cire perdue

Today I talked with quite a brilliant infectious disease physician, a female Pakistani in her 50's who was a liberation movement of her own, who stated quite matter of fact that homosexuality is NOT genetic and that it cannot be genetic. Because it would not be a species survival trait, but quite the opposite. She says it is that simple. This meant to me that it has no place in evolution unless we are planning the extinction of our species. I thought that was a rather astute explanation that is usually overlooked. Gee, but it's too simple...sometime truth is that simple.........

At the Baha'i School I just attended Baha'is are encouraged to have no limits for love for each other, and there are times when I feel almost overcome by what I feel for and from other Baha'is. It figuratively brings me to my knees. This is not romantic love, but it is so, so powerful. The Baha'is who have remained active and have practiced the guidance we have been given are becoming a core that is going to be able to handle anything that comes. AND "IT" is going to come....i.e. why aren't women on the Universal House of Justice...why can't I be gay and be a Baha'i.....what do you mean I can't tell everyone I don't like what the LSA decided....we don't discuss elections.....you have to be a Baha'i to give to the fund.....Yes, the Baha'i day starts the evening before...no, we cannot invite non-Baha'is to Feast on purpose, it is for Baha'is....Baha'is are not to be involved in politics, especially protesting things and/or running for political office.....
ARE YOU READY FOR IT?

Sen McGlinn

Your friend may be a good infectious disease doctor, but she is no geneticist. A trait which does not apparently lead to a greater number of progeny can be transmitted because it is associated with a gene that does. For example, a study of families in an area in Italy in which male homosexuality was unusually common found that the female fecundity in those families was unusually high. Thus the families that had the relevant gene increased in numbers, even though a substantial portion of the boys became homosexuals. This could be an incidental side-effect of gene that made the women more fecund, or it could be that when the gene emerged, the presence of unattached males to guard and support the group complemented the higher number of children the group was raising.

It is likely that there is not one gene that makes homosexual orientation more likely, but several, and the means of transmitting the gene may differ in each case.

While the mechanisms are only now being discovered, the fact that homosexual orientation is at least partly genetic has been demnstrated in studies. The wiki page
Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
outlines the various lines of research, including the Italian study I have mentioned (under the heading "female fertility)

Fadl

I'm sure no geneticist, and I'm not an expert on homosexuality, but it seems to me that many traits that are non-conducive to evolution are at least in part genetic. For example, many kinds of diseases, such as Alzheimer's can be caused in part, by genetic factors, and certain cancers have a significant genetic component. Therefore, I don't think it is logical to say that genetics cannot lead to traits that are not conducive to survival or evolution. I think the point that is missed about homosexuality, is that even if genetics does play a role to either a large or a small degree, and whether in many or in a few of the cases, it is indeed a 'case', meaning that it is not a normal or ideal condition. By normal, I mean something that is ideal for the health and well-being of the individual, the family, and society, and even the evolution and survival of the species. It is obviously against the natural order, since everyone couldn't do it without imperiling our future existence. Of course it is normal or natural in the sense that it seems to occur in many animals including men, of a natural course of life in reality, but so do many diseases or disorders, which is really the point. Homosexuality is a disorder or perhaps a disease. I know that is unfashionable to say, but if we are to be honest, this is simply how it is. And just as we treat any person with a disease or disorder (genetic, psychological or otherwise) with compassion and fairness, so should we treat someone who is homosexual, and I would even dare say a person 'with' homosexuality. But also, just like any other disorder or disease, we ought to be concerned about causes, prevention, and cure. As for those who say it is a 'choice', well, I'm not so sure. Maybe a few could choose it, but I have to say as a heterosexual, I cannot even imagine being with an other man, as I find even the thought of it extremely repulsive. There is simply no way that I could ever choose to do it. I really don't believe most people could choose to do it either since it is ordinarily such a repugnant thought.

Yeshua

Personally, I believe that homosexuality is genetic. I have known many gay people in my life, and have gay friends, and in every case the homosexual orientation would appear to me to be beyond the person's control ie it was not a choice. I have only ever encountered one gay person who claimed it was a choice - and that is my cousin. He claimed that he was "conditioned" (I quote) to be homosexual while at university. In truth, his father is a devoutly religuous man, and I know (deep down) that he is ashamed of his sexuality and that he just cannot bring himself to admit that he was "born" this way (sorry to accidentally quote Lady Gaga ).

For me, the "it was only a choice" or "lifestyle choice" arguement, stems from homosexuals (on the most part) who do not want to admit to themselves that they were born homosexuals, perhaps due to societal or famalial pressure.

Obviously, on the objective level, homosexuality is "unnatural". My faith (and by that I mean Catholicism) teaches that homosexuality itself, that is the condition and not the lifestyle, is not "sinful" but disordered. Homosexual thoughts and homosexual attraction are not in of themselves sinful or wrong. The Church has never condemned homosexuality, only homosexual acts which do contravene nature.

Homosexuality is disordered because it has the ability to make one do something which is against nature.

However although homosexuality, objectively speaking, is unnatural on the subjective (individual) level it can be "natural" in as much as it is that person's genetic makeup, his "natural" condition at conception/birth.

Objectively - it would end reproduction if we where all gay. However so would celibacy. One could say that, objectively speaking, Jesus and John the Baptist were "unnatural" for their refusal to marry (given that men have a natural urge to have sex and reproduce). However this of course is not the case. In and of itself celibacy can actually be a virtue, if done for reasons of sacrifice and love of God and not simply because one cannot find a partner!

In the same way I think that an individual afflicted with homosexuality can turn his condition into virtue, by choosing a celibate life and using this freedom to devote himself wholly to love of God. In this respect he/she should follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ and John the Baptist who (although being heterosexual men) adopted the celibate life out of love for God.

The film and novel, "The Last Temptation of Christ" is all about how Jesus struggled to renounce his natural desires to marry and have children, so as to dedicate himself to his mission. Jesus was sinless, but he was also human, and was tempted and struggled just as much as we do (the only difference being that unlike us he never gave in to those temptations!).

Most Christians "flinch" at the very idea of Jesus being "tempted" by sexual desire or wanting to take a wife and have children. However the Book of Hebrews tells us that he was "tempted in every way", which includes sexuality. If Jesus were not sexually tempted, then he would not be the perfect example of humanity to us, since he would be an "exception" rather than "like us in every way except sin".

No less an authority than Jesus Christ tells us that some people are "born" unable to follow the normal path of marriage:

"...Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it..." (Matthew 19:3-12)

There you have it - some people are "born" in a state which objectively speaking runs contrary to nature, since it prevents them from reproducing which is the natural instinct in-built for the survival of the human race. Homosexuals fall into that category specified by Jesus.

Objectively, its unnatural but subjectively it can be the natural state of certain individuals from birth.





"To be the Bride of Christ!
"Bride," I must live all that this name implies
of love given and received, of intimacy, of fidelity, of absolute devotion!

To be a bride means to be given as He gave Himself;
it means to be sacrificed as He was, by Him, for Him...
It is Christ making Himself all ours and we becoming "all His!"
To be a bride means to have all rights over His Heart...
It is a heart to heart exchange for a whole lifetime...

"To be a bride" means to have eyes only for Him
Our thoughts haunted by Him,
our heart wholly taken over, wholly possessed,
as if it had passed out of itself and into Him;
It means keeping our gaze always fixed on His,
to discover His least sigh, His least desire;
it means to enter into all His joys, to share all His sadness.
It means to know nothing else than to love,
to love while adoring, to love while praying, while asking,
while forgetting oneself;
to love always in every way!"

- Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity, OCD

cire perdue

I found Wikipedia's article not to be definitive by any means, if anything previous twin studies have shown it is NOT genetic. For Baha'is it does not matter if it is genetic. Homosexuals have and do recover. As a recovering homosexual I found my life described by Joseph Nicolosi Phd in his multiple works, the lastest SHAME AND ATTACHMENT LOSS. As one who has been involved as deeply as one can be and come back out I continue to say it is not genetic, that at extremes it is a personality disorder with varying degrees. That is why it seems genetic, because damage to child as early as these causes are, it might as well be genetic. There are too few who are willing to be spiritually motivated enough to fight the reinforcement that occurs with a lifestyle based on sexual activity. A sexual climax is probably the most reinforcing stimulus available to mankind.

There remains no reason whatsoever not to love anyone so afflicted, and to accept them regardless of their choices. Homosexual activity is still an attempt to love and be love. Is there anyone commenting who has read Nicolosi's work other than a few pages on the internet? Hmmmmmmm?

Her view is an oversimplification of evolution, but in the purest sense of the theory it continues to make sense to me despite its flaws, especially if you put it back in a tribal society in caves. Men are omnisexual.

Fadl

CP,

Why are you sorry?

I think the bottom line, in my mind, is that it is a disorder whether or not genetics are a factor. I think there are a variety of factors involved with it, but regardless of the causes, it is not a behavior that should be embraced.

I think the great tragedy today in in painting as a healthy and natural alternative lifestyle choice is very misguided. What other condition is treated this way? It is horrible if someone be treated bad for any condition, and equally horrible that no one should find it necessary to solve and heal other than some churches.

Yeshua

I don't think that homosexuality itself is a "problem" betokening a "solution" - only homosexual acts. There have been saints and holy men who have been homosexual within my own religious tradition, and they died celibate, non-practicing gays but gays nonetheless.

If a man is a homosexual but struggles against his desires to remain as chaste as possible, and if he is fine being chaste, then I say that he should embrace his homosexual identity.

Homosexuals should be proud to be the people they are. Being attracted to members of your own sex is not in any way sinful. Only homosexual acts are sinful, but even then homosexual acts are the "natural" outcome of a disordered homosexual desire, and so the person must still be treated with the utmost compassion, sensitivity and tenderness.

Homosexuality only becomes a problem when the individual himself (or herself) longs for sexual love and/or children.

In that case, I would support attempts by that person to "try" and become hetreosexual but only because they long for a sexual partner and/or children.

However, a person cannot change and should not be expected to change, who they are.

Ultimately homosexuality can be a cross to bear, but we all must bear our own crosses.

It is not a barrier to saintliness or godlineness.

Blessed Seraphim Rose was a homosexual. He never denied his homosexuality, even to death. Many also consider Saint Aelred to have been homosexual. When you read his Writings it is very clear to me that he was. But they were both holy, chaste homosexuals.

Yes! You can be a holy homosexual

Here is an example of a chaste, Catholic gay man who is at one with his sexual identity: http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot...oing-fine.html

cire perdue

This is a rant and a soap box, but does anyone realize how much they do not know about gay people when they without qualification accept gay as a lifestyle? Are you aware that some of the friends you like would seduce you under the right circumstances and not feel any guilt and enjoy the hell out of it, and probably try again no matter what it did to you? Are you aware of how promiscuous the general population of gay people are, and that until that dies down as they age, they are not usually in relationships. Are you aware of the sex acts being performed in public or in the back of a crowd in bars at Mardi Gras? Are you aware of a practice called fisting? Are you aware of how inappropriate in the right circumstances some of the people you know are capable of being? Do you think these things are exceptions? Do you understand that your 14 year old child is vulnerable to seduction that you can do very little about by a 15 year old that may find him/her attractive especially if the lifestyle is that okay? HUH?

I in no way believe that gay people should be shunned or not accepted, but the lifestyle is very unhealthy. It has an element of compulsion that heterosexual activity does not unless sex addiction is present, but gay people are more frequently than others to be sex addicts. It is NOT comparable to heterosexual lifestyles. It is not uncommon for gay men to have had 1000's of sexual encounters. Anonymous sex is common and no big deal. Pornography is acceptable. A gay person who has sex with an adult at age 12 thinks that was wonderful. Gay lifestyle is absolutely invisible to any who have not participated in it. Going to a gay bar does not qualify. Going to a bathhouse and seeing what happens might qualify, but what hetersexual would do that?

It may have a genetic component, but it also bothers me that people have not read literature about the develoopmental theory that is validated by people who get into recovery. Perhaps I take this personally. People say gay lifestyle is acceptable without knowing what it really is and have less knowledge about it when they make these statements than they do when they research a new car. No one should make any statements about gay being genetic unless and until they have read Nicolosi, Van Den Aardveg, or others. Not only Freud thought it was development, but Carl Jung did as well.
I guess it feels pretty neat to disagree with those guys, huh!

Knowing a few gay people is no qualifications for opinions. People are giving opinions on that basis for which they would not venture anything at all with that kind of evidence for a statement about history or religion. Yeah, I guess this hits a nerve.

Furthermore, yeah I know gay people that I love and I still have them as friends that are not afraid to show love to other men. I don't expect them to accept my views, so they are not discussed. I go to AL Anon, and it is said that 6% of the population are alcoholics who affect a minimum of 4 people. Of that 6% only an infintesimal number are in recovery, but the proportion of those in Al Anon is even smaller. This is where people go to learn the truth of what and who they are to help themselves, not the alcoholic, so that means to me that the majority on this planet do NOT want to know abaout themselves. That spiritual/religious people are in denial about homosexuality should not bother me, but it does! Do you realize you probably do NOT know what you are supporting?

Fadl

Yeshua,

When I say that a homosexual has something wrong with them, it is not from a moral judgment point of view . It is from the point of view that for what ever reason, they have a condition that inclines them toward a sexuality that can only be fruitless, and that, from a biological view, is 'wrong' since it cannot be productive. It is a disorder, and to argue that it is not, may be in fashion and PC, but it is simply not correct.

Naturally, we share your view that celibacy is an option to the person with this condition, however, we do not hold celibacy up as being holy as Catholics do, and this is one of the areas where our similarities breaks down. Also, with all due respect to you and your faith, celibacy is a severe lifestyle choice that few can handle and keep to holiness. There are many examples of how celibacy adversely affects the human mind which often leads to sexual acts that are far from holy. So while I recognize that a homosexual has the option of celibacy, it is nowhere close to a happy, cheery solution, because the sex drive in men and women is a very strong and natural one, that can not easily be subdued, and which when subdued, often results in great harm to individuals and society. This is why I find the idea that: 1) Homosexuals are not in need of research leading to a cure, and 2) that they can go ahead and live a holy celibate life, feels a little bit unrealistic, and a lot unsympathetic to what that actually entails.

The best thing that could happen in my opinion, is for researchers to be researchers and figure this thing out. Find out what the causes are, find out how they could be solved, if possible. I don't think PCness belongs in science, especially when it is PCness that is not sound or rational.

It sounds like some people can be helped, as CP is the living proof of that. However, I think there may be a variety of causes, and maybe not everyone can be helped with the method CP used. If not, then more methods need to be discovered. That is unlikely to happen, however, if it is too unPC to even ask the question and do the science. That's really sad.

aidan

I have long believed that celibacy and homosexuality were extra-ordinary lifestyles as man's basic instinct incomon with all animals is self preservation and furthering the species.Fadl its wrong to insinuate that,for example,celibacy can lead to child abuse.Paedophile clergy are paedopiles who enter the church for access to kids.CP,I think the world of you but you do not hold a monopolyon emotional suffering.I am not a facist but I do have an opinion of facism and am entitled to that opinion and so with homosexuality.At what point does a recoverig homosexual become recovered?Whats the difference between omnisexual and bisexual?

Fadl

You are right, Aiden. I don't think I meant to implicate Catholic priests, as I think that has been exaggerated and sensationalized to a large extent. I think I don't need to go beyond my own life experiences to say that celibacy is exceedingly hard and affects the brain. I don't imagine I would be happy if not married, and could not do what is a very natural human impulse. Indeed, Baha'u'llah has enjoined marriage upon us, so that we might bring forth one who will remember him, and worship him. In this sense, wedlock is much holier than celibacy from the Baha'i view as I understand it.

aidan

I ve been celibate for some time now and as with all types of abstemtion,the appetite does wain.However I dont want to remain celibate as I need the warmth of a woman partner to fill my emptiness.Celibacy has been thrust upon me but it certainly has not made me inclined to deviate from societal norms

Yeshua

Dear brother Fadl!

Thank you for your post!

I think there is a small misconception that the Catholic Church holds celibacy to be the most virtuous mode of life. This is not strictly true. It holds marriage and celibacy as being equally holy paths. Neither are in our eyes superior to the other, as the married man/woman is fulfilling his natural, God-given vocation for marital love and the raising of children - the family being the nucleus of society and the most important component unit of all human life, whereas the celibate can devote Himself/herself to marital bliss free of worldly concerns. I suppose that is a small distinction between our two faiths, if the Baha'i Faith holds celibacy up as superior to marriage. Each to their own!

All I would say is that I reject any intimations that I am being "unsympathetic" in suggesting the celibate life for homosexuals who have deep-seated inclinations and have tried but failed to become heterosexuals or have no desire too. Although its a struggle, some people are content with a single life. It is not for everybody but then again, neither I think is marriage. Each to their own. I actually received a message from Cire in which he thanked me for the sympathy and understanding I expressed in my two posts above

As you know, Jesus Christ, Elijah and John the Baptist were celibate men. Abraham, Moses and Isaiah were married men. The Buddha was married but renounced marriage for a celibate life. We thus have two Manifestations - Jesus and Buddha - who were celibate, and many prophets who were celibate. And then we have many Manifestations and prophets who were married. St Peter and most of the Apostles were married. St Paul wasn't. Baha'u'llah called Jesus, "he who married not" and greatly esteemed him for his celibate life which allowed him to be free from worldly concerns. I would suggest that genuine celibate Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican priests or monks who lead chaste lives are following in his footsteps, in this regard.

Are you suggesting that Abraham and Moses led a superior life to Jesus and Buddha? I know your not, but what I'm trying to explain is that the Manifestations were not all married. Some were celibate, and this proves that both marriage and celibacy are holy.

Baha'u'llah was very appreciative of Jesus' celibate life:

"...Reflect, and be not of them that have shut themselves out as by a veil from Him, and were of those that are fast asleep. He that married not (Jesus Christ) could find no place wherein to abide, nor where to lay His head, by reason of what the hands of the treacherous had wrought. His holiness consisted not in the things ye have believed and imagined, but rather in the things which belong unto Us. Ask, that ye may be made aware of His station which hath been exalted above the vain imaginings of all the peoples of the earth. Blessed are they that understand..."

(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 48)


In the Iqan Baha'u'llah praised Jesus for his ascetic - and therefore celibate - lifestyle, in which he lacked a permanent abode (a house, family, wife, possesions etc.) and held it up as the ideal of "detachment" in the cause of the Kingdom:

"Thus Jesus, Son of Mary, whilst seated one day and speaking in the strain of the Holy Spirit, uttered words such as these:

“O people! My food is the grass of the field, wherewith I satisfy my hunger. My bed is the dust, my lamp in the night the light of the moon, and my steed my own feet. Behold, who on earth is richer than I?”

By the righteousness of God! Thousands of treasures circle round this poverty, and a myriad kingdoms of glory yearn for such abasement!

Shouldst thou attain to a drop of the ocean of the inner meaning of these words, thou wouldst surely forsake the world and all that is therein, and, as the Phoenix wouldst consume thyself in the flames of the undying Fire."
- (Baha'u'llah, Kitab-i-Iqan p. 131)
__________________


Naturally I cannot accept that Jesus led an inferior life to a married man because he, in the words of Baha'u'llah, "married not"

Abdu'l-Baha also praised Jesus ascetic and celibate lifestyle.

I can quote on demand!

aidan

The teaching of the Catholic Church does indeed hold celibacy and marriage as being equal in status.However in Ireland particularly,celibate clergy have been held i the highest esteem by the common people

armin

This is how I've solved this subject in my mind, from talks I've had and the few stuff I've read. Human's sexual interest is a full spectrum. This is carried out by the genes and is not our choice. However the sexual inclination toward one sex or the other is not defined at any certain point in that spectrum. According to the brain chemistry of each one of us we may be inclined to one sex "more". The norm for obvious reasons is male and female and it's become a social construct that this is the only way any humans brain functions or should be the only way.

Yet like I mentioned no clear point exists to define a person hetero or homosexual. This is where the choice comes into play in my opinion. Many other intrapersonal and social factors weigh in, and in my view looking at it religiously, one has a stronger will and goes in one direction and one fails and goes the other. This of course is no inferiority or necessarily disease in my humble personal view. Just like drinking and having sex for all of us it's a more particular test for some.

Yeshua

I think that this is sadly a problem in Ireland Often times celibate clergy in Ireland were held in very high esteem, to the detrimant of marriage. This did not occur, for example, in Catholic countries like Italy or Spain but in Ireland I would probably agree although I must admit I am going only on what I have been told from others, and so cannot judge.

Neither, in my opinion, is to be viewed as superior or inferior. To do so is to disregard the thousands of prophets and holy men/women who have followed both paths and led holy lives.

Fadl

Yeshua,

Contrary to the sentiment expressed on buttons and stickers saying 'WWJD" (what would Jesus do) I do not turn to Jesus or Baha'u'llah for examples of how to live my life for the simple fact that they are Manifestations of God, and not men in the way that you and I are men. They lived and died for one reason, and that is to bring us closer to God. That means that they often had to live and endure things that are not required of us.

Jesus was in no way holy for the fact that he had no wife or children, for that would make Baha'u'llah, Muhammad, the Bab, Abraham, etc, etc, somehow less holy simply for having had children.

No doubt Jesus was an exceedingly holy and perfect manifestation of God, but not because of celibacy.

Yeshua

I always love the Church Father Tertullian's teaching on the sanctity of marriage.

This crystalizes the Catholic Church's view of marriage:

"...How shall we ever be able adequately to describe the happiness of that marriage which the Church arranges, the Sacrifice strengthens, upon which the blessing sets a seal, at which angels are present as witnesses, and to which the Father gives His consent? For not even on earth do children marry properly and legally without their fathers’ permission.

How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice. They are as brother and sister, both servants of the same Master. Nothing divides them, either in flesh or in spirit. They are, in very truth, two in one flesh; and where there is but one flesh there is also but one spirit. They pray together, they worship together, they fast together; instructing one another, encouraging one another, strengthening one another. Side by side they visit God’s church and partake of God’s Banquet; side by side they face difficulties and persecution, share their consolations. They have no secrets from one another; they never shun each other’s company; they never bring sorrow to each other’s hearts. Unembarrassed they visit the sick and assist the needy. They give alms without anxiety; they attend the Sacrifice without difficulty; they perform their daily exercises of piety without hindrance. They need not be furtive about making the Sign of the Cross, nor timorous in greeting the brethren, nor silent in asking a blessing of God. Psalms and hymns they sing to one another, striving to see which one of them will chant more beautifully the praises of their Lord. Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices. To such as these He gives His peace. Where there are two together, there also He is present; and where He is, there evil is not..."

(Tertullian, Church Father, ca. 160 – ca. 220 A.D)

Yeshua

Fadl

I think you have misunderstood me. I merely said that Jesus and Buddha led celibate lives, whereas Abraham and Moses did not. Both must then be equally as holy and valid paths. I was not suggesting that we could ever even dream of attaining to or reaching their level of perfection now was I? They are all so far above me as to be unimaginable.

If you read what I said carefully, I plainly said that Abraham and Moses chose the married life and that this demonstrates the spiritual sanctity of marriage and its validity as a spiritual path. And then I said that Jesus and the Buddha followed a celibate life and that this (to me) demonstrated the validity of that path as well.

I did not in any way suggest that I could attain to their level of holiness. That's impossible given my great sinfulness and need for God's grace.

John the Baptist and Elijah were both celibate men. They are clearly examples for our life. Isaiah and Isaac were married men. They are examples for our life. Abdu'l-Baha was a married man, he is an example for our lives.

My point has always been that in my eyes (and its only my personal opinion and I respect your difference from me in this regard) is that these holy men show us that both celibacy and marriage are valid paths that can lead to holiness.

I also never suggested that celibacy was what made Jesus "holy". I suggested that he chose this way of life and suggested that some of his followers might like to follow him in this respect, and also be celibate, if they wanted too and that he thus considered celibacy to be a spiritually valid path just like marriage was and is.

Each to their own. I respect our difference of opinion in this regard!

You regard marriage as a superior mode of life to celibacy and I have no problem with that at all.

The only thing I would say though is that the Bible quite clearly tells us Christians that Jesus is our "example" of how to live ie:

"...For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his footsteps...When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but entrusted himself to the one who judges justly..."

- 1 Peter 2:21-24


"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us. Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."

- Hebrews 12: 1-2


So the Bible tells Christians that he is our example, we are to follow his steps.

Indeed the most sold book in Christian circles after the Bible is the "Imitation of Christ" by St Thomas á Kempis.

We can never attain to his Holiness or perfection, since we are sinners and he is the sinless, peerless One. He is Lord and we are his willing servants. He is the Saviour and we are the unmeritorious redeemed.

However the Bible clearly tells us that he is our "example".

Yeshua

I always love the Church Father Tertullian's teaching on the sanctity of marriage.

This crystalizes the Catholic Church's view of marriage:

"...How shall we ever be able adequately to describe the happiness of that marriage which the Church arranges, the Sacrifice strengthens, upon which the blessing sets a seal, at which angels are present as witnesses, and to which the Father gives His consent? For not even on earth do children marry properly and legally without their fathers’ permission.

How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice. They are as brother and sister, both servants of the same Master. Nothing divides them, either in flesh or in spirit. They are, in very truth, two in one flesh; and where there is but one flesh there is also but one spirit. They pray together, they worship together, they fast together; instructing one another, encouraging one another, strengthening one another. Side by side they visit God’s church and partake of God’s Banquet; side by side they face difficulties and persecution, share their consolations. They have no secrets from one another; they never shun each other’s company; they never bring sorrow to each other’s hearts. Unembarrassed they visit the sick and assist the needy. They give alms without anxiety; they attend the Sacrifice without difficulty; they perform their daily exercises of piety without hindrance. They need not be furtive about making the Sign of the Cross, nor timorous in greeting the brethren, nor silent in asking a blessing of God. Psalms and hymns they sing to one another, striving to see which one of them will chant more beautifully the praises of their Lord. Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices. To such as these He gives His peace. Where there are two together, there also He is present; and where He is, there evil is not..."

(Tertullian, Church Father, ca. 160 – ca. 220 A.D)

Fadl

Dearest brother,

Please, meditate upon the essence and reality of the manifestations of God, and then reconsider what you wrote above. Is it really what you mean, that God's manifestations chose anything for themselves?

You and I choose, that is certain. But as for God's manifestations, it is my belief that they are utter submissiveness to God's will, and this is one of the areas where they are not men as we are.

I hope you also understand that I agree with you that celibacy is a path for the homosexual, and, unless they can find a way to change as CP has, and then marry someone of the other sex, celibacy is the only rightful path available. I do not disagree on this point. My disagreement is over the fact that I feel if much more were known about this condition, and if many more remedies and treatments than currently exist could be discovered, this would be more more wonderful than telling someone to bury their natural human desire, and enable to act on it in the way that is good. Sadly, that is unlikely to happen when it is considered wrong to even suggest it.

Yeshua

Dear brother Fadl

I do not mean that Jesus "chose anything for himself". That of course would be heresy in my faith, and we have a name for it 'Arianism' to reduce Christ to simply human station and nature. He always acted in perfect accordance with his Father's will, as in when he said in the Gospel of John: "Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise". And again he said, "For I always do what is pleasing to him [the Father]...My food is to do the will of him who sent me". I do not mean to deny this in any way, if that is what you thought I meant, brother Fadl. By "choose" I am not negating the fact that Jesus never did anything outwith his Father's will. He always chose freely to do the will of his Father, however he still "chose".

For evidence that Jesus made free-willed choices that unlike us were always in accordance with his Father's Will by virtue of his Divine Will and station, we need look no further than his words to the Leper who asked to be healed of his disease in the Gospel of Mark:

"I do choose; Be made clean!”

Thus it is not "alien" or "heretical" within Christian circles to speak of Jesus "choosing", since it is very much biblically supported.

However, he did not "choose" as we do, although he did choose and this is where I think some explaining needs to be done.


Jesus said, "Father let this cup pass from me, yet let not my will be done but yours"


Jesus spoke "Not My Will but Yours be done" Which clearly indicates that He had a will free to choose what it wanted. He freely gave that Will over to God for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.

In this small sentence we see both the freewill of Christ and his utter submissiveness to the will of his Father in Heaven. Jesus was tempted in every way but he never gave in to human weakness. He wanted to avoid the crucible of suffering that was before him, and yet he accepted that his Father's
will must be fufilled.

To claim that Jesus did not have freewill would be to make him a robot, and not human. However to imagine that he ever used his freewill to act outwith the will of his Father, would be blasphemy of the highest order, since he is Divine whereas we do not posses the station of divinity.

We have one will - a human will. Jesus has two wills: human and divine. Jesus is fully human and fully divine. Thus, he possesses a human will (which is distinct to him), and he shares in the Divine will. His human will is always obedient to the Divine will. The perfect conformity of Christ's human will to His divine will is a dogma of Catholicism. His free-will obedience to the Father's Will is what redeemed mankind and allowed for salvation. That is why his sacrifice is redemptive: as a Person of the Trinity, he chose to come to save us; as a man, he still chose to walk the way of Calvary and die for our sins.

And in the same way he "chose" the celibate path that God desired of him, even though I'm sure that his human might well have desired to marry and have children like most people do. Nonetheless the renunciation of marriage was part of his sacrifice in following God's Will and Plan of Salvation through Him - and many celibates freely give up sexual pleasure and marital bliss out of a desire to detach themselves from all else but God, following in the footsteps of holy men such as John the Baptist and Elijah.

In this respect when I wrote "chose" I did not even consider the idea of Jesus' acting independently of his Father's will, since such a thought would not even occur to my mind as it would deny Christ's Divinity. That is the heresy of Arianism.

My point was that Jesus' human will freely "chose" the celibate life that his Divine Will, the Will he shares with God the Father, had ordained for him. God desired Jesus to be celibate, thus proving that celibacy is a valid spiritual path. That was my point. I was not trying to get into a distinction about the two wills doctrine!

I was not trying to deny Jesus' perfect accordance with his Father's will

For the "two wills doctrine" I will furthermore refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is far more wise than my feeble little 19 year old brain ):


"...Christ's human will

475 Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation.110 Christ's human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will."... Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit..."


Hope that we are now clear on this and understand what each other means!

Yeshua

BTW Moses was also praised by the Book of Hebrews for his unerring "faithfulness" to God's will:

"...Therefore, brothers and sisters, holy partners in a heavenly calling, consider that Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses also "was faithful in all God's house." Yet Jesus is worthy of more glory than Moses, just as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.) Now Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant, to testify to the things that would be spoken later. Christ, however, was faithful over God's house as a son, and we are his house if we hold firm the confidence and the pride that belong to hope..."

- Hebrews 3:1-6

aidan

Yeshua,are you by chance the reincarnation of Nicholas Brakespeare aka Pope Adrian vi,the only English Pope?lol

Yeshua

I think that, if this be the case, then we are actually in relative agreeance brother Fadl

In the end, I think we must leave it with the homosexual person themselves to work out God's personal calling for them. If they have a strong desire for sexual love, a partner, marital bliss and children; and if the inability to have this sexual contact with members of their own sex without acting in violation of their professed religious faith is causing them great pain and mental anxiety, then I would encourage every effort to be exhausted towards helping this person, through therapy and whatever means are available, into adopting a heterosexual mindset and lifestyle.

However I am sure that some homosexuals, with very deep-set tendencies, would be willing to sacrifice marital bliss and sexual pleasure, and bring good out of their homosexuality: Using it as a tool with which to detach themselves from worldly pleasure and to focus upon God. We all must carry our own cross, and make sacrifices for God and homosexuality could provide a means, if the individual so willed, of selfless sacrifice of one's desires and needs in the path of God. This is what the Catholic homosexual man whose blog I gave a link to has done, and although it has been a struggle for him at times, he is now at peace both with his sexuality and with his celibacy. Are we to force such a man to try and "become heterosexual" against his will and deny his homosexual state of mind which he identifies so strongly with and believes to be so pathologically innate to him, yet out of love for God, which he does not live out in homosexual behaviour? Such a person is in my humble opinion, Blessed and worthy of honour but that is just me, I accept fully that you may not agree.

IN this way I feel that the homosexual disposition could become a blessing, or rather could be a means of self-transformation and spiritual progress in the way of detachment for that person.

The homosexual individual needs to receive every proper means of care, compassion and sensitivity in working out for themselves the difficult decision of which path they want to take in life, and while doing so, they need to be encouraged to adopt a chaste lifestyle and to abstain from homosexual intercourse during this period of discernment.

I have personally witnessed how painful it can be for homosexual people to deny or repress their homosexual identity. My own great uncle was under great pressure during the 60s to give up his homosexuality. It eventually drove him to despair, as he could not become "heterosexual", no matter how hard he tried. He later reconciled himself with his homosexuality and adopted a chaste lifestyle, since he could not change who he was, no matter how hard he tried.

Every individual case must be judged on its own merits. For some, they will be able to become heterosexuals through much help, patience, testing and trials but only if they so desire. For others, they will be unable to or will be content to remain celibate homosexuals. And I respect this choice, which is harder to make than we heterosexuals could ever imagine. Its so easy for us but not for those homosexual people who are religious and wish to obey God's will and the natural law.

We must, I feel, respect the free volition of these people and never make them feel pressurized into sacrificing their sexual identity, if it goes against their conscience. Likewise we must not force celibacy upon them, if they long for sexual love and/or children.

I pray that my beloved cousin, who is an athiest homosexual, will one day come to the fullness of faith and also come to make this decision.

As the Prophet Zoroaster proclaimed in the holy Gathas:

"Since, O Mazda, from the beginning, Thou didst create soul and body; mental power and knowledge and since Thou didst place life within the corporeal body and didst bestow to mankind the power to act, speak and guide, you wished that everyone should choose his or her own faith and path freely"

- Yasna 31, Verse 11

Like all other people, religious homosexuals must not be denied the right which God though Zoroaster extended to "everyone" name: to follow the Path which they believe God has called them towards, so long as they do not practice homosexual behaviour, whether that be after much arduous struggle heterosexual love or celibacy.

To this end my own Church echoes the Prophet Zoroaster's message:

"...What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian's suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ...As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God's personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord's grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way...An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them...In a particular way, we would ask the Bishops to support, with the means at their disposal, the development of appropriate forms of pastoral care for homosexual persons. These would include the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church..."

- CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH;
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE
OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS, 1986

LordOfGoblins

THis is an interesting post to me. I am finding you interesting to read in this thread. If man can separate his actions from his desires then indeed this shows progress within him. Admitting desire or pervesion to one-self is likely a good first step towards finding a way to overcome or deal with it.

I feel and hope in the future as man becomes more mature he will however move past seeing his identiy as being bound by his sexual orientation so even if he admits he is homosexual, people will just shrug as a non-issue (hopefully). But still I think you are making good posts here (even though its not matching up with Fadl completely )

LordOfGoblins

Brother Fadl.
Do you think calling homosexuality a despicable thing might cause it to become a taboo and thus make people want to engage in it even more??
I think we have to be careful not to adopt a dark-ages mentality with modern issues.
(I know I am going to get burned for this )

Rani

Dear Fadl,

Can we really say that marriage is more holy than celibacy? If it's still your opinion or understanding that is fine.., but what about the Greatest Holy Leaf? She chose to stay single in order to serve Baha'u'llah better. What about some married people who may have no thought of God even? Marriage may be easier (than celibacy), and married people are often healthier according to studies, but I don't see how that makes them more holy, just luckier perhaps. What about the people, either married or single, who are unable to have children too?

Fadl

Dear Yeshua,

It was interesting what you said when mentioning Jesus doing the will of the Father in the context of asking that the cup be taken from him.

Usually, when we this verse is discussed, there seems to be consensus that Jesus is speaking about his suffering, or about his fate at being crucified and martyred. I have shared this view. However, last night as I reflected on it, and thought about what you said, something occurred to me.

Could it not be that when Jesus said take this cup from me, that he was actually asking FOR martyrdom, and to BE crucified? Might it not be that that cup he was tired of was rejection, human weaknesses and wickedness, the smallness of the human capacity and their reluctance to be enlightened and holy? In that way, "take this cup from me" could mean take the burden of this mortal life from me that I might be return to you in paradise.

Just a thought. I'm not sure if this stands up even for me yet, but it is interesting to consider.

Fadl

You may be right, Rani. But again, the issue is not that celibacy or wedlock can or should be defined as more holy. I think the definition of holiness is connected to obedience to God. In our case, it seems to be the will of God that we wed and have children if that is possible for us, and therefore it is the path of holiness since it is God's will:

"Enter into wedlock, O people, that ye may bring forth one who will make
mention of Me amid My servants. This is My bidding unto you; hold fast to it as an assistance to yourselves."
The Kitab-i-Aqdas, Vs.63

As for the Greatest Holy Leaf, may we all strive after her example, she was from a different age than we, and, she was no doubt assigned a special task by God, and it was apparently not God's will that she wed, or she no doubt would have. So I do not think that it is her celibacy that made her holy, but rather her complete submissiveness and servitude to God.

I think following her example by being celibate would miss the point of what following her example really means. Had God willed a different course for her, she would no doubt have married and bore children. Had it been so, would she have lost even one modicum of holiness? I don't think so.

Yeshua

Dear Fadl

I don't think so, I'm afraid, because he was in such deep distress about his impending sacrifice that his sweat become blood, a sign of unimaginable anxiety and fear. Christ was not afraid, perhaps to die, but certainly of the enormity of the impending sacrifice - both the physical pain and trauma of crucifixtion (the most painful death I can imagine) and the spiritual pain, by far the greater, in which he would have to bear the sin of the entire world, to rejuvenate the entire world.

In this respect we see clearly his full humanity, and not his divinity.

Perhaps you should read this passage from "Baha'u'llah and the New Era" by Hand of the Cause John Esselmont (particularly close to my heart because he was Scottish/British):

"...When Baha'u'llah speaks as a man, the station he claims for Himself is that of utter humility...His [Baha'u'llah's] human personality had been chosen by God to become the Divine Mouthpiece and Pen. It was not of His own will that he had assumed this position of unparralleled difficulty and hardship. As Jesus said: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," so Baha'u'llah said: "had there been any expounder or speaker discernible, We would not have made Ourself the object of the censure, ridicule and slander of the people". (Tablet Ishraqat) But the divine call was clear and imperative and He obeyed...At other times, as we have mentioned, Baha'u'llah speaks "from the station of Deity". In those utterances his human personality is so completely subservient that it is left out of account..."

- (Baha'u'llah and the New Era by John Esselmont)

Fadl

I'm inclined to agree, but let's play with it anyway.

Given that his suffering and pain were indeed very great, would not martyrdom and ascending to the all-glorious paradise be the ultimate balm for all his suffering? If we take it literally that he merely wanted to stop suffering in the moment, (ie not be persecuted and crucified) then the cup would still ultimately be his to drink even if a little later. It was only in his sacrifice that the bitter cup was then removed from his holy lips. I find it difficult to imagine that he feared suffering or death, since he had sure knowledge of what glory and bliss were ultimately his. I find it less difficult to believe that he was heavily burdened by the dullness, blindness, and wickedness of those whom he came to save, and found them altogether unworthy of his teaching. Something like, "take this cup from me, for I have found none worthy to receive me or meet thee." I don't mean to put words into his holy mouth, but do you know what I mean? It seems plausible. The Bab was eager to be martyred as were many of his followers. The Bab and Baha'u'llah both frequently lamented about the wickedness and waywardness of the people, so I can imagine Jesus might easily have felt so too.

Rani

Dear Fadl, That was my point also, but in reverse..That just because the Greatest Holy Leaf was single and celibate, made her no less holy than a married person. I didn't imply that she was any more holy for being so, just not less. - (It's) just that you said in your understanding or opinion, that to be married was more holy from a baha'i perspective.

It might depend on one's understanding of what 'holiness' means. To me it means to be pure, sanctified, and to be as free (as possible?) from sin, and to have good virtues. I think one can be pure and with goodness/righteousness whether they are married or single.

The strong encouragement to marry is not the same kind of law to obey as say, the recital of an obligatory prayer. The latter is binding, the former is not. Holiness is about an attitude towards God of submission and a striving to be pure, and this can be achieved, married or single. Many who are married might even be atheist with no thought of serving God.

And Shoghi Effendi makes it clear that marriage is not an obligation. And while most will want to marry, it's not always straightforward to do so.

While marriage is enjoined in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Bahá'u'lláh
clarifies that it is not obligatory (Q and A 46). Shoghi
Effendi, in a letter written on his behalf, also declared that
"marriage is by no means an obligation", and he affirmed
that "in the last resort, it is for the individual to decide
whether he wishes to lead a family life or live in a state of
celibacy". If a person has to wait a considerable period of
time before finding a spouse, or ultimately must remain
single, it does not mean that the individual is thereby
unable to fulfil his or her life's purpose, which is
fundamentally spiritual.

(The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 206)

Yeshua

Dear Fadl,

I think you have proposed an intriguing theory However I cannot say that I am by any means convinced. Jesus' words seem clear enough to me, and I think that sometimes the simplest explanation is actually the best. We can complicate things by trying to infer what really is not in the text.

To understand the meaning of the phrase, "Let this cup pass from me..." what you have to do is consider Jesus' other usages of the word "cup" in a symbolic manner and what this represents for him and indeed within the context of the Gospels.

At the Last Supper Jesus' tells us that the Passover "cup of wine" is his "blood, the blood of the New Covenant which is poured out for the sins of mankind". When he refers to the "cup", Jesus means the eucharistic cup which represents his suffering, his blood poured out to cleanse humankind and make them whole again, for the meaning of the word salvation in Greek is literally "to make whole".

In the context of James and John's mother's request that her sons be granted the privilege of sitting at his right and left when Jesus comes into his glory, Jesus replies by saying that he has a cup from which to drink and he asks James and John if they are ready also to drink that cup (Mark 10:38; Matt 20:22). To say that one has a cup to drink is a metaphorical way of saying that one has a destiny consisting of suffering; the metaphor of drinking a cup down to the dregs to mean suffering occurs in the Old Testament (Ps 75:9; Isa 51:17-22; Ezek 23:32-34).

The problem I see with your interpretation, is that it does not consider at all the historical context in which Jesus made this statement. At nearly every moment in his Passion, the Gospel writers and indeed Jesus' himself employs the symbolism of the Old Testament and refer directly to the Psalms and prophets of the Tanakh, so as to demonstrate how Jesus' sacrifice is the fulfilment of Judaism, and by definition, the fulfilment of the hopes of all human beings. Jesus thus used the metaphor of "cup" not because he thought it up himself, but because it was an established linguistic metaphor for an ordeal of suffering within the Hebraic tradition, and so Jesus used it to try and show how he was acting in both continuity of and fulfilment of that tradition.

"Cup" has clear meaning, in the context. It is to connect Jesus with Isaiah's prophecy of the Suffering Servant.

Now, my second point....

Jesus did not fear death. In fact, he often rejoiced that he was returning to the Father, were he would have the "same glory I had in his presence before the world came to be". But like any human beings, he did not want to suffer.

His "martyrdom" was not to be a quick, or even painful but relatively speedy death, but rather a long, drawn-out agony in which he would be stripped naked (no Roman criminals did not wear the loincloths that you see on crucifixes), exposed to the full humiliation, shame and mockery of his persecutors and be at the mercy of the power of evil at its height. And that is only in addition to all the beatings, torture and mockery he received before the crucifixtion. It was horrendous and I do not think that anybody would want to go through that. That's because Jesus was human and this is his humanity. He differs from us not in his humanity but in his divinity (ie we do not posses divine nature/station).

Jesus did lament the wickedness and waywardness of humankind, however I do not think that he did so at that very moment in the Garden of Gethsemane, when the focus - at least of the Gospel writers who arranged the first-hand material and sayings collections - was on the coming spectre of his suffering for the sins of humankind.

The Gospel of Thomas records him as having said (at what time in his life we don't know):

"...Jesus said, "I stood in the midst of the world, and in the flesh I manifested myself to them. I found all of them drunk; I found none among them athirst. My soul ached and was grieved for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not have sight; for empty they came into the world, and empty they are destined to come forth again from the world. But for the moment they are intoxicated. When they shake off their wine, then they will repent"..."

- Gospel of Thomas, saying 28

cire perdue

I agree that Jesus' crucifixtion was horrendous, He died in a relatively and mercifully short time. They did not have to break His femurs. However regarding the word, cup, it is a vessel. Christ may have asked that the vessel of His life or mission be taken from Him as it had been fulfilled. I also don't think the point was to end the suffering, but who are we to say it was absolutely not part of the Message to us. It can be 50% vessel, 5% end the suffering, 30% release the Holy spirit, and 15% infinite meaning. The Words of God have infinite messages in them, do they not?

I looked at the Catholic Site you referenced and was very heartened by it. I wrote an email to him. I am a little more than horrified that adoption agencies have been shut down by legal rulings. I find that a contradiction when it was ruled that Boy Scouts had a right to limit their members to those who were not gay. We live in a very confusing political time. I would also think that interference with the church by the state would be illegal as well. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Yeshua

According to the time frame in the Gospel of Mark, the earliest gospel, Jesus was crucified at 9 A. M. and he died at 3 P. M. Therefore, Jesus was actually hanging alive on the cross for 6 hours.

Given that he had previously endured an entire night of beating, mockery and being pierced with a crown of thorns and spat on; and then early morning scourging - I'd say that's a long period of suffering.

Yeshua

I am glad you liked the link and was touched by this man's story!


He is very brave and inspiring in my opinion, and I have the greatest respect for him.

What a blessed individual!

Yeshua

1 Timothy 4:1 "In the last times, some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving for those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving. For it is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer"

The spirit of evil which is represented in Christian tradition as the spirit of "antichrist", is said to consist of people who forbid marriage and normal, God-give sexual intercourse within marriage according to the Holy Bible.

It is thus way off to think that we count celibacy as being superior to marriage.

BTW it might be pertinent to remember that clerical celibacy is not a "dogma" or "doctrine" of the Catholic Church but a discipline that was brought in during the 12 century, as part of the Gregorian Reform. In Catholic terms - seeing that we have been around for nigh 2,000 years - this is thus relatively "new" in Church history. It can be changed by any Pope at any time because it is not a divine law. All he has to do is promulgate a decree and every subsequent Pope, Cardinal, Archbishop, Bishop and Priest can be married. Its just a discipline. Its not doctrinal in our faith. However celibacy itself, outside of any religious imposed clerical celibacy, is considered to be an equal path to holiness along with marriage in our eyes. Its up to the individual what path he wants to take; which one he believes will personally lead him towards a life of greater detachment from worldly desires, materialism, the ego etc.

The Catholic Church did more for marriage than any other institution, in my POV. For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has preached monogamy and even elevated marriage to the level of a SACRAMENT, "An outward sign of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification".

This was the first time in history in which marriage was viewed not just as a social institution connected with property rights, but rather as a religious duty - as a sign of divine grace, a gift from God, a means of sanctification and the imparting of grace necessary for our salvation.


Read:

"...Marriage is a practice common to all cultures in all ages. It is, therefore, a natural institution, something common to all mankind...In the Catholic Church, however, marriage is more than a natural institution; it was elevated by Christ Himself, in His participation in the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11), to be one of the seven sacraments. A marriage between two Christians, therefore, has a supernatural element as well as a natural one. While few Christians outside of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches regard marriage as a sacrament, the Catholic Church insists that marriage between any two baptized Christians [and indeed any two people in general], as long as it is entered into with the intention to contract a true marriage, is a sacrament...The effect of the sacrament is an increase in sanctifying grace for the spouses, a participation in the divine life of God Himself. This sanctifying grace helps each spouse to help the other advance in holiness, and it helps them together to cooperate in God's plan of redemption by raising up children in the Faith.

In this way, sacramental marriage is more than a union of a man and a woman; it is, in fact, a type and symbol of the divine union between Christ, the Bridegroom, and His Church, the Bride. As married Christians, open to the creation of new life and committed to our mutual salvation, we participate not only in God's creative act but in the redemptive act of Christ..."

The Sacrament of Matrimony is so holy and exalted that I cannot even begin to comprehend its true nature.

Marriage is a Sacrament, celibacy is not. The Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. If celibacy were "holier" than marriage then it would be a Sacrament, but as it is it is not a Sacrament and is not even a doctrine of the Faith. However it was encouraged by Jesus as a way of life for certain people for whom it was "granted", that is people who feel called to the celibate life as a means to devoting themselves wholly to God for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. In this respect, celibacy - although not a Sacrament - becomes a path equally as valid and capable of making people holy as marriage.

Celibacy is a path, for us, equally honourable and holy to marriage if chosen as a means to devote oneself wholly to God and the path of goodness, free of worldly concerns. It is self-sacrificing one's desires and pleasures for the sake of God, to detach oneself from all else but God. In such respects, celibacy is a valid, spiritual path capable of leading the people who wish to adopt it to holiness.

cire perdue

In light of that scripture you quoted at the top an article link on the site for recovering Catholic homosexuals is rather interesting, since the laws in different states for gay rights has caused Catholic adoption agencies some 100 years old to be closed down for refusing to place children with gay couples. Those are some strange uses of federal power to me. Apparently the pendulum is swinging the way the want it to go this time. The backlash may be even more interesting, but perhaps with more knowledge and actions that are made from understanding and not like some vengeful superhero who is making up for all the wrongs that gays have suffered. Gays are responsible for a lot of abuse that does not get mentioned at all, like seduction of peers or friends under circumstances that allow it, when if freely asked it would not. There is a lot below the surface that is NOT even being acknowledged, but only someone who knows gay lifestyle has seen it.

Yeshua

I also like this from Orthodox wiki:

"Married life, no less than monastic life, is a special vocation, requiring a particular gift or charisma from the Holy Spirit, a gift bestowed in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. The same Trinitarian mystery of unity in diversity applies to the doctrine of marriage as it does to the Church. The family created by this sacrament is a small church.

The Orthodox Church teaches that man is made in the image of the Trinity, and he is not intended by God to live alone, but in a family, except in special cases. And just as God blessed the first family, commanding Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, so the Church now gives its blessing to the union of man and woman. The mystery of marriage, in the Church, gives a man and a woman the possibility to become one spirit and one flesh in a way which no human love can provide by itself. The Holy Spirit is given so that what has begun on earth is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God...The service contains no vows or oaths. It is, in essence, the "baptizing and confirming" of human love in God by Christ in the Holy Spirit. It is the deification of human love in the divine perfection and unity of the eternal Kingdom of God as revealed and given to man in the Church. There is no "legalism" in the Orthodox sacrament of marriage. It is not a juridical contract, it is a spiritual bond."