Saturday, September 18, 2010

Saint Newman? Gay Saints?

Here's a probable infuriating tidbit on John Henry Newman I heard via NPR on Friday.

"It's not unreasonable to think he might have been homosexual," says the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author of My Life with the Saints. "His letters and his comments on the death of one of his close friends are quite provocative."

Yes,there's nothing like a Jesuit investigation. I think if this Jesuit actually had something of substance, the story would've been out years ago, or at least two years ago. Frankly, I haven't done much reading about Newman, and the whole thing seemed a bit vague.

The whole notion of declaring someone a "saint" is more upsetting to me.

From the same broadcast comes the following as well, perhaps some of our Roman Catholic friends can unpack this one:

"Martin has no doubt that there are plenty of gay saints, which is acceptable under church doctrine. "It is church teaching that a gay person can be holy, and a gay person can be a saint," he says. "And it's only a matter of time before the church recognizes one publicly."

On the other hand, yes I do listen to NPR occasionally. Here's my favorite NPR show "New Sounds"  which I believe only broadcasts out of New York.

25 comments:

LPC said...

I have come across this suggestion many years ago.

LPC

Blogahon said...

I also recently heard on NPR that the apostle Paul was 'probably gay.'

Blogahon said...

Here is a very different point of view.

Its unfortunate that the liberal media, which is highly influenced by the homosexual lobby, can basically call any dead person 'gay' and have people buy it.

It's equally unfortunate that some apologists will use such baseless accusations to score points.

James Swan said...

It's equally unfortunate that some apologists will use such baseless accusations to score points.

Are you implying I did such a thing? Who do you mean?

Feel free to explain the truth or falsity of the following:

"It is church teaching that a gay person can be holy, and a gay person can be a saint"

Since I rarely study issues like this, I'd be interested in knowing about the worth of this statement.

Blogahon said...

No, not accusing you of using the story to 'score points.' Sorry for not being clear. I meant to say that the secular apologists are using it to score points.

natamllc said...

You are truly living in dark dark worlds of mind and imagination to believe God cannot wash and sanctify and justify gay persons so that they too might enter into the joy of the warfare Paul wrote about at Ephesians 3, the joy of our Eternal Purpose for godly living in this life!

Having been steeped in sin myself and becoming fully aware of the gay lifestyles because of my chosen college pursuits, acting on stage, t.v. and screen and all aspects of producing and directing in those fields, one does agree, theirs are plenty, of gays and straight, who are in positions of authority who temporarily control the media messages that go forth through the entertainment and news mediums. I can tell you the Blood of Jesus washes them clean too and brings them into as sound a mind and soundness of soul so they too can enjoy Living Hope as well; just as the Apostles Paul and Peter taught and now are a part of our Living Truths written for a godly life once we have been washed, sanctified and justified to Life to live that godly life we are called to live:

Rom 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.



1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.



Sean, I wonder if you draw out criticism upon yourself when we read things like this that you write:

Its unfortunate that the liberal media, which is highly influenced by the homosexual lobby, can basically call any dead person 'gay' and have people buy it.

It's equally unfortunate that some apologists will use such baseless accusations to score points.

James Swan said...

You are truly living in dark dark worlds of mind and imagination to believe God cannot wash and sanctify and justify gay persons so that they too might enter into the joy of the warfare Paul wrote about at Ephesians 3, the joy of our Eternal Purpose for godly living in this life!

While I'm fairly certain this was written toward Blogahon, I'd simply like to point out that in my blog entry at the bottom where I quote "It is church teaching that a gay person can be holy, and a gay person can be a saint," my interests are with the Roman system.

I haven't done a lot of work in this area. Is the author of this statement saying a gay person can be considered "holy" in this life (according to the Roman system of salvation), or that a gay person can be a "saint" in the next, even with the sin of homosexuality inherent in their disposition? I don't have time right now to go search the CCC. I assume there's some fine distinction in that a gay Romanist who doesn't outwardly perform homosexual acts doesn't sin, and therefore the inherent tendency toward homosexuality would allow Cardinal Newman (if this report were true) to be considered for sainthood.

I'm genuinely intrigued as to how this plays out in Romanism. I assume that for a Romanist, the inclination not acted upon is in a different category, and subject to a different classification.

Lvka said...

Apropos gay saints, this time from the Orthodox side...

Blogahon said...

nata.

I never said that gay people cannot be saved.

James Swan,

I am not certain of any gay saints. I believe that there are most likely homosexual people who have been penitent and struggled with their sin (just like everybody else) that are in heaven. Its not like homosexuality a sin that Christ cannot overcome. But I am not aware of any canonized saint who struggled with that particular sin.

natamllc said...

James:

I haven't done a lot of work in this area. Is the author of this statement saying a gay person can be considered "holy" in this life (according to the Roman system of salvation), or that a gay person can be a "saint" in the next, even with the sin of homosexuality inherent in their disposition?

Sorry for my confusing words!

I want to be unequivocal. If you practice a homosexual lifestyle while serving in the Office, unbeknown to those receiving the sacraments, your service will not save you from the lake of fire!

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


This rule is unequivocal for the adulterer or fornicator, the idolater, the thief, the greedy person, the drunkard, the reviler or swindler. God came to save only sinners, whichever sinner you might be in that list above?

Our only option is as Scripture teaches, here:

Rom 6:10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
Rom 6:11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.
Rom 6:13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.
Rom 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!


Sean, you opened the door. Might I suggest you close it then?

LPC said...

The case for Paul and Newman are different. Newman is a fairly recent personality and there were people who wrote that Newman was effem in his actions.

LPC

Jae said...

"The whole notion of declaring someone a "saint" is more upsetting to me."

But you don't have any problems calling your protestant brothers as saints too! hmmmm.

Yes, christian believers are all called saints but can't deny the fact of the Church's authority (bind and loose) to declare such persons as saints for the exemplary practice of christian piety for her members to emulate...as Paul said "...be imitators of me." (1 Cor 4:14)

louis said...

"I assume that for a Romanist, the inclination not acted upon is in a different category"

My guess is that your guess is correct. I believe they hold, for example, that priests can be homosexual in their orientation as long as they don't act on it. So I assume the same thing would apply here.

James Swan said...

My guess is that your guess is correct.

Quite frankly, I hoping for some clarification from the Roman Catholics who frequent this blog.

Even Blogahon avoided directly answering my questions.

louis said...

"I am hoping for some clarification from the Roman Catholics who frequent this blog."

Me too, but based on past experience I'd say most of them don't appear that up to speed on what their church actually teaches.

James Swan said...

based on past experience I'd say most of them don't appear that up to speed on what their church actually teaches.

Perhaps I'll have John Bugay repost my post. It seems they respond to him.

John Bugay said...

Louis is correct:

My guess is that your guess is correct. I believe they hold, for example, that priests can be homosexual in their orientation as long as they don't act on it. So I assume the same thing would apply here.

From the Real Catholic Bible:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." [No mention of homosexual thoughts or inclinations being "intrinsically disordered," their "psychological genesis remaining largely unexplained.] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should [note this:] gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

John Bugay said...

Perhaps I'll have John Bugay repost my post. It seems they respond to him.

You're much too nice. :-)

LPC said...

In Roman and even some Evangelical denoms, a sin is not a sin if it has not been acted out. For example Clinton did not commit adultery because he did not have intercourse with Monica.

In actuality we sin , in thoughts, words and deeds.

Hence, the need for Christ's atoning sacrifice for those thoughts too.

Please note, I am not trying to grand stand here.

I am just trying to point that if a teaching says one has not sinned unless he has acted on his thoughts then that really promotes the entertaining of those thoughts hence, rather than confessing them and dealing with them through Christ's work, one can continue to say - where is my sin? I have not done it, I just fantasized it --- so all is well.

What I am also saying is that - such a teaching does not lead us to humble ourselves and affirm that should God mark out our iniquities there is no one on earth who could stand in front of him.

LPC

Churchmouse said...

LPC,

Amen. You bring up excellent points. Christ was specific that thoughts can parallel the act itself, such as in Matthew 5:28.

As for the homosexual, nothing is beneath God's power to save the sinner, even sins which go against His created order. What really gets my goat is how so-called "gay theology" attempts to reinterpret Scripture to fit their lifestyle and agenda. David and Jonathan become lovers, as does Ruth and Naomi. Paul becomes a closeted, bitter gay man. Even Jesus himself is cut into that mold. Sodom becomes a story of inhospitality and dominance and/or the raping of angels. It's a Scripture twisting free-for-all. And if Scripture doesn't suffice, then it is downplayed as a book written by men and full of errors and bias.

The whole "saints" issue is just as bothersome. Men thinking they can "declare" men to these lofty offices is foolhardy at best. WE are the saints and we don't need public declarations with the exception of what we find in Holy Scripture -- God's word confirming who we are. Rome's arrogance in assuming unique authority is an affront to God's Word. But the truth is, a man who struggles with homosexuality all his life, yet has a repentant heart, broken due to his sin, even Christ died for such a man. But if one indulges this sin, or any sin, claiming that it is blessed of God, these are clearly NOT the fruits of salvation, and has fashioned a god of his own.

Peace,
CM

LPC said...

CM.

But the truth is, a man who struggles with homosexuality all his life, yet has a repentant heart, broken due to his sin, even Christ died for such a man. But if one indulges this sin, or any sin, claiming that it is blessed of God, these are clearly NOT the fruits of salvation, and has fashioned a god of his own

My hearty amen, you stated it very well.

LPC

CathApol said...

First off, I'm not overly impressed with what the "Colbert Report's Resident Chaplain" has to say. The same priest who stated, as Pope Benedict XVI was declared pope, "he stepped out on the (Vatican) balcony and I wanted to jump off my balcony." Granted, he's come around since saying that - but the fact that a priest would say that at all is troubling - even if in jest.

Secondly, we're not talking about "St." Newman yet. Last weekends activities brought him to the status of "Bl. Cardinal Newman." Yes, it is part of the progression to canonization, but we're not there yet.

Thirdly, as some have alluded, there is a difference between homosexuality and a person with homosexual tendencies or desires. Homosexuality is ACTING upon those tendencies or desires and is a sin, an "abomination." You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Lev. 18:22, KJV. But a thought or desire does not become a sin until one acts upon it or actively lusts for it.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

LPC said...

But a thought or desire does not become a sin until one acts upon it or actively lusts for it.

See what I mean, and right off from an RC's mouth.

By no means does it imply that sinful thoughts are of equal gravity as actualized thoughts (in action). Of course they are not. However Jesus says that sinful thoughts are sins.

Scott and RC apol just contradicts Jesus. Scott and I are on the opposite side of experience, he is an Ex-Lutheran turned RC and I am the reverse. His position simulates the Pharissee Jesus encountered in the Gospels.

LPC

LPC

CathApol said...

LPC, I am aware of Jesus saying it is that which proceeds FROM a man which defiles him, and He includes "evils thoughts" in that - but again, it has to proceed from him to defile him (Mark 7:20-23). Or, as I said before if one is actively lusting for the evil desire, such as the act of looking upon a woman with lust in your heart (the active act of looking with the intent to sin) is just as bad as committing adultery (Matthew 5:27-28). However, an evil thought or temptation will be with us ALL and just the thought which tempts is not the sin - but acting upon the thought (that which comes out of us) is the sin. Again, we are ALL tempted to sin and the better we are the more we may be attacked with temptations. If an evil thought enters our mind and we fight it off, we have not sinned; but if we entertain the evil thought, inviting it to stay and we dwell upon it and cultivate it THAT is sin.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

LPC said...

Scott,

This highlights how we differ in our appreciation of original sin.

As I said, I am not trying to grand stand here, but it does show how RC theology differs from Reformation theology - and one of them is original sin.

Where do you think your sinful thoughts come from? Best not to rationalize and admit and confess and look to God to forgive you for Christ sake.

The two sins are as I said not of equal gravity but just the same both damn the sinner. That is why we have no hope except for Christ's work.

Based on your idea, there is a lot of wiggle room in RC understanding of temptation and sin.

LPC