VATICAN CITY — The archbishop of the Italian city of Genoa received a bullet in an envelope at his office — the latest threatening message for the prelate, who is leading a campaign against same-sex unions, Vatican Radio said Sunday.Apparently, this is the unwanted result when you go about with a stale anthropology and lazy scriptural interpretation, arguably, that teaches that homosexuals are "evil", a fact increasingly belied by the collective experience of homosexuals in the modern world, for any who bother to look. But it's not all. There have been de-facings of Church property, including the writing of "Shame on You" at the Genoa Cathedral, reportedly.
The bullet arrived Friday at the office of Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, who was recently elected to head the politically influential Italian Bishops Conference, the radio report said. It quoted a Genoa newspaper as saying the envelope also contained a photo of the archbishop with a swastika cut into it.
...
"TRADITIONALISTS" GETTING THE RIGHT MESSAGE?
Traditionalists aren't getting the right message, it doesn't seem. So far, from the few blogs I've scanned, they seem to take it as vindication that no one is listening to them. They haven't been willing to view it as a wake-up call of possibly how weak their position is or that it might need urgently to be addressed.
THE CONFRONTATION WITH MODERNITY
The Pope has framed the issue as remaining staunch in the face of modernity. 'We cannot change doctrine to suit the moods of the time', is the thinking.
The problem with that is that it was precisely the "moods" of the time, if you take John Boswell's history of it, that provided the foundation for Aquinas' 'natural law' argument, let alone the elevation of it to 'doctrine'. I haven't read the Summa in an age, so I'll rest on Boswell's take.
What's also a 'problem' is that they continue to rely on such moods, in places where a 'right spirit' doesn't obtain on the 'orthodox' side of the spectrum. To wit, skim the "arguments" presented in this paper, which will be part of the unfolding drama on the issue within the Anglican tradition.
LISTENING OURSELVES TO DEATH
The Church of Nigeria [where they attempt to rival Muslim hatred of gays] "It is clear from the passages in the Old and New Testament [humm.. didn't adherence to the old end, uh, like centuries ago?] ....that it is classified among the most offensive crimes like idolatry involving the sacrifice of children, having intercourse with animals, or marrying a woman and her mother."
...
THE CHURCH OF THE PROVINCE OF CENTRAL AFRICA, through its archbishop Bernard Malango, said the church can must never tolerate [homosexual] sin. He had this to say: "In the cultures of Central Africa, homosexuality is not something talked about. It is known in the prisons and cases are reported to those in authority. It is...not acknowledged or named (in the community) and when it is named, it is named negatively." [In other words, anti-gay beliefs are a popular prejudice]
...
Gomez said that within the eight dioceses of the Province, there is a common cultural position which views homosexuality in a very negative light. The general public would be horrified at the thought of the Church endorsing homosexuality and some have challenged the distinction articulated by the Church between orientation and the participation in homosexual acts.
...
THE ANGLICAN CHURCH IN JAPAN "Homosexuality was taboo and not approved of in any way and homosexual people were discriminated against in the workplace, but this has changed,"
...
Dr Williams [in Australia] remarks that "social, cultural, and legal contexts are very varied indeed".
[and concludes with this]
But the truth of it is that this "listening" is a one way street. The orthodox are required to "listen" to statements saying anal sex is blessed by God but no one asks the sodomites to "listen" to statements that such conduct is condemned by scripture.
It's when I read these things that I think, this is what 800 years of not having lay investiture profits you: an orthodox wing that is almost Pharasitical in its righteousness.
"MARRIAGE" IS A REGULATION
When one reads behind the lines of this and other writings, what I think you discover is that some believe that the purpose of marriage, including civil marriage, is a regulation. What they are afraid of is losing control, of losing their ability to "police the culture", so to speak; and nothing is more frightening to an 'orthodoxer' than losing control, that I can think. For example, they ask, how are we going to draw the line, if we don't do it the way we have forever. What are we going to do about the Dutch pedophile organization?
Putting aside whether you think that saving souls involves 'policing' rather than 'elucidating', I ultimately find this view lazy. With all the scholars and the rich tradition of the Church, how can it be that no one can come up with a doctrine that is suitable to modernity, that is suitable to managing the way through the 'disparate contexts' that are emerging in modernity, some cultures where homosexuality is vilified, still, and others where people have come to see it as not much more than another of God's mysteries?
These people have been entrusted with the tradition, but retrenchment is not an obvious way to manage it well. They are risking the whole of it by withdrawing their talents from the search and playing the blame-game for any consequences that might result from changes.
