God and Me and the Drunken Homosexual
By Austin Ruse
When I was younger and single and living in New York I used to spend a good part of my time in the evening drinking big fat scotches, smoking cigarettes, and reading books at various saloons on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.
I did not go to bars to make friends or to talk to strangers. I was the reader. The other regulars knew that and respected it. Sometimes strangers would try to engage me in conversation. They always wanted to know what I was reading. Biographies and Catholicism mostly. And they wanted to know why I was reading in a bar. Because I like to. I was the master of the mini-syllabic brush-off.
My spiritual director at that time was an Opus Dei priest named Father Bob Connor. In Direction, we discussed my evenings out and Father Bob told me that God speaks to you in the people He puts right in front of you. He said the bar situation was an ideal one for the apostolate, bringing others closer to God. He said I had to talk to the strangers. In fact he said, "The next person who speaks to you, you have to engage."
Shortly thereafter I was in Washington D.C., sitting at the bar of a place called Daily Grill, tucking into a nice tasty scotch, and reading a book about Church history or some such Catholic thing.
I heard him before I saw him. Homer Simpson said, "I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my homosexuals flaming." Let's just say the guy lurching loudly and drunkenly into view was a Homer-sexual, and he was coming my way. My blood ran cold. Could this be the person that God Himself is putting right in front of me? Surely not. There are open seats other than the one right next to me. Surely, he won't take that one. Surely he won't.
"What are you reading?" he practically screamed. I closed my book and turned to face him. "It’s a book about Catholicism," I said quietly, and off we went.
I guess I was emboldened by the Holy Spirit because I went almost immediately to the heart of the matter. When he told me he was Catholic I asked him when was the last time he had been to confession and Mass. He said it had been years. I asked if it was because of his homosexuality, something that had not really been established in our conversation. He said, yes but that he and his "lover" had not had sex in years. He said that was the way in homosexual relationships. Really emboldened by the Holy Spirit I said, "I bet you masturbate a lot, though" and he said "yes."
Maybe the guy would have talked about my book. Maybe he would have wanted to argue about Catholicism. But there was something inside him right then. It was part Confession but also a yearning to hear. Like most homosexuals, he lives in this world that constantly affirms him in his homosexuality and tells him how brave it is. Maybe he welcomed someone who would not affirm him, but rather affirm that other thing, the gnawing guilt that is always with him.
"You know, that’s a sin, too."
"I know."
"Well you'll have to cut that out; go to Confession and go to Mass."
"But the priest would laugh at me if I went to Confession."
Imagine that. He did not resist the suggestion. He didn’t deny Confession at all. Not even a little bit. He wanted to go but he thought the priest would laugh at him, that maybe he couldn’t be forgiven.
"I promise you here and now that the priest will not laugh at you." How can you convince someone of this? By force of sincerity, I think. I practically begged the guy to believe me. "The priest will rejoice."
What I remember most of that evening now many years ago was a little mantra I kept reciting to him: "Go to Confession. Go to Mass. Go to Confession. Go to Mass." I still believe in the power of those two sentences to burrow down into his psyche and lie there dormant until in a dark moment they fight their way to his consciousness and maybe make all the difference.
This went on for a long while and it was time to go. As I got up to leave, I dug into my pocket and handed him my rosary which he took with emotional gratitude. I don’t know what happened to the guy. I never saw him again.
One day I'll know, at the General Judgment. At that glorious moment, we will learn everything. We will learn the terrible ramifications of our sinning; how our sins reverberated out and harmed others, who and how much and how our sins harmed the Body of Christ. We will also learn the reach of our acts of kindness and charity. We will also learn about our omissions, about all those people the Holy Spirit presented to us and what happened to them because we resisted. For me there will be plenty of those. But I will also learn what happened to that guy whom a good spiritual director emboldened me to engage.
20 comments :
We Christians want to avoid sin that offends God. We do not unilaterally harm God but we do wreck our love relationship with Him by sinning. Created in His loving image, we fail to live up to expectations. Without Jesus and His deal to make it all right, we would be planning our new residence in Hell. But we have taken Jesus as Savior and Lord and He keeps us in His Father's loving will.
As Lord, Jesus bases and defines ALL sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Such obvious sins as theft, murder and adultery are unloving because each has a victim, someone not receiving love.
Please tell me, who is the unloved victim in a homosexual relationship? Neither is a victim, neither is unloved. Where is the hurt? Who could bring suit against the “sinner”? What Gospel writer or Bible prophet claimed homosexuality is sinful? (Jesus didn't.) These are not rhetorical questions; they are unanswered by those who refuse God's grace and live by working the law.
It is noteworthy that Gay people employ themselves in loving professions like medicine, education and the ministry. However, some Christians evidently work in the Biblical judicial system.
Certainly if God didn't want men to have sex with other men, He would have said “Man shall not lie with man PERIOD (Leviticus 18:22, 21:13). God wanted Moses to eradicate rampant idolatry in the Jewish nation. That whole “ . . . as with a woman” thing condemns straight men pretending to make it with a woman, such as during idol worship. Paul explains it further when putting down the straight Romans (1:26-28 ) for “leaving their natural relations” (i.e.... as with a woman) and having idolatrous sex with men. Gay men are attracted to other men by definition and by God. They can only imagine what sex
“ . . . as with a woman” would be like.
“Homosexual” was coined about 1865, so any Bible translation since then that uses a form of that word is a lie that needs to be emended. ( The King James version is honest.) It premiered in a1946 English Bible and continues to condemn loving Gays.
What is the most love one can show another sinner? Offer them an eternity with God through the redemptive cross of Jesus. Instead of judging them, shouldn’t Christians be telling those “sinful” homosexuals that Jesus died for their sins? The stumbling block is that Gays do not want to affiliate with unloving and judgmental Christians. Know Jesus, know love. No Jesus, no love.
Mexjewel:
While you have made some valid points, other parts of your biblical exegesis are flawed. Both Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13 condemn homosexual activity (i.e., sexual relations between two men or between two women) within the context of other sexual sins, and not within the context of idolatry, as you have imagined. The four capital sexual crimes listed in Lev. 20:10-16 are adultery, incest, homosexuality, and bestiality. Jesus specifically mentions adultery alone in Mt. 5:27ff. To thereby conclude that homosexuality is OK by Jesus is very capricious. Must we likewise conclude that Jesus approves of incest, bestiality, rape, extortion, kidnaping, and other sins just because we have no record of Jesus condemning them specifically by name? Tsk, tsk.
As for Romans 1:26ff, a more accomplished exegete may correct me, but Paul seems to be arguing that homosexual passions may be the result within the individual (or culture?) that has turned away from God, whether through idolatry or simple unrepentance. In other words, basic ungodliness is the cause, homosexual tendencies may be one effect.
You are correct in observing that in Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus distills all to love. And your slogan "no Jesus, no love" is dead on. Since Jesus is Truth incarnate (Jn. 14:6), the corollary to this is "no truth, no love". Our limited minds may readily embrace error, and our broken nature may easily wish to find an easy way out. The Truth may not be obvious. So we must always seek God's way, and His truth, and not our own preferences. Jesus loves us, not with a washed-out affirmation of whatever we may be doing, but with a love that calls us to holiness (cf. Mt. 19:16-22). He loves us too much to leave us in our sins.
Also right on: your observation that the most love one sinner can show others is to tell them that Jesus died for their sins. We are all like beggars telling other beggars where they can go for a hand-out. The stumbling block is that some sinners do not want to admit their sinfulness, but insist that Jesus approves of their particular pet behavior. But Jesus died for sinners. There is a remedy for sin, for all sin. It's called the cross, and we receive it through faith and repentance (Rom. 2:4).
Taking all this together with human observation, i'm convinced that the majority of people have some kind of addiction or besetting sin against which they feel helpless, and with which they may struggle for years, even for a lifetime. The path to holiness is precisely this: to bring that addiction or unconquered sin to the Cross, and to earnestly beg relief and forgiveness. Whether this is a sexual addiction or something else, the important thing is to take up that cross, which is to say: accept God's judgment of the sin, agree with God that it is evil, and beg forgiveness and healing, through prayer and sacraments. And when you sin again, repent again. And again. And again. If you are Catholic, avail yourself often of the grace of Confession.
This is repentance, and it is God's gracious remedy for sin. Take it from a fellow beggar: there is no remedy for an excuse.
Thanks for the post mexjewel, but I agree with Jerry that your Biblical isogesis is self-contradictory. Jesus sent St.Paul the Apostle, and St. Paul said homosexual acts are wrong. It would be truly hateful to confirm someone in their sins. We all need repentence, especially those who seek to twist the Bible in support of acting on un-Natural and dis-ordered inclinations.
God does not make people to sin, but the world is broken and our fallen nature leads us to do our our will instead of doing God's will. Those who engage in homosexual acts are not receiving love, they are "receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error" and therefore under your definition they are sinners, as are we all, but they are sinners for what they do.
Another noteworthy thing about Ruse's story is how Ruse himself was touched by God's grace through this act of love, though repelled at first. One of the Twelve Steps of a recovering alcoholic is to help another alcoholic. Part of conquering sin in one's personal life is to give loving witness to other sinners, as Ruse did in his story. I suppose (i hope) bearing witness through Catholic blogging is another example of such outreach.
Only a mind darkened by sin would attempt to equate lust with love. There is no authentic love in a homosexual relationship. Only selfishness and self-gratification.
Reading your blog makes me sick to my stomach. I think you are sick. I think that Jesus doesn't like you!
Are you a Roman Catholic priest, by any chance? Who else would sit at the bar in a "Gay Bar" and read a book about Catholicism? Dear Gawd!!
I hope Obama wins so you'll stop talking.
I know posting this is a long time after the fact but given the theory that nothing ever leaves the internet, I feel i must respond to MHH's last post. The bar i was in was not a gay bar! It was a fine restaurant called the Daily Grill. Drunken homosexuals can walk in almost anywhere!
Also - long time after the fact - but I must say this reflection is excellent. Thank you so much!
Amazing. People use the remnants of a book that has been translated, re-translated, re-re-translated, often using context based translations of translations, to justify their views. And nobody even knows how much of the original texts (which nobody has possession of) are accurate.
But G-d speaks to you. He tells you he hates homosexuals. He tells you mankind was born into sin. He tells you that something as natural as sexual release (masturbation) is wrong. He tells you to love, but only under a certain set of rules or you'll burn in eternal flames (that's justice for you.)
You must realize how insane this all sounds. You want to believe Jesus was the Son of G-d, and a magical mystical being? Fine. But enough with self righteous prejudice and claiming it's what G-d wants. The evil done under that claim has made more unhappiness than anything else.
Grow up.
Actually Hitman Blues Band, no one here commented that God hates homosexuals, nor even that any of us hate them. We're all sinners, so we all could heed Austin Ruse's advise: "go to confession." I wouldn't even limit this advise to Catholics, I think a priest would absolve anyone who asked.
Okay, let's pretend that conservative Christians don't hate homosexuals. They just think they are aberrations, that God loves them but hates their "sin" and for that, if they don't admit and repent, they will burn in hell.
Semantics.
There is a story that Rabbi Hillel (110 BCE - 10 CE) was made an offer by a Roman soldier: if he could teach the soldier all of Jewish law while standing on one foot, the soldier would become a Jew. Hillel stood on one foot and said "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
If you understand that the only sin is to disobey that law, there will be much less unhappiness in the world.
Stop worrying about people confessing sins, and using guilt as a means of control. The desperately unhappy gay man in the article wasn't going to be stop being gay, any more than I'm going to stop being heterosexual. I don't know for certain what God wants, if anything.
Neither do you.
But following the Golden Rule sure won't hurt.
One more point, it is difficult to claim that we only have "remnants" of the Scriptures, when the only evidence of 'complaints' if you will, about missing pieces are that the Book of Henoch is missing,and possibly a third Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians. The rest of those complaints about missing pieces of Scripture, so that we only have a remnant left, are not based on evidence so much as conjecture by those who subject the Scriptures to a method of analysis that claims there must be missing pieces in order to justify the use of that same method to progressively interpret the Scriptures.
And if the Scriptures, which really should not be classified as a remnant (it's the Faithful who are the Remnant), have "been translated, re-translated, [and] re-re-translated" I think we should call out what, or specify what these translations entailed, because you make it sound as if a single copy was translated first by 1 group, next by another, in sequence, progressively (there's that word again). What we know happened is that the original texts were translated into the Syriac languages, and the North African (Coptic) languages, and into Indo-Asiatic languages (by the disciples of St. Thomas who went to Kerala India around 50AD), Latin by the 4th Century (St. Jerome), Anglo-Saxon by the 7th (St. Bede and others), eventually Russian, Swedish,... the list goes on. Yet in all these divergent translations, we still see a cohesive message, not a jumble. In effect, these translations prove the consistency of the Scriptures.
Another Note, I have heard that a translation of the Gospel of St. Matthew, from Greek to Hebrew, originally considered to a difficult undertaking, turned out to be relatively easy, because the resultant Hebrew read like poetry.
Permit me to better explain what you term semantics. A person created in the image and likeness of God, and endowed with Free Will, cannot be counted an aberration. God respects Free Will more than we know and much more than most are willing to admit. The only way to understand in some small way that God is love, that separation from God is sin, and that if one freely and consciously chooses to do this - then the only unforgivable sin is to not ask for forgiveness. In this then one would understand that God does not send people to hell, they send themselves there. They choose hell.
If you honestly do not know what God wants then you have nothing to worry about. But your statements, including Rabbi Hillel's teaching, beg some questions:
Is God Love?
What is Hate? What is hateful?
Are these your definitions or are you at least trying to think what would be hateful to God?
If you had an idea that something was hateful to God, would you at least try to avoid doing it? Would you at least try tell others?
As you pointed out Hitman, Hillel capped his summation of the Law:
now go and learn.
Regarding your comments about the translations and continuity of the Bible, I would recommend reading "The Rise and Fall of the Bible: The Unexpected History of an Accidental Book" by Timothy Beal (actually the title does not represent the contents accurately.) It is an interesting counterpoint to your summations.
Regarding sin - you are basing your concept of sin, or separation from G-d, as being the result of acts you personally find distasteful. You can find certain passages in the Bible to back up your position, but you can also find passages in the Bible to affirm the righteousness of slavery, war crimes, polygamy and pedophilia.
Naturally, I'm not saying you approve of any of those. But using the Bible to claim G-d's support of your idea of sin is a dangerous method, as history shows us.
I'd be very interested to hear your opinion of Mr. Beal's research, strictly concerning the various developments of the Bible. His comments on the very first words of the Bible (page 150) and the difference translation can make are important to this conversation.
Thanks for the response Hitman,
I think the claim that the Bible supports polygamy loses a lot a credence when you realize the first person whom the Bible relates as having two wives, Lamach, is the great, great, great grandson of the first murderer, Cain, and he himself is an vicious murderer, having killed a young man for bruising him, and bragging to his two wives that if Cain were avenged 7 fold, Lamech would be avenged 70 times 7 fold. That fact that Lamech is the seventh generation from Adam through Cain the murderer is significant. I think reading the whole of Scripture, including Jesus' re-emphasizing G_d's original design of the two becoming one flesh, indicates that mankind will stray into polygamy, and the bible reports it, but that was not part of G_d's plan.
Slavery again, you need to distinguish between the slavery we had in America, which is "Man-Stealing" and the Indentured Servitude slavery which had a voluntary component to it. Ex 21:16 and Deut 24:7 clearly call for the death penalty for Man-Stealing, while Ex 21:1-2 states that indentured servants are to be freed after 6 years, in the Jubilee 7th year.
The War crimes issue needs some context. The rules of engagement called for sparing woman and children, except when dealing with the Caananites, which includes the Jebusites, Hitites, Amorites, and some other tribe I can't remember. This is because what these peoples did was so horrendous, that G_d did not so much take away their land and give it to the Israelites, as "the land vomited them out." The Caananites did not deserve to be spared.
I'll look into Beal, you look into what the Caananites did that was so bad, and then answer for me the question, if you were G_d, what would you have done with the Caananites?
G_d threatened the Israelites with the same punishment if they did what the Caananites did, that the land would vomit them out too.
At this point, I have to beg off the conversation. All due respect, but a superior being does not condone genocide. The fact that you think G-d would demand the massacre of all men, women and children because "they are all evil" is the same idea of Pope Innocent ("kill them all. G-d will know his own")
Your last comments defending Biblical slavery as indentured servitude (sometimes it was, sometimes not) and claiming G-d's retribution for:
burning their children in honor of their gods (Lev. 18:21), practice sodomy, bestiality, and all sorts of loathsome vice (Lev. 18:23, 24, 20:3)
well, that's insane. Such things have been done in every country, including ours. I'm sure the little Canaanite children did not participate in any of the vices, yet were destroyed. G-d does not command such things.
But you have your viewpoint, which I consider extreme. You can justify any evil, any prejudice, any oppression, saying it's G-d's will and using parts of the Bible to back up your beliefs.
Best of luck to you, and I hope you never achieve any measure of power over people's lives.
We've endured quite enough of people like you and the damage you cause in your campaign for "righteousness".
Hitman,
You made comments about the Bible which were inaccurate. First it was translations, second that one "can also find passages in the Bible to affirm the righteousness of slavery, war crimes, polygamy and pedophilia." I pointed out these inaccuracies and laid out mitigating circumstances.
I did not attempt to to "justify any evil, any prejudice, any oppression, saying it's G-d's will" and you will not find any comments from me that seek to do that. Unless disagreeing with you counts as justifying evil and oppression.
You have a preconceived notion that anyone who disagrees with your point of view must be stupified by the Bible, which prevents you from hearing any of our points. I did not bring the Bible into this debate. I would have argued from Natural Law, but you did not ask.
You said "I don't know for certain what God wants, if anything ...Neither do you." Yet I'm supposed to take you at your word concerning the punishments in the Scripture when you tell me "G-d does not command such things." Perhaps I hoped too much for a debate, instead of a lecture.
The crime of the Caananites for which the land vomited them out was that they sacrificed their own children to Moloch - which meant the mothers were in on it. At least the Mayans and others 'limited' their human sacrifices to prisoners of war.
It was not Pope Innocent, but Abbot Arnaud who made those comments about G_d sorting out their victims. I'm sure Abbot Arnaud had to account for that at his judgment.
And Where exactly does the Bible defend pedophilia?
Context for "Well, that's insane"
Post a Comment