The dogmatic consensus of Nicaea would not have problems with scholastic theology. That is one of the myths of la nouvelle theologie. What the consensus at Nicaea would have trouble with is historicism and relativism: both of which can be argued to flow from the anti-scientific, positivist, and literary approach to theology recommended by Balthasar and company. On all of these points (except the literary aspect), Balthasar was quite at home with Rahner.

In fact, Biffi, far from being in contrast to Balthasar, is himself a Balthasarian. Nevertheless, his strong comments indicate that there is something to the conciliar texts that make them ambiguous: it is not so easy, and can come off sounding like forced exegesis, to see Vatican II strictly in terms of a hermeneutic of continuity.

Biffi himself may or may not be cognizant of the dilemma the Balthasarians placed the Church in, in choosing the Renaissance over the Counter-Reformation. But his thinking is much more in the mode of Counter-Reformation scholasticism, for which Truth is unchanging, than with those who place an emphasis on philology and genealogy over philosophy and metaphysics as the proper handmaids of theology.

I just wanted to point out that “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination”, which the USCCB put out a while ago, has a lot of helpful information what we were discussing.

Peace.

There’s no disagreement on Church teaching here. Gay “marriage” isn’t marriage and we all know that. And of course we have to fight for freedom to say that and make choices based on a real understanding of Sacraments – no disagreement there. Don’t be worried that I picked out that line – I read your whole article and figured you might appreciate any feedback somebody had to offer.

David,

I think overall we agree. The reason I shy away from saying things like “same-sex attraction disorder” is people who use titles like that tend to see it as some sort of disease they can’t escape. Sure, the way we feel isn’t the way things were meant to be, but that doesn’t make me psychologically crippled. It just means that I have a different vocation now, one of singleness and, like all Christians, one of chastity. My orientation is not my primary identifier, either: I’m a Catholic more than anything, and that’s what I base my choices on.

As to legal coercion, I think if you’re worried about renting property, you’d have to extend that condition to heterosexual couples living in sin, too. Still, I see your point.

I didn’t intend to hijack this thread to talk about sexuality, so I suppose this will be my last comment — not to hide from disagreement, but just because this isn’t all germane to the topic. Peace!

I am not sure if there is a disagreement here or not. One of the problems that we face in our time is that same sex attraction disorder has been ontologized. In fact, a disorder has been made into a concrete aspect of personal identity and made into a minority identifying characteristic by those who would promote the so-called “gay lifestyle” in order to gain it victim status. The motivation is to gain more than just recognition as an alternative lifestyle, the demand it for preferential treatment. Thus, I would not call you “a homosexual” but my Catholic brother who happens to suffer from same sex attraction disorder.

You are certainly correct that no one may be unjustly treated. However, it is not unjust to refuse to recognize a disorder as an ontological characteristic. It is not unjust to refuse to materially cooperate in situations that promote evil. For example, no one can be coerced by law, for example, to rent a property to two people whom he understands will engage in sinful behavior on his property (heterosexual or homosexual). Neither can society be forced to treat disordered relationships as if they were the same as a naturally ordered family.

Hopefully we agree on these points but I thought I would add my two cents in order to clarify.

The fact is, the Church cannot consecrate gay marriage, and even has the obligation to fight against it. It is a demonic violation of human anthropology. Furthermore, the Church has to fight against coercive measures to force her to employ those who openly flaunt the so-called “gay lifestyle.”

Of course, no one can deny that the Church hierarchy itself is teeming with those who flaunt such a lifestyle. This is why the Church’s teachings have so little public validity. But this is just another sign of the times, one among a countless multitude, and further proof that Nicaea is more relevant today than Vatican II.