Grace & Peace!
That is my point. It is very fundamental. Again, no matter the cause homosexuals want to engage in the act. They are not listening. At that point they lack the grace to open their hearts and minds to God.
What language here do not you not like?
Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care
I think it’s time to really look at some points fundamental to this issue.
1–I’ve mentioned this before and I’ll mention it again–much of what’s at issue here has to do with power: the relationship of gender to power as well as how sex and sexuality perform or demonstrate power. The question ultimately is: what is the in-group and who should be
fundamentally disenfranchised so that the in-group can remain powerful?
2–The question of desire–can any good come of desire, or is desire
fundamentally corrupt. If we believe, as the Roman Church specifically and the Catholic Church generally has believed for centuries, that nature is wounded but not destroyed, we cannot then believe that our desires are
fundamentally corrupt. The poison of sin cannot have totally destroyed our wills, otherwise
grace could find no purchase there and we would be incapable
even with grace to choose the good.
If our wills are not totally corrupt, we cannot readily assent to a language of
objective or intrinsic disorder when speaking of desire. Because if it is possible for desire to be
objectively disordered then it is
impossible to trust *any *movement of a will so afflicted. An
objectively disordered desire must indicate
an irreparably broken will. An irreparably broken will is impervious to grace–for such a one, salvation is impossible.
If we insist, therefore, on using such language as
objectively disordered to describe desire, we must be surprised to discover when such desire produces, by grace, the good fruit of the Spirit in a person in whom that desire is present.
In short, to say that a homosexual’s desire is
objectively disordered is to say that they simply
cannot will properly. Which is to say (with OtherEric on this thread, I believe) that
any desire a homosexual has is
improper. If the Roman Church can agree with this sentiment, then she is being consistent. If not, then she has a problem she must solve.
We can desire wrongly, yes, but our faculty of desire cannot be objectively disordered (see Ryan’s post above)–otherwise, we could not desire rightly. Homosexuality is disordered only insofar as one believes that sexuality is heterosexual by default–in which case conversion therapy should produce demonstrably consistent, frequent, abundant and permanent transformations. It does not. Homosexuality is not a defective heterosexuality. Heterosexuals and homosexuals must both learn to desire responsibly.
3–I think a study of the Roman Church’s laws regarding concubinage would be useful here when we discuss the reality of marriage today. Before Trent, a man was permitted a concubine or a wife–which is to say that
the Roman Church allowed a man and woman to have sex who were not husband and wife. Why? The issue was largely social and/or romantic. A free man could not marry a slave, but he could have her as his concubine, for instance. What does this have to do with marriage? It re-enforces the point that
marriage has, until recently, been a socially-oriented institution. Marriage was for the creation of dynasties, legacies, the maintenance and strengthening of inheritances. It was not so much for the breeding and care of children as much as it was for the maintenance of a legacy through those children. You could have a concubine and have children too, but those children inherited nothing. They were considered little more than bastards. But with a concubine, you could at least be with the one with whom you were in love, or at least to whom you were greatly attracted. Rarely did one marry for love or romance.
We cannot, therefore, claim with the same certainty of our ancestors that we know what traditional marriage is. We do not. A true defense of traditional marriage would be largely seen as appalling to most who, today, claim to defend it. I know an Anglican priest who would basically chuckle when candidates for marriage spoke to him about exchanging rings. Why, he would wonder, would a man in a traditional marriage accept a ring from his wife? The symbolism is all wrong–in traditional marriage, the ring is a reminder that the
wife is the property of the man–the woman cannot claim her husband in the same way.
Which brings all of this back to the issue of power and gender–the issue that I continue to believe is at the heart of all of this.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!
