The teaching of the Church is based on Scripture, Tradition and Natural Law - and these considerations all point in the same direction. It is wrong to say they are merely some “notions from antiquity” and some “interpretation of Moral Law”.
Were the Church to indeed revisit its sexual morality teaching, what outcomes would be necessary such that it “embraces what [you] feel is inherent to [your] wants, desires, and fulfillment”? * Would it be that:
- marriage legitimacy does not depend on the sex of the partners?
- sexual acts between loving persons are always OK (regardless of marriage or sex of the partners)?
- would it be that a new sexual union, not marriage, be instituted by the Church, notwithstanding the absence of any basis for it in the Word of God of the teaching of his Church?
I don’t understand how you believe what you seek could ever stand together with the whole of the Catholic Faith. What theology or what elements of the faith can support it?*
I do not think there is good reason to say that Sacred Scripture and Tradition are against homosexual relationships in themselves simply because these sources at different times assume different understandings of homosexual behavior. Paul simply did not regard homosexuality as a distinct sexual orientation, as the other ancients did not. What he said was not wrong; it is true today as it was then. Homosexual behavior was a very good indicator to him and others of sexual excess that anyone could fall into. There simply was no classification of gay or straight. That gay behavior condemned in ancient Christian texts cannot simply be applied to committed, monogamous homosexual relationships is indicated by the fact of what homosexual activity looked like then: often pederasty and often promiscuous activity sought after by married men (married to women).
Rather, I think it is better to say that the Church has assumed traditional notions of gay behavior as wrong, has applied a specific interpretation of natural moral law to this homosexuality and all of its sexual ethics, and then applied all of this to more modern concepts of committed homosexual relationships. There has never been just one single “natural moral law” theory in the Church. The idea of a universal, objective moral law is very Christian. But what is contained in this law and the methods of figuring that out have not always been clear.
The Church of course would have to understand its sexual morality differently. Often traditional sexual morality has been criticized as very physicalist. Something is immoral in the sexual act when the parts don’t go together as they should. But in other cases of Catholic morality, we do not simply look at the physical act alone. For example, killing is not in itself wrong. You have to take into account intention and circumstances. I think a good argument could be made that opening up to homosexual relationships could in fact bring many people closer to Christ and could be good for the person. Saying that what people intensely feel – their desires to be happy and intimate – are disordered can lead people away from the Church in order for them to find this kind of expression elsewhere. I don’t think the one-size-fits-all approach to sexual morality that we have today in the Church works well.
