Grace & Peace!
Jack, your original post in this thread is heartbreaking, and it seems to me that much of the advice that you’ve received here is the rote recitation from a few folks who have mistaken citing a catechism for the formation of conscience and have, as a result, substituted dogma for compassion. Otherwise, they would not say what they have said, as well-meaning as it is.
But with that in mind, you should know that I am not a Roman Catholic and that I vehemently disagree with some of Rome’s moral teachings when it comes to sexuality. I will tell you why by paraphrasing James Alison’s critique of the current Roman stand on homosexuality and copying from a post I made in a different thread some time ago. I urge you to read Alison’s work for yourself. It can be found here:
jamesalison.co.uk/index.html . Here goes:
1–Original Sin: The Catholic idea of original sin maintains that nature is wounded but not destroyed. The process of salvation, therefore, involves not a replacement of nature, but a transformation of nature, particularly in the area of will and desire. The more “reformed” or classically protestant view of original sin is more forensic–man’s nature is entirely corrupt, no good can come from it and it must be entirely destroyed and replaced or covered over.
2–Desire as a Good Thing–the Witness of Experience: Given the Catholic view of original sin, the problem with desire is not so much that it is bad, but that it is misdirected as a consequence of original sin. A person with heterosexual desire can channel that desire towards promiscuity, abusiveness, sexual violence–or toward loving commitment to a spouse, the building up of family, etc. Heterosexual desire, therefore, while suffering the effects of the fall (as evidenced by the fact that poor behavior can arise from it) can nonetheless bring forth good fruit–chief of which is loving commitment–and contribute to the flourishing of the couple involved.
3–Homosexuality–Objective Disorder?: If homosexual desire is objectively disordered, as the current teaching claims, then the witness of experience should show that it is impossible for a homosexual relationship (including homosexual acts) to bring forth good fruit (i.e. loving commitment). This would mean one of two things:a) that homosexual desire represents a special case of original sin which, unlike other desires, cannot be reformed by grace but must be destroyed, suppressed or covered over (though this would contradict the fundamental catholic teaching on original sin) and no good fruit nor any sort of human flourishing can come of it; or b) homosexuality is a subset of heterosexual desire–in which case, the witness of experience should be able to prove that heterosexual desire can consistently, permanently, and without violence or coercion, arise from homosexuals. In other words, there should be evidence and it should be conclusive.
4–The Alternative–homosexuality is its own thing: The evidence supporting position 3b does not exist, however, and the position advocated by 3a is anti-catholic. Moreover, the witness of experience does indeed suggest that homosexual relationships are capable of producing good fruit and human flourishing, further refuting that position. Additionally, church teaching itself, probably based on the witness of experience, seems to concede that homosexual desire is its own thing (not a heterosexual subset). Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is simply part of who some people are. The teaching against homosexual acts largely derives from two a priori perspectives: a) tradition condemns homosexual acts; b) the judgment prejudicing the procreative function of sex over the unitive. But in both cases (as follows from something determined a priori), the witness of experience (i.e. is there evidence for human flourishing, is there evidence that good fruit can be produced) is entirely ignored. In other words, a morality which arises from an a priori position rather than lived experience or evidence does not take human flourishing into account and can, therefore, actually become an evil or a hindrance to that flourishing.
Notice that in considering the moral worth of heterosexuality or homosexuality, the consideration is: can it bear good fruit? Does it lead to human flourishing? Sexual morality is not so much about which acts are proscribed and which are not, but about what behaviors contribute to human flourishing, to human relationships which bear good fruit, and what do not.
The bottom line is this, Jack: God is not a villain. Your sexuality is not a trial, a punishment, a burden, a cross to bear or a test. Like the rest of us, you are wounded by sin, so your sexuality can be misused. It can be abused. But it is not sin. Nor is it a disorder. It is not a stain on your soul. In fact, your sexuality is a good gift from the good God who made you and loves you and wants for you the goodness, joy and love which is nothing less than himself.
Granted, Jack, you have a hard road ahead of you. If you’re gay, it’s not a particularly easy life all the time. But that’s not God’s fault. Nor is it your own. And you don’t need to make things harder on yourself by insisting that you must destroy what you are in order to be accepted by God or his church. That is not just a hard road, but an impossible one. You do not need to be heterosexual in order to be a Christian, in order to love God, or in order for God to love you. God loves his gay and lesbian children! He does not demand that they abolish, destroy, maim, twist, abuse or injure their sexuality in order to be beloved! And I refuse to believe that he demands of them the abandonment of all hope of intimacy and relationship with someone they genuinely love and who loves them in return. Again, God is not a villain.
And neither, Jack, are you!
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!
