22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2024
It may be that the following comments will appear to some readers applicable to all ‘sexual minorities’. I myself do not so apply them. I have trans+exuak, entirely in mind as I write, and not merely because they tend to be the most seriously discriminated against. However, it is not for me to dictate to others how they should or should not make use of these ideas. If readers wish to see the trans-sexual’s dilemma as a paradigm of some larger or even quite different dilemma, then so be it.
The Open Church Group in Great Britain has been campaigning to persuade homosexuals who “feel separated from their churches because of their nature to reconsider their position and return to the practice of their faith”. The problem which the group envisages is a real, though variable one. Attitudes among theologians may be slowly changing (though not all of us would agree that in this field all change is for the good); but, as two American writers on female homosexuality have put it, “Inroads into religious thought and re-evaluation are a slow and cumbersome process. [Lesbians] live in the now.” It is scarcely sufficient to shrug the shoulders and say “In time, it will all work out”. This is not enough for Christian fellowship, because Christian fellowship belongs to the now, not to the contingent future.
Attitudes in the Churches which go so far as to deny Christian fellowship to ‘sexual minorities’ may be reduced to one simple, if generally unrecognized factor: dread. Mystery misconceived is dread: it is distracting, zwiespältig — dividing the mind against itself, making neutrality impossible. It is the negative side of holy fear: it is what St Paul presumably meant when he warned against the destructive consequences of unworthy communion. Whatever the aetiological reasons which might be adduced in hard clinical fashion to ‘explain’ what has been called ‘sexual deviance’, it remains at the end of the day for a great many ‘normal’ people, and therefore for a great many Christians, an object of dread, something which unsettles their security.
1 Church Times, 25 Match 1977.
2 Martin, Del and Lyon, Phyllis, Lesbian/Woman, (New York 1972) p 35Google Scholar.
3 Cf Stählin, Wilhelm, The Mystery of God, (London 1937) p 124Google Scholar.
4 Cf David Martin, in The Times Higher Education Supplement, 13 June 1975.
5 Jennings, Elizabeth, Collected Poems 1967, (London 1967) p 159Google Scholar.
6 Cf David Martin, “Doctors of the mind or leeches of the soul?” in The Times Education Supplement, 1 August 1975.
7 Martin and Lyon op cit p 29.
8 Thus Tournier, Paul, The Healing of Persons, (London 1966) pp 130–1Google Scholar. See the doctor's advice cited by Nicholas Mason in The Journal of Medical Ethics, vol 6, No 2 (June 1980) pp 86–7Google Scholar.
9 The present writer has been the recipient of such advice.
10 Airey, Roger, Hows Oxford, (Sevenoaks, 1975) p 8Google Scholar.
11 This case has been documented from private correspondence.
12 Cf Mackey, James P, Life and Grace: an Essay in Basic Theology, (Dublin 1966), pp 48–9Google Scholar, 99.
13 Stanley E Kutz CSB “Conscience and Contraception” in Justus Lawlor (ed.) Contraception and Holiness, (London 1965) pp 27–28. Kutz sees this as the reason why Pacem in terris was uniquely, among encyclicals, meaningful to men of the most “divergent convictions“.
14 Cf Snell, Antony SSM, Truth in Words, (London 1965) p 25Google Scholar; Bright, Laurence OP, in introduction to Hibbert, Giles O.P. Man, Culture and Christianity, (London 1967)Google Scholar.
15 Dubay, T S M, “The Psychological Possibility of Intellectual Obedience”, Review of Religions, Vol 1.19 (1960) pp 67–76.Google Scholar
16 Cf Sister Thekla in Mother Maria Gysi (ed.) Orthodox Potential: Collected Essays, (Newport Pagnell, 1973) pp 17–26.
17 Berdyaev, Nicholas, The Destiny of Man, (London 1938) p 312Google Scholar.
18 Peck, W G, From Chaos to Catholicism, (London 1909) p 123Google Scholar.
19 Berdyaev, op cit pp 123, 130, 190, 205 Dewart, Leslie, “Some Early Historical Development of New Testament Morality” in Dunphy, William (ed.) The New Morality: Continuity and Discontinuity, (New York 1967) p 104Google Scholar. See also Wingell, Albert, “Historical Conjunctions of Moral to Cosmic Order” in the same volume and Sherrard, Phillip, The Greek East and the Latin West: A Study in the Christian Tradition, (Oxford 1959) p 163Google Scholar. Cf Davis, Charles, A Question of Conscience, (London 1969)Google Scholar passim.
20 Cf Evdokimov, Paul, L'Orthodoxie, (Neuchatel 1965) pp 76–77Google Scholar.
21 Lossky, Vladimir, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, (London 1957) pp 160–1Google Scholar.
22 Nikos A Nissiotis in Philippou, A J (ed.) The Orthodox Ethos, (Oxford 1964) p 58Google Scholar.
23 Camfield, F W, Revelation and the Holy Spirit: an Essayin Barthian Theology, (London 1933) pp 125–6Google Scholar.
24 Lossky, op cit p 155.
25 Dimitru Staniloae, “Christian Responsibility in the World”, The Altar Almanach, 1973 pp 76–77.
26 Elizabeth Skobtsova, Zhatva Dukha (The Harvest of the Spirit] (Paris 1927), I, II, cited by Sergei Hackel, One, of Great Price, (London 1965) pp 15–16.
27 Berdyaev, op cit p 74; Evdokimov, op cit p 68.
28 Zizioulas, John D, “The Eucharistic Community and the Catholicity of the Church” in Meyendorff, John & McLelland, Joseph (eds.) The New Man: an Orthodox and Reformed Dialogue, (New Brunswick, N J 1973) p 109Google Scholar.
29 de Chardin, Pierre Teilhard S J, Writings in Time of War, (London and New York 1968) pp 215–18Google Scholar and Le Milieu Divin, (London and New York 1960) pp 32–34Google Scholar.
30 Teilhard de Chardin, Le Milieu Divin, p 51.
31 Cf Chadwick, Henry, “The silence of the Bishops in Ignatius”, Harvard Theological Review, Vol 43 (1950) pp 169ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32 Parry, David O S B, Households of God: The rule of St Benedict with Explanations for Monks and Lay‐people Today, (London 1980) p 85Google Scholar.
