Compounding Concupiscence and Cross-Spectral Mutual Pedagogy
Skills for Neutralizing the Damaging Effects of Homophobia and Learning Pan-Human Christian Charity
I. Introduction
II. Concupiscence Homosexuality and Homophobia
III. Homophobia as Envy: How Compounding Concupiscence Kills Christian Charity
IV. The Cross-Spectral Mutual Pedagogy of Homo and Hetero Attraction
V. Conclusion
Introduction
As a hetero attractive sacramentally married person, I have had the experience of attending extremely large celebrations of same attractive love. In these celebrations “love” is what was being celebrated. There were not sexual acts being performed, and mutual psycho-spiritual edification was generally the focus of these event. Doubtless there were people there who did not believe that Christ is the ultimate expression of love. Doubtless there were people there who had and will continue to demonstrate same attractive love in a sexual way, which is not teleologically appropriate according to Church teaching. But the celebrations themselves as public events had much less to do with sexual action than one may suspect. Affirming and edifying relationships of love expressed through joy and creativity was the major overarching experience. The only exception to this is usually a small but vocal contingent of people intent on making sure that everyone there knows they are going to hell. These people are not Catholic, indeed often they hold signs condemning Catholics as well as a host of other groups. What they are is the only instance of hate visible among all the crowds. Since no sexual acts are being performed, these people are the only visible examples of sinful action exhibited at these gatherings.
The purpose of this treatise is to draw attention to the destructive nature of homophobia on the Christian soul and reiterate how people with homo and hetero attractions can be of service to each other by effective instruction of the ignorant. In a treatise, Same-attractive Dyadinal Solemn Relationships, it was discussed how same attraction can be licitly and fruitfully be expressed in the Catholic Church. It explored the existing and theoretical structures in the Catholic Church where a same attractive person could licitly practice development of loving relationships suited to their strengths. The aim of this treatise is to expand upon the end of that treatise where it was pointed out that understanding same attractive love helps us understand many aspects of all encompassing love and discuss the opposite, how homophobia destroys Christian charity.
In the first section we will explore the concupiscent nature of both same sex sexual attraction and homophobia. We will point out that lust is not a concupiscent exhibition that is particularly foundational to same sex activity. The more particular concupiscent problem related to same sex sexual action is sloth, not living up to potential. The acts may generate union, which is good, but they can not reach the ideal of union and procreation. Thus the moral disposition toward openness to life is lacking as well.
Contrary to that, the concupiscence of homophobia contains no virtue, but develops from the vices of fear and terror. We begin by distinguishing pedagogy and homophobia, and then we will develop the expression of the fear of homophobia into wrath and further into oppression as exhibited by the diabolical implementation of the scapegoat phenomenon. We will then explore how through compounding concupiscence such wrath can develop into envy, manifest as the desire to strip away Christian love from the same attractive person and ultimately from the hetero attractive person as well.
In the next section, we hope to develop how homophobic envy mistakes “same attraction” for “same sex sexual acts”. We will developed evidence of the diabolical nature of this mistake from the temptation story in Eden and discuss how such envy point by point neutralizes the ability of the one to share in the love of Christ. We will seek to explore the vast network of expressions of love, by exploring three classic types of love defined by Christianity and then conveying those loves as expressed by the classic “love languages” and situate sexual action in those love languages, illuminating how sex can express each language and how “physical touch” need not be simply defined as sexual action.
With the vast array of expression of love laid out, hopefully the small nature of the illicite will be made clear, and the perils of homophobia will also be also revealed. Lastly we will relate how the envy of homophobia coupled with the trauma caused by a homophobic society sets the groundwork for grave matter and opens the homophobe to the possibility of mortal sin, the rejection of Christ’s love and the inability to use their life to express pan-human Christian charity.
In the final section of this treatise we will moved into more positive territory and seek to neutralize compounding concupiscence by exploring mutual edification. In this section we will explore how hetero attractive and same attractive people can serve each other as pedagogues of Christian charity in a process we call cross-spectral mutual pedagogy. We will define two sexual spectrums the extremes of which cause our present culture problems. Those spectrums are “the erotic spectrum of love” and “the teleological spectrum of human sexuality”. We will discuss how the more progressive end of our culture skews unitive on the teleological spectrum possibly to the extreme of denying the procreative, whereas the more conservative end of our culture skews toward the procreative, possibly to the point of negating the unitive. We will then discussed the cultural problem of how “homosexuals” are reduced to being defined by their sexuality. This combined with a negation of the unitive function sets the stage for true homophobia which operates on fear, expresses as wrath and envy and disallows pan-human Christian charity.
We will conclude by reminding the reader of the balance needed in terms of expression of love to members of the same and opposite sex. We will surmise the lesson that hetero attractive people have to teach same attractive people concerning the procreative purpose of sexual activity and how it relates to the unitive. We will spend time surmising the lessons that same attractive people have to teach hetero attractive people, traumatized by a culture of homophobia such that they cannot express healthy love to those of the same bio-sex, concerning comfort with expression of love to someone of the same bio-sex.
Concupiscence Homosexuality and Homophobia
Concupiscence and Homosexuality
To begin we will cover what should be quite familiar territory for anyone who knows standard Catholic sexual morality. In the treatsaie Same-attractive Dyadinal Solemn Relationships we pointed out the basic moral problem of homosexual acts
God made everything good according to the first story of creation in Genesis. Therefore evil, as Saint Augustine argues in City of God, has no actual being, it is either a lack of goodness or a lower order of goodness than is required given a particular situation. And sin is action oriented and affected by the lack of good that should be present. The Church teaches that sexual action is oriented toward two mutually edifying purposes. Those purposes are the unity of the couple and the openness to procreation in the act. So for sexual action to be “good” it must be oriented to those two purposes and any lack there of would qualify as sinful. Since it is impossible for same-sexual action (as sex) to be open to generating life, the standard teaching in the Catholic Church is that same-sexual acts are sinful. What that actually means is same-sexual acts are “not good enough”. Same-sexual action can lead to unity of the couple especially through pleasure and shared experience. But, those patterns of action are absolutely closed off to procreation.
In this treatise we will dwell briefly on the concupiscent nature of same-sexual attraction. One of the more insulting things that same-attractive people hear from Catholic moral teaching is that they are “disordered”. When most Catholics say this they are indicating the action. As noted sexual action is oriented toward unity and procreation. But in the case of same sex sexual attraction the purpose sexual activity is ordered toward is lacking one aspect and disproportionately favors the other.
As a specific example of concupiscence, same sex sexual attraction is usually categorized under “lust”. But given the reasons offered for its illicit nature, this is obviously not the fundamental example. Lust is a violence based on objectification of a person’s body for the purposes of dominance or objectifying pleasure. Same sex sexual attraction could express this way, but it is as likely that hetero sexual attraction would be dominated by lust. What makes same sex sexual attraction different is that, if it is an attraction to love not lust, the way the attraction seeks to express love is not the perfect for the relationship sought. That is not to say that every example of hetero-sexual attraction is such an example. But with same sex sexual attraction, procreation through sexual activity is necessarily lacking.
The particular concupiscent inflammation of lust in same sex sexual attraction may seem more prominent because of how society views same sex sexual attraction. Evidence indicates that same attraction in most cases is not a lifestyle that is “chosen”. If one has an urge toward attachment to others of the same sex, and a society deems this abhorrent in all quarters, the individual is branded as an outcast by society, and the individual internalizes this status. Once one sees oneself as “damaged” without a chance of redemption, given there is no choice in one’s urges, one is far more prone to accept any other legitimate “darker aspect” of one’s self. The more unaccepting a society is, the more likely that same attraction manifests in secret and in the most damaging forms, because the actor already see no hope and as a matter of course it is initially easier to cooperate with concupiscence than it is to cooperate with virtue. Whereas in a more accepting society, the virtues of same attraction as pointed out in Same-attractive Dyadinal Solemn Relationships and as will be delineated below are more prone to be manifest and the environment facilitates the practice of virtue.
Lust is not actually the defining moral problem of homosexual acts. The defining concupiscent operation is sloth. Our particular focus on acedia will be a lack of fulfillment. As stated above, same sex sexual action is an act that cannot fulfill the complete purpose, union and procreation. Same sex sexual acts may very well be able to bring union to the couple though biological binding, mutual pleasure or spiritual investment and reflection; as these were described regarding hetero-sexual actions in Corporeal Unitive Fulfillment in the Eschaton. But the sexaul acts, as sexual acts, will not create children. There are biblical precedence for sterile women engaging in hetero-sexual acts, by God’s grace begetting children. Hence the Church allows for marriage of medically defined sterile persons to engage in marriage. As we mentioned in Birth Control vs Labor Rights? if this marriage never begets children, it is valid, because the biblical precedence allows for hope and openness to life through sexual activity. Those who are prone to same attraction have other avenues, for example the structures laid out in Same-attractive Dyadinal Solemn Relationships, but sacramental marriage requires certain matter (a male and female body) as well as form.
The major assertion concerning homosexual acts is that they are “not good enough”, thus the abiding problem is that they do not have the possibility of reaching the fulfillment sexual acts were designed for. Thus it is not so much that homosexuality is necessarily a sin of “commision”. Any given homosexual act could be a sin of commission if it is riven by lust, but then again so would any hetero sexual action. On this level any sexual action would be equally tainted. It could be that same sexual action in and of itself, brings about some goodness, in that it allows for or facilitates a certain amount of unity. This would also be true of hetero sexual action that involved birthcontrol. But each of these involves acedia, in that they are not geared toward the full meaning and potential of the act.
Pride is often touted as the major example of concupiscence, but acedia is on par as the polar opposite. Infact pride may simply be a facilitator of acedia, in that pride blocks one from reaching their full potential. It is certainly the case that, in this world, only one person thus far has reached his full potential. The rest of us are able to look to him for salvation, yet everyone of the rest of us falls short of our potential. People who engage in same sex sexual acts are in no way unique, nor are the actions themselves categorizable as the most destructive acts around. A person disposed toward same attraction has many positive aspects of that attraction that will be demonstrated as edifying for the Church. But as we move to the topic of homophobia we will see that it is a more specific disposition which is wholly negative in its effect.
Concupiscence and Homophobia
By homophobia we do not mean “instruction of the ignorant” concerning the teleology of sexual activity or the explanation of licit and illicit sexual actions. It is not a bad thing to instruct the ignorant. With good intention, this is a solid virtue, but it requires a lot of discernment and skill. It is wise to reflect on James's words, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you realize that we will be judged more strictly, for we all fall short in many respects.” Are you good at what you teach? If you are instructing the ignorant concerning same sex sexual action, have you ever made anyone more inclined toward the Church’s teaching? Have you ever even moved anyone from malicious disagreement to respectful disagreement? If the answer is no, maybe this isn’t your gift. I suspect this would be true of the protest contingent mentioned in the opening anecdote of this treatise.
Homophobia is a concupiscent disorder just as the desire to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same sex is. The term homophobia is definable as someone who fears (phobia) those moved by same attraction. Awe is a virtue, but fear as opposed to awe is not. Awe is a sense of grandeur, glory, ability, etc. that inspires a sense of unworthiness, which in turn should motivate one to better beatitude. Hence the gift of the Spirit, wonder and awe, or “fear of the Lord”. In the case of homophobia “fear” is an irrational terror that inflames concupiscent wrath and envy.
When a homophobe speaks he or she is not instructing the ignorant. Instead their effect can be seen a bit further down in chapter 3 of James’s letter,
[T]he tongue is a small member and yet has great pretensions.
Consider how small a fire can set a huge forest ablaze. The tongue is also a fire. It exists among our members as a world of malice, defiling the whole body and setting the entire course of our lives on fire, itself set on fire by Gehenna. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings who are made in the likeness of God.
This passage points out that one can cloak one’s self as a devout person and do great harm in toward one’s fellow man. When harm is done in God’s name it is a fracture of the third commandment. As we pointed out in Christian Ontology
The third commandment forbids total investment in any verbal representations of God. Taking the name of the Lord in vain was an offence punishable by death according to levitical law, and the seriousness attached to it revolved around the question of use. Are you going to presume to know the proper way to use God’s name? To use God’s name assumes the speaker has some power over God, that the speaker understands God in such a way as to be able to speak for him. To name something gives one power over it, the ability to shape the idea of what it is in other people's consciousness and the ability to call it or command it.
This presumption extends into the moral realm, with a caveat. If one is going to presume to speak for God, to use God’s name to judge others, one had better be pure of intention and they had better be correct. The punishment for breaking the third commandment according to the levitical code is death. For Christians it is the third death.
The homophobe is setting fire with his or her tongue such that the effect is compounding concupiscence, one concupiscent disorder inflaming another, which in turn inflames the first in a cyclical escalation of misery, anxiety, and mutually intensifying tendency toward sinful action. Previously we noted how an unaccepting society can inflame concupiscent temptation toward not only same sex sexual action, but other damaging spiritual sexual dispositions and varieties of lust. A homophobe who speaks from wrath and envy engendered by fear is primary the agent of such an unaccepting society.
What is the fear of the homophobe? We can invest in pop-psychology and say they fear their own homosexual tendencies. This may or may not be true of an individual homophobe, but to boldly proclaim it is not the best methodology for instruction of the ignorant. If they fear that same sex attraction is shameful or at least “targetable” (as will be explained below), then to seek to shame them or target them will only feed the cycle of compounding concupiscence. As will be seen by the end of this treatise, our goal is not to shame anyone. If a homophobe feels fear for this reason, he is a victim of the same malfunctioning society, he cannot invest in the necessary same attractive virtues we will illuminate below because of his fear. Subtle guidance toward acceptance of “other” same sex disposed persons may allow the homophobe to ultimately accept those virtues and even practice them.
The more foundational fear is fear of oppression. This works whether or not the homophobe is the repressed variety. If they are repressed, they fear the oppression they are spreading. If they are not, they fear in any way appearing to offer compassion, sympathy or even the mildest recognition of dignity for the same attracted person, because it would open them to the same oppression that they are now meting out. This is most likely the majority reason for homophobia. This fear springs from a diabolical manipulation of one manifestation of a panhuman ritual archetypes mentioned in Sacramental Cosmology. The archetype is “the sacrifice” and the manifestation is “the scapegoat”. In a certain type of sacrifice the scapegoat takes on the sins of the community and carries them away or is destroyed with them. When the diabolical warps this ritual the result is usually the social phenomenon of persecution. One group, or one person who represents the persecuted group is singled out as an object of derision and blame for the problems the larger group faces. In effective Christian ritual, the scapegoat is willful, for example in his death Christ effectively takes the guilt of our sin and it is destroyed with him. In an unfulfilled or partial ritual, say an ancient pagan or Jewish practice revolving around an animal that works mechanically, one could argue, the groundwork is being set for evangelization concerning properly fulfilled scapegoat ritual action in Christianity. In a diabolical scapegoat phenomenon, there may or may not even be ritual, simply a warping of the fundamental human urge that allows one to accept Christ’s sacrifice, an urge built in our nature as part of God’s saving plan. Instead of taking away sin and misery, it inflames sin and misery. And instead of effectively ending suffering it begs for more and more. This urge is warped into a concupiscent from of social or ritual blame.
In such a diabolical situation, wrath is inflamed concerning suffering that the individual or society is experiencing. Instead of investing in one of the proper Christian theodicies, for example “all things work to good for those who love God”, anger at suffering or perceived injustice is vented upon a defined scapegoat. In a concupiscent turn similar to lust, objectification is employed, but instead of using someone’s body as a sexual object of pleasure, one is using one’s body as a stand in for an ill conceived sense of injustice and then venting one’s wrath upon that person.
The fear that drives homophobia is facilitated by society’s misuse of the scapegoat in this way. Once wrath has a hold upon society, the actions of the disorder, oppression, bullying, persecution, disallow the person not possessed of such wrath to in anyway align against the concupiscent malfunction of society, now organized as entrenched social sin. As a protection to one’s self an at least occasional slur is necessary to prove one free of taint and therefore not subject to the scapegoat process.
This fear of social wrath can agitate to such a point as to activate the final concupiscent cause of homophobia, envy. It must be remembered that envy is not greed. Greed is wanting something one does not have. Covetousness is wanting something possessed by someone else that one does not have. These two dispositions are serious examples of concupiscence, yet envy is far worse. Envy is knowing someone has something that is good, and wanting them to not have it. The difference is that it does not matter if the sinner ends up with the thing or not, so long as the object of envy is out of the possession of the owner. It is derived from pure malice.
The reader will note that this treatise has attempted to make careful distinctions between same attraction and same sex sexual action. This is because, as the reader probably knows, same attraction is not a personal sin and same sex sexual action is. But here we will distinguish further. Same attraction is usually touted as concupiscence, and therefore regrettable, though not personally blameworthy. In fact we would like to distinguish again at the risk of sounding overly technical. “Same sex sexual attraction” is concupisncet, but same attraction as a whole cannot be labeled as such, because we are called to love all people and even eros, desire, is a valid and useful love between two people of the same sex when properly expressed.
The homophobe, driven by envy, will have the concupiscent desire to strip same attraction en masse from anyone who desires to share love of any type or exhibiting any real profundity with their same bio-sex neighbor. For one reason or another, such a homophobe seeks to destroy nearly half of all virtuous expression of Christian love available. This is the depth of the problem of homophobia. It is not sloth, a good that is “not good enough” like same sex sexual action, it is destructive in nature at its worst and seeks the elimination of charity. Therefore the dangers will be taken up in more detail in the next section.
Thus far we have explored the concupiscent nature of both homosexuality and homophobia. We have pointed out that lust is not a concupiscent exhibition that is particularly foundational to same sex activity. The more particular concupiscent problem related to same sex sexual action is sloth, not living up to potential. The acts may generate union, which is good, but they do not reach the ideal of union and procreation.
Contrary to that the concupiscence of homophobia operates chiefly not as an underdeveloped virtue, but from fear and terror. We began by distinguishing pedagogy and homophobia, and developed the expression of the fear expression of homophobia into wrath and then further into oppression as exhibited by the diabolical implementation of the scapegoat phenomenon. We then went on to explore how through compounding concupiscence such wrath can develop into envy, manifest as the desire to strip away even Christian love.
In the next section we will develop how that envy mistakes “same attraction” for “same sex sexual attraction” and by that mistake point by point neutralizes the ability of the one possessed by such envy to share in the love of Christ.
Homophobia as Envy: How Compounding Concupiscence Kills Christian Charity
Thus far we have explored the concupiscent nature of both homosexuality and homophobia. We have pointed out that lust is not a concupiscent exhibition that is particularly foundational to same sex activity. The more particular concupiscent problem related to same sex sexual action is sloth, not living up to potential. The acts may generate union, which is good, but they do not reach the ideal of union and procreation.
Contrary to that the concupiscence of homophobia operates chiefly not as an underdeveloped virtue, but from fear and terror. We began by distinguishing pedagogy and homophobia, and developed the expression of the fear expression of homophobia into wrath and then further into oppression as exhibited by the diabolical implementation of the scapegoat phenomenon. We then went on to explore how through compounding concupiscence such wrath can develop into envy, manifest as the desire to strip away Christian love.
In the this section we will develop how that envy mistakes “same attraction” for “same sex sexual attraction” and by that mistake point by point neutralizes the ability of the one possessed by such envy to share in the love of Christ. We will start by exploring the vast network of expressions of love, by exploring the various types of love available to a Christian and then relating those varieties to the classic “love languages”. Then we will explore the perilous situation that full investment in homophobia puts one in.
The final section of this treatise we will move into more positive territory and seek to neutralize compounding concupiscence by exploring mutual edification. In this section we will delineate how hetero and same attractive people can serve each other as pedagogues of Christian Charity.
Equating love with Sexual Expression of Love
As noted before, the primary way that envy takes destructive root in homophobic concupiscence is by collapse of “same attraction” with “same sex sexual attraction”. The entire second section of the treatise Same-attractive Dyadinal Solemn Relationships deals with the three varieties of love and explores the licit nature of love as agapic, filial and erotic. A brief review will be helpful. Agapic love is self emptying love, that is invested in complete concern for the other. Filial live is love based on a kinship or commonality or out of a common task. In that section, eros was distinguished from lust, another common misequivication. Eros was defined as “the desire that draws you to another”. This type of love is desire based, emotive, and immediately self presenting.” That eros is “attractive” makes it easy to equivocate with lust, but not all attraction is objectifying. Because same sex “attraction” can easily be falsely equivocate with eros and then erroneously with lust, any expression of same sex love appears damnable. It is by this maneuver that concupiscent homophobia employs envy and seeks to destroy the good that is manifest in same attractive love.
Same-attractive Dyadinal Solemn Relationships goes on to point out how each variety of love has healthy same sex application. There is such a thing as appropriate homoagapic love, homofilial love, and homoerotic love. That treatise was careful to point out cognitively and by example that appropriate homoerotic love is not sexual, but desire to share one’s life with someone of the same sex. The treatise then goes on to point out the very diabolic envy we are discussing now. For that treatise the question was, what is are the structures in the Catholic Church that can facilitate healthy development of same sexattraction. In this treatise, our question is, what is healthy expression of same attraction, and how does homophobia destroy Christian love.
The short answer to our first question is, any loving expression that is not sexual. Anyone who has been through pre-cana formation in America has probably been exposed to the five love languages; they are: words of affirmation, quality time, gift giving and receiving, acts of service, and physical touch. These nice neat categories are not hermetically sealed. Each often plays off of the others, and the exploration of the compatibilities is the exploration of communication of love between two people.
As an expression of love sexual activity is not quarantined in the “physical touch” category. The expression of sexual action happens often as gift, service, time, and affirmation. Conversely, physical touch can be done in a variety of ways that are not illicit to non married people. Depending on the culture, there are a variety of ways to hug, pat, caress, kiss etc which two people can share, but which hardly fall under the category of “sexual” contact. These actions are certainly unitive, yet no one would expect these to be “open to the possibility of life” for any participant.
This will draw the reader’s attention to the fact that the vast majority of ways to express love, even the vast majority of ways that one corporeally expresses love to another, are licit between unmarried people and between people of the same sex. No one would shut down comforting hugs or joyful kisses on the cheek because they are not open to the possibility of life. Certainly no one would deny loving expressions of gift giving, service, companionship, or encouragement between anyone, not even two people of the same sex. Such a denial of loving expression is obviously disordered and presents a warped view of love. But to the homophobe, once one can identify someone as a homosexual, all bets are off and they are disallowed any expression of love. Again, it is envy, the desire to take away or destroy some good that another has, simply for the sake of them not having it.
Homophobia as a Concupiscent Disposition that Leads to Sins of Grave Matter
That homophobia seeks to destroy love should be evidence enough that it is diabolical, but if one seeks more, one need look no further than Genesis chapter 3 to see how the exact methodology homophobia uses to implement its destruction of appropriate expressions of love generates from The Tempter himself,
Now the snake was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?” The woman answered the snake: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’”
The cunning nature of the snake’s approach is to focus on the negative. God has forbidden the consumption of the fruit of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but the snake attacks Eve with overbearing negativity, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?” God is seen as a tyrant who is filled with restriction. Eve counter’s with God’s goodness, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;” and then reiterates God’s command, “it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’” But an oft unnoticed detail here is that she is wrong. “The Lord God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.” God did not say that they could not touch the tree.
It seems like an insignificant detail but it is of paramount importance to our purpose. Eve effectively doubled the burden of God’s command. The serpent was successful in pulling her ever so slightly toward a tyrannical view of God. Even if that misinterpretation was the only consequence of the temptation it would still be a tragedy. Adam has a job, to cultivate and care for the Garden. How is he to care for this tree if he cannot touch it? The purpose given to Adam cannot be fulfilled if the Law is more overbearing than it needs to be.
What is forbidden in the garden is so infinitesimally small compared to what is allowed. With the denial of what is allowed, danger and discord sets in and God’s plan is thwarted. How much more successful would he have considered himself if the serpent had been able to convince Eve that they could not eat of any tree? Here is the exact situation we find ourselves in regarding homophobia. What is allowed is being tapered and denied toward a destructive end. The destruction is bidirectional. It manifests outwardly toward society, where people seek to express love in appropriate ways and cannot because with concupiscence inflamed into the structures of social sin, these people cannot fulfill their loving relationships in healthy ways. If the tyranny of overbearing law developed far enough, it is inwardly destructive to the homophobe. This person will no longer be able to express healthy loving relationships to anyone of the same sex in any way. They will be unable to seek pan-human Christian charity, that is, the ability to properly express love to all people of the world, including those of the same bio-sex.
The summative recent example of this envious desire to deprive someone of their ability to spread love appropriately is the spurious linking of the pedofile crisis in the clergy with same attraction. Pedifiles in the priesthood is a serious problem, it is a problem equal to such a situation in any vocation where an adult is in an authoritative relationship with children. The uniquely horrible thing about the crisis as it played out in the Catholic Church is how the network of episcopal authority reacted to the situation. Often their concern was not protection of the vulnerable, but a coverup. To scapegoat same attractive people in this situation is not only completely misdirected, but also aids is implementation of evil. The misdirection is absolute; pedofilia has nothing to do with same attraction. Then the misdirection engendered the very diabolically envious scapegoating we have described. A completely natural and legitimate place to people who are same attractive to chastely, beautifully and sacredly express their lives and personalities for the edification of Christ’s Church is seen to be illicit for no conceivable good reason. If they are living chastely their same sex sexual attraction is a temptation like any other that anyone may experience. But since they do not act on it, there is sin nor concern. Every other way that they may express love based on their same attractive disposition could only serve the Church. They would be the effective teachers of pan-human Christian charity that their role as alter Christus demands them to be. But some in the Church would deny them the use of their gifts. Those who seek denial of holy orders to same attractive men are acting in cooperation with the concupiscent disposition of homophobia to wreak havoc on the ability of certain Christians to work with The Holy Spirit.
Cooperation with homophobia also creates an inward destruction, which opens the homophobe to the possibility of mortal sin. Because of the absolute destructive nature toward Christian charity acting on it cannot but consists of grave matter. Seeking the destruction of charitable love in society and in one’s self is the epitome of breaking one’s relationship with God. If one cooperates with homophobic concupiscence in action meant to keep loving relationships at bay, with full knowledge of his or her action and complete consent, they do irreparable damage to their relationship with God and their neighbor. They are in direct rebellion against God’s plan.
The manner of this sin is open to either bio-sex, but it is particularly dangerous for men. It is interesting that there is a specific levitical law about men lying with men, but not one for women. Doubtless this springs from the common belief that the man’s “seed” contained life and the woman’s body was fertile ground, an analogy shot through the Bible. The openness to life then, falls squarely on the man if such is one’s view. His seed is misapplied in the same sex act, whereas the woman misapplies nothing by such action. It is still common in our society to be more forgiving of female same attraction, though not completely forgiving. This could spring from the Judeo-Christian influence or it could be that the diabolical knows where the best fruit for sin lies. Men are far more impactfully damaged by the destruction wrought by homophobia because of the nature of the relationship Christianity requires to Christ.
To set up how homophobia is particularly damaging to men, let's revisit the trauma that is caused by a society whose structures of social sin create an environment where same attraction (as opposed to same sex sexual attraction) is vehemently deemed unacceptable. In such an environment a person is not able to express any variety of love toward someone of the same bio-sex out of fear of tyrannical oppression. They certainly cannot easily or regularly express nonsexual homoerotic love. To exhibit too much desire to engage in frequent gift giving, mutual service, shared time, or profound encouragement leaves one open to suspicion. God help you if you engage in physical touch beyond the rigidly defined socially (as opposed to morally) acceptable methods. Yet these are the love languages that humans use to express love. To go to far with homofilial love or homoagapic love, to completely give oneself to someone of the same bio-sex equally opens one up to persecution. For a man to completely live for another man, even though his expression of this is not sexual in nature, targets that man for social oppression. To be constantly on guard against this oppression habituates the soul against expression of love toward people of the same bio-sex. Which leads us to the particular danger for men.
The end point of the treatise Same-attractive Dyadinal Solemn Relationships is the beginning point for us here,
In the end this treatise will remind all self identifying heterosexual males that they are to fall in love with Jesus, and that the male Jesus already deeply loves them probably beyond their own comfort level much like Peter on the beach. Jesus agapically loves males. This is clear from the Christological hymn in Philippians asserting how Jesus emptied himself for the love of humanity. In this and in our mission as a church we have a filial love. We share humanity with Jesus, we share a mission. Males probably mostly take the emptying of Philippians as some sort of special religious love, and it is, but it’s deep profundity was met with violence in the ancient world, and if modern same-attractive phobias are any indicator it would be met with the same by men today. Uncomfortable as it may be for a man to hear, Jesus desires you, in deep and life binding ways. He asserts in John 12 :32 that he will draw everyone to himself, a notion that smacks of the erotic love that he not only has for us, but that he expects all males to have for him and each other.
Jesus Loves men in ways which are uncomfortable to and irreconcilable with homophobia. The way which the trauma of the social sin of homophobia works together with the envy of homophobia makes reciprocating love with Christ impossible for a fully invested and completely habituated homophobe. If one simply dabbles in homophobia occasionally relenting to temptation in minimally culpable ways, still one’s love is “not good enough” the same sloth present in homosexual action.
There is an important christological point to be made. Though in the treatise Divine Gender Transcendence and Incarnational Divine Presence we explored interesting possibilities concerning Jesus’ gender, his bio-sex is not doubt male, his body is the body of a man. To think of his maleness as only theoretical, or conversely to think of the love one must have for him as a man as only theoretical is not true to Christianity. What Christianity demands of a male immersed in a homophobic society is difficult, the absolute and unabashed love of another male.
As a matter of personal relationship with Christ it is impossible for the male homophobe habituated by sinful cooperation with his concupiscent envy and traumatized by sinful society to enter a truly loving relationship with Christ. This grave matter, coupled with full knowledge and complete consent destroys one’s relationship with God and neighbor, and renders one unable to truly accept the grace of God because they have deadened themselves to the ability to express love.
Thus far we have explored the concupiscent nature of both homosexuality and homophobia. We have pointed out that lust is not a concupiscent exhibition that is particularly foundational to sames ex activity. The more particular concupiscent problem related to same sex sexual action is sloth, not living up to potential. The acts may generate union, which is good, but they can not reach the ideal of union and procreation. Thus the moral disposition toward openness to life is lacking as well.
Contrary to that, the concupiscence of homophobia contains no virtue, but develops from the vices of fear and terror. We began by distinguishing pedagogy and homophobia, and developed the expression of homophobic fear into wrath and then further into oppression as exhibited by the diabolical implementation of the scapegoat phenomenon. We then went on to explore how through compounding concupiscence such wrath can develop into envy, manifest as the desire to strip away Christian love.
In the this section we developed how that envy mistakes “same attraction” for “same sex sexual acts”. We developed evidence of the diabolical nature of this mistake from the temptation story in Eden. We discussed how such envy point by point neutralizes the ability of the one to share in the love of Christ. We explored the vast network of expressions of love, by exploring three classic types of love defined by Christianity and then conveying those loves as expressed by the classic “love languages”. We situated sexual action in those love languages, illuminating how sex can express each language and how “physical touch” need not be simply defined as sexual action. With the vast array of expression of love laid out, the small nature of the illicite was made clear, and the perils of homophobia were also revealed. We lastly related how the envy of homophobia coupled with the trauma caused by a homophobic society sets the groundwork for grave matter and opens the homophobe to the possibility of mortal sin, the rejection of Christ’s love.
In the next and final section of this treatise we will move into more positive territory and seek to neutralize compounding concupiscence by exploring mutual edification. In this section we will delineate how hetero attractive and same attractive people can serve each other as pedagogues of Christian Charity.
The Cross-Spectral Mutual Pedagogy of Homo and Hetero Attraction
Thus far we have explored the concupiscent nature of both homosexuality and homophobia. We have pointed out that lust is not a concupiscent exhibition that is particularly foundational to same sex sexual activity. The more particular concupiscent problem related to same sex sexual action is sloth, not living up to potential. The acts may generate union, which is good, but they can not reach the ideal of union and procreation. Thus the moral disposition toward openness to life by means of sexual activity is lacking as well.
Contrary to that, the concupiscence of homophobia contains no virtue, but develops from the vices of fear and terror. We began by distinguishing pedagogy and homophobia, and developed the expression of the fear expression of homophobia into wrath and then further into oppression as exhibited by the diabolical implementation of the scapegoat phenomenon. We then went on to explore how through compounding concupiscence such wrath can develop into envy, manifest as the desire to strip away Christian love.
In the previous section we developed how envy mistakes “same attraction” for “same sex sexual acts”. We also delineated evidence of the diabolical nature of this mistake from the temptation story in Eden. We discussed how such envy point by point neutralizes the ability of the one to share in the love of Christ. We explored the vast network of expressions of love, by exploring three classic types of love defined by Christianity and then conveying those loves as expressed by the classic “love languages”. We situated sexual action in those love languages, illuminating how sex can express each language and how “physical touch” need not be simply defined as sexual action. With the vast array of expression of love laid out, the small nature of the illicite was made clear, and the perils of homophobia were also revealed. We lastly related how the envy of homophobia coupled with the trauma caused by a homophobic society sets the groundwork for grave matter and opens the homophobe to the possibility of mortal sin, the rejection of Christ’s love.
In this final section of this treatise we will move into more positive territory and seek to neutralize compounding concupiscence by exploring mutual edification. In this section we will explore how hetero attractive and same sex attractive people can serve each other as pedagogues of Christian Charity. The process of this will be called cross-spectral mutual pedagogy.
Post Lapsarian Virtues as Opposed to Original Justice
To truly begin to thwart the damage done by homophobia, one must begin to recognize that same attractive persons have much to teach hetero attractive persons about love. The first step to understanding this is garnering an awareness that post lapsarian virtue is different than virtue in the state of original justice. When speaking of virtues in the eschaton, as was noted in Aneusomy Syndromes and Eschatological Retention
[W]e will retain memory and psycho-spiritual continuity with ourselves as we were on this earth. The effect of living through a sinful life and a sinful world and how that existence changes a being, even as a post-eschatological perfect being, cannot be dismissed. The type of “thinking, feeling and intuiting” of such a creature, would no doubt be a different type of goodness than a being who simply possessed original justice. For example, a glorified human of The Eschaton will also possess compassion, a virtue impossible for the first humans in a state of original justice. Compassion etymologically related to commiseration, and originally means something like fellow suffering. Obviously those possessed simply with original justice could not have experience such a virtue. The terrestrial psyche would retain the acquired virtues that are only perceptible in a fallen world.
The idea that a different set of virtues develops out of the fall is packed into Saint Paul’s assertion “The law entered in so that transgression might increase but, where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more,”. The general interpretation of this passage is that Christ’s saving grace “outmatches” sin. Yet an alternative understanding is that the presence of sin allows for the development of new virtue in response. Again, “We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.”
Once on cane see that there is a dynamic between sin and grace where grace wins, but, like manure to a plant, sin allows development. These virtues are not maintenance morality, the type of morality that mitigates the destruction of sin, they are a recognition that the postlapsarian inversion results in a situation where we can say, “O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer." Adam is great because he possesses original justice. Christ is great because he is virtuous in different ways that show the justice and virtue of humanity amid the fallen world. Thus compassion, as described in Aneusomy Syndromes and Eschatological Retention is a perfect example of a postlapsarian virtue. Other examples would be exercise of any of the gifts of the spirit, there is no need for good council or fortitude in Eden.
The skill of the cross-spectral mutual pedagogy is one that would not be needed in Eden, because it is a mutual teaching, and there is no need to teach in Eden. Cross-spectral mutual pedagogy assumes a dyad along a spectrum that comes into relationship and mutually edifies. The extremes of the spectrum will lead to sin, but the mutual edification along points between the extremes leads to balance and the development of the virtue of temperance as well as the development of moral and spiritual skills specific to the particular issue. As we saw in an earlier section, there is something of a concupiscent centrifugal destruction, where the extremes of a spectrum, such as homo and hetero attraction, foment sin and then exacerbate the sinful activity out of wrathful or envious disdain for each other. The correction of this situation is cross-spectral mutual pedagogy, a recognition that those different from us have things to teach us. There is opportunity for growth even if the difference is the people engaged in cross-spectral mutual pedagogy exhibit a sinful extreme on the spectrum, because in post lapsarian reality sin offers the chance of developed virtue. Again, in this case it is the virtue of temperance that will abate sin and develop case specific virtues.
A spectrum is not a fundamental dualism, where reality is conceived of being constructed as two (competing?) natures or purposes, etc. However, based on simple observation there does seem to be a kind of dualism to how creation is constructed by God, though that dualism ends in a unity. How this is possible is laid out in Christian Ontology, Christianity views reality as simple and manifold at the same time. The first creation story can be interpreted as God creating through his word and drawing by that creative Word distinction after distinction, each in it’s proper place, until the very end when God looks at the entirety and it is all bound by one relationship, the goodness that flows from God. That united duality forms a spectrum, even in prelapsarian reality.
The first creation story makes the first division between light and darkness which is perceivable through night and day. This is all God does on the first “day” of creation. In fact the first three noted creations are creations as completely dualistic division, dark from light, sky from terrain, water from earth. We observe the most basic creation, light and dark, by what is made on the fourth day, the sun and the moon. These also, for all of our human existence, have given us a sense of the linear and cyclical nature of our creation. Liner in the Sun, which crosses the sky daily at a radiant brightness, and the Moon, which monthly cycles through its phases. These cycles couples with the stars, also created on the fourth day give us a sense of rhythm and cycle inherent on a cosmic scale, marking the seasons and giving time, which is experienced linearly, a binding sense of cycle and velocity. When God rests he looks at everything he made and declares “it is very good”. These dualities are experienced simultaneously without contradiction.
The contradiction comes in postlapsarian reality when we parse them out as distinct, and negate the relationship of goodness they share that binds them into one. In postlapsarian reality a spectral dyad in relationship offers the opportunity for cross-spectral mutual pedagogy. The dyads and spectrums we are discussing for pedagogy are not natural-cosmic phenomenon like in the creation story, but psycho-spiritual phenomenon. They abide in the realm for morality and spirituality. In this pedagogical relationship each end of the dyadinal spectrum informs the other.
An excellent demonstration of this is Dante’s Paradiso cantos 11- 13. The cantos are located in the Circle of the Sun in heaven where wise spirits reside. The entire episode of the Solar Ring speaks to temperance and balance in a dazzling variety of ways. It is helpful for us to review just a few.
When Dante first enters the solar circle in Paradiso Canto X he is struck by the view.
Lift up your eyes then, reader, here with me
To the high spheres, straight to that region where
One motion of the sun strikes on the other.
And begin there to gaze gladly on the art
Of that Master who in himself so loves it
That his eye never wanders from his work.
Observe how, from this point, the circle which
Obliquely bears the planets branches off
To satisfy the world that calls to them.
For if their path had not been slanted so,
Much of the heavens' influence would be lost,
And almost all their power dead on earth.
And if the path swerved farther or less far
From the straight course, the order of the world
Would in the sky and on the land be lessened.
Now, reader, remain seated at your table,
Reflecting on what here has been a foretaste,
That you may feel delight before you tire.
In this passage Dante Speaks of how God is so enamored with his creation that his gaze upon it is constant. He then describes the perfect balance that the planets make as they circle the Sun and notes that if any of the balance were “off” all of reality would be eskew. In the ancient world each of the planets represents a virtue and their mutual balance, both physically and morally, is one of the fundamental lessons of the solar circle for Dante.
As Dante enters the sphere he notices that the solar disk is ringed by flames on the tip of which are spirits that begin to sing and dance in a circular pattern around the pilgrim and his guide.
When, singing in this way, those flaming suns
Three times had circled round about us both,
Like stars rotating close to the fixed poles,
They looked like ladies pausing in the dance
To listen to the music silently
Until they catch up to the tune anew.
In this part one can see how the spirits are imitating the heavenly bodies observed from the terrestrial world in their order and dance. At certain points in the scene the circle stops and a figure gives Dante a lesson, yet even before the lesson, certain things are notable simply by the position of the spirits. The entire circle is ringed by spirits in an order of relatability. For example, Thomas Aquinas is the first person who Dante listens to. To his right is Albert of Cologne, a fellow dominican student who would be amiable to Aquinas. From there the ring works out toward ever differing types of people until the circle is complete at Thomas Aquinas’ left hand side with Siger de Brabant who was a fellow intellectual in Aquinas’ lifetime demonstrating competing ideas. Any given spirit in the Solar Circle is flanked by a Spirit who edifies their strengths and a spirit who balances their strength with an “opposing” strength.
In the scene Aquinas gives instruction to the pilgrim by relaying, not scholarly material which he is known for, but the life of Saint Francis of Assisi. This tale is filled with the experience of the love of God. As a dominican, Aquinas’ focus in life would have been proper doctrine, it is the chief charismatic concern of their order. Yet he himself relays a tale of the importance of experiential knowledge, not abstract knowledge. The effect is a balance of important spiritual virtues for a Christian that are on a spectrum. The doctrinal truth, symbolized by the person talking, and the Christian experience of love for Christ, symbolized by the life Aquinas chose to relay.
This balance displays the result of cross-spectral mutual pedagogy and is further balanced by the next spirit encountered by Dante. Saint Bonaventure, a Franciscan, tells the life of Saint Dominic. In these cantos you have two saintly heroes, who are on “opposing teams” according to the terrestrial politic of religious orders as well as the express purpose of their charisms. Yet in order to abide in the heavenly realms they have had to temper their political and even their theological concerns out of a deference to the other because there are lessons to be learned from the other end of the spectrum.
"The one was all seraphic in his ardor,
The other for his wisdom was on earth
An iridescence of cherubic light.
"Of one I shall speak, for in praising one—
Whichever’s chosen — I will praise them both,
Because their labors led to one same goal.
If one wants a Biblical example of cross-spectral mutual pedagogy one can observe Saint Paul’s tact in the Letter to the Romans. Saint Paul is constantly having to deal with factions that arise in the Church. His methodology for dealing with the situation is generally to humiliate all factions in order to reduce pride and then redirect toward Christian love and possibly mutual edification (cross-spectral mutual pedagogy).
The summative example of this is Romans. This letter is a letter of introduction to the Roman community in advance of Paul’s arrival as he is on his way to missionize Spain. However, Paul is walking into a politically dicey situation. Because of a decree by Emperor Claudius, the “Jews” had been expelled from Rome, and then allowed ultimately to return. This expulsion would include Jewish Christians, who would have had leadership positions in the Church. But the expulsion would not have included Gentile Christians, who would have ascended to leadership roles in the absence of the Jewish leadership. When the Jews are allowed to return, the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians begin a bitter struggle for authority in the Roman Church.
Paul seems to conceive of a spectrum from demonic pagan worship to rigid pharisaical hypocrisy. In the temperate zone are Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, but they are each bloated with pride in their own way. The Jews are prideful because they follow the law of God and have been connected to God longer. The Gentiles seem arrogant, because they are turning to God’s gift of salvation more rapidly and feel they are replacing the Jews as God’s favored people.
Paul begins by doling out mass humiliation. He points out how the Gentiles should know God because of his work, yet they mistook the work of creation for God and fell into idolatry. He then lays into the Jewish Christians by reminding them that the law seems to make them superior, yet in reality it mainly condemns them in their inability to practice it. This part of the letter ends with Paul’s famous universal condemnation in Chapter 3, “ For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.”
After a long discussion concerning the free gift of salvation offered by Christ, Paul returns to the dynamic between the Gentiles and Jews in Chapter 11. He talks of how the Jews must learn humility from the Gentiles, because the Gentiles have responded to God’s call in greater numbers. But the Gentiles must learn humility from Jews because the Gentiles would be nowhere without them.
I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not become wise [in] your own estimation: a hardening has come upon Israel in part, until the full number of the Gentiles comes in, and thus all Israel will be saved
Paul sets up a symbiotic relationship between the two groups where they help each other learn humility and bring each other to salvation.
If one wants to see an example of how concupiscence uses a spectral spiritual awareness to a damaging end one can look to our previous explanation of compounding concupiscence, where opposites on a spiritual spectrum centrifuge to an extreme that becomes manifest as sinful intent or action, then each extreme exacerbates the fall of the other. Another possibility is the use of each extreme to hurl derision on all people. Paul seems to do this in Romans, but his pastoral tactic was to bring the them from humiliation to mutual edification. In the case of Luke Chapter 7, this same tactic of cross-spectral attack is the trait of someone possessed of wrath.
Jesus said to the crowds:
"To what shall I compare the people of this generation?
What are they like?
They are like children who sit in the marketplace and call to one another,
'We played the flute for you, but you did not dance.
We sang a dirge, but you did not weep.'
For John the Baptist came neither eating food nor drinking wine,
and you said, 'He is possessed by a demon.'
The Son of Man came eating and drinking and you said,
'Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard,
a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'
But wisdom is vindicated by all her children.”
Paul’s use of spectral error versus the people indicated by Jesus is the difference between instruction of the ignorant and those who use differences to feed concupiscent fires. However, the last line of Luke’s account hints as the very cross-spectral mutual pedagogy we have been discussion. Each end of a spiritual spectrum has wisdom to teach the other. Without each end, the extreme would fall into error. But together they offer the virtue of temperance and aim at true wisdom. “Wisdom is vindicated by all her children.”
Sexual Spectral Analysis
The treatise The Dysfunctional Human Family and the Nontraditional Holy Family discussed the entire human family is corrupted and concupiscence is a human problem. The traditional structures of the family never seemed to be used by God to get the job done, but instead a nontraditional attitude was instilled, and this attitude (beatitude) is counter culture or non-conforming.
When in a culture that is fraught with homophobia, a Christian is certainly called to be counter cultural. Christians are called to love all people, even people of the same bio-sex. The expression of that love takes an almost infinite variety as we noted above. In a more balanced society there is less need for a counter culture stance and there are many opportunities for cross-spectral mutual pedagogy.
At this point it may be helpful to briefly discuss two sexual spectrums that are in play in our society such that we can begin the groundwork for our last part of this section, the fruits of cross-spectral mutual pedagogy concerning sexuality and love.
The first spectrum is attraction itself, or we might say Eros, the effect of the love of desire or attraction. With regards to same attraction one question is, “is same attraction a thing?” Meaning, does this disposition have an ontological status? Or is same attraction in humans a spectrum where some people are mostly attracted toward a hetero or homo orientation, yet they could be either/or to varying degrees. The experience of eros, attractive love, should be effective for all Christians toward all people. Pan-human Christian charity should drive one to desire to share in everyone’s life, no matter their bio-sex. Attraction to express love to anyone is not sinful, but good. The only sin here is sexual action that expresses that love inappropriately. People are born disposed toward attraction to one bio-sex and/or the other according to varying strengths. Some people may be equally balanced in their attraction. We will call this spectrum “the erotic spectrum of love.”
The second spectrum worthy of note lays along the moral focus concerning the purpose of sexuality. The reader will remember there are two purposes to sexual activity, the unitive and the procreative. In moral theology there is a weight of concern on each purpose that lays on a spectrum. Though as was discussed in Birth Control vs Labor Rights? these purposes are mutually edifying, symbiotic, and inextractable, there still remains a split in the moralists mind. This spectrum runs from the more conservative who desires to emphasis the procreative, possibly to the point of denying the unitive, to the more progressive who seeks to emphasize the unitive, possibly to the point of denying the procreative. We will call this spectrum “the teleological spectrum of human sexuality”.
Each of these spectrums are useful to the counter cultural Christian who wishes to learn temperance by cross-spectral mutual pedagogy. First the Christian must learn where they fall on the spectrum, then they must learn to identify the appropriate measurement of the other end, and lastly they must learn and appropriate the beauty of the other side.
Counter Cultural Application of Sexual Spectral Analysis
How does cross-spectral mutual pedagogy play out in a culture along our two spectrums? Spectral problems are exacerbated by compounding concupiscence. Let's assume our situation in America early twenty first century. We have a society that was recently completely inflamed with a frenzied homophobia. The homophobic frenzy peaked with along with the legal success of the civil rights movement. Once the standard diabolical scapegoat was removed legally it was time to find a new easy target as a scapegoat. The cultural response from the civil rights movement was expansive, seeking to neutralize the ability of the homophobes to oppress same attractive people. Then, with newfound freedom, same attractive people are beginning to find their voices. Some of those voice do not speak with a healthy love, but out of a vindictiveness that, though possibly understandable, is still not acceptable.
In the case of the teleological spectrum of human sexuality, there is danger for the same attractive person who becomes a denier of the connection between sexual activity and procreation. As secular society develops along a certain trajectory, it is easier and easier for hetero attractive people to buy into the aspect of the culture of death that denies the connection between sexual activity and procreation. How much easier for a same attractive person. In the treatise Same-attractive Dyadinal Solemn Relationships we discussed the licit nature of same attractive people raising children in community. The connection between sexual activity and procreation is a different issue than same attractive people raising children. . Take a different arrangement, civil union, where it would be assumed that same sex sexual activity was seen as fully developed virtuous action. Even with the introduction of children in such a civil union, the children would not be seen as the fruit of sexual activity. Any sexual spiritual disposition would necessarily possess an attitude of “sloth”. Not quite living up to the ideal, because it was closed to life. In the rare worst case scenario, a same attractive person could even envy hetero attractive persons their fecund gifts, and lash out against “breeders” who selfishly overpopulate the world. These anti-fecund attitudes do not generate from persons possessed of a same attractive disposition, but a complex pattern of cultural and philosophical developments over the past century. Hetero attractive persons are equally disposed to the same attitudes.
In this case the person who buys into the culture of death has much to learn from the person on the procreative side of the teleological spectrum of human sexuality. They must learn to see that our society has invested a tremendous amount of energy in extolling the virtue of sexual unity in love by means of art and narrative. This is good until such exaltation dislodges any sense of the procreative purpose of sexual activity. Procreation is the more easily identifiable “purpose” of sexual activity. It is bio-observable and happens independent of the will. No one even needs to try, the children just manifest as a result of the properly executed sexual act.
The Church has made a concerted effort to balance the cultural stride toward the unitive end of the spectrum with a series of documents reminding the readers of the importance of the procreative purpose. This noble attempt at correction has created in the Church a skewing, especially among clerics and consecrated, toward the other end of the spectrum. It is common to hear sexual educators speak of the procreative as being the primary or more important purpose. The error of this statement was discussed with ample documentation in the treatise Birth Control vs Labor Rights? but as it abides, it can cause serious problems for those trying to learn to express pan-human Christian charity.
The over correction toward procreation on the teleological spectrum of human sexuality can also lead to an environment which fosters all the evils of homophobia described above. Once one is hyper focused on the procreative end of sexual activity, it is only a short slip to define “homosexuals” by their sexual activity and invest in the envy that would seek to strip the of any ability to express love to member of the same bio-sex. This very problem was discussed in the treatise Same-attractive Dyadinal Solemn Relationships
To define a person as same-sexual defines that person completely by their sexual desires and action. This is particularly connotatively true because it is an unaccepted desire and/or action in our culture. To call someone heterosexual or “straight” almost exclusively happens in the context of “homosexuality” and therefore brings with it a sweeping assumption of a full being with an infinite variety of facets to their life. But generally “homosexuality” is regarded in and of itself and therefore often in the context of such a definitive conversation it becomes the person discussed, they are simply a sexual creature and all other actions are calculated and calibrated by their sexual action and desire.
Once such an objectification takes place the same attractive person is seen as “completely disordered” instead of at worst “not living up to the ideal in one small aspect of their life”. Such a view opens the same attractive person to the very diabolical scapegoating and envious action we discussed above.
Such a homophobic environment, and the trauma that it wreaks upon people leads us to the erotic spectrum of love and the other side in our dynamic of cross-spectral mutual pedagogy. All the parts are in place for us to explore what may be a difficult issue for some Christians to grasp or admit, that same attractive people have much to teach hetero attractive people about love. The hyper focus on sexual expression of love and its procreative end coupled with the reduction of the “homosexual” to their sexual desires and action, makes it seem impossible for them to have anything to teach a hetero attractive person.
On the contrary, a same attractive person has much to teach a hetero attractive person about pan-human Christian charity. Especially if that hetero attractive person suffers the trauma of a homophobic culture. A person who is so untrusting of healthy same bio-sex love cannot express this love, they cannot share homoagapic, homofilial, or appropriate homoerotic love and this is a deficit of the same variety as not investing in the procreative end of sexual acts. It is sloth, the lack of the ideal, but, as noted before, in such a way that it cuts love off for one half of humanity.
A same attractive person is comfortable with expressing love in the infinite variety of acceptable ways to people of the same bio-sex. In as much as they can express such love they teach traumatized hetero attractive persons what true love looks like. Again, this is especially important for men, who must learn to express love for Jesus, but may feel two ways about that to such an extreme that the way they force themselves to understand man to man “love” is boxed in, abstract and ineffective.
In the end it is the same attractive person who will teach the hetero attractive person the counterculture nature of Christian love, because it is the same attractive person who is comfortable with every expression of pan-human Christian charity.
Conclusion
To conclude same sex sexual acts are declared sinful by the Catholic Church, but we have sought to demonstrate how homophobia presents a far more dangerous effect on the mission and desire of Christ, both on the individual soul and society as a whole.
We have explored the concupiscent nature of both homosexuality and homophobia. We have pointed out that lust is not a concupiscent exhibition that is particularly relegated to same sex activity. The more particular concupiscent problem related to same sex sexual action is sloth, not living up to potential. The acts may generate union, which is good, but they can not reach the ideal of union and procreation. Thus the moral disposition toward openness to life is lacking as well.
Contrary to that, the concupiscence of homophobia contains no virtue, but develops from the vices of fear and terror. We began by distinguishing pedagogy and homophobia, and then developed the expression of the fear of homophobia into wrath and then further into oppression as exhibited by the diabolical implementation of the scapegoat phenomenon. We then went on to explore how through compounding concupiscence such wrath can develop into envy, manifest as the desire to strip away Christian love from the same attractive person and ultimately from the hetero attractive person.
We developed how that envy mistakes “same attraction” for “same sex sexual acts”. We developed evidence of the diabolical nature of this mistake from the temptation story in Eden. We discussed how such envy point by point neutralizes the ability of the one to share in the love of Christ.We went on to explore the vast network of expressions of love, by exploring three classic types of love defined by Christianity and then conveying those loves as expressed by the classic “love languages”. We situated sexual action in those love languages, illuminating how sex can express each language and how “physical touch” need not be simply defined as sexual action. With the vast array of expression of love laid out, the small nature of the illicite was made clear, and the perils of homophobia were also revealed. We lastly related how the envy of homophobia coupled with the trauma caused by a homophobic society sets the groundwork for grave matter and opens the homophobe to the possibility of mortal sin, the rejection of Christ’s love.
In the final section of this treatise we moved into more positive territory and sought to neutralize compounding concupiscence by exploring mutual edification. In this section we explored how hetero attractive and same attractive people can serve each other as pedagogues of Christian charity in a process we called cross-spectral mutual pedagogy. We defined two sexual spectrums the extremes of which cause our present culture problems. Those spectrums were “the erotic spectrum of love” and “the teleological spectrum of human sexuality”. We discussed how the more progressive end of our culture skews unitive on the teleological spectrum possibly to the extreme of denying the procreative, whereas the more conservative end of our culture skews toward the procreative, possibly to the point of negating the unitive. We then discussed the cultural problem of how “homosexuals” are reduced to being defined by their sexuality. This combined with a negation of the unitive function sets the stage for true homophobia which operates on fear, expresses as wrath and envy and disallows pan-human Christian charity.
We concluded by reminding the reader of the balance need in terms of expression of love to members of the same and opposite sex. We surmised the lesson that hetero attractive people have to teach same attractive people concerning the procreative purpose of sexual activity and how it relates to the unitive. We then spent time surmising the lessons that same attractive people have to teach hetero attractive people, traumatized by a culture of homophobia such that they cannot express healthy love to those of the same bio-sex, concerning comfort with expression of love to someone of the same bio-sex.
The purpose of this treatise is not to shame homophobes. Shame is the problem. To shame homophobes is to submit to compounding concupiscence. Instead our effort here was to begin the process of cross-spectral mutual pedagogy, such that people can not only dialogue, but experience the goodness of Christ that others bring to their lives. In as much as that was the goal, I pray we have been successful.
No comments:
Post a Comment