A silly simple question on sexual orientation (re gay marriage)

[Contarini]

Following the logic of the CCC is easy enough. Sexuality, clearly seen as heterosexuality, affects all aspects (not just a sex act) of our human personhood. It’s the you of you.

I think this is the basic issue where you and Deo_Volente (and unfortunately some conservative Catholic theologians too, if I understand them correctly) are disagreeing with the Christian tradition. Sexuality in a form that can be defined as “heterosexual” or “homosexual” is not “the you of you.” True, eros is basic to who we are. But the Christian tradition teaches that our fundamental eros is directed toward God. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are in the same boat there. Our sexual orientation toward other humans is not what fundamentally defines us. Even in our relationships toward humans, what fundamentally defines us is caritas–our participation in God’s love for us. Again, homosexuals and heterosexuals are in the same boat there.

You and Deo_Volente are reading too much into the CCC, because you start from an overly sexualized view of the human person in the first place.

The point about “going on a date” is a very interesting one. The whole practice of “going on a date” is a particular cultural practice, heavily influenced by individualism and consumerism. In the past the lines were drawn very differently, and it was much easier for people to express same-sex affection. This, I think, is the significance of those *adelphopoeisis *ceremonies that Boswell made so much of. Boswell read them in the light of the flawed assumption that a fixed percentage of the human race has always had something like what we now call a homosexual orientation. I think that much of what we call “homosexuality” is the result of a culture that identifies deep, tender emotion and intimacy primarily with heterosexual romantic relationships. (Note: I’m not denying that same-sex sexual relationships have always existed, only that they were culturally constructed differently and that it was easier in the past to have emotional intimacy with your own sex without being labeled as “gay” and expected to relate to persons of your own sex in the way the majority of human beings relate to persons of the other sex.)

Edwin

 

[larkin31]

I think this is the basic issue where you and Deo_Volente (and unfortunately some conservative Catholic theologians too, if I understand them correctly) are disagreeing with the Christian tradition. Sexuality in a form that can be defined as “heterosexual” or “homosexual” is not “the you of you.” True, eros is basic to who we are. But the Christian tradition teaches that our fundamental eros is directed toward God. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are in the same boat there. Our sexual orientation toward other humans is not what fundamentally defines us. Even in our relationships toward humans, what fundamentally defines us is caritas–our participation in God’s love for us. Again, homosexuals and heterosexuals are in the same boat there.

You and Deo_Volente are reading too much into the CCC, because you start from an overly sexualized view of the human person in the first place.

The point about “going on a date” is a very interesting one. The whole practice of “going on a date” is a particular cultural practice, heavily influenced by individualism and consumerism. In the past the lines were drawn very differently, and it was much easier for people to express same-sex affection. This, I think, is the significance of those *adelphopoeisis *ceremonies that Boswell made so much of. Boswell read them in the light of the flawed assumption that a fixed percentage of the human race has always had something like what we now call a homosexual orientation. I think that much of what we call “homosexuality” is the result of a culture that identifies deep, tender emotion and intimacy primarily with heterosexual romantic relationships. (Note: I’m not denying that same-sex sexual relationships have always existed, only that they were culturally constructed differently and that it was easier in the past to have emotional intimacy with your own sex without being labeled as “gay” and expected to relate to persons of your own sex in the way the majority of human beings relate to persons of the other sex.)

Edwin

Yes, the intimacy rules in America in the 1800s were very different from what they are today, particularly for men (but for both genders, yes). I don’t think that this has much to do with actual homosexual sex and its practice, but you are making a very valid point about the American cultural rules around intimacy and physical contact within one’s gender. The rules are MUCH more strict now, it turns out. Ironic, huh?

 

[Contarini]

Yes, the intimacy rules in America in the 1800s were very different from what they are today, particularly for men (but for both genders, yes). I don’t think that this has much to do with actual homosexual sex and its practice

But Deo_Volente’s point is that homosexual relationships (like heterosexual ones) are more than just sex. My point is that at many points in the past it was actually much easier to have a “romantic” relationship (involving intense emotion, light, non-genital physical expressions of affection, lots of time spent together, etc.) with a member of one’s own sex than with a member of the opposite one to whom one was not married (and perhaps even with one’s spouse!).

but you are making a very valid point about the American cultural rules around intimacy and physical contact within one’s gender. The rules are MUCH more strict now, it turns out. Ironic, huh?

I don’t know if “strict” is the right word. The rules are different. Every culture has its own taboos. And Christians are called to witness against the distortions of every culture. That is never easy, and we never do it perfectly.

Edwin

 

[larkin31]

But Deo_Volente’s point is that homosexual relationships (like heterosexual ones) are more than just sex. My point is that at many points in the past it was actually much easier to have a “romantic” relationship (involving intense emotion, light, non-genital physical expressions of affection, lots of time spent together, etc.) with a member of one’s own sex than with a member of the opposite one to whom one was not married (and perhaps even with one’s spouse!).

Yes, I agree.

I don’t know if “strict” is the right word. The rules are different. Every culture has its own taboos. And Christians are called to witness against the distortions of every culture. That is never easy, and we never do it perfectly.

Ok. I am not commenting on this part. Cultures never even agree on what exactly is a “distortion,” anyway. They usually don’t even agree on what God rules the heavens, if any God does.

 

[Contarini]

They usually don’t even agree on what God rules the heavens, if any God does.

This is off topic, but as you probably know from other discussions I think this is a bogus argument. From my perspective, all monotheists believe in the same God, and that goes for polytheists who think there is one ultimate divinity behind all the gods. Polytheistic gods are completely different from the God in whom monotheists (and monistic polytheists) believe.

However, it’s certainly true that Christians have some distinctive perspectives on God’s will for human beings!

Edwin

 

[larkin31]

This is off topic, but as you probably know from other discussions I think this is a bogus argument. From my perspective, all monotheists believe in the same God, and that goes for polytheists who think there is one ultimate divinity behind all the gods. Polytheistic gods are completely different from the God in whom monotheists (and monistic polytheists) believe.

However, it’s certainly true that Christians have some distinctive perspectives on God’s will for human beings!

Edwin

That is ecumenical of you! Awesome!

 

[Contarini]

That is ecumenical of you! Awesome!

It is the standard, traditional Christian view. It really isn’t that remarkable or that broad-minded. It’s no more than St. Paul says in Acts 17 or than early Christian apologists would have said generally–it didn’t stop them from saying that the “gods” whom the ancient pagans worshiped as intermediaries between themselves and the Supreme Deity were really evil demons!

The trend among conservative/orthodox Christians (especially Protestants) in the past century, though, has been toward emphasizing the particularity of revelation, so that people who are not fundamentalists can be found suggesting that non-Christians don’t worship the same God we do. I understand why they say this, but I think it’s a mistake.

Edwin

 

[larkin31]

It is the standard, traditional Christian view. It really isn’t that remarkable or that broad-minded. It’s no more than St. Paul says in Acts 17 or than early Christian apologists would have said generally–it didn’t stop them from saying that the “gods” whom the ancient pagans worshiped as intermediaries between themselves and the Supreme Deity were really evil demons!

The trend among conservative/orthodox Christians (especially Protestants) in the past century, though, has been toward emphasizing the particularity of revelation, so that people who are not fundamentalists can be found suggesting that non-Christians don’t worship the same God we do. I understand why they say this, but I think it’s a mistake.

Edwin

So, you don’t claim that it is the Devil that has led so many toward the multiplication of Christian practices and beliefs? (this has been stated here by Catholics, mind you)

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I think this is the basic issue where you and Deo_Volente (and unfortunately some conservative Catholic theologians too, if I understand them correctly) are disagreeing with the Christian tradition. Sexuality in a form that can be defined as “heterosexual” or “homosexual” is not “the you of you.” True, eros is basic to who we are. But the Christian tradition teaches that our fundamental eros is directed toward God. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are in the same boat there. Our sexual orientation toward other humans is not what fundamentally defines us. Even in our relationships toward humans, what fundamentally defines us is caritas–our participation in God’s love for us. Again, homosexuals and heterosexuals are in the same boat there.

You and Deo_Volente are reading too much into the CCC, because you start from an overly sexualized view of the human person in the first place.

Edwin, I appreciate you taking the time to comment over here. Not to sound too ingratiating, and you may already know this anyway, but I’m an admirer of yours. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that you and GKC are my heroes on these boards when it comes to Anglican apologetics, irenic tone, wisdom, and good humor.

(Rising from my kowtow now.)

Here’s what the catechism says:
**2332 ***Sexuality *affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.
**2333 **Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual *difference *and *complementarity *are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.
**2334 **"In creating men ‘male and female,’ God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity."118 "Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God."119
**2335 **Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator’s generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."120 All human generations proceed from this union.121
**2336 **Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God’s plan strictly: "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."122 What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.123 The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.

When you say that our sexual orientation toward other humans is not what fundamentally defines us, I agree with you, but would also add that the catechism doesn’t talk about sexual orientation *per se–*at least it never uses those words in tandem.

However, it does understand sexuality itself as related to affectivity and the ability to form appropriate relationships which it also (and I think rightly) associates with biological gender (the whole ruckus regarding inclusive language in so many communities is intimately bound up with all of this–how our notions of male and female and how we relate to both colors and often determines a quality of relationship–which is why referring to God himself as Godself, for instance, means that we remove a key aspect of human affectivity from our relationship with God). It parleys all of this into an understanding of male/female relationships and the place of marriage in relationship to chastity etc. That is, it understands sexuality as the relational capacity from which sexual orientation (although it might be more appropriate to say, sexual desire or attraction) arises. There is no sexual desire without sexuality. There is no relational capacity without sexuality, according to the catechism. It follows, at least to me, that disordered sexual desire generally represents a flaw in our sexuality which is the result of original sin. As our natures are not impervious to grace, it is a flaw that can be overcome by grace. Which is to say that, in general, a person may desire appropriately or inappropriately.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED)

But if we apply all of that reasoning to the case of a deep-seated homosexual inclination as understood by the catechism, there does not seem to be any room for grace, only for disorder. That is, a person suffering from the homosexual disorder in this way cannot help but desire inappropriately. Which seems to suggest a fundamental flaw in such a person’s sexuality, or a special case of original sin in which nature is not merely wounded, but utterly compromised. And because sexuality is so integral to human wholeness and identity (as the catechism states), it would seem that an affectivity so broken that it is irreparable cannot help but produce distorted relationships across the board–which is to say that a homosexual inclination is a symptom of an affectivity that cannot help but desire inappropriately–hence, a homosexual’s relationships with God and his neighbor will always be, if only in small, imperceptible ways, wrong. (Witness many people’s uncomfortability with a gay teacher or scout leader–it is the catechism’s understanding of sexuality in action.)

Which is all just to say that the catechism, surprisingly, is the one doing the sexualizing here. But I don’t know that it’s necessarily wrong to do so, in the sense that sexuality is embodied eros and must therefore be central to human identity and must inform how we relate to each other in a much broader sense, and how we understand desire generally. I don’t think that’s a wrong understanding. I do think, however, that understanding homosexuality as a disorder is where we get off the rails–because having understood our sexuality as embodied eros and essential to who we are and desire as people, we’re suddenly faced with the radical possibility that someone, by no choice of their own (and the catechism understands this) is essentially unable to desire correctly–in this way, a deep-seated homosexual inclination is just the tip of the iceberg, a symptom of a moral disorder that is much bigger than what gender we’re attracted to with the consequence that the expression of their humanity must be limited or circumscribed to a degree unknown to others, not merely because they cannot be allowed to participate in particular kinds of relationship, but that it is also inappropriate for them to even *desire *such relationships. This being the explicit consequence of the homosexual disorder, I think that maria’s and my understanding of the catechism in this regard explicates most clearly the logic that gets us there, given the clues the catechism gives us regarding it’s reasoning.

It isn’t so much that maria and I are arguing that sexual attraction is the sine qua non of humanity, but that it is reflective of the embodied eros that is an essential part of what makes us human.

In the past the lines were drawn very differently, and it was much easier for people to express same-sex affection. This, I think, is the significance of those *adelphopoeisis *ceremonies that Boswell made so much of.

I agree–I, for one, am a homosexual entirely uninterested in undergoing a marriage rite if my partner and I were to have some sort of blessing. And we would like to have a blessing, but neither of us want it to look like a marriage. Why? Because marriage is a particular cultural institution with a particular tradition, particular social and cultural purposes, etc. Not to mention that I am not his wife, nor am I his husband. Our relationship serves different purposes entirely (though I’m not sure many here would admit that it serves any purpose–that’s fine, I don’t mind) and would, in fact, be best honored served by the adelphopoiesis rite or the affrerement rite (and I don’t believe either were gay marriage substitutes back in the day).

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

I think that much of what we call “homosexuality” is the result of a culture that identifies deep, tender emotion and intimacy primarily with heterosexual romantic relationships. (Note: I’m not denying that same-sex sexual relationships have always existed, only that they were culturally constructed differently and that it was easier in the past to have emotional intimacy with your own sex without being labeled as “gay” and expected to relate to persons of your own sex in the way the majority of human beings relate to persons of the other sex.)

I would say emotional, and physical intimacy were more easily achieved in the past, even if (especially if) that intimacy did not include sex (even the Greeks were largely put off by the idea of male-male penetrative sex, for instance, as they feared it would feminize the man penetrated), that intimacy was nonetheless possible, even moral. Now, however, the catechism cannot posit intimate relationships as good things for homosexuals to pursue–only “disinterested friendships.” Which seems to suggest that intimacy must be denied the homosexual.

What you write regarding intimacy being identified with heterosexual romantic relationships is also what I feel is entirely behind the push for gay marriage broadly. When marriage changed enough (I remember someone saying that this change began in the 17th century) for it to become about love rather than property and inheritance rights and was subsequently reduced to little more than a social seal of approval upon an intimate relationship (which is what it more or less became in the 20th century), it opened the door for any couple in any sort of intimate relationship to want the same seal of approval–homosexual relationships are no less loving, so what’s the big deal? Many apologists are reduced to a line which amounts to, “but your relationships aren’t actually loving because…they’re not heterosexual,” which to most homosexuals and many heterosexuals sounds idiotic. Which leads to a more moderated position of a defence of “traditional marriage,” which was only slightly less ludicrous, but remained ludicrous because it was based on an idea of marriage that clearly did not jive with either history or observed reality–if these people actually wanted traditional marriage, they’d be looking to re-introduce the practice of arranged marriages and eschewing all this romance stuff to begin with. Unfortunately, what they *really *want to defend, it seems to me, is sacramental marriage. But talking about sacraments as if everyone believes in them or has the same notion of what a sacrament is is far too difficult and is potentially offensive. So they’re stuck trying to defend the fantasy of traditional marriage rather than the reality of sacramental marriage. Everyone loses! And all this because intimacy was somewhere along the line defined as a heterosexual prerogative, a definition which is unfortunately enshrined in the catechism, too.

Maybe we should start a movement among gay Christians to re-institute the affrerement and adelphopoeia rites and lay off marriage. I’d join it. A lovely article on the affrerement (which, Edwin, contains your criticisms of Boswell, by the way) can be found here: hnn.us/articles/42361.html

(Your digest of my position in post 202 is spot on. What I’ve been trying to do in these posts is explain my fear that the catechism does not allow a Roman Catholic homosexual to even think about wanting to pursue the “more than just sex” stuff–and that that fear is not ungrounded given the catechism’s explanations of both sexuality and homosexuality. Which would mean that the choice faced by a Roman Catholic homosexual is–be construed as faithful and give up any hope for actual requited intimacy in the process [which would represent a radical circumscription of a homosexual’s expression of their humanity]; or give up on Roman Catholicism and/or Christianity generally in order fully participate in the human adventure. Neither option is particularly good, it seems to me. But it looks like that’s the logic of the catechism.)

Under the Mercy!
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[maria_teresa]

Mark and Edwin,

Gentlemen, what a wonderful discussion has ensued concerning this topic. I’ve been edified by the temperance, courtesy, and dispassionate reasoning in your posts. It appears the Catholic Church, especially in the U.S., is at great pains to explain the CCC to the faithful or priests. Several documents have been released by the USCCB regarding homosexuality; the latest being Ministries to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care, released in November, 2006. This document is radically different in its presentation and in its theological/philosophical base.

www.usccb.org/doctrine/Ministry.pdf

It does not touch the CCC’s definition of 2332 Sexuality at all, but only considers the proper ends of heterosexuality (men and women). Amazingly, this document uses the term heterosexual, which the CCC never did. From my understanding, the USCCB is equating Sexuality with sexual desire, period. Further, it minimizes and completely distorts, at least in my perception, the CCC’s understanding of ‘objective disorder’, ‘moral disorder’, ‘intrinsic disorder’. It appears to equate heterosexual disorder with homosexuality, but now introduces a new term: ‘accidental disorder’ vis-a-vis ‘intrinsic disorder’.

This document tries its best to separate the disordered inclination from the person. It equates or states that “other inclinations can be disordered, such as those that lead to envy, malice or greed.” This equation is theologically astounding on the face of it, as intemperance is in no-wise similar to an “objective disorder”.

It appears to me that the document’s purpose was to soften the CCC’s apparent ‘harshness’, while maintaining the Church’s Tradition. The document is personalist and phenomenological in its philosophy, so it is frustrating from a scholastic view.

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

(Your digest of my position in post 202 is spot on. What I’ve been trying to do in these posts is explain my fear that the catechism does not allow a Roman Catholic homosexual to even think about wanting to pursue the “more than just sex” stuff–and that that fear is not ungrounded given the catechism’s explanations of both sexuality and homosexuality. Which would mean that the choice faced by a Roman Catholic homosexual is–be construed as faithful and give up any hope for actual requited intimacy in the process [which would represent a radical circumscription of a homosexual’s expression of their humanity]; or give up on Roman Catholicism and/or Christianity generally in order fully participate in the human adventure. Neither option is particularly good, it seems to me. But it looks like that’s the logic of the catechism.)

Under the Mercy!
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

I know that the Church is very, very reluctant to permit chaste, lifelong companionships for homosexuals. The leading caveats are ‘occasion of sin’, and ‘scandal given’. I don’t think the Church would ever openly state that homosexuals could pursue dating and building chaste relationships for the purpose of commitment. Since She sees homosexuality as disordered, She doesn’t want to be seen as countenancing any socially recognized ‘goodness’ in it. In my opinion, the Church would prefer that homosexuals stay in the closet, and not enter the public arena in any way. It is only because of the cultural shift in the last 25-30 years, that She has had to modify Her tone and outreach. Mark, please note the last quote in this post. What say you about this?

Edwin,

I think the following quote from the CCC adequately states what Mark and I have been presenting about the Church’s view on Sexuality. I think your definition is not in line with the CCC. Am I incorrect in my assumption?

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."142

maria_teresa

 

[maria_teresa]

Maybe we should start a movement among gay Christians to re-institute the affrerement and adelphopoeia rites and lay off marriage. I’d join it. A lovely article on the affrerement (which, Edwin, contains your criticisms of Boswell, by the way) can be found here: hnn.us/articles/42361.html

Mark and Edwin,

I believe this is already beginning to happen among some Catholic gays. Eve Tushnet in her Blog has spoken about commitment rites for same-sex couples in both the Medieval Catholic Church, and the Orthodox. She further states that the Orthodox continue to have that rite today. Eve is a convert to Catholicism from Judaism, and is an out, chaste lesbian. I believe she has a partner. She is an author and journalist.

eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/

John Heard from Australia is a Catholic who is chaste and gay. He is also an author and journalist.

johnheard.blogspot.com/

Perhaps, your thoughts that the Church would inevitably have to accommodate in some public way committed same-sex companionships is not off-base.

maria_teresa

 

[larkin31]

Mark and Edwin,

Gentlemen, what a wonderful discussion has ensued concerning this topic. I’ve been edified by the temperance, courtesy, and dispassionate reasoning in your posts. It appears the Catholic Church, especially in the U.S., is at great pains to explain the CCC to the faithful or priests. Several documents have been released by the USCCB regarding homosexuality; the latest being Ministries to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care, released in November, 2006. This document is radically different in its presentation and in its theological/philosophical base.

www.usccb.org/doctrine/Ministry.pdf

This is a very interesting document. Thanks for posting it. I have learned about the RCC from it.

 

[StAnastasia]

To say science is the mediator of understanding is just plain wrong. Scientists have been wrong more on any given subjects in history than other sources time and time again. I hate it when people say, "listen to the scientists they know the truth "…

Poor Galileo; the Church was so right about the sun going around the earth…

 

[Stephen168]

Poor Galileo; the Church was so right about the sun going around the earth…

Too bad, he couldn’t scientifically prove he was right.

 

[larkin31]

Poor Galileo; the Church was so right about the sun going around the earth…

yep.

And anyone who doubts science sure should never see a medical doctor!

 

[StAnastasia]

Too bad, he couldn’t scientifically prove he was right.

I was merely riffing on the previous statement:

"Scientists have been wrong more on any given subjects in history than other sources time and time again. I hate it when people say, "listen to the scientists they know the truth ".

The same could be said of the church.

 

[Stephen168]

I was merely riffing on the previous statement:

"Scientists have been wrong more on any given subjects in history than other sources time and time again. I hate it when people say, "listen to the scientists they know the truth ".

The same could be said of the church.

So were scientists wrong before 1973 when they considered homosexuality a disorder; or are they wrong now that they don’t?

Is this even a social science question? A natural science question? A philosophical question? Or maybe go back 400 years when the same questions were being asked about the heavens and take a cheap shot at the church.

Or maybe give the author of the ‘previous statement’ some leeway considering the change in what scientist ‘know’ about homosexuality just 40 years ago.

 

[jmcrae]

Poor Galileo; the Church was so right about the sun going around the earth…

He was wrong about the Sun being the centre of the Universe - and he was wrong to want the Church to establish his heliocentric theory as a Dogma of the Church.