I feel very conflicted about taking my annual blog hiatus this August. But I’m going to do my best to take a break. If some catastrophe occurs, I’ll be back. But blogging each day, sometimes thousands of words a day, is a wonderful but grueling way to write. I think bloggers do well to take time out. We can lose perspective, stop thinking in longer form, and also get exhausted. Obviously, my emotions right now are also wrung out from the barrage of backlash we are now experiencing, and it may be sensible to take a deep breath and a break. I wish at times I could be immune to this – and not get wounded or angry. But this debate is not an abstract one for me or for many others. Our very integrity as human beings and equality as citizens is being weighed in the balance by others with enormous power over us. That’s enough to work anyone’s last nerve. But I also need some time and space for spiritual reasons. It’s hard to describe the agony gay Catholics are now in; and I’m facing a pretty major life-decision. In this, you need quiet to listen to God and pray sincerely for his help in the struggle to maintain a good conscience and lead a moral life. From your emails, I know I am not in this alone, and I’ll be praying hard for all of us in this storm, pro and con, to find God’s will for us, whatever it is.
SUMMER READING: Still, I also feel a responsibility to keep in the public square on this and other subjects. So if you’re still interested in this debate, I hope you can take the time to read some of my previous long-form work on the subject, which tries to answer all the many questions we have been discussing these past few months. Indeed, it’s been a little frustrating to be conducting insta-responses to insta-points without resorting to a real and solid piece of work. But I wrote those some years back, perhaps a little too long ago. Virtually Normal is a political argument; Love Undetectable is a spiritual memoir. Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con is an anthology of materials from all sides on the issue – historical, theological, legal and cultural. I’m not going to plug them any more, except to say they were and are my best attempts at rational persuasion. (If I have persuaded you, or if you still believe in gay marriage despite my arguments, then I also hope you’ll add your name to an Internet petition for equal marriage rights.) I’ll also post whatever columns I write in the next month on the site, so check in every now and again. When I dish here next, I’ll also be over forty, an age I once thought I’d probably not reach. A celebration is in order. Until then, have a wonderful August. And thanks for sticking around so loyally and cantankerously for so long. See you the day after Labor Day. Meanwhile, don’t forget …
… DEAN AND DA LOSER? Okay, it’s not such a great pun. I should be a good candidate for supporting Howard Dean: he’s fiscally conservative (unlike the president); he believes in gay equality (unlike the president). But, of course, he loses me on national security issues. His frustrating promise is explored opposite. These days, what’s an eagle to do?
DA BEARS: They’re the Homer Simpsons of the gay world. But with more back hair. Why I love them, posted opposite.
ORTHODOXY AND DIVORCE: A fascinating email on the position of the Eastern Orthodox church on divorce. They really do seem saner out east:
The Orthodox Archbishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware explains the Orthodox position on divorce:
“Certainly Orthodoxy regards the marriage bond as in principle lifelong and indissoluble, and it sees the breakdown of marriage as a tragedy due to human weakness and sin. But while condemning the sin, the Church still desires to help suffering humans and to allow them a second chance. When, therefore, a marriage has entirely ceased to be a reality, the Orthodox Church does not insist on the preservation of a legal fiction. Divorce is seen as an exceptional but unavoidable concession to our human brokenness, living as we do in a fallen world . . . the Orthodox Church knows that a second alliance cannot have exactly the same character as the first; and so in the service for a second marriage several of the joyful ceremonies are omitted, and replaced by penitential prayers. In practice, however, this second marriage service is scarcely ever used. (The Orthodox Church, NY: Penguin Books, 1993 edition, p. 295).”
I.e. – the Eastern Orthodox Christian churchs, recognized as fully apostolic and valid churchs by Rome (in schism only over papal infallibility and the filoque), not only condones the dissolution of the first marriage, but accepts up to 2 more marriages after it. Why the “concession” to straight couples? Bishop Ware explains that is it due to “tragedy due to human weakness and sin. But while condemning the sin, the Church still desires to help suffering humans and to allow them a second chance.” And third.
Where is the Christian response to the situation of the homosexual? Where is the response born out of charity for “tragedy due to human weakness and sin.” Where is the “exceptional but unavoidable concession to our human brokenness” acknowledging “living as we do in a fallen world” that for homosexuals too “it is better to marry than to burn.” (1 Cor. 7:9)?
The answer, I think, is that many powerful Christians still don’t think of the homosexual person as fully human. If they did, they would exercise compassion and fairness. Instead homosexuals are seen as either sick or so disordered as not to be capable of genuine affection and love. I can see no other reason why so many compassionate exceptions are made for heterosexuals in sexual ethics (the infertile, the divorced, annulments, etc.) but none – zero – for gay people.
The Dish 