Grace & Peace!
Thanks…whew! I’m a graduate student and ended up sleeping for about 5 days after exams.
Welcome back!
I’ve never even implied that ALL homosexuals do is have sex. I don’t know where you’re getting this idea. Of course, two people can be romantically involved without jumping on each other…to think otherwise is to reduce human beings to animals.
I’m sorry if I wrongly imputed the assumption to you. It’s a common assumption made during the course of hashing out this topic.
That said…orthodox Catholic morality would probably place the situation you outlined (a romantic date between two men or two women) as potentially problematic in these ways:
- it can be a near occasion of sin
- it can give scandal to others, especially if the individuals profess to be practicing Christians
Any situation is potentially problematic. Any occasion can prove a near occasion of sin. Anything can become scandalous. What makes the difference in all of this is: context and relationship A heterosexual Roman Catholic man and woman out on a romantic date are also in danger of encountering a near occasion of sin, and are courting potential scandal. It is not, however, construed as immoral, nor is it generally subject to either condemnation or censorious attitudes. It is understood that the couple must remain chaste, and that their relationship with each other must be mediated by their common desire for each other’s good, and for their intimacy together to be loving, virtuous, and chaste. Somehow, though, the situation of two homosexuals on a romantic date consitutes a greater degree of closeness to a near occasion of sin, suggesting that a homosexual couple’s relationship to chastity is somehow more difficult to navigate or embody by virtue of their homosexuality. Which only goes to re-enforce my reading of the catechism that suggests that homosexuals, in the eyes of Rome, have a radically compromised relational capacity–
all of their relationships tend to be wrong.
Now, as to the statement in bold above: How are we “oceans” apart? A Catholic with same-sex attractions has a particular cross to bear. I have different crosses to bear. We are both called to chastity and subjugating our will to God’s will…not the other way around.
We’re oceans apart because a homosexual who desires chaste romantic intimacy is seen as desiring or indulging his or her disorder, which desire can therefore be construed as sin. Therefore, he or she should not desire chaste romantic intimacy. A heterosexual, however, is allowed to have such a desire. This goes beyond the need for chastity–this is an actual circumscription of the homosexual’s expression of their humanity and a logic consequence of the belief (enshrined in the catechism) that a homosexual’s sexuality is irreparably broken.
So…if there is no such thing as homosexual marriage in the Catholic Church (or even in “reality”, as I have previously explained) …*WHY *would two homosexual Catholics need to go on a “date”?
Because homosexuals have needs for such intimacy, arising from *the basic fact of their humanity. *Even if sacramental marriage is denied homosexuals, must it follow that romantic intimacy should also be denied them? Even the dogs are allowed to eat the crumbs that fall from the table–in the absence of a homosexual’s ability to marry, are they also to be denied the crumb of a simple date?
Moreover, I find it disturbing that marriage must be construed as the end of all intimate romantic relationships. This suggests that such intimacy is impossible or immoral outside of marriage. I would argue it the other way 'round: that because of the sacrament of marriage and what it means–what it symbolizes in terms of God’s relationship with his people and with the entirety of creation represented by the new creation, the Church–*all romantic and intimate relationships receive and have value and are capable of virtue even if they do not lead to marriage. *Which is to say that even chaste, intimate, romantic homosexual relationships have value because they share in the charism of marriage by virtue of their chastity. I feel that this is what the catechism
wants to say or is even
trying to say when it ends the section on homosexuality with a note on chastity and when it discusses marriage as the supreme instance of chastity, but with all of the language of disorder, the message becomes unrecognizably distorted if not impossible to actually articulate.
No, but you seem to think scripture supports your beliefs regarding homosexuality, and claiming that one can be simultaneously a practicing Christian and an actively, physically homosexual person can give scandal to some. This is very problematic for us so-called “Romans”.
If one looks at all of the references to homosexuality in scripture, one will discover (as the catechism reveals) that homosexuality qua homosexuality is not discussed, but certain actions are proscribed–actions occuring within certain contexts (cult sex/idolatry and commercial sexual transactions) and most likely specifically anal sex regardless of context. I don’t think that interpretation is either scandalous or without academic support–nor do I believe that it is actually at odds with the catechism’s understanding of the treatment of homosexuality in scripture.
But before I respond to you in greater depth here, I need to ask–when you say “actively, physically homosexual” what exactly do you mean? I don’t want to assume that you’re just talking about sex (which is what you seem to be talking about).
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace & Mercy! Deo Gratias!
