The eloquent Pontificator has bravely stepped into the murky waters of the gay marriage debate. Prompted by a Salty Vicar article on ECUSA’s recent decisions to affirm and bless same-sex unions, he writes:
Where I disagree strongly with John is his suggestion that a more credible interpretation of St. Paul needs to be presented. I’m sorry, but this simply sounds dishonest. Paul is Paul. We cannot change what he wrote because we no longer find it credible or helpful. Far more honest is to simply admit one’s disagreement with Paul. With all of his fellow Jews of his day, the Apostle believed that all forms of homosexual intercourse violated the divinely-given structures of creation. Surely the exegetical work of Robert Gagnon and Richard Hays has exposed, once and for all, the tendentiousness of all who try to make St Paul more amenable to modern sensibilities. Agree or disagree with him, but Paul believed that homosex was wrong. So did Jesus.
I might also add that the teaching St. Paul and of Holy Scripture also directly attacks the widespread heterosexual practice of fornication, cohabitation, and adultery. We all stand under the judgment of the Word of God.
The problem with disagreeing with Paul is that one is disagreeing with an Apostle, and the Apostles are the divinely appointed mediators of the Gospel. Now not everything an Apostle says must be taken as divine revelation universally applicable to all times and places; but the fact remains that the Church catholic has always interpreted Paul, within the canon of Holy Scripture and her Holy Tradition, as authoritatively proscribing all erotic relations outside the bonds of Holy Matrimony. And so we are right back to the foundational and primary question of authority. It’s not just about sex. It’s about authority!
As may be expected for this touchy issue, the comments section is lively. One of the best observations was #39 [Craig]:
For a society that claims to have improved women’s status as moral agents, ours sure has lessened women’s moral responsibilities. Women who conceive now have the absolute right to kill their offspring without the consent of the fathers; if these women choose not to do so, they have the right to compel the fathers to provide support. (When will “women’s-rights” advocates start lobbying for unwed fathers to have the right to disavow their offspring or compel abortion? Right.) Men still have the (residual and fading) expectation and legal obligation to support their families, but the incongruity between this and the new sexual ethic means they no longer have any unsentimental reason to seek marriage.
Our society is throwing away civilization for the sole reason that we prefer having the ability to couple randomly like brute beasts on the savannah. This part of the human condition is the consequence of the Fall, and we should not glory in it.