Pope Francis has endorsed same-sex unions.

If the vast majority of the population belongs to one particular sect of Christianity, I would certainly expect that to be reflected in the laws, even if the constitution is a secular one. That lack of diversity has never been true of America, however. That is a crucial point I am making and you keep skipping past it. The laws cannot reflect a sectarian, minority viewpoint within a population without that exerting severe strain on the fabric of society.

LOL, that’s a pretty low bar. I’m confident we can do better than set that as our standard.

 

And yet in the very same epistle Paul stated that one member of the congregation who was not only guilty of one of these sins but also had not repented of it and was excommunicated for it, would nevertheless be “saved in the day of the Lord.” You can’t simply take the vice lists in Paul’s writings at face value, as indicating how he would deal with a particular situation pastorally or what he might have to say about it doctrinally. A text without a context is a pretext, and there’s no equivalent to the Roman Catholic concept of “mortal sin” in Paul’s writings.

 

I like this. Jesus talked about sin but he didn't focus on it to the exclusion of everything else. He talked more about love and forgiveness and not judging each other. I think a gay person who loves God and others has a better chance of getting into heaven than a Christian who spends all their time judging others and declaring whether or not other people will be going there. God can sort all that out. It's our job to love God with all our heart and to love others as we love ourselves.

 

Firstly the response I made was in your call, which referred to same gender attracted persons, rather than the act in itself. We do enjoy the freedom in Australia to speak from and for our tradition, and that would certainly include speaking for and supporting traditional family structures. At the time of the postal vote on the subject in Australia, typically about 1 third of the population voted against the proposal. Amongst those who described them selves as Christians who attended church on a regular/semi-regular basis, the numbers were perhaps a little less. Amongst the Islamic population the consensus was what you would expect. Amongst those who asserted their Christianity without regular Church attendance was about 50-50.

There are limitations for those who do not support the LGBTQIA agenda, in that were have laws preventing people from hate speak (indeed gay hate has been removed as defence for homicide). In general they are not ostracised, however it does make them more difficult to employ in certain situations, as Israel Folau discovered. However Nurses, Doctors, Social Workers, and a whole range of people are required to take a very even handed approach to all people.

I am not altogether convinced that some sins are worse than others. Paul tells us that all have sinned are are falling short of the glory of God.

I take the view that there are many more verses about love and forgiveness, than their are about the particular sin you have in mind, and I am not arguing the case, but rather hoping that our message may be much louder about love and forgiveness, than it is about sin and judgement.

 

It's not that there's anything wrong with saying in an Anglican forum that homosexuality is morally disordered. But in certain countries the people have legal constraints against saying so. In my view, it's unfortunate when legitimate critical discourse is limited for the sake of 'inclusion' or suchlike reasoning.

Whether some sins are worse than others or not, those who engage in homosexual behavior present us with a dilemma. Allow me to illustrate. Adulterers do not advertise their adulterous relationships to their families, nor do they proudly proclaim their adulterous activities to the public; adulterers do not claim that adultery is perfectly normal, moral, and acceptable even among the religious community. Nor would adulterers have "Adulterer Pride marches" or argue that anyone who speaks out against adultery is engaging in hate speech. Am I right? The same could be said of thieves, murderers, etc. But those who engage in homosexual behavior are proud of their actions. They maintain they are doing nothing wrong: they say it's neither morally wrong nor unnatural to do what they do. And if someone says to them, "No, that's not right," they are quick to play the "hate" card and the "bias" card.

Even if some sins were not worse than others (in and of the sinful act itself), a sinner who denies that his behavior is at all sinful in the eyes of God (contrary to the Bible and to the Apostolic deposit) is a worse sinner than others in a very real sense; that sinner has hardened himself against the Holy Spirit, his conscience is seared, and he is in great spiritual peril.

And when, God forbid, a church denies that sin is sin, the leaders and teachers in that church are in as great or greater spiritual peril, for they who teach are held to a higher standard (James 3:1).

Today's first reading and Gospel (Gen. 2, Mark 10) and homily at our parish centered on Jesus' teaching that divorce is spiritually wrong.
Mar 10:2-12 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Matt. 19:9 records one relevant exception: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”)

In the course of the homily, our pastor pointed out that when a man and woman marry, they complement and complete each other; as it says in Genesis, Adam was incomplete until God made Eve to be his 'helper.' A marriage 'fastens together' the two people and they "become one flesh" in the eyes of God; in essence they are not a completed reflection of God's love and grace until they are joined in holy matrimony.

It occurs to me that even in a natural sense a bolt is useless as a fastener until it is joined to a nut; then the union of bolt and nut fulfill a practical purpose. In the case of homosexual behavior, two nuts can claim they are joined together, but they neither complement nor complete each other, nor do they properly fasten together physically or spiritually. Nor do they serve the higher purpose for which God created them. People who engage in homosexual sin are just loose nuts pretending to be fastened.

But I do respect the nuts' legal rights to do and be such.

 

I have always assumed that this argument means well. Jesus was not married, as far as we know. Paul was not married and I think that is clear. Neither of these people was incomplete. Please note that I do not have a problem with the general statement that sees human society fulfills its destiny in holy matrimony, at least in part. May problem is when we individualise the statement and suggest that the unmarried are incomplete. Indeed this sentiment has led many into matrimony which would have been best avoided as they then place unreasonable expectations on one another.