Anglican Theologian Says Jesus was Homosexual

I’m not going to even bother linking to Paul Oestreicher’s column in London’s left wing paper The Guardian. It’s the usual progressive gibberish–full of sentimental arguments, ignorant speculation and politically correct mumbo jumbo all designed to shock, annoy, ingratiate himself with the enemies of the gospel and gain some juicy headline coverage.

To tell you the truth, I’m weary of the whole “inyerface” homosexual activism. I think my only response from now on will be to remind people of the sins that cry to heaven:

CCC 1867: The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.


  • Howard Richards

    That, and “Be not deceived; God is not mocked.”

  • Bender

    What a boring copycat. Such ideas are hardly original. The pagan Romans accused us of incest.

  • Alice C. Linsley

    Theologian? That’s far too generous, Father.

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      I think ‘Anglican theologian’ defines what I mean pretty well…

  • Charlotte

    Yeah, except then they’ll tell you that sodomy really isn’t sodomy, us moderns don’t understand what sodomy *really* meant back then. You can never win with these people.

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      There is a clear definition of sodomy, but modesty forbids me to discuss it.

  • http://PortaCaeli Patricius

    What’s the betting this Anglican Theologian is homosexual?

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      I know him. I don’t think he is homosexual, but you must understand that homosexuality is the cause celebre of Anglican liberalism at this time. As one Anglican bishop said to me, “We have been in the forefront of equality for women, and now we must fight on the side of the homosexuals…”

  • Christian

    I f you are patient, eventually an Anglican theologian will say everything.

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      or nothing

  • Elizabeth K.

    Father, I don’t know if you have written about it already, but I would be really interested in reading a post about why homosexuality–the sin of the Sodomite–is so grave, and listed here right next to murder (the blood of Abel) and before the cries of the widow, etc.. It’s practically impossible, now, to explain why we take this seriously as sin, and I was really struck by that wording. My own, intuitive sense is that, like murder, it is a breaking of the original order, and that something huge and cosmic is at stake both when humans murder one another and when men and women turn away from one another sexually. Wondering about your thoughts–maybe I’ll write about it, too, some time.

    • Alejandro

      The sin of sodomy is great because you’re not only commiting a deviant sexual act, you are endangering both your life and that of the other person. The only reason why sodomy is accepted now is because of new sanitation methods that make it possible. Even then, it’s risky, because the anus is not made for sexual intercourse.

    • Al Bergstrazer

      You are correct in that homosexuality contradicts God’s natural order of man and woman made for each other. More than contradicts, it mocks it as Paul alludes to in Romans 1:24-28. Notice the progression Paul makes, that this particular sin also includes not acknowledging God, exchanging the truth about God for a lie. Look at what must be done to the church, to God’s word, to marriage, to the morals and values of society to make this one particular sin ‘normal.’ Sodomy and sexual immorality in general are sins that are typically listed as those which bar one from heaven cf. Revelation 21:8.

    • mike cliffson

      How can you explain it to men a nd women who , it extends even to those married in church , yea, even those who limit themselves to nfp, even they who have some shreds of selfless love for the other, yet have we all in our society so taken on board the contraceptive mentalality , so live and breathe modernity, so share all its assumptions , that in an inherently fruitless union, living a lie in every conjugal act,we and they are halfway-or more- at least to being in, in effect, in homosexual permanent union, living in that sin, to being(you cousins share the expression?) the big-I-am?
      How can they understand if their I AM blocks out every loving knock on their door from the only IAM?

  • Pingback: Anglican Theologian Says Jesus was Homosexual « Fr Stephen Smuts

  • Andreas Kjernald

    Though not directly connected to this article, what is your take on the uprising of some Catholic priests in Austria?

    • Jim

      Maybe it is relevant. After all he IS called Oestreicher.

  • MarylandBill

    Can we get this group of people (Who believe Jesus was a homosexual) to start a debate with the group who insists that Jesus was married to Mary Magdeline? I will bring the popcorn.

  • http://PortaCaeli Patricius

    I once heard a priest explain that (those likely to be offended look away now) the sin of Sodom was “a failure to show hospitality”.

    • mike cliffson

      Well, you know, that’s not entirely farfetched, think of the company its in quoted above in CCC .,if not exactly a firm way to start off. The opposite of hospitality, more like. We take for granted food we buy won’t be poisoned, a number of similar minimums for a human community to survive from day to day. Even today in the Sahara you can get the idea that Hospitality is Sacred, or noone could live.An active, wilful, sinful denial of our common humanity, an attack of the basis for any social life. Think of that nasty paralell to Lot’s visitors in Judges, with the priest’s concubine torn to shreds and the ensuing civil war. Some of our Lord’s parables reflect this : the chap banging his sleeping neighbour’s barred-for.-the -night door for bread: for VISITORS. Of course, however reluctantly, sooner or later the (weak, human, sinning,far from selfless, but a neighbour) neighbour WILL get up and give it to him! That’s a given ! (howmuch more so our father in heaven etc , of course for the parable)
      Do you believe that , as per humanae vitae’s restatement of the church’s wisdom, ANY union of the flesh starts up deep, inbuilt, godgiven mechanisms in the human? Or that males in particula r can just bop about the earth shedding their seed in any available orifice as a relief sans any, any, phsychological ,( to avoid saying spiritual or ontological,) consequences which can only be the resusults of guilt complexes from outdated powerplays embedded in traditional judeoChristian Indoctrination?
      If the former, how naturally , so to speak, will this unnatural habit, taken as a habit, fostered, indulged in, glorified, and extolled in a social network lead to scenes like the one outside Lot’s house?
      How naturally has there grown an irredeemable unsatisfyable sociallyshared utter inhuman selfishness which has undermined the consensus, twixt friend and foe, twixt saint and sinner, of the minimum required for life to go on day to day,which hospitality was then and for millenia ? Nay, the very opposite, the “other” has no existence except for MY use? Does this not fit in with the exploitation of the foreigner, the wage earner, the widow and orphan?

      Far be it from me to suggest that the inyourfacers today are demanding anything similar with “rights” the redefintion/abolition of allof society’s marriage , parades, the handing over to them of the children of those of us who they call breeders for indoctrination etc.

      There’s more to hospitality than having tea and cucumber sandwiches with the queen of england wi’ little finger cocked i’ the air.
      More tea, vicar?

      • Jim

        We find that tea and cucumber makes the sandwiches too wet.
        And keep your little finger out of my ear!

        Jim, a loyal subject of the Queen of Scotland

        • mike cliffson

          Finger only removable for HM Queeen of scotland ‘s subjects in exchange for glenlivet and or /bannocks

  • mike cliffson