A response to Michael S.'s two questions

Thanks very much, Michael, for your interesting questions.

Your first question:  “[D]oes the Tradition . . . support your post-metaphysical, apophatic Catholic Christianity?”  The Tradition is capacious enough to include a non-metaphysical, apophatic theology (theo-logos, talk about God), and one who adheres to such a theology--the later Merton, for example--is an heir to and in the company of, among others, Meister Eckhart.

Your second question:  “[I]s there a connection between your theology (post-metaphysical, apophatic Catholic/Christian) and your sexual ethics?”  The former certainly does not entail the latter—any more than a metaphysical, non-apophatic theology entails the magisterium's sexual morality.  A natural-law approach to sexual morality--Robby George's, for example, or Margaret Farley’s--and indeed a natural-law approach to any and all moral questions, is consistent both with your theology and with mine--and even with non-belief.  Of course, and as we both know, those who pursue a natural-law approach to moral questions don't always agree with one another, as the deep disagreement between Robby George and Margaret Farley on the issue of contraception, for example, attests.

Happy New Year!