Whenever I see some of Obama’s ads on TV, I can’t help but agree with many of his points. I can really understand why hard-working Americans who are in the midst of economic troubles would find his message irresistible. Nonetheless, at a recent speech in Nelsonville, Ohio, near my alma mater, Ohio University, Obama suggested that the Sermon on the Mount justifies same-sex unions (not marriage necessarily though). Obama claims that the Sermon on the Mount guides his views far more than an obscure passage in Romans that condemns homosexual practice.
Obama reminds me of many progressive Christians I encountered over the years who pit Jesus against Paul, as if Jesus was a free-love type of guy who was really into social justice stuff, but who didn’t care much about sexuality. Then Paul came around, oppressed women, invented a bunch of rules, was mean to gays, etc, until that is, modern academics recovered the real Jesus (who just happens to be a Jesus that would fit with the trends of the age quite nicely). This is probably an exaggeration of what Obama believes. However, what I have described here rather crudely is based on a common belief that many in mainline Protestant churches espouse. This, while popular in many academic and mainline circles, is not Catholic, nor classically Christian. The Catholic Church does not pit Jesus against Paul, since Jesus is the Word of God that inspired St. Paul. Additionally, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes same-sex unions, whether called “marriage” or not.
The Sermon on the Mount has a lot of revolutionary teaching in it, as Jesus tells us (in the Beatitudes) that we are blessed (Gr. makarios, blessed or fortunate) if we are meek, peacemakers, merciful, and poor in spirit. Jesus Teaching here turns the world’s definition of being fortunate upside-down, and challenges all of us to be more holy, to be perfect, as God is perfect. The Sermon also contains the command to do to others as we would have others do to us, and warns us about judging, lest we be judged ourselves. On the surface, read in the context of a modern society in which minding one’s business is a guiding moral principle, it is easy to conclude that not judging others, or treating others with respect, is the same as simply “butting out” of other people’s business. The problem is that the Sermon on the Mount, read in context, is not calling us to radically lower standards, but radically higher ones. In fact Jesus mentions sexuality in his sermon, and calls us to a much higher standard than previously expected:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell (Matthew 5:27-30, RSV)
The beauty of Catholic Teaching is that it steers a middle path between the extremes of fundamentalism and progressivism on the issue of homosexuality, pleasing the extremes of neither side. The Catholic Church does not consider a gay orientation sinful (although it is disordered in some fashion), however, homosexual sexual acts are sinful. Of course, the Catholic Church also upholds high standards of sexual purity for heterosexuals as well, so I don’t get off easy either. Also, one major point of Catholic Social Teaching is the dignity of all humans, which includes those with same-sex attraction. So, we still must recognize that gays and lesbians, like all people, are deserving of basic respect and dignity, something Christians sometimes forget.
I give Obama points for referencing the Sermon on the Mount. Would that every world leader and potential world leader would look to the Sermon on the Mount for guidance. The world would do well with more peace, more mercy, more kindness, more chastity, more justice, and more holiness.
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
March 4, 2008 at 3:36 am
I have a real compassion for those with same sex attraction. But, Obama is truly lacking in his religious education. First, I am not aware of the question of same sex unions coming up in the sermon on the mount.
Second, there is nothing “obscure” about the passage in Romans. Romans 1, that is. It is the opening argument in St. Paul’s longest and most theologically sophisticated letter. It is the foundation of the rest of the letter. It is also the foundation of Natural Law as the basis of the Church’s moral teachings:
Romans 1:20-27
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
BTW, for the Calvinists among us. This passage is also a disproof of total depravity in that St. Paul argues that even a pagan should know right from wrong.
This is anything but an obscure passage. It is a critical passage for understanding all Christian moral teaching.
March 4, 2008 at 4:28 am
I strongly suspect he had in mind the “Judge not” passage, or the, Golden Rule, or both. It needs hardly be said that those who support deviancy are partial to such texts, but with this proviso: it must be understood according to their hermeneutic.
The problem with their take on the “judge not” passage is seen in what follows immediately upon it concerning the plucking of the beam out of ones own eye before removing the speck in another’s. Clearly, all judgment is not being condemned, just that based upon hypocrisy.
Part of the problem is the fact that English translations of Matthew 7:1-2 obscure the Greek text by not giving full force to the tense of the verbs. A better translation of the beginning of the text would be: “Stop judging others the way you do…” As you can see, understood in this way, the statement leads nicely into the teaching about taking the beam from one’s own eye first.
The appeal to the Golden Rule is really worthless. Any truly devout Christian would want another pointing out his errors to him. I want to know if/when I’m being hypocritical; I want to know if/when I’m heading down the wide road to damnation (Matt 7:13); I want someone to “withstand (me) to (my) face” if/when I’m not on the “right road concerning the Gospel” (Gal 2:11-14).
Furthermore, if the Golden Rule “is the Law and the Prophets,” as Our Blessed Lord says, then surely their condemnations of various types of indecency-along with those found in their fulfillment, the Gospel-need to be taken seriously.
Obama is an empty suit messiah; fit for the Docetists perhaps, but not Christians.
March 4, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Most Fundamentalists are completely unaware of the historical context of the bible. They are just told what to believe, mostly by people who prey on them and have no theological training. Every theologian agrees on the importance of reading and understanding the Bible in its historical and cultural context. When considered in this way, the life of Jesus and everyone in the old testament is unimaginable in modern times, though the teaching of Jesus are beneficial when understood in our time in history. I am a convinced Christian and I don’t agree (call me conservative) with all of the fundamentalists that promote murder, polygamy, torture, incest, and idol worship. If you want to be a Fundamentalist and disregard the historicity of the Bible, then you agree with all that is in it and thus know that many sanctioned people of God in the Old Testament had several wives, had sex with their children, and killed their relatives (the poor kids that did not obey their parents). Oh wait, you probably don’t agree with that. It is convenient to use the historical argument for that, but not for the issue of homosexuality. Please worship God and follow Jesus out of love and devotion, rather than what is convenient for you.
Jos76
http://www.jos76.wordpress.com