Over at La Salette, the hysteria over perceived demonic influence at this site continues. This time, the concern is directed at Fr JohnQ’s defence of my original post. Once again, the crazy’s attempted refutation depends on extended observations that are entirely irrelevant to what Fr John, or I, actually wrote. This time, his statements are all about how Jesus, while fully human, was also perfect. I have no problem, with that.
So, what’s the connection? It appears to lie in the belief that being perfect, he could not possibly have had a same-sex orientation (perhaps not any sexual impulses at all). Why not? Well, presumably because the homosexual condition is intrinsically disordered. I just don’t buy that. The claim may be in the notorious CDF document, but anybody who is prepared to swallow every disordered statement on human sexuality from the Vatican, just because it has been written by sexually repressed, celibate theologians with no real-life experience of the subject they are able to admit to, is not living on the same planet as the rest of us.
There’s one feature above all that fascinates me about the fulminations of these orthotoxic Catholics (thanks, Jim McCrae, for this useful and descriptive label). That is how they base the bulk of their arguments on entirely theoretical constructs, almost completely ignoring any kind of evidence - from either the Gospels, or from empirical research. No basis in reality, whatever.
So, back in the real world, it’s worth taking another look at what got them so agitated in the first place: a reference in my post on John the Evangelist that he may have had a relationship of special intimacy with Jesus. I did not make the claim, in this post or previously (which they appeared to assume), that Jesus was “homosexual” (gasp!), or that this relationship was sexual (horror)! However, I want to be absolutely clear on what I have said in the past.
At this time of year, with its constant thoughts on the Nativity and Holy Family, we should also reflect on Jesus’ own Queer Family. We must also recognize that the incarnation means more than simply becoming a baby in a crib: it also entailed becoming fully human, in a specifically male body, experiencing all the sexual impulses and physical responses that other men have (and experiencing these impulses does not make him in any way less perfect). He was not in any way “gay” in the modern sense of the word, but based on the evidence of his life and words, could be described as “genderqueer“. Certainly, his ministry constituted a rejection of what some people refer to as the “traditional” family, as shown by the Gospels’ Queer Values.
Not only are there distinctly queer themes in the life and message of Christ, but the Catholic Church itself, while outwardly homophobic, displays many homoerotic characteristics. These are evident in much of the clerical culture and practices, but also in the rich history of queer saints and martyrs. (I have been rather neglecting these over the last year or so, but will now be giving them far more attention again, as I work towards assembling the entire narrative for publication in book form. For new readers who have missed the earlier posts, catch up at the queer saints pages:
- Calendar of Queer Saints and Martyrs
- The Story of Queer Saints and Martyrs: Synopsis
- Prologue: Before Christianity
- The Early Christians: Saints and Martyrs for the Church
- ‘Saints and Sinners in The Medieval Church
- The Great Persecution: Martyred By the Church
- Modern Saints, Modern Heroes: The Great Revival.
- Epilogue: All Saints
I’m glad you called it hysteria, because that is what hate is; hysterical, irrational, illogical and quite unChristian. I had subscribed to the “other” post’s comments, big mistake, I was inundated. As long as those who respond bear in mind that Jesus teaches us to love ALL, and the Catechism tells us that “[homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and SENSITIVITY” which I take to mean, respect their oppressions and opinions as much as your own. Could be wrong, frequently am.
As for blasphemy, I can see how some hysterical people might think you were being blasphemous, but that is, in part, down to their misguided interpretations, a sort of blinkered approach to exegesis that doesn’t take anything other than a literal, narrow-minded approach to scripture and/or taught dogma into account. I note these people, the hysterics, are always laity, never clergy, fropm the Roman Catholic side anyway. I know certain so-called “pastors” of an evangelical Protestant bent can be just as hysterical and filled with hate as their followers.
It is one of the reasons I am drawn towards the Catholic church; it’s innate rationality and careful way of going about ministry and mission. Again, the Jesuits play a large part in this. I wonder what they would think about the hysterical rantings that have seemingly sprung from an online asylum!
We must pray for these souls though, not attack them. They are more deserving of our love than our own families. I agree that the obsession with homosexuality that these people exhibit obviously springs from a deep-seated fear of their sexual feelings. This has been proven time and time again by anti-gay evangelicals who are invariably caught out with same sex prostitutes or pornography. Pray that they will find comfort in facing their own “demons” and coming to terms with their own weaknesses.
Keep up the good, challenging and interesting work Terence I love this place!
And for your unflagging support, Jennifer, I love you, too.
Seriously, though: you are right to remind us of the importance of love, towards all. I think it is right to draw attention to the lunacy of the arguments, but we must resist the temptation to launch attacks on them, or their motives. Hate the sin, love the sinner - just as they like to say about us.
“What is not assumed is not redeemed” (Gregory of Nazianzus)
Jesus fully immersed himself in our human nature. He was fully human (though without sin). Anything less than that puts into question his status as our Saviour. Because he was fully human, it is obvious that he was a fully sexual being, whichever way he chose to live out his life. A celibate Jesus need not have been any less sexual than a sexually active Jesus. Like everything else, our human sexuality (hetero-, bi-, homo- and all the other obnoxious terms we have come to use) needs to be redeemed, - basically, meaning by this that it needs to come under the law of love too, like everything else. This, without denying that our sexuality is one of God’s best gifts, and therefore essentially good.
Back to the above quote.That is precisely what we are celebrating right now: the Incarnation - “the Word became flesh and lived among us” (John 1:14) is one of the choice texts for the Christmas liturgy. Bandying terms such as “demonic” isn’t going to help us discover the truth. But if truth must be said, those who are calling you and/or your work as being demonic had better watch themselves. They are running the risk of falling in the trap they are laying for others: “Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the anti-christ!” (1 John 7) I just wonder who’s being deceptive. Church history is plagued by this false dualism, that sets the body against the spirit/soul, as if the latter is good and the former bad. It has done untold harm to the Gospel message, and what the Incarnation is all about. What we’re seeing is just the latest version of this faulty theology, and this time it’s being aimed at gays.
Additionally, it’s worth pointing out to these “religious” individuals that they are the direct spiritual descendants of those who branded Jesus as being demonic (Matthew 12:22-37; Mark 3:20-30).
I think that part of the problem on a wider scale is terminology. Both of the terms homosexual and heterosexual are inadequate and false constructs, and were invented in themid-late 1800′s (Terence already knows this); and there is hardly a single piece of scientific, psychological, anthropological, political, biblical, or even economical idea that was created in the 1800′s that is taken seriously today. The ideas created in those time periods are things like nationalism and social-Darwinism that gave birth to WW1 and its sequel WW2 (which was really just a continuation of WW1); it also gave us such concepts as : African-Americans are scientifically inferior to white people, Nihilist anti-christ philosophies like “there is no such thing as good and bad, everyman should just live on his impulses and do whatever pleases him without regard to others”, it gave rise to the idea of Communism, and the idea that all women are jealous of men because they secretly wish that they had penises etc. There is not a single field that accepts really anything that was invented in the 1800′s today.
Following that line however, I also feel that ‘queer’ is not a particularly great word. While it is better than concepts like homo/heterosexual, it has, for me at least, an awkward and difficult to work with connotation. The term queer does indeed mean ‘different’, but it has almost always had a negative connotation, and is difficult for “heterosexuals” to understand what it fully means. I myself dislike it. I think we need a new word, but I am currently at a loss of what to replace it with.
A very interesting discussion here but some of the comments by the haters are scary. When they starts talking about demons I want to run towards the nearest exit. Mark
Either run to the exit Mark - or have a good belly laugh, as I did.
I feel that Jesus was chaste but also bi-sexual. He felt agape love for both male and female.
I agree with this Mark, but then I had another thought. I doubt Jesus himself would have defined himself one way or another. He loved all, He had no real ego and no real need to categorize himself or claim any special identity. He did however, critique a few special ‘identities’ of some of his contemporaries, and had some choice observations about his Disciples ranking their own importance in His life.
This need we all seem to have to make distinctions and categories and class hierarchies and labels is not part of The Way as Jesus taught. But it is unfortunately, the way our brains work. I suspect if Jesus came today He’d have a few words about understanding and transcending the way our brains actually work and the way they get entrained.
This brain thing is why it’s so difficult to get beyond our childhood training and our family enculturation. For too many people, the demons planted back in childhood are still very active in adulthood—and that’s just how the Church wants to keep it.
I don’t think we have any way of knowing for sure whether he was celibate or not - although there is some evidence he may have been an Essene, which would have made him an ascetic, and so definitely celibate. (It would also be one reason why he was unmarried, which was highly unusual in Jewish society).
In my view though, the most important thing about Jesus’ attitude to sexuality, was that he just didn’t see it as important. He was far more concerned about the quality of relationships.
This is an important topic, broader in scope than the original post, which I hope will be covered in a full post soon, but not by me. I have a young reader who is wanting to contribute regularly, and is enthusiastically putting together a full post. I look forward to publishing it, towards the end of the week.