tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post3947901152455148558..comments2024-03-23T12:05:23.537-05:00Comments on The Wild Reed: Jesus and the Centurion (Part 2)Michael J. Baylyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-36257403944258800462009-05-31T09:02:34.368-05:002009-05-31T09:02:34.368-05:00I know it's almost a year later but you might be i...I know it's almost a year later but you might be interested in this piece on my blog<br /><br />http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2009/05/hidden-history-of-queer-biblical.htmlMichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-75528121781774172272008-06-24T13:12:00.000-05:002008-06-24T13:12:00.000-05:00Oops, I meant to say "than his exegesis alone" abo...Oops, I meant to say "than his exegesis alone" above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-43714356666526178822008-06-24T11:45:00.000-05:002008-06-24T11:45:00.000-05:00More Gagnon here:http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.u...More Gagnon here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=314<BR/><BR/>People may not find his arguments convincing, but he deserves credit for taking counter-arguments seriously. Gagnon is also familiar with Sacred Scripture in Hebrew & Greek, which is helpful in addressing appeals to the scriptures.<BR/><BR/>My only complaint about Gagnon so far is what I'll call an "arithmetic" approach to exegesis which can be off-putting. Of course, many will find Gagnon off-putting for more reasons, and more quickly, than his exegesis along.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-4375148577846010342008-06-24T10:14:00.000-05:002008-06-24T10:14:00.000-05:00For a counter-argument see this essay by Bob Gagno...For a counter-argument see this essay by Bob Gagnon:<BR/><BR/>http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexCenturionStory.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-49066217569795565492008-06-22T18:25:00.000-05:002008-06-22T18:25:00.000-05:00Usury was a mortal sin. Today the Vatican Bank is....Usury was a mortal sin. Today the Vatican Bank is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-91036297478101510092008-06-22T13:31:00.000-05:002008-06-22T13:31:00.000-05:00Clayton,I notice that the Didache condemns “pedera...Clayton,<BR/><BR/>I notice that the <EM>Didache</EM> condemns “pederasty,” defined by the early Church as “the homosexual corruption of boys by men.” It definitely sounds like they’re describing an abusive situation. To my mind, and I think most others’, we should indeed speak out against all such abusive situations – regardless of the sexual orientation and gender of those involved.<BR/><BR/>Yet does the <EM>Didache</EM> speak of and/or condemn the loving and committed relationships between two adult males? Do <EM>any</EM> subsequent Church documents bear witness to such relationships? If not, why not? Are lesbians free to love one another and form intimate relations? There seems to be no prohibition against them. Why is male homosexuality singled out for condemnation so much more often than female homosexuality? What role does patriarchy play in the marginalizing of women’s experience and thus the lack of the same level of condemnation meted out to men? What about bisexuality, intersexuality, and transgenderism?<BR/><BR/>For me, the quote from the <EM>Didache</EM> raises more questions than answers.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-47880817480718299732008-06-22T13:03:00.000-05:002008-06-22T13:03:00.000-05:00Hi Clayton,Perhaps I’m mistaken, but it seems as i...Hi Clayton,<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I’m mistaken, but it seems as if you’re equating the Church’s capacity to grow and change, its capacity to develop its understanding and teachings, to everything being “up for grabs.” I think that such a way of thinking about this capacity (and thus, by extension, our <EM>living</EM> tradition) is rather negative. After all, it could be seen as a denial of the Spirit present and active in our pilgrim church. <BR/><BR/>Teaching on various issues of faith and morals have evolved and changed. As I and other members of the editorial team of <EM>The Progressive Catholic Voice</EM> <A HREF="http://www.progressivecatholicvoice.org/enewsletters/index_Jan08.html#Dialoguing" REL="nofollow">noted</A> in January 2008: “Truth is discovered through time. Tradition evolves. [In relation to homosexuality, for instance] the Church is currently teaching in Section 2358 of the Catechism, that homosexuals should be treated with compassion and sensitivity. That represents evolution of the tradition. There is no reason that the moral teaching on this matter of ‘intrinsic disorder’ should not evolve further, and there is plenty of scientific evidence and moral/pastoral reasoning that it should evolve quickly.”<BR/><BR/>Also, Robert McClory recently spoke in the Twin Cities and reminded Catholics of how the Church’s understanding and teaching on moral issues such as slavery and usury have developed and changed. In writing about his presentation in a <A HREF="http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2008/06/catholic-understanding-of-faithful.html" REL="nofollow">previous <EM>Wild Reed</EM> post</A>, I noted how “McClory insists that any educated Catholic knows that the Church at one time held some things to be doctrinally absolute, and that these things turned out to be wrong. Accordingly, ‘one cannot be an intelligent Catholic’ he insists, ‘without saying that doctrine can be wrong in the future and, more to the point, can be wrong in the present.’ ”<BR/><BR/>Does this mean that “everything is up for grabs”? Again, I feel that’s a pessimistic way to view things – especially when these things are related to the complex reality of human sexuality. In relation to this particular reality I believe we’re still very much a pilgrim, learning church. There’s simply too much faithful dissent around issues related to sexuality for us to say that the Church has all the answers, here and now. Rather, we’re still in process, still on the journey toward the fullness of truth regarding these issues. I find that hopeful.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-38291142225838993752008-06-22T03:24:00.000-05:002008-06-22T03:24:00.000-05:00The arguments from silence are especially weak whe...The arguments from silence are especially weak when you consider the witness of the early Christian tradition, beginning with the <EM>Didache</EM>, which is not at all silent on the matter:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.catholic.com/library/early_teachings_on_homosexuality.asp" REL="nofollow">http://www.catholic.com/library/early_teachings_on_homosexuality.asp</A><BR/><BR/>You can argue that the early Church's position is culturally conditioned on this issue, but then you've basically called into question the continuity of the Church's teaching on faith and morals, at which point everything is up for grabs.CDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-90719074178585617802008-06-21T19:32:00.000-05:002008-06-21T19:32:00.000-05:00Whatever Fr O'Neil's personal integrity or limited...Whatever Fr O'Neil's personal integrity or limited assets, his inane confusion over the church's natural law tradition (NLT) had many Jesuits in a twit, because NLT is easily refuted. <BR/><BR/>When asked to decode O'Neil's eisegesis of NLT, clearly O'Neil did not know or understand NLT, much less address its manifold fallacies conspicuous to philosophers millennial ago. Like many, he was confused over NLT and the "laws of nature." In O'Neil's defense, the Gregorian Pontificate knows better, even if Rottweiler Pope thinks his Prada Dancing Shoes will win the night's favor.<BR/><BR/>Thomists, Russell Hittinger, Jesuits, Franciscans, and most catholic scholars saw the NLT absurdities, and in the hands Grisez, Boyle, and Finnis, they have witnessed bishops, nuns, priests, give their absurd fealty's to the Pope of Nazi Youth, in which his "pride of place," was so "insularity" as to be demonic. <BR/><BR/>NLT is bunk. So are the four humours. So are the Pscyhes. So are Marx, Freud, and Spitzers, as are the hypocritical faithful, bearing witness to NLT that is patently FALSE, as is earth is FLAT, the Holocaust REAL, and the rabbis confused into oblivion. <BR/><BR/>WITH the CENTRAL axiom of Roman Catholic immoral theory since Aquinas exposed as exceedingly CONFUSED by Aquinas' perversion of Aristotle Fact/Value Divide, one wonders whether "Abba" is "Fuhrer" and whether Aquinas's otherwise salient modernization, was STILL 2,000 years too late? <BR/><BR/>Princeton's Robert George is trying again, to put NLT at the forefront, where it does not EXIST, much less lead, or STAND in the nonsense of HMC. I must sound like a broken record, echoing Hume and Moore: <B>FACTS do not VALUES make, and VALUES do not FACTS make.</B> Not even by Popes, POTUS, or Televangelists listen, because they are too busy TELLING. <BR/><BR/>NLT may "bother" the German Rottweiler esp. when G.W.B. (despite his Catholic brother's "lil brown babies") thinks Domino's Pizza, Fr.<BR/>Fessio, and Rabid Ratzinger "got milk." They got nothing but power others give them, because as today's gods, their wealth and trappings proves the gods approve? Lions, tigers, and bears, oh my. No! Oh, Liza. <BR/>, so that "straw man" would have been a hollow victory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-25883442818827720732008-06-21T19:17:00.000-05:002008-06-21T19:17:00.000-05:00MichaelBy the exact same logic, one could say Jesu...Michael<BR/><BR/>By the exact same logic, one could say Jesus merely did not rebuke a Gentile for a sinful cultural custom of his (pederasty of an enslaved younger male). In the case of pederasty, Jewish law was emphatically negative, whereas it was not regarding slavery. So, if there is going to be an argument from silence, it would be much harder to argue that pederasty was more OK than slavery here....<BR/><BR/>So we don't even reach why Jesus didn't comment on slavery as such.<BR/><BR/>And, if progressives have a hard time with the argument that the relatinship of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings was freely and mutually loving without a coercive element, there is no way to argue that here. Roman masters had the power of life and death over their slavers, and a centurion all the more so. <BR/><BR/>Again, I am astounded how anyone finds anything liberating about this pathetic excuse for exegesis. It's appalling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-76849440678679767032008-06-21T16:58:00.000-05:002008-06-21T16:58:00.000-05:00Liam,Regardless of whether or not the centurion an...Liam,<BR/><BR/>Regardless of whether or not the centurion and his "boy" were lovers, Jesus does not insist that the centurion free him. Indeed, no where in the gospels does Jesus condemn the practice of slavery that was common and widespread in his time. Why is this?<BR/><BR/>Was he insensitive to the issue? Or did he know his limitations within the society of his time? Or was his condemnation simply not recorded? <BR/><BR/>Of course, it could be said that the Church followed Jesus' lead, as it wasn't until the 1860s that it officially condemned the practice of slavery (see <A HREF="http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2008/06/catholic-understanding-of-faithful.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps Jesus was limited by his time and culture. I'm not suggesting that he supported slavery, but that it was such an embedded institution within his society and time that the thought of it not being in existence may have been beyond the historical Jesus' comprehension - as it was beyond Paul's. Then again, maybe he had to choose his battles, and he left the issue of slavery for those after him, infused with the same <EM>Christos</EM> that liberated and empowered him, to take on this particular issue.<BR/><BR/>For truly, the Christ Spirit is alive in all of our various journeys of awareness. I believe this Spirit was operational in Jesus as fully as it could be given the cultural and temporal limitations - and clearly, in some ways it transcended these limitations, e.g. Jesus' egalitarian stance with regards women, and, according to some scholars, his recognition and tolerance of the loving relationship between the Roman centurion and his beloved slave - whom, let's face it, may have been a lot better off in that particular situation than not. We simply have no conception, I feel, of the brutality and hardships of those times. Some may well have preferred to be "owned" and taken care off by a master then left to their own devices.<BR/><BR/>We must be very careful when we seek to project our sensibilities and concepts onto the lives of the ancients.<BR/><BR/>I'm curious, how do you explain Jesus' lack of condemnation of slavery?<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-17887782512240726762008-06-21T15:55:00.000-05:002008-06-21T15:55:00.000-05:00Fr McNeill's quote gets the palm for epistemologic...Fr McNeill's quote gets the palm for epistemological candor - he is honest that he's simply reading something into the text.<BR/><BR/>A text that, btw, could with much less strain be viewed as Jesus's approval of enslavement of people. Hey, you know, he doesn't condemn the centurion's enslavement of others. Yet he heals the enslaved one without it being recorded that he required the centurion to free him.<BR/><BR/>So, that means Jesus approved enslavement, right? <BR/><BR/>The feeble (and that is being charitable) attempts at exigesis here, despite the lacquer of scholarship, are in the end rather embarrassing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com