Warren Kinsella on

gay marriage. He doesn't have permalinks which makes it a pain in the neck to link to individual posts but it is the second one down. I am violating his copyright notice but I thought I would post his entire post. It is a good one I think. I don't agree with all of his theological reasoning but it is worth reading. Let's hope he takes mercy on me and doesn't sue me into the next millenium (off topic but I just watched the Simpsons episode where Homer was awarded the church as an injury settlement and an "answer to prayer")

Along with the obligatory Strolling Bones fellation in today's paper, there's also a lot of ink about the usual suspects in the federal Liberal caucus (ie., the ones who typically blame Jean Chretien for every misfortune that has befallen Canada, including rainy days), carping and kvetching about equal marriage. Now, some of these "Liberals," with whom I have crossed metaphorical swords many times, assert that their opposition to legal recognition of gay marriage is based, bona fide, in scripture. I'm a little suspicious of that.

But, being a (sometimes) practicing federal Liberal and a (usually) practicing Catholic, I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt - and a little research, besides. Here's a piddling fraction of what I found, penned in the main by a former Catholic priest. (And Jesus.)

In 1975, the Vatican published a Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics. One of those questions was homosexuality. A principal author of that document was Fr. Jan Visser, C.Ss.R. In an interview published in the January 30, 1976, edition of L'Europa, he said: "When one is dealing with people who are so deeply homosexual that they will be in serious personal and perhaps social trouble unless they attain a steady partnership within their homosexual lives, one can recommend them to seek such a partnership, and one accepts this relationship as the best they can do in their present situation." So, one of the very men who formulated the Vatican teaching that "homogenital acts" are wrong allows that, in certain cases, we should not only permit - but even recommend! - a homosexual relationship.

That's not all. Ruminating about Catholics who dissent on Church teaching about contraception, the Canadian bishops wrote in 1968: "Since they are not denying any point of divine and Catholic faith nor rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, these Catholics should not be considered nor consider themselves cut off from the body of the faithful." Relevant, here, too, is that little bestseller, titled The Bible: "If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God who he has not seen." (1 John 4:20) And, of course, "whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16-18) And so on and so on. (Any haters out there planning on quoting Leviticus to me, or something else, don't bother; you'll go straight to the delete bin.)

I'll probably get myself excommunicated from both my church and my party for this, but it seems to me Chretien and Cauchon's proposed legislation respects the law - but also permits religious organizations to maintain their opposition to equality, however wrong that may be to bleeding hearts comme moi. Liberals - real liberals - are making a big mistake if they ape the Alliance misanthropes on this one. Real Christians, meanwhile, should take a hard look at 1 John 4:20, and consider if some religious leaders are making mistakes, too.

While reading this post, I was reminded of an interview that Professor Richard Hays of Duke Divinity School gave with Cutting Edge...

You recently suggested during an academic debate on homosexuality—in which you take a conservative position—that there are even more central ethical concerns that you think Christians should be concerned about.

Yes. I think, in that debate, I said that I found it curious that some quarters of the church have focused so much energy and passion on Scriptural authority as it relates to the issue of homosexuality—rather than issues such as how we use our possessions, which by any measure is a matter of much more central concern in the New Testament. In the case of homosexuality you have three or four New Testament texts that even mention in any way, whereas the concern for the poor shows up regularly as quite central to the teaching of Jesus.

So it seems to me that if we try to have an ethics that is genuinely shaped by Scripture and its emphases, we would be much more passionate about those sorts of concerns. I also suggested in that debate that perhaps it is a bit of psychological displacement on the part of Christians, because we don't really want to be confronted by the Word on things that would pinch. So we find other things to emphasize that don't effect most of us so much.

That last paragraph is a killer.