"Ethics is [not] formally independent of the facts of human life and . . . human physiology."

The British Academy

"5. Ethics is formally independent of the facts of human life and, for example, human physiology."

     Elizabeth Anscombe, "Twenty opinions common among modern Anglo-American philosophers" (Rome, 7/12 April 1986), as reprinted in Faith in a hard ground:  essays on religion, philosophy, and ethics by G.E.M. Anscombe, ed. Mary Geach and Luke Gormally, St Andrews studies in philosophy and public affairs 11 (Exeter, UK; Charlottesville, VA:  Imprint Academic, 2008), .  Anscombe:  "there are a number of opinions which are inimical to Christianity which are very often found implicitly or explicitly among analytical philosophers.  A seriously believing Christian ought not, in my opinion, to hold any of them. . . .  In saying these opinions are inimical to the Christian religion I am not implying that they can only be judged false on that ground.  Each of them is a philosophical error and can be argued to be such on purely philosophical grounds."

"the most memorable thing Luther never said"

"He spelled out to the Emperor that without a conviction from 'scripture or plain reason (for I believe neither in Pope nor councils alone)', he could recant nothing.  It was such a momentous ending to his words that not long after his death, the first editor of his collected works, Georg Rörer, felt compelled to construct two tiny summary sentences in German, which have become the most memorable thing Luther never said:  'Here I stand; I can do no other.'"

     Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation:  a history (New York:  Viking, 2004), 127.  MacCulloch cites Eike Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Luther-Ausgabe:  zur überlieferungsgeschichte der Werke Luthers im 16. Jahrhundert (Nieuwkoop, 1971), col. 122.  But read also Thomas Kaufmann, "Luther auf dem Wormser Reichstag:  Person und publizistische Wirkung," in Hier stehe ich:  Gewissen und Protest – 1521–2021. Begleitband zur Landesausstellung 3. Juli bis 30. Dezember 2021, Museum der Stadt Worms im Andreasstift (Worms:  Worms Verlag, 2021), 280 (274–289; citation from Wikipedia).  Clearly, I am very far from done with this one!

The embolism (ἐμβολισμός) or Libera nos pre- and post-Vatican II

Extraordinary Form (1962)

Novus Ordo

Deliver us, we beseech Thee, O Lord, from all evils, past, present and to come; and by the intercession of the blessed and glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and of the holy Apostles, Peter and Paul and of Andrew, and of all the Saints, mercifully grant peace in our days, that through the assistance of Thy mercy we may be always free from sin, and secure from all disturbance.  Through. Libera nos, quaesumus Domine, ab omnibus malis, praeteritis, praesentibus, et futuris:  et intercedente beata, et gloriosa semper Virgine Dei Genitrice Maria, cum beatis Apostolis tuis Petro et Paulo, atque Andrea, et omnibus Sanctis, da propitius pacem in diebus nostris:  ut ope misericordiae tuae adjuti, et a peccato simus semper liberi, et ab omni perturbatione securi.  Per.

Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days, that, by the help of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress, as we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Libera nos, quaesumus Domine, ab omnibus malis, da propitius pacem in diebus nostris, ut, ope misericordiae tuae adiuti, et a peccato simus semper liberi et ab omni perturbatione secure:  exspectantes beatam spem et adventum Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi.

     It's surely more complicated than this historically (ODCC4 cites only "Jungmann (1958 edn), 2: 352–63; Eng. tr., 2: 284–93"), but this one comparison, at least, is rather striking.

"[T]he revelation of God is possible only when accompanied by a revelation of what it means to be a human being. Revelation implies that the truth is not fully evident in either case."

      Catholic University of America Press description of Revelations of humanity:  anthropological dimensions of theological controversies (2022), by Richard Shenk, O.P.  I have not read any of these essays, though it would be nice to find words like these in the book itself.

In Christ Jesus there is neither male without female nor female without male?

Servants of God Cyprian and
Daphrose Rugamba (m. 7 April 1994)

"there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

     Gal 3:28 RSV.

"in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;"

οὔτε γυνὴ χωρὶς ἀνδρὸς οὔτε ἀνὴρ χωρὶς γυναικὸς ἐν κυρίῳ·

     1 Cor 11:11 RSV.

     I was put onto this by Bernd Wannenwetsch, "Old docetism—new moralism:  questioning a new direction in the homosexuality debate," Modern theology 16, no. 3 (July 2000):  357 (353-364), but have not reflected carefully upon these two passages (including the differences of vocabulary) in their respective contexts.  It should be noted that Wannenwetsch himself twice inadvertently substitutes "Christ" for "Lord" in 1 Cor 11:11 ("If we hear that 'in Christ the man is not without the woman and the woman is not without the man' (1 Cor. 11:11), we have not simply a Christian confirmation of a natural fact—males are typically attracted by females and vice versa; rather we have the pneumatological ('in Christ') revelation of God’s primal will against all possible misinterpretations of this 'natural fact'"), though there are no variant readings to that effect in NA28.

"When the Law drives you to the point of despair, let it drive you a little farther, let it drive you straight into the arms of Jesus who says: 'Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.'"

      Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians 3:19, "The Law was added because of transgressions," as heavily paraphrased from 1937 by Theodore Graebner, who was willing to undertake the project proposed by P. J. Zondervan only if "permitted to make Luther talk American, 'streamline' him, so to speak— . . . make him talk as he would talk today to Americans."  The giveaway is the double clause "let it drive you a little farther, let it drive you straight into the arms of Jesus".  For here is how that same passage reads on pp. 315-316 of the far more reliable LW 26:

"Therefore we do not abolish the Law; but we show its true function and use, namely, that it is a most useful servant impelling us to Christ. After the Law has humbled, terrified, and completely crushed you, so that you are on the brink of despair, then see to it that you know how to use the Law correctly; for its function and use is not only to disclose the sin and wrath of God but also to drive us to Christ. None but the Holy Spirit is intent on this use of the Law or preaches the Gospel, because nothing but the Gospel says that God is present with those who are contrite in heart (Is. 57:15). 

"Therefore if you have been crushed by that hammer, do not use your contrition wrongly by burdening yourself with even more laws. Listen to Christ when He says (Matt. 11:28): 'Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.' When the Law drives you this way, so that you despair of everything that is your own and seek help and solace from Christ, then it is being used correctly; and so, through the Gospel, it serves the cause of justification. This is the best and most perfect use of the Law."

"no longer . . . the cozy, comfortable middle-class world of the academy"

"it is hopelessly inadequate to reduce the issue to the pitting of one scriptural interpretation against another.  Revelation, unlike Scripture, is a threshold concept.  It is like crossing through a doorway into a whole new world that is not available to us until we get inside it and begin to explore it for ourselves.  To be sure, one has to identify a revelation.  To be sure, one has to interpret a revelation.  To be sure, one has to think through the application of divine revelation in new cultural or intellectual situations.  All these require the full mustering of all our cognitive capacities.  However, once one comes to see something as revelation, then one has to treat the revelation as knowledge.  One has to obey it, to hold tenaciously and even passionately to it, and in some instances to be prepared to die for it.
     "It is very easy to miss this point by retorting that when it comes to revelation the whole debate about the interpretation of revelation breaks out again.  As I have mentioned, of course, one has to interpret a revelation.  However, there is all the difference in the world in what is at stake once the issue is cast in terms of revelation.  One is no longer simply wrestling with a book or a set of texts.  One is wrestling with the word of God.  Sooner or later, whatever the complexity of interpretation, one has to fish or cut bait.  Either there is or there is not a revelation.  Either one has or has not gotten hold of it.  Once these issues are decided, one has crossed the threshold; and the call to treat the putative revelation as knowledge, to obey it, to be tenacious in holding to it, and to die for it kicks in immediately.  We are no longer living in the cozy, comfortable middle-class world of the academy.  We are dealing with the Word of God."

     William J. Abraham, "Chapter 1:  The Church’s teaching on sexuality:  a defense of the United Methodist Church’s Discipline on homosexuality," in Staying the course:  supporting the Church’s position on homosexuality, ed. Maxie D. Dunnam and H. Newton Malony (Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 2003), 24-25 (15-31).  Cf. his Crossing the threshold of divine revelation (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 2006) and this.