily disassociated himself, is he less bad? Is whimsy venial?)

No comment, really, as you're on the money, as always.

Prayers continue.

Rita said...

Ta Chuck,

Spent too many of my formative years listening to James H Reeve....

Interesting question you raise, but perhaps that was all Lot's wife was doing? I dunno, but sentimentality and whimsy don't really seem to fit the "do ye manfully" Faith that produces saints in the Church.

Patricius said...

"... this suggests the lusts are not purely homosexual, but that lust is lust is lust...."

Thank God, I say, that someone has actually said it!

Ttony said...

"I dunno, but sentimentality and whimsy don't really seem to fit the "do ye manfully" Faith that produces saints in the Church."

You've left me with a mental image of God looking down on the Ephesian silversmith and, with a Jimmy Wagg accent, saying "Y'girl!"