My correspondent tells me that:

He basically said that chastity was a Christian virtue that can only be attained through Christ and that such a virtue did not exist in the Old Covenant nor does it exist in any other religion.

What a load of dingo's kidneys!
What is this "chastity" of which he speaks?
Why would it be uniquely characteristic of Christianity?

I wasn't sure of his point, but I agreed that chastity was important and that we are all called to this virtue according to our state in life. I explained that, for me, chastity meant committment and fidelity to my partner.

Good for you!

Fr. then went on to explain that sexual expression has as its end the continuation of the species. That is the reason God gave us such strong sexual desires, because the end is so important.

Is the "strength" part of God's original plan or a result of "The Fall"?

Therefore any end contrary to the continuation of the species is contrary to God's plan for human sexuality.

This is puerile.  Many human realities have multiple ends.

He explained that since the time Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Paradise, the world is fallen and things are not as they were intended by God to be. So it seemed he was saying that even if homosexuality is natural, it's not a part of God's original plan of creation. He said that just because something is natural does not mean that it is good.

Indeed. Equally the fact that something is "un-natural" doesn't make it evil. What matters is whether harm is done or whether life and wholesomeness are affirmed.

Therefore, by God's grace, in practicing the virtue of chastity, all sexual expression must be restrained until it can be expressed within the proper context...marriage.

Why is this the proper context? What makes it proper? Why is any other context improper?

And if a homosexual person can not enter into a marriage, as the Church defines it, then they are called to lifelong celibacy.

Why not allow us to marry, if marriage is the only proper context for sexual activity?  We are not "called" to anything. This is a burden that others wish to bind in us while not carrying it themselves.

So you can see how the conversation really went no where and in the end he still stood by his decision to deny me the Sacraments.

What a pointless encounter!

I guess if I must go to the latin Mass then there is the option of attending a small SSPX chapel which has Mass twice a month. Otherwise, I have no other choice but to attend the Novus Ordo, since the Sacraments, especially the Eucahrist, are not optional for my spiritual good. They are very necessary, and I am saddened that this priest can't see that clearly enough to respect my conscience.

What about an Eastern Rite community?

Personally, I find the idea of setting up such a dichotome to be dangerous.

Plato claimed Socrates to be one of the few true followers of Dionysus.
Plato has Socrates tell us that a proper eroticism leads pretty directly to God.
I accept that Plato thought that some musical modes were psychically corruptive. I wonder whether these modes are avoided in plainchant? Somehow, I doubt it.

The idea of setting up a dualism between the sober intellect and the passionate heart is to do serious damage to the integral human being.
I have had similar intense emotional reactions to heavy Rock music as to the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom (which I now habitually attend on Sundays) and even the austere low Roman Mass (which I now habitually attend on Thursdays and Saturdays).
Christianity has a lot more obviously in common with Dionysus than Apollo; though both gods can be understood as pale reflections of our True God: Jesus Christ. Remember: God is Love.

Jesus definitely had His Dionysic qualities. Remember how he was condemned for his drinking and how he "partied with prostitutes"?

"Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is he who takes no offense at me."
When the messengers of John had gone, he began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to behold? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are gorgeously apparelled and live in luxury are in kings' courts. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written, 'Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.' I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."
(When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John; but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)
"To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like?  They are like children sitting in the market place and calling to one another, 'We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep.'  For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by all her children." [Lk 7:22-35]

Video

This is the epiteme of

the New Mass

for the New Church

for the New World Order.

May God preserve us from this!

Dear Gnostic,

1. Why be a magician and get involved with spirits at all?  Is this rather like being a physicist [that's me!] or a psychologist as far as you are concerned?  What do you make of the Biblical warnings against such activities?

2. It is interesting that you combine Catholicism and Gnosticism. What do you find to be the compatibilities and incompatibilities?

As you describe Gnosticism, "Gnosis" is nothing other than what Catholics mean by the combination of Faith-Hope-Charity; which amounts to a real sharing in the Divine Life of God. It should certainly be experiential and not simply a dry theoretical profession.

My understanding of "Gnosis" is nothing like this; but involves ideas of exclusivity and occult secrets [which secrets amount to the knowledge which saves the few who have access to it] ; such that Gnosticism has more of the Character of Masonry or Opus Dei than main-line Catholicism, which is now a very public and transparent affair - though in the early days it was much more occult, I accept.

Gnosticism, in my understanding, also represents a dualistic [sprit vs matter] denigration of the physical/sex; in contrast to the sacramental/incarnational stance of Catholicism/Orthodoxy.  I am myself a Platonist

        see:

        http://webspace.webring.com/people/up/pharsea/Platonism.html

and so view matter as less real and robust than spirit; but I do not think that matter/sex is either evil or a source of evil. Neither am I meaning to assert that you believe any such doctrine either.

I think the Nag Hammadi finds are fascinating. At least one or two of the "Gospel of Thomas" logia are very thought provoking. As to whether they are authentic sayings of the historical Jesus; that is another matter, of course.

I have a personal interest in the character of Judas Iscariot

       see:

       http://webspace.webring.com/people/up/pharsea/JudasThePlay.html

and was looking forward to the publication of the Gospel attributed to him; but was very disappointed to find that it was mostly about the names of angels and so on - not something which I am very interested in.

Regards

Stephen

My words are in green.
The words of a coresponent are in mauve.


Dear Friend,

                   you write:

Several weeks ago I decided to come out to my pastor, a priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter. I'm not sure why I did it, I just felt I needed to be honest about it with him.And while I didn't expect him to agree with me, his gentle and compassionate nature led me to think he might at least respect my conscience in the matter. I was mistaken.

He wasn't harsh at all in his words, but he was very clear that if I could not obey the Church in this matter that I had to refrain from receiving the Sacraments. I am also a member of the choir and I would be allowed to continue only if my living situation with my partner remained private, which I had no problem with. But I have gone several weeks now acting like I am a part of a community where I feel I do not belong. And not being able to receive the Eucharist is proving to be spiritually harmful. After much thought and prayer, I decided the best thing would be to leave the Latin Mass community.

After a few weeks of my absence, Fr. called me to make sure everything was okay and I voiced my concerns about the whole situation. It seemed clear in that conversation that we would not come to an agreement on the issue and I couldn't see that there was anything else to do or say. But he felt we needed to talk further and so he invited me to coffee this coming Saturday.

I don't know what to expect. I don't know if he will reconsider his position about denying me the Sacraments or challenge me with Scripture and Church teaching.
 
I advise you to make it clear to him that as far as you are concerned:

1.  You fully understand the official teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium. You do not want to have it explained to you again - unless he is willing to listen to the opposite point of view, of course.

2.  You find it impossible in conscience to accept  the official teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, and feel that to do so would be to participate in a serious injustice.
3.  This is not about making your own life easier or condoning your own desires; it is about solidarity with a persecuted minority which you simply happen - by accident - to belong to. 
4.  In fact, you find the whole situation very painful and rather wish that you could find it in you to agree with the Church's official teaching. You find that being opposed to the Magisterium in this matter is a cross that you have to carry. It would be much easier not to have to do so.
5.  Would he refuse the sacraments to a husband and wife who enthusiastically agreed with your stance, but were not themselves implicated in any homosexual activity?  Of course, not to refuse such a couple the sacraments would be hypocritical.
6.  Would he refuse the sacraments to you if you simply refrained from homosexual activity while continuing to believe that such activity was ethically acceptable. Of course, to readmit you to the sacraments on such a basis would be hypocritical.

7.  You believe that the official teaching in this area is somewhat novel and not at all substantiated by either Scripture or Tradition.

8.  You believe that the official teaching of the Church in this matter is of a similar character to previous teaching on:
          o The Jews.
          o Slavery.
          o Usury.
          o The geocentric universe.
9.  You still respect the competence of the Ordinary Magisterium in general. You simply think that a serious mistake has been made here, in the same way that serious mistakes have been made by the Ordinary Magisterium in the past.
10. You have no wish to campaign against the official teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium; but feel that you must contradict it in those situations when not to do so would be a matter of serious injustice. You also feel that it is incumbent on you to offer such support and encouragemsnt as you may to others who find themselves in situations similar to yourself.

11. You respect his conscience, even though you believe it to be seriously malformed and implicated in a great injustice which has harmed many souls and may even have resulted in the damnation of those who might otherwise have been saved.

12. He should return the honour by respecting your conscience in this matter by not judging you and not refusing you sacramental absolution.

Regards,

Stephen

I am sure that you have a gift for preaching etc.  I am sure that I too have a "vocation" to be a deacon. However, I have no desire to chose the ecclesiastical communion which I abide in by such criteria or considerations. It is necessary to step forward in faith and put one's whole life into the hands of Christ Our God. Sometimes when a grain of wheat dies it gives birth to a harvest that is one hundred times more valuable. I think that God has given me a world-wide ministry which is far more fruitful than any I would have had in a parish. This doesn't alter the fact that I have a heart-felt longing to be a deacon; one which will never ever be fulfilled.

We've just got back from the Divine Liturgy. We had tea/coffee with the enthusiastic young deacon who told us of his love for the Eastern Rite and how he had felt himself to be in heaven this morning as he played his part in leading the worship - I told him that I fully understood his emotions. I didn't tell him that I was "jealous" of his role and how that I could never officiate in the way that  he does  - just because I am gay and so accounted as despicable by the hierarchy. This is the cross that I have to carry; and one which I carry willingly for Jesus; as a joyful and glorious expiation for my sins and those of others.

Clearly, if you cannot believe that the Roman Communion has some kind of priority in Catholicity over any other, then you are not a Catholic and will never be one. One does not have to believe that its priority is absolute. The impairment of communion among Rome and Constantinople and Alexandria and Antioch has hurt all parties; Rome as well as the others. However, Rome is the seat of the Vicar of Christ and even though the Roman Communion is profoundly damaged by the loss of most of the East, the Church of Rome retains its priority (of divine right) as the fundamental source of unity and visible basis of fellowship. If you reject this, then you are no Catholic and you reject the clear teaching of the Fathers - as I am sure you well know. I do not think for a moment that you do reject this teaching, but only that you find it difficult to make sense of it given your Anglican past. You have my sympathy and understanding in this and you will have the sympathy and understanding of all Orthodox Catholics. We simply want to welcome you home after a long self-imposed exile.

Your mis-matched protestant bedfellows don't want you. You should be grateful for the elbows which they are sticking in your sides. They are at last waking you up to the reality of your situation. The Anglican Church is not the Catholic Church in England. It never was so and it never will be so. The Tractarian experiment is over and the truth of the situation is all too clear.

The tradition of English Catholicism would make a wonderful and valued contribution to legitimate Catholic diversity. I hope that it will see a resurgence of the Sarum Use and the injection of some English gentleness, grace and tolerance into Western European Catholicism. You could have a wonderful role in this - but you must not seek Catholic Communions with the idea that you have lots to contribute (even though I am sure that you do have!) but with a profound humility: after all, you have so much to gain: not least peace of soul.

God is the Philanthropos: the Great and Passionate Lover of Humanity.

God has a beating biological heart - the human heart of Jesus.

God does not have a "divine biological heart" in the sense of a "biological heart" which is a part of the divine nature; because the divine nature is non-physical and has no parts whatsoever. Neither does God have hands or ears or any other organ or appendage.

Moreover, "God as God" is impassible and incapable of suffering or of anything like emotion as we understand it at all. God is Love in a strangely dispassionate way, as far as the Creation and us creatures are concerned.  In the divine nature, the love of God for creatures is a self-recognition of the image of God that every creature (and especially human beings) represent.

This calm quasi-intellectual affirmation and respect is not enough, so far as we are concerned. We are not dispassionate immortal and immutable beings. We need to be loved as we love. This is one pressing reason why God became Man - so that God could sympathise with and affirm and validate our condition and predicament. Hence the crucial importance of devotion to the Sacred Humanity of Jesus: on which our very salvation hinges.

God as God dispassionately approves of our passion so much that God entered into the heart of our passion and became our passionate lover, in Jesus Christ Our Blessed Lord.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=4560

What a wonderful spin, the Bishop puts on this situation.  I agree with him that it is reprehensible for a Catholic Lawmaker to vote in the way that Kennedy has done.  Moreover, I'd be happy to see this politician excommunicated for his act.

However, the Bishop is not right in saying - in effect - that any Catholic who doesn't tow the party line on some matter which the hierarchy considers to be important thereby makes themselves a bad Catholic or even un-Catholics themselves.

If I took a reciprocal approach, I'd say that all the Bishops who promoted the destruction of Catholic Order between 1965 and 2005 were heretics.

The Bishops have the legitimate power to punish with ecclesiastical sanctions those who oppose their policies - whether those policies are right or wrong. They should exercise this power in accordance with their conscience. On this basis, Cardinal Law should be degraded to lay status in recompense for his policy regarding the priestly abuse of youngsters.

However, whenever ecclesiastical sanctions are imposed, they should be aware that God will only approve of their acts when they are just and proportionate and that if they are not so: first the supposed offender will find their punishment to be a source of grace and second the punisher will answer for their injustice in either purgatory or hell.

My friend Henry has just heard that his Maternal Grandmother died this morning after a protracted illness.
His Paternal Grandfather died only a few weeks back
His Paternal Grandmother died just over a year ago.

Please remember these deceased souls in your prayers and also Henry himself,
who is going through a lot these last few days.

May the souls of all the departed find absolution for their sins
may light perpetual shine on them
and may they rest in the peace of Christ.

Maran atha!