Rorate Caeli

Just Christians: "there is no such thing as a homosexual Christian"

As the priest who sent this to us commented: "Some Evangelicals are leaving us behind in the dust in the major moral arguments of the day, because they go to Scripture and the Fathers of the Church. They are not so crippled and bogged down by the tentacles of Modernism."

From the Touchstone:

On Homosexuality & Christian Identity

In homosexuality's assault on the beliefs of churches that once unanimously identified it as sexual perversion—sodomy being "the abominable and detestable crime against nature"—its most potent weapon has been the counter-accusation that identification of homosexuality as sinful is a detestable offense against charity. By these presents, all who hold to the ancient interdict as God's word may be numbered among the crowing yahoos of Westboro Baptist Church with its "God Hates Fags" placards.

The churches, thus accused, have divided into those that hold to the Judeo-Christian teaching and those converted to regarding homosexuality as no sin at all, for where the question is posed, as the church-homosexualists have pointedly and indefatigably done in the last generation, the winnowing fan comes into play and there is a division—for there is no third way.

At the point where the question touches the resisting churches, however, there is often much confusion, which includes a genuine concern about whether the complete rejection of homosexuality is indeed uncharitable, whether those who bear the burden of homosexual lust are being unfairly singled out as greater sinners than those with other, no less sinful tendencies. They are troubled by the question of whether they, with a perverse desire to justify themselves by condemning others, fail to distinguish between sin and sinner so that the hate banners are really their own as well.

These questions, if not resolved, lead to a kind of moral suspension in which questions like, "What about our homosexual brethren here in the church? Are we denying their existence, failing to hear them?" become askable, and, encouraged by "moderate" voices within these communions, are indeed asked in a form something like that. Once they are, however, the line between resistance and affirmation has been crossed.

The Apostolic Answer

In 1 Corinthians 6, St. Paul gives vital clarification on a subject where there is much foggy thinking among those who ask questions like, "What should the Church's approach to homosexual Christians be?" The apostolic answer is that there is no such thing as a homosexual Christian. There are brethren who struggle with various temptations, to be sure, and may on occasion fall to them before rising again. But believers who resist homosexual lust are not "homosexuals." They are just Christians, as are the rest of us with our own besetting sins.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? [Then comes a list of sinners, including "sexual perverts."] And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Such were some of you. The apostle is writing to the baptized saints in the church of Corinth who areno longerthese things. He does not say they are no longer susceptible to their old sins, nor that these old sins mustn't be dealt with: addressing the problems old sins create is a large part of the epistle's burden. Given this apostolic definition, however, we cannot—we dare not—say there is any such thing as a "gay (or lesbian, etc.) Christian," for the Christian by definition has been cleansed of his homosexuality. He cannot regard himself as a homosexual—or idolater, or thief, or drunkard—nor can the Church affirm him, or the various acts associated with the old vice, as such.

There is no "homosexual voice within the Church," for the homosexual's conversion entails a choice—This, or That—the sin, or the Faith. He cannot have both, nor can the Church in any way accommodate the sin from which he has been cleansed. It is wholly and actively and vehemently against it as a destroyer of the souls it has been called to save. It labors among the saints only in the accomplishment of what has already been done in Christ: cleansing, sanctification, and justification in the Name of the Lord.

Its message to those who, in abandonment of hope, define themselves by some sin, and present themselves as though they, as so defined, should have a place in the Church, is and only can be that of complete rejection. With respect to loving the sinner and hating the sin, which it indeed is called to do, what can it say to those who, in contempt of the saints who have fled their sins, declare their persons to be inseparable from the sin, identifying themselves with it—and then blame the Church for hating them aspersons? It can only say to them that all perversion of what it is to be human has been destroyed in and by Christ, who makes those who love him straight and whole after his own image. To some, this is the promise of life; to others, who have bound themselves to that which is to be destroyed, it is the intolerable threat of destruction.

No Satisfaction

What do these latter have to speak to, much less teach or admonish, the Church upon? They have no voice among us. Christian authorities need to stop thinking and writing as though the categories of homosexual and Christian can be joined—as though the Church could tolerate or accommodate, or speak gently of, much less bless or sanctify, anything peculiar to the garment stained by the flesh that those who come to Christ throw off in their baptism.

In that baptism we become penitents, and as such divided from our sins. St. Paul tells us here that no penitent is to be named by, identified by, what he has abjured. Those injured people who have put on Christ have put on, in him, life, hope, healing of their diseases, and resurrection of their bodies in the image and likeness of the one who has saved them.

The Church never can and never will give satisfaction—and the homosexualist knows it, for he knows the words against him are ineradicable—to the declared and impenitent homosexual, the person who, through an act of the vermiculate will, has identified his person with a sin, whether he demands acceptance of his sin through "love," or vindication through identification of his perceived enemies as bigots. Whether he presents himself as an object of love or indignation, what he demands in either case is acceptance not of the person, but of the sin-bound and sin-defined person. He demands the declaration of spiritual authority that there is nothing objectively disordered about this binding of man to sin, and assurance that this monstrous amalgam can indeed enter the kingdom of heaven. This can never happen among Christians until they abandon Christianity, which is at war with every sin, and whose indelible constitution places all perversions of the perfect man at the muzzle of its canons.


iowapapist said...

Why does the author believe that Evangelicals are "leaving us in the dust" with regard to the Catholic Church's treatment of homosexuality? The Church's teaching mandates a life of celibacy for homosexual persons. Doesn't this pass the muster of the parameters referenced in "The Apostolic Answer"? (i.e. "...believers who resist homosexual lust are not "homosexuals." They are just Christians..." Admittedly, there are members of the clergy (including some cardinals) and laity who have attempted to blur the lines or re-write the rules of the magisterium regarding this issue, but isn't the official teaching of the Catholic Church consistent with that of the Evangelicals?

Rural Catholic said...

This clear and concise explanation of homosexuality is what I've been saying all along, but not so well! ;o)
It is not being judgmental, which is always the charge against those who speak out on homosexuality as a sin, but an act of faith in the inerrant truth of scripture. Yes, adultery is also a sin, but no one says it is not. Even the adulterers themselves know that what they are doing is wrong. If churches suddenly declared that it was not a sin would not be a loving thing to do by any means, as it would be condoning sinful behavior that leads to hell. It is so much more loving to share the truth with homosexuals, even though you will most assuredly risk not only censure, but perhaps your life as was the case for Mary Stachowicz in 2002 who was murdered by a homosexual for telling him that what he did was a sin as she tried to witness the truth to him.

Supertradmum said...

Sad, Queen just approved bill. Persecution Watch...I think the Church has done a good job but there are too many dissident priests and lame bishops who are not teaching the real deal.

Rural Catholic said...

That is so true, iowapapist. The Church has never changed its teaching in regards to homosexuality. But the bishops most assuredly can be held accountable, as many of them not only have given homilies in gay activist churches (abomination!) but have condemned priests who have attempted to prevent openly homosexuals from receiving communion. Too many bishops have hidden motives from taking a stronger stand against it and undermine any movement toward eradicating the 'lavender' gang that is very active in the Church. Some of them even speak on EWTN and are given moral cred by such activity. ugh Mother Angelica would be broken hearted.

Teresa Ginardi said...

iowapapist says:
"The Church's teaching mandates a life of celibacy for homosexual persons."

Why the need to speak of "homosexual persons"? The problem stems from the Catechism of the Catholic Church in Paragraph 2359 ... Homosexual persons.

The Church, presently, is Herself caught up in this tangle of words. I suspect when a newer edition of the CCC is released (?) this wording will be removed.

Woody said...

Touchstone magazine incorporates articles from conservative Catholics, Orthodox and Evangelical writers. On the whole, I would say that the slightly prevailing flavor of Touchstone is Orthodox, although it is always respectful of Catholicism. Although Prof. Hutchens has a degree from the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, I am pretty sure he is Orthodox now. You can read a lot of his stuff on Orthodox sites.

Adfero said...

His bio leaves one believing he's a nondenominational Protestant.

Jordanes551 said...

No such thing as a homosexual Christian??? But, but, but -- what about this gay man whom I consider a saint???

Ben said...

Teresa Ginardi:

I think the Church's choice of the expression 'homosexual person' is quite deliberate, and intends to make precisely the point that homosexual tendencies do not constitute someone's basic identity: they are not 'homosexuals', they are 'persons' who happen to experience homosexual attractions.

'The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.' (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons’)

(To put it grammatically, without putting a hard and fast rule on the flexibility of language, 'homosexual' is more felicitously used as an adjective rather than a noun, as a noun tends to suggest more what is at the core of a being.)

Adfero said...

Ben, and that politically correct nuancing is exactly why the Protestants, in many cases, are speaking more clearly than the Church.

JFM said...

The church has not changed her teaching, but she seems to be moving in the direction of changing the *application* of that teaching. Witness the author the the CCC, a Cardinal, directing that a practicing homosexual be seated on his parish board. Without intervention from higher ups. That speaks volumes.

Timothy Hayes said...

However you may slice the language argument, it IS important to be clear as Catholics (whereas many Evangelicals are unclear in this regard) that merely possessing homosexual *temptations*, while admittedly disordered, is not itself a sin. To be a sin, you first must freely give in to such temptations by thought, word, or action.

This may appear obvious to those of us who are traditional Catholics, but it is not obvious to many Evangelicals -- and this fact has unnecessarily driven certain people with those unwilled temptations to total despair.

Again, the issue of language is a separate one.

Ben said...


far from being ‘politically correct’, I think the Church is getting at one of the very same points by this terminology (‘homosexual persons’ rather than ‘homosexuals’) that the article is ultimately getting at: that homosexual desires do not define a person. Indeed the homosexual inclination is ‘objectively disordered’ (Catechism 2358), meaning it is out of harmony with our deepest identity.

And there is no ‘nuancing’ whatever in the Magisterium’s continued denunciation of homosexual acts as ‘acts of grave depravity…intrinsically disordered…contrary to the natural law…under no circumstances can they be approved’ (Catechism 2357). I challenge anyone to be confused about where the Church stands on this matter, or to find it watered-down by comparison to what Evangelicals are saying.

The article’s overall point is valid that the Church cannot ‘affirm’ someone’s wish to ‘define’ themselves by their sin. However, I would comment that the author’s use of language is sometimes questionable and confusing. Someone who has habitual same-sex attractions, consented to or not, is normally termed 'homosexual' in English. So in the normal way of speaking, clearly there can be homosexual Christians.

This doesn't mean that 'homosexual' belongs to a person's very definition. Not every attribution is an essential attribution; not every true description of someone is part of what defines their essence.

Really, the very clarity of the article is somewhat misleading, because it derives from thinking, Cartesian-style, only in terms of essences, ‘clear and distinct ideas’. It is true that ‘homosexual Christian’ does not constitute an ‘essence’. However, Aristotle and St Thomas teach us that there also exist non-essential (‘accidental’) attributes, and it is obviously possible for the attributes of ‘homosexual’ and ‘Christian’ to coincide in the same individual.

My point is that mere use of the expression 'homosexual Christian' does not mark someone as somehow less orthodox. On the contrary, this is a normal and natural way of speaking.

The problem comes - as the article is really getting at - when someone wants to have their homosexual disorder affirmed as part of their very identity as persons and as Christians.

The Church, in love, refuses this, and instead shows them their true identity and the way of true hope.

New Catholic said...

Ben, you are being disingenuous. No one is claiming that the DOCUMENTS of the Church - or rather, of the Apostolic See - are ambiguous and deceptive, but that those who are supposed to PRESENT the Magisterium, the Hierarchy, and Conferences of Bishops, often are. Or, to be more accurate, more than often, almost always, and almost all of them.

Adfero said...

Yes, NC. I guess I figured anyone reading this blog would understand that. I was either wrong, or Ben isn't being very forthright.

Adfero said...

Jordanes551, don't mess with the gay saint! We will have a certain blogger after us, yet again ...

Timothy Hayes said...

Perhaps another way of putting my point above is as follows:

Depending on HOW one defines the adjectival qualifier "homosexual", it may indeed be correct (nay, by definition) that a supernaturally justified "homosexual Christian" is a contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, for the very reasons I provide above, there can (and likely are) many individuals who are supernaturally justified Christians *despite* experiencing entirely unwilled homosexual temptations. Again, this is important to point out because many Evangelical Protestants appear to think that the mere *temptation* towards homosexuality is _ipso facto_ indicative of a lacking of the state of justification, of a lacking of the state of sanctifying grace.

Now, granted, even the mere temptation to homosexuality is intrinsically *disordered*. Still, the undeniable truth of this mixedly metaphysical/anthropological point should never allow us to forget that unwilled temptations to homosexuality (while truly disordered) must never be conflated with willed homosexual activity -- of thought, word or deed.

Now, does emphasizing said difference between unwilled homosexual temptation and freely-chosen homosexual activity (whether of thought, word or deed) require more nuance than does the conflation of the two? Well, yes, I suppose it does, but such nuance is nevertheless vital.

Indeed, many persons have been so discouraged by virtue of being told (often by Evangelical "pastors") that the mere temptation itself is disqualifying that they then go ahead and succumb to actual sin, whether to the sin of despair and/or to actual homosexual sin - namely, engaging in *willed* homosexual thoughts, words or acts. As such, precisely by being falsely informed that even their unwilled temptations are themselves proof of being "unsaved" (that is to say, being in a state of mortal sin), said individuals come to view the situation as close to impossible, as being called upon to do something to which they could not possibly conform (by sheer virtue of the definition of unwilled temptation).

My point is that in *this* (important) regard, and - again - *regardless* of how the language issue is ultimately resolved, the Catholic position, precisely as presently expounded, is leaps and bounds ahead of the Evangelical position.

Yet again, however, this isn't to deny that the *language* being used may well be problematic for Catholics, with Evangelicals evincing greater clarity in this latter regard.

Garrett said...

Well said, Mr. Hayes.

Adfero said...

Tim, no one, once again, is questioning the CHURCH's position on the issue. The article, rightly, questions how some prelates and priests OF the Church talk about it.

This article hits the nail on the head. It doesn't say that homosexual tendencies are sinful -- it says one can't identify with them.

Please stick to what the article says and not what some other Protestant says. The author rightly ripped them apart in the very first paragraph of the article.

Clayton Orr said...

I would add to Mr. Hayes excellent commentary that, while clarity is absolutely essential to matters like this, there is also a place for subtle nuance. Ultimately, the goal is to help those who have homosexual tendencies live a chaste lifestyle in accordance with the Church. To do this, particularly in a culture where homosexual behaviour is, in many places, accepted and even admired, requires that the Church demonstrate that those who either suffer silently with homosexual temptations or who once were part of the 'gay' subculture can integrate their personalities into the life of the Church. Rousing condemnations may comfort those who feel besieged by modern culture, but they are not the best medicine. As I said before regarding the Boy Scouts, exclusion and judgmentalism often only serve to cut these men and women off from healthy friendships with their own gender, which often exacerbates their temptations for want of intimacy. At a parish in Canada, I know quite a few very orthodox priests (who also celebrated the Traditional Mass on a weekly or daily basis) who were quite active in the archdiocese's ministry to gay, lesbian, and bisexual Catholics. This ministry, they told me once at recreation, was very effective and required great delicacy and subtlety.

Adfero said...

Clayton Orr: "As I said before regarding the Boy Scouts, exclusion and judgmentalism often only serve to cut these men and women off from healthy friendships with their own gender, which often exacerbates their temptations for want of intimacy."

Clayton, as a parent, I could tell you that I could care less if their exclusion from activities like the Boy Soouts helps or hurts them. All I care about is the salvation of my children's souls.

While I once considered having my boys join the Boy Souts, I wouldn't dream of it now. I will never intentionally surround my children with homosexuals. If they are of that age and already identify as a homosexual, then their lives most likely already revolve around sex. As the litany of humility begs our Lord to rid us of harmful friendships, those are not the friends I want my children to have.

jprichard said...

I've posted on this before - in an earlier blog post concerning homosexuality - and won't rehearse all the questions I raised and the points I made there.

As someone who carries the Cross of same sex attraction I neither identify as gay, reveal my sexuality to anyone but the closet confidants nor do I make the mistake of reducing my personal identity (still less my Christian identity) to my sexuality. I'm chaste. This is what the Church requires of all those of us who are unmarried. My external behaviour is entirely unremarkable, in that respect.

So I'd like the opinion of the readers:
When Mrs X in the Parish says to me, "You're in your 40s - are you married?" And I reply, "No." And she then says, "Oh, have you ever been married?" And I reply, "No." And she says, "Why?"
What would you have me say?

Do I lie and say, "I've never met the right woman" ?
Do I equivocate and say, "It wasn't God's plan for me"? (When, of course, strictly speaking, we're talking of a permission of God, here, not His will.)
Do I smile and say nothing?
I doubt, very much, that any of your readers will say:
"You do the adult thing and say - I'm not attracted to women so it was never a question for me to get married."

This last response is, of course, the most truthful and concise explanation for my never married status - but, apparently, if I've understood this post properly, it amounts to special pleading and pushing a "homosexualist" agenda within the Church...
Up to now I've just avoided answering - not wanting to give an outright lie or equivocation.
But, ladies and gentlemen, it's 2013 and I'm in my 40s. Even the pious grey haired old ladies who edify me by their devotion aren't that naïve any longer....

Sooner or later I think you're going to have to look this question in the eye and say one of two things not only to those who struggle with same sex sexual sin - but those who struggle with same sex attraction without acting out on it.
Either you'll have to say:
"Go. Leave. Don't even come in to the Church until you no longer experience any same sex attraction and are attracted to women in a heterosexual way."

Or you'll have to say, "So you continue to experience these attractions without acting on them. You don't push the gay agenda. You try and follow the Church's teaching in these areas, like every Catholic: remain close to the sacraments and to disinterested friends who can support you as you struggle on your way to Heaven."

Either way - there will come a point where you look the issue squarely in the eye and start making distinctions that the above article seems unwilling to make. It seems to be saying this, in fact:
'There's no such thing as same sex attraction, merely perverts who are having sexual relationships with other men (or women). When they stop doing those acts they are no longer homosexuals.'

What are we then? And what about those of us who never actually committed any same sex acts in the first place - but who have experienced the attractions since adolescence. Are we perverts too?
Are we making a big homosexual deal out of this simply because we're not pretending to be straight - because to do so would be to be untrue, and antithetical to the Gospel of Our Lord?

Now, I'm aware that some readers will come back to me and say: "Why are you making such a big deal about this. Just put up and shut up."
But then, I'm not blogging about this issue...just responding to concerns expressed by others. And, as it happens in my Parish life I am putting up. I am shutting up. No-one knows openly. But, again, I doubt that many people who bother to think about it in 2013 in the West will buy the line, "confirmed bachelor."

authoressaurus said...

Rubbish. This is pure Phariseeism. Christ came for sinners, not the saved. Homosexual failings are the same as any other mortal sin, in that they place the Christian in need of confession, absolution, and penance. Mortal sin is mortal sin. Does the author somehow think that by committing a mortal sin the sinner has also apostasized, and is somehow required, in addition to the above, to recite the creed and apply for readmission to the Catholic faith? Nowhere does the church impose either such a distinction or such a requirement. Don't get too full of yourself. If you're already saved, just be happy. Christ didn't come for you.

Adfero said...

Jprichard, you say: "God gave me the vocation of a chaste single life, not the married life." Is that so hard?

Athoressaurus, no, homo sex is not just another mortal sin. It's one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. It goes both against God and nature.

jprichard said...

Thank you for your response.
"God gave me the vocation of a chaste single life, not the married life."
Well, to be fair to God, he didn't leave Himself any options about what He gave me as my vocation - there are none other that are open to Catholics who experience same sex attraction.
That's fine.
That's just the way it is.
Like you say, it's not so hard.
And it's a way of sanctification - like many others.
Which is why the Church has raised, ummm, one saint? out of how many tens of thousands to the altars who was a chaste unmarried man:
Saint Giuseppe Moscati (July 25, 1880 – April 12, 1927).
There's at least one! Alleluia!
Perhaps a single woman would be a welcome addition, too, no?
Anyone know if there are any others?

When the seminaries, religious orders and many dioceses grasp the nettle that around 2/3 of their men have same sex attraction, however, I think the Church as a whole will be able to rediscover the chaste single life as a genuine vocation within the Church. For the time being - and over the last 50 years I guess - such pious men who don't self-identify as gay but who do experience same sex attraction and who agree with the Church's teaching have simply gone into ministry.... The Lavender Mafia are only a small proportion of men with homosexual conditioning within the ministry. And because they do such terrible damage other priests, likewise concerned by the question are actually deeply opposed to them...

But no, "it's not so hard" - for the reasons that I give in my response to authoressaurus.

jprichard said...

@authoressaurus - allow me to speak as someone who suffers from same sex attraction and in the light of adfero's remarks about sodomy being a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.

The Doctor of the Church, St Catherine of Siena reveals to us in her Dialogue what Our Lord had to say on the matter:

They [the homosexuals] not only fail from resisting the weakness [of fallen human nature] .... but they do even worse when they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but is disgusting even to the devils themselves whom these depraved creatures have chosen as their lords... It is disgusting to the devils not because evil displeases them or because they find pleasure in good, but rather because their nature is angelic and flees upon seeing such a repulsive sin being committed."

So, you see, homosexual acts are so repugnant even the devils can't stand to see them committed.
In short, it is one of the worst sins of all.
Which is why the Doctor of the Church, St Peter Damian, argued that clerics who fell into this sin should be handed over to the secular authorities and burnt. Which is what happened (although only very occasionally) under the Spanish Inquisition - and elsewhere, to be fair.

Those with same sex attraction, on condition they never fall in to this vice can be tolerated in the Church - but only if they realise that their place is conditional on their silence and their appreciation that their condition is repugnant to the People of God who are not so unhappily afflicted, to the angels and to the devils.

Other than that, they are most welcome.

Adfero said...

And to be clear, I can't imagine how hard it is, what you battle. I'm only saying your answer to pesky questions is easy.

Angelo said...

I agree with this priest that the Protestants are well ahead of us on proclaiming moral certitudes from Scripture. The reason is that Bishops, priests, religious and laity who are acting as the the official voices in today's Church quote only the nicey Scriptural passages. They completely ignore all the harsh language of Almighty God. They cannot stand to hear of God's wrath, his condemnation of sin, his warnings about hell, our moral obligations from God ect... Today, Protestants do not fear to proclaim these facts. In my experience when a priest proclaims these facts, they are persecuted by those modernists who are in command today. I constantly speak of the heresy of modernism alot, only because this officially condemned heresy is the norm in the Church today. Even Pope Francis said recently that "Jesus does not impose on us". His words sound much like the modernist view of Christ.

Unknown said...

Greetings. As the author of the piece in Touchstone to which this posting refers, I have several observations.

First, I don't think Protestants, Evangelicals or otherwise, are doing any better than Catholics on these matters. For every weak, compromised, unpastoral Catholic bishop there is an influential religious authority among the Protestants who likewise dithers, obfuscates, or rejects Christian teaching outright.

Having studied briefly among liberal Catholics, I am used to hearing them define their enmity with their Church in more oblique and guarded terms than their Protestant counterparts, but that is because the latter are generally in control of their denominations and have nothing to fear by saying what they think. I have seen Catholic dioceses that are similar in that respect to liberal Protestant denominations, but it is not clear that this is true of the Catholic Church as a whole. So, when a Catholic bishop is as a matter of fact, pro-homosexual, he must exercise his options with more care and subtlety than is necessary amongst Protestants.

Secondly, Adfero is correct, I am, by default, a "nondenominational Protestant," since that is really the only thing a person who names C. S. Lewis as his principal teacher can be these days. I do not, however, identify myself as an Evangelical, since I view Evangelicalism as proto-liberalism. At least since the days of Schleiermacher its essentially apologetic constitution has been unable to resist the attack on its dogmatics launched by religion's "cultured despisers." Its theological conservatism never lasts very long. Today Evangelicalism has been almost entirely overtaken by egalitarianism, at least on its upper levels.

Finally, in order to remain faithful one must be willing to be constantly ill spoken-of, no matter how generous and fair-minded one manages to be. Without this resolution, and the help of God to keep it, one becomes part of the problem rather than the solution. The desire to be on friendly terms with things he should be fighting is the chief weakness of both the Evangelical and the Catholic. //