Homosexuals and celibacy

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, while we certainly agree that our sexuality has everything to do with our relational capacity, where we continue to disagree is in determining the difference between a sexual ethics based principally on choosing the right object of desire and a sexual ethics based principally on evaluating the quality of relationship desired.

More than challenging me, you’re challenging the CCC, and you’re arguing separate points, rather than seeing the theology of sexuality in that document as an integrated whole, which it is. And the integity of that theology is also based on the wholeness of Catholic philosophy. Were you thoroughly educated in Catholic philosophy? You call yourself an “Anglo-Catholic,” so I’m not sure if you’ve converted from Anglicanism, or what that means, and what that education entailed. But Catholic theology, proceeding from Catholic philosophy, springs from the wholeness of the human person, and how male and female are each only one-half of the image of God which is transparent in humanity as an integrated whole. It is not possible to truly understand the full picture of the Church’s position on human sexuality without accepting that the expression of complete human matrimonial, unitive love resides in that between a man and a woman, and that sexual acts apart from that complementary unity are not what is “ordered” in Divine law. Sexualizing a same-gender friendship does not render it matrimonial, or unitive, or an image of God’s completeness.

You are using secular argumentation to oppose a system of thought which does not proceed from the same assumptions. By definition, the object desired is one thing that defines essentially the quality of the relationship, in Catholic thought.

You see [the RCC sees] homosexuality as a mark of woundedness–essentially, a homosexual is a crippled or confused heterosexual. You [the Roman Catholic Church] come to this conclusion because you [the RCC] believe homosexuals desire wrongly, therefore their desire mechanism must be impaired. To you, [to the RCC] the impairment is inevitably related to a lack of a certain quality of relationship in the homosexual’s formative years. Every relationship in which a homosexual engages will naturally be a frustrated attempt in the present to restore or recover something that was missing in a relationship in the past. These relationships are neccessarily inappropriate because they can never recapture what was lost, principally because they are going about it in the wrong way: they keep choosing the wrong sexual object. This is how I read your position.

And it probably comes as no surprise that I disagree with the fundamental premise–that homosexual desire, because it is aimed toward people of the same sex, is necessarily wounded or broken. I am clearly and openly in disagreement with the catechism over this given the conclusions that must inevitably drawn and which I’ve indicated in my post above.

No kidding.

Moreover, if a homosexual is just a broken heterosexual, non-coercive conversion therapy should yield a demonstrably consistent high rate of success. It does not. Nor does the catechism recommend it, which it should given its understanding of sexuality as naturally heterosexual and its understanding of homosexuality as naturally disordered.

The CCC is not mainly a practical manual. It is mainly a theoretical document, setting forth principles and essential specifics flowing from those principles. You will also not find there: a full spirituality of the Ordained Life, the Married Life, or the Consecrated Life; nor a full practical manual of prayer, nor an entire catechesis in systematic theology, nor a comprehensive manual for pastoral ministry (lay or clerical). Yet lots of spiritual and pastoral and family resources are available through many Catholic resources (books, Catholic electronic media, parish conferences, lay retreats, and more). Because the CCC is not The Summa does not mean that these other Catholic sources do not recommend non-coercive but long-term therapy to uncover woundedness. I posted that elsewhere, on this thread or another.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Also, from a moral perspective, if a homosexual orientation were indeed intrinsically disordered (which is to say, completely broken), there should be evidence that all homosexual relationships are incapable of producing or fostering virtue.

Not logically connected. The pilgrim is capable of virtue, indeed even the non-believer is capable of virtue, even while also not acknowledging God and/or not acknowledging a sinful state, or pursuing any fundamentally disordered state – such as a life of crime, such as an addictive habit such as drug use, etc. There are exceptional prisoners who have shown heroic, self-sacrificial virtue. There are domestic abusers and those engaging in incest who are virtuous toward others (other family members, other non-family members). I’ve had wonderfully righteous and healthfully close non-physical relationships with females, which have encouraged virtue in each other and in the relationship. But those relationships are incomplete compared to my relationship with my husband. They are in a different, more limited category than a convenantal relationship between man and woman, which mirrors the convenant between God and humankind.

And nowhere has the Church declared that active homosexuals are incapable of virtue or show “no” virtue in their relationships. It has declared that the “unitive” aspects of those relationships are mere mimicry of the heterosexual relationship. Men can have productive, spiritually and emotionally fruitful relationships with other men: those are called friendships and they foster virtue and produce virtue.

I’m flattered at the indirect equation, but I am not a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (It’s interesting that you ascribe all this theology to me, when you should be raising your objections with the CDF.)

 

[Elizabeth502]

thank you for posting JRE’s text. But there are some assumptions made in it that are common and, I think, erroneous:

Deep seated homosexual tendencies (this means more than same-sex attractions. This is a person who identifies himself or herself as gay). When this becomes your identity, then there is a very serious problem here. Heterosexuals do not identify themselves as heterosexuals. They identify themselves as males and females.

Do you deny that heterosexuals primarily identify themselves as males and females, or even as “priest,” “parent,” “teacher,” “clergy,” “layman,” or yet still “American,” “Canadian,” etc.? Gender, occupation, role, or nationality is a far more common identifier among heterosexuals than is “heterosexual.” Absolutely the only time I have ever heard a heterosexual volunteer a self-identifer as “straight” is in a Personals Ad (looking for social connections, romance). By contrast, most homosexuals who are not living discreetly minding their own business but have “come out” and want the world apparently to know about that, feel compelled to identify themselves as “gay,” including when not relevant to the context, such as not pertaining to social life. Merely the primary self-identification as a “sexual orientation” shows a preoccupation, and an imbalanced understanding of The Self. That in itself is disordered. And the last contexts in which that self-descriptor should be in the forefront of one’s consciousness are in the Roman Catholic priesthood, the Roman Catholic seminary, and the consecrated life. It is not a “trick of language” when it emanates from the speaker, but rather a revelation of how the speaker sees himself relative to all of humanity, in an occupation which is to serve all of humanity without particular reference to sexuality – his, or that of those he serves.

Most people who identify as gay do, in fact, see themselves as whole people.

Then they should stop describing themselves primarily as one narrow facet of a person.

This should not be surprising. For the most part, however, these people are capable of seeing themselves as whole because they do not see heterosexuality as necessary for wholeness

It is not that ‘heterosexuality is necessary for wholeness’ in the priesthood, as a celibate male, but that the ability to see oneself as (instead) primarily a creature of God and as relating to all of humanity without regard to anybody’s sexual preference (including one’s own) is essential for impartial service and universally embracing love. Someone who is fixated on sexuality, so much so as to identify that way, is not fixated on the impulse to a universal love which is the mark of religious life, including the priestly vocation.

For a more thorough context for JR’s posts, I believe they were posted here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=446153

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

this is what the catechism does by describing both the act and the inclination as either intrinsically or objectively disordered–which is to say that no expression of it can yield virtue.

Pardon me if this is an oversimplification of or off tangent from what you raised.

This part of your post reminded me of what Peter Kreeft touched on in one of his talks, after he was challenged by an ardent homosexual activist:

fidelity in marriage = a virtue
fidelity in a homosexual “marriage” = ??

The latter is better than gays living the promiscuous lifestyle, of course, but it is the relationship with, the physical desire for the same sex, that is intrinsically or objectively disordered. Fidelity in this context is nice and touching, but the relationship itself renders the virtue, well, virtue-less.

Such a relationship also affects the propriety of parenting / adoption. A practicing homosexual could be the most sincere loving person as a sibling or other family member, the best neighbor and co-worker, an exemplary, law-abiding citizen in all respects. But he/she does not teach virtue by insisting in raising a child as though homosexuality is a non-issue.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

Pardon me if this is an oversimplification of or off tangent from what you raised.

This part of your post reminded me of what Peter Kreeft touched on in one of his talks, after he was challenged by an ardent homosexual activist:

fidelity in marriage = a virtue
fidelity in a homosexual “marriage” = ??

The latter is better than gays living the promiscuous lifestyle, of course, but it is the relationship with, the physical desire for the same sex, that is intrinsically or objectively disordered. Fidelity in this context is nice and touching, but the relationship itself renders the virtue, well, virtue-less.

Such a relationship also affects the propriety of parenting / adoption. A practicing homosexual could be the most sincere loving person as a sibling or other family member, the best neighbor and co-worker, an exemplary, law-abiding citizen in all respects. But he/she does not teach virtue by insisting in raising a child as though homosexuality is a non-issue.
,

These are good points. In my reply to Deo Volente, I did tackle to some degree the subject of virtue, but not enough. But what you say about virtue is certainly implied in the Church’s teaching on the married state vs. the pretend-married state. When we are living in a sanctified lifestyle (and are genuinely trying to meet those demands), our practice of virtue within that lifestyle has a further sanctification aspect to it. But we can’t transfer that to just any lifestyle, particularly one forbidden by divine law. In my example of female Platonic friendships, we have practiced, and still practice, the virtues necessary and optimal to sustain friendship, but had we sexualized those friendships, our friendship would not take on a “higher” or “deeper” character just because we proclaim it so, against natural and divine law. Instead, we would have corrupted the essential nature of that boundary-mandated relationship – mandated by the fact that we are of the same gender. Natural boundaries are there for a reason: they protect our inner core from spiritual degradation. Similarly (and although homosexuality is not incest), we corrupt the sanctity and integrity of the parent-child relationship if we cross that radical boundary and sexualize the relationship. Natural boundaries have a spiritual import.

There are dozens of inappropriate attractions in the spiritual life; they also could degrade the soul of anyone yielding to their influence. Some of them are physical, some psychological, some spiritual. Attraction is not a mandate or an imperative, nor does resisting an attraction cripple someone psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, intellectually.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Elizabeth502:

More than challenging me, you’re challenging the CCC, and you’re arguing separate points, rather than seeing the theology of sexuality in that document as an integrated whole, which it is.

I realize I’m challenging the CCC on this. I also realize that the system of sexual morality that the CCC explicates is of a piece. Though I don’t think the pieces in this regard hang together as nicely as it’s adherents would like–which is to say, I think the ramifications of its logic are unacceptable to a catholic Christian view of sin and grace–inexplicably, the catechism’s position subtly advocates for a classically protestant way of thinking about sin. Perhaps we’ll be able to get into more detail later.

Elizabeth502:

You call yourself an “Anglo-Catholic,” so I’m not sure if you’ve converted from Anglicanism, or what that means, and what that education entailed.

I am indeed an Anglo-Catholic. Not a Roman Catholic.

Elizabeth502:

male and female are each only one-half of the image of God which is transparent in humanity as an integrated whole.

This seems to speak to The Symposium more than Genesis. I can see how you might infer this from the first creation account, but the second does not lead in this direction at all–woman is made from man to be a helpmeet, not to express another half of the image of God which was fully present in the original man. This is not to say that the image is not fully present in the woman, too. But the account does not suggest that male and female are two “halves” of the divine image. But perhaps you’re referencing one of the old traditions that Adam was a hermaphrodite? Or perhaps you’re referencing the “becoming one flesh” verses? They seem very clearly to point to the sex act, not to a notion that male and female are two halves of the divine image.

Is it possible to conceive of sexual difference in a less biologically literalistic way (and thus avoid some of the pitfulls of this literalism when it comes to infertility or biological “defects”)? I refer to Gerard Loughlin’s essay “God’s Sex” in the reader Radical Orthodoxy:
“This thinking of sexual difference is indeed already present in both Barth and Balthasar as the relationship of donation, reception and return; but it needs to be thought more radically, as that which establishes sexual difference, so that whether it plays between Father and Son, man and man, woman and woman, or woman and man, it remans…always constitutive of (hetero)sexual difference. …For truly in Christ there is no male and female, only the reciprocation of bodies: beautiful parodies of the trinitarian donation.”
Something to think about, at any rate.

Elizabeth502:

Sexualizing a same-gender friendship does not render it matrimonial, or unitive, or an image of God’s completeness.

Merely sexualizing a relationship, same gender or no, doesn’t render it anything particularly special. But sex which is truly a sign of the unitive, a sign of mutual self-giving, an enactment of that self-giving, does indeed image God’s completeness. You would say that same-sex relationships either cannot bear the sign, cannot bear out what the sign means, or cannot trace it acurately enough to be recognized as such. I would say that whether or not a relationship can bear the sign is not necessarily an issue of gender.

(And before we go further, please know that nowhere am I arguing for sacramental marriage for gay folks. I would rather argue for the long-neglected afrerement ceremonies in that regard, but not for gay marriage.)

Elizabeth502:

By definition, the object desired is one thing that defines essentially the quality of the relationship, in Catholic thought.

I’ll agree with you here, but only with this caveat: that sex is not, fundamentally, about desiring a body at all, but about a mutual movement, in love, toward a different goal entirely. It is the nature of that movement, that mutuality, and that aspiration, which determines the quality of the (sexual) relationship. With that caveat in place, yes, I agree with you here.

Elizabeth502:

The CCC is not mainly a practical manual.

Quite frequently, however, it is rather free with its advice…

But your response doesn’t quite touch on the central issue I was bringing up: if a homosexual is just a broken heterosexual, non-coercive conversion therapy should yield a demonstrably consistent high rate of success. But it does not.

Perhaps homosexuality is simply a non-pathological minority variant of human sexuality and not a broken heterosexuality?

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED)

Elizabeth502:

Not logically connected. The pilgrim is capable of virtue, indeed even the non-believer is capable of virtue, even while also not acknowledging God and/or not acknowledging a sinful state, or pursuing any fundamentally disordered state – such as a life of crime, such as an addictive habit such as drug use, etc.

Perhaps here we can get into that sin stuff I mentioned earlier.

The catechism states that sexuality is integral to the wholeness of the human person. It goes on to state that sexuality concerns “the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.” I think it would be fair to take the catechism at face value here–sexuality concerns how we are in communion with others. Naturally, these “others” are primarily other people, but I do not believe the catechism posits the existence of a different faculty or faculties which deal with communion with objects, animals, God, etc. In a fundamental way, our sexuality concerns our capacity to relate.

Which is also to say, that it concerns our capacity to desire. We may desire rightly or wrongly, and whether or not we do so has everything to do with whether or not we are in the right relationship with the things that we desire either rightly or wrongly. We are capable of desiring wrongly because our nature is wounded, though not destroyed, by sin. Our sexuality is naturally a victim of this woundedness. And it is God’s grace which enters the wound and begins to heal it, our wounded capacity for grace still allows us to see, recognize and cooperate by grace with grace in order to desire rightly as we grow in sanctification and come into right relationship with others/the Other.

But catholic tradition stops short of describing our faculty of desire as being fundamentally, objectively, or intrinsically broken. Why? Because that would suggest a more forensic role for grace–that it finds no purchase in any of our faculties and must renovate them entirely. Grace must be the blanket of snow covering our irreparably broken natures. This is a protestant view of sin and grace.

But, strangely, it is precisely this view which obtains when discussing homosexuality–a homosexual inclination is indicative of a sexuality that is either objectively or intrinsically disordered–that is, incapable of being in right relationship with anything, really. Any virtue of which a homosexual would normally be capable is subject to the poison of his or her disorder which naturally affects his or her relationship with virtue itself (see above). And, moreover, the catechism seems to treat the disorder as terminal. Again–this is a view of sin and grace which is contrary to catholic tradition. It is basically untenable in a catholic context. But that’s the catechism’s logic. That’s what it says.

Elizabeth502:

But those relationships are incomplete compared to my relationship with my husband. They are in a different, more limited category than a convenantal relationship between man and woman, which mirrors the convenant between God and humankind.

It saddens me to read this. Is it not possible that the virtues of your non-marriage relationships are not separate from the virtues of your marriage, but extensions of it? In this way, your friendship relationships remain a living-out of your marriage, sharing in and enlightened by the graces of your marriage. Is that such a horrible way of looking at things?

And is it not possible that all relationships share (to greater or lesser degrees) in the graces and virtues of marriage because God has chosen the New Creation for his Bride? Do not all relationships participate in the goodness of this relationship which is a special reflection of the primordial trinitarian relationship?

I think marriage is exceptional, but I do not thereby believe in a spirit of marriage exceptionalism.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

Elizabeth502:

It has declared that the “unitive” aspects of those relationships are mere mimicry of the heterosexual relationship.

Are not all relationships (some in more special ways than others) “beautiful parodies” (to use Loughlin’s phrase) of the Trinity?

Elizabeth502:

Do you deny that heterosexuals primarily identify themselves as males and females, or even as “priest,” “parent,” “teacher,” “clergy,” “layman,” or yet still “American,” “Canadian,” etc.? Gender, occupation, role, or nationality is a far more common identifier among heterosexuals than is “heterosexual.”

I don’t know why I would deny your first sentence, and I think most homosexuals so identify as well (context is everything!). But, regarding your second sentence, it is because a heterosexual identifying as heterosexual in a heteronormative culture is largely redundant. It’s like saying, “I have internal organs” in a culture in which people having internal organs is pretty much de rigeur.

Elizabeth502:

By contrast, most homosexuals who are not living discreetly minding their own business but have “come out” and want the world apparently to know about that, feel compelled to identify themselves as “gay,” including when not relevant to the context, such as not pertaining to social life.

Many people so identify because of a sense of honesty. They are conscious that people will not be particularly fond of them by so identifying (they may even say that they’re being indiscreet!), and for the sake of attempting to have honest relationships, they are up-front about this. As I mentioned previously, when mainstream culture predominantly and implicitly (or explicitly) celebrates the normativity of heterosexual desire, saying “I am gay,” is basically a statement of, “I do not identify with the vocabulary of desire that passes as normative.” It is not even specifically a comment on bedroom habits. Though I suppose that the whiff of indgination present in your quotation above comes from an assumption that “the bedroom” is basically what such a statement is concerned with. It is not.

Elizabeth502:

Merely the primary self-identification as a “sexual orientation” shows a preoccupation, and an imbalanced understanding of The Self. That in itself is disordered.

A quotation by Oscar Wilde comes to mind: “Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.” Which is to say that a mention of one’s sexual orientation (which is a beautiful and important part of our humanity) is not a preoccupation with it, let alone (and particularly on its own), an indication of imbalance. All these things you mention are ways of reading the information, and they are based in certain a priori assumptions. If they are evidence of imbalance, I am tempted to say that the imbalance lies in the interpreter, not the text…

I am enjoying our conversation, Elizabeth. I’m glad you took the time to respond.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

This part of your post reminded me of what Peter Kreeft touched on in one of his talks, after he was challenged by an ardent homosexual activist:
fidelity in marriage = a virtue
fidelity in a homosexual “marriage” = ??
The latter is better than gays living the promiscuous lifestyle, of course, but it is the relationship with, the physical desire for the same sex, that is intrinsically or objectively disordered. Fidelity in this context is nice and touching, but the relationship itself renders the virtue, well, virtue-less.

Thanks for your post, InSearch. I don’t know if you intend to emphasize my point, but you sure have succeeded!

What you are saying is this: virtue in a homosexual relationship is ineffectual. Fidelity is only a good in such a relationship for presumably public health reasons, but it cannot yield any spiritual benefits. Homosexuals might as well be or remain promiscuous for all the good (none!) which fidelity (or any other virtue!) gets them. This is, indeed, the view of the catechism which you have nicely articulated/encapuslated.

It is a frankly monstrous view.

But it does bring up the crux of the issue which I will state somewhat impolitely as our politenesses seem not to be going to the heart of the matter: either homosexuals are fundamentally traitors to nature (as seems to have been the consensus from the Middle Ages) or they are not. To recast their treachery in terms of disorder and disease is less a kindness than simple dishonesty if the underlying assumption remains that homosexuals are indeed traitors to nature. If they are not, a language of disorder and disease to talk about it is disingenuous and retrogressive. Either they are traitors to nature or they are not.

A practicing homosexual could be the most sincere loving person as a sibling or other family member, the best neighbor and co-worker, an exemplary, law-abiding citizen in all respects.

Given what you’ve already written, do you really believe that such a homosexual person is actually possible? Either they are traitors to their humanity, in which case only a show of virtue is possible for them (see your explanation of the Kreeft reference above), or they are not. Simple.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Elizabeth502]

The point, Deo Volente, is that a homosexual relationship is “monstrously ineffectual” when viewed from the reality of the artifice of the relationship. Yours is an understanding of relationships which has no definitions and no boundaries, it seems to me. It is not that virtue is contained only in the relationship between a man and a women, but that marital virtue is in respect to that. The key here, and this is why I asked you about your Roman Catholic understandings (because clearly in other respects you are highly educated, which by the way is a pleasure when it comes to discussion), is that the Roman Catholic understanding of the universe, and our relationship to God’s universe, has absolute categories within it. That does not mean that God is limited, that God does not ‘break through’ everywhere, that God does not contain all. Great thinkers, great mystics, and great literary artists have apprehended that, and expressed it, variously. But Roman Catholic thought does not embrace a relativistic view of relationships and definitions.

A Father may love his little daughter with emotional intimacy that in some respects exceeds the intimacy he has with close siblings of his, producing in him and in the daughter, virtue. But if he takes as some ‘sign’ of that valid, healthful, holy intimacy which mirrors God’s fatherly love for creation – an indication that he should physically consummate that intimacy, he has violated the purity of that bond. The sexualizing of it doesn’t make it “better,” “deeper,” or “higher.” It makes it disordered and toxifies the relationship, wounding the child, and ultimately himself as well.

The Roman Catholic Church believes that all order in the unvierse is interconnected, and that those absolute interconnections are to be respected, honored, revered. We don’t create a new cosmic ordering of the universe at will. Otherwise we make ourselves into illegitimate individual Gods. Our relationship with God, and with each other, “breaks” (temporarily) when we do violate the order that proceeds from God.

All relationships are opportunities for virtue, when those relationships remain ordered. And while they remain ordered, there is no limit to the virtue, growth, spirituality we can attain within their categories. When I compared my female friendships to my marriage, I did not mean that my friendships are “sort of” virtuous but that marriage is truly virtuous. I am describing different categories of relationships. We are called to the highest level of friendship possible, in all our relationships, including formal or professional ones. Some relationships even have a “sacred” character to them: teacher to student, for example. So when the respectful distance and professional care is exhibited in that relationship, virtue grows (on the part of the teacher) and is patterned for the student. That can be (occasionally is) a lifelong relationship.

 

[Elizabeth502]

either homosexuals are fundamentally traitors to nature (as seems to have been the consensus from the Middle Ages) or they are not. To recast their treachery in terms of disorder and disease is less a kindness than simple dishonesty if the underlying assumption remains that homosexuals are indeed traitors to nature. If they are not, a language of disorder and disease to talk about it is disingenuous and retrogressive. Either they are traitors to nature or they are not.

To commit treason is to engage in a willful act. If I refuse to indulge a disordered attraction of my own that I’m convinced I “have always had,” “was born with,” is “innate to me,” etc., am I a “traitor to my nature”? It seems to me that I am a traitor to my disordered inclination. Not all inclinations are imperatives, whether those inclinations are physical or psychological. Neither an attraction nor an inclination is a command, by itself. Our psyches and bodies are a mix of healthy and unhealthy inclinations, proclivities, attractions, and — I’ve noticed you’ve left out an important attribute of mankind — abilities or potentialities. What would be monstrous is if God did not provide us with any aids to sort out the good from the bad. He gave us faith, reason, an institutional Church bulging with spiritual resources; he gave us His word (scripture), and then his Word Incarnate (His Son).

To you, it seems, Nature is the absolute, not God. Or, to put it another way, man is little more than an animal with a brain and a way to communicate. He is supposedly bound by his lower (not higher, not potential) inclinations, and “must” obey those “commands” of nature. It’s a view of the cosmos far more naturalistic than is the Roman Catholic view.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This seems to speak to The Symposium more than Genesis. I can see how you might infer this from the first creation account, but the second does not lead in this direction at all–woman is made from man to be a helpmeet, not to express another half of the image of God which was fully present in the original man. This is not to say that the image is not fully present in the woman, too. But the account does not suggest that male and female are two “halves” of the divine image.

Correct. There is not the implication that a female is half of a full person, a male half of a full person. I apologize if my words implied that to you, or to anyone. We are each, fully, the image of God, an image of Him, an incomplete image (as opposed to an incomplete person ) due to the imperfections of each of us and the imperfections of human nature itself. The single heterosexual person who never marries is not an 'imcomplete human being." Again, apologies if that’s what was conveyed. But we were speaking about relationality. And corrupting God’s ordered universe does not render an incomplete relationship a complete one. When I say incomplete I do not refer to (again) imperfections in the friendship itself, nor defects in individual persons (because a non-sexual friendship may be higher and holier in its manifestation than a particular defective marital heterosexual relationship). I refer to the attempt to reorganize the universe according to arbitrary preference or apparent inclination. At the point at which the boundaries are exceeded, the borders of definitions (good, holy, virtuous, beautiful) themselves become corrupted and thus invalidate themselves.

Is it possible to conceive of sexual difference in a less biologically literalistic way (and thus avoid some of the pitfulls of this literalism when it comes to infertility or biological “defects”)?

No. It is not possible. Not in Roman Catholic thought, it’s not. Try not to overlap concepts. Radical gender difference is not in the same category as fertility or congenital biological defects. (Note that sexuality is highly complex and has never been proven to be “inborn.” Sexuality develops over time, and includes conscious and unconscious influences. The last thing it is, is strictly biological. Emotional, psychological, social, and physical components are all at play.)

I refer to Gerard Loughlin’s essay “God’s Sex” in the reader Radical Orthodoxy:
“This thinking of sexual difference is indeed already present in both Barth and Balthasar as the relationship of donation, reception and return; but it needs to be thought more radically, as that which establishes sexual difference, so that whether it plays between Father and Son, man and man, woman and woman, or woman and man, it remans…always constitutive of (hetero)sexual difference. …For truly in Christ there is no male and female, only the reciprocation of bodies: beautiful parodies of the trinitarian donation.”
Something to think about, at any rate.

I’m familiar with Karl Barth. Are you quoting Barth’s interpretation of Gal 3:28, or your own? Because if so, his understanding of that verse is misinformed, de-contextualized. This is of a piece with Paul’s salvation theology, not some anachronistic 20th-21st century worldview (theories of sexuality). Paul is discussing the economy of salvation, not some interchangeability of gender, let alone some obliteration of sexual complementariness.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Mark,

I don’t have your and Elizabeth’s eloquence, but let me respond to your post.

…

Thanks for your post, InSearch. I don’t know if you intend to emphasize my point, but you sure have succeeded!

What you are saying is this: virtue in a homosexual relationship is ineffectual. Fidelity is only a good in such a relationship for presumably public health reasons, but it cannot yield any spiritual benefits. Homosexuals might as well be or remain promiscuous for all the good (none!) which fidelity (or any other virtue!) gets them. This is, indeed, the view of the catechism which you have nicely articulated/encapuslated.

It is a frankly monstrous view.

But it does bring up the crux of the issue which I will state somewhat impolitely as our politenesses seem not to be going to the heart of the matter: either homosexuals are fundamentally traitors to nature (as seems to have been the consensus from the Middle Ages) or they are not. To recast their treachery in terms of disorder and disease is less a kindness than simple dishonesty if the underlying assumption remains that homosexuals are indeed traitors to nature. If they are not, a language of disorder and disease to talk about it is disingenuous and retrogressive. Either they are traitors to nature or they are not.
…

It seems I have succeeded in distilling the issue(s), although it is not meant to push the discussion to an impolite exchange. The view, which you regard as “frankly monstrous”, is coming from one who is unyielding to the argument that homosexual acts are disordered, as may be a matter of conviction to Anglo-Catholics, or some Anglo-Catholics.

Advocates of gay “marriage” wish the words “disorder” and “disease” erased in association with the homosexual condition. If I may point out, the Catholic Church has not used the word “disease,” at least not from anything that I have read on CC teachings on homosexuality. It is a word used in lay articles (such as in the DSM before homosexuality was removed as a disease in 1973) and by secular people. No official document has also described homosexuality as “treachery” to nature, which I think just inflames the discourse.

…

Given what you’ve already written, do you really believe that such a homosexual person is actually possible? Either they are traitors to their humanity, in which case only a show of virtue is possible for them (see your explanation of the Kreeft reference above), or they are not. Simple.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I don’t know if it is fruitful to lock horns on something that we are obviously in diametric opposition. I do not believe that the humanity of an individual is tied to his/her sexuality. The person who beds with another of the same sex in a faithful or not faithful arrangement has a life outside those hours in the day, has conscious thoughts outside the physically intimate embrace, no?

Hence, I believe that a practicing homosexual can be all the other things in my statement that you quoted. I am not saying it is a life without anxiety, but judging from how far gay couples have decided to be out in the open with the lifestyle, contrary to CC teachings or other religious and social mores in their upbringing, or what is lacking in their upbringing, it appears that living outside these mores are not a big deal to active homosexuals.

The thing is all of society does not have to come around to the active homosexual’s way of thinking which is sought by gay advocates. Does not current society allow homosexuals to live according to their personal beliefs? The CC, for one, does not get in the way of homosexuals, whether they are Catholic or not Catholic. Please don’t equate this, however, to the Church abandoning or changing time-held values and belief that she teaches on the subject.

To loop back to the OP, the celibate homosexual is not an anomaly or the suggestion an inhuman one. I do appreciate, however, that the call to heterosexuality in those who have deep-seated homosexual tendency may be next to impossible.

Peace and blessings,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I meant to add the underlined in my post:

Mark,
…
Hence, I believe that a practicing homosexual can be all the other things in my statement that you quoted. I am not saying it is a life without anxiety, but judging from how far gay couples have decided to be out in the open with the lifestyle, contrary to CC teachings or other religious and social mores in their upbringing, or what is lacking in their upbringing, it appears that living outside these mores are not a big deal to active homosexuals.

You brought up in Post #47 Oscar Wilde. Long gone are the days when one claims a love that dare not speak its name. Homosexual love now speaks its name. In fact, quite freely and openly.

The thing is all of society does not have to come around to the active homosexual’s way of thinking which is sought by gay advocates. Does not current society allow homosexuals to live according to their personal beliefs? The CC, for one, does not get in the way of homosexuals, whether they are Catholic or not Catholic. …

Peace and blessings,

 

[Hadrianus]

Deo Volente,

            I think you are reading a little too much into the CCC statement. In the first place the traditional Catholic teaching upon nature and grace takes priority to what is merely an explanation. I can say as a Roman Catholic that not all opinions which appear in church documents possess the same weight. In any doctrinal matter it is the specific object of the teaching which is Catholic doctrine; explanations around it can be time conditioned and even based upon mistakes. 

           All that said, one would have to look at the Latin text of the CCC before making any comment on a matter so serious as that which concerns Nature and Grace as these are after all dogmatic teachings even though very few Catholics are aware of them.

           The long history of Catholic thought has hardly considered what a homosexual orientation is. It's a modern term. The concept of sexuality is also modern, and is used in different ways by differrent people.  It would be interesting to see what the Latin version makes of this.

 

[Kolbe300]

Deo Volente does a great job putting into words that which I’ve been unable to. As someone who is “SSA” (I use that annoying term only to avoid a flood of assumptions about my bedroom behavior), there is a great struggle in understanding how the Church (and therefore God?) views me.

The Church teaches that our sexuality is an immensly vital and beautiful part of what makes us human. At the same time, the Church says that my sexuality is objectively disordered. It is completely and utterly broken. I strive to live Church teaching. Even were I to reach perfection in this living, I would still be considered broken, disordered. That is a sad thought.

As others have mentioned here, our sexuality is about relationship. At its core, our sexuality is a desire for love, for God. That desire can be expressed in many ways, most of which actually have nothing to do with sex. Yet somehow my sexuality, my desire to love, my desire for God, even when having nothing to do with sex, is objectively disordered. If my sexuality is a part of who I am and my sexuality is *objectively *disordered, then I am disordered. If that isn’t true (and I don’t believe it is), then the Catechism is wrong at worst or horribly misworded at best.

I don’t ask for gay marriage. I don’t ask for an acceptance of homosexual acts. What I do ask, the question only God can answer is this: why can’t my sexuality be beautiful too? Why, even in the midst of doing the right thing and fighting the good fight, must I still be broken?

Our psyches and bodies are a mix of healthy and unhealthy inclinations, proclivities, attractions…

This is true. Also true is that our sexuality can never be reduced to an inclination, a proclivity, or a simple attraction. Not even close. We can deny every unhealthy inclination our sexualities produce and our sexuality as a whole will remain. Living a chaste (and therefore celibate) life doesn’t make me straight. I’m still stuck with that objectively disordered sexuality.

Thankfully, in the depths of my heart, I don’t believe my sexuality is broken. I don’t even believe it’s disordered. In fact, I believe my sexuality is ordered toward a different and beautiful kind of love. It has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with Jesus. That’s why I embrace it.

Peace

 

[Elizabeth502]

At its core, our sexuality is a desire for love, for God. That desire can be expressed in many ways, most of which actually have nothing to do with sex. Yet somehow my sexuality, my desire to love, my desire for God, even when having nothing to do with sex, is objectively disordered.

No. One’s desire for God surpasses sex (the act and the comprehensive phenomenon of sexuality). God is way more than a physical & emotional love-object. He is beyond that.

If my sexuality is a part of who I am and my sexuality is *objectively *disordered, then I am disordered. If that isn’t true (and I don’t believe it is), then the Catechism is wrong at worst or horribly misworded at best.

Whether the catechism is “worded correctly” or not, you (a full self) cannot be reduced to your sexuality, any more than can someone who does not have SSA. You may believe that you can, but your belief, in that case, is in error. Secondly, sexuality (or more specifically, attraction) has no ‘mandate’ to be acted upon, no moral mandate, no spiritual mandate, no psychological mandate. Not acting on an attraction (whether that attraction is ordered or disordered) does not render one less whole, less loving and loveable, less desired by God, nor – if we have our sexuality in its correct place and not an artificially elevated place – does not acting on sexual attraction mean we should have or will have less of a desire for God. We have shadows in this lifetime of a unitive bond with God, and ultimately we hope to have that eternally, but that bond is not erotic in nature.

One may have an ordered attraction for food, but choose to deny oneself at a particular time or for a particular penance because one is fasting for spiritual reasons (self or others). There’s no diminishment of the “self” is such a decision. A priest may have an ordered attraction to love females, but his willful suspension of that attraction for the sake of a more inclusive celibate role, is also not a comment on his full personhood, desire for God, desirability by God. One aspect of the order of the universe is that our desires are to be subject to our wills.

Why, even in the midst of doing the right thing and fighting the good fight, must I still be broken?

We are all still struggling. When we cease needing to struggle – in any area – we’re ready for heaven. It is only our society that has artificially placed sexual expression at the apex of human existence and human definition. Heterosexuals who are practicing Catholics, who live their whole lives chastely, discovering perhaps that the only individuals they have loved happen to be sexually inaccessible to them (divorced, already married, for some other reason unavailable), struggle every bit as much with unfulfilled attraction. The difference is that most heterosexuals don’t dramatize the suffering.

Living a chaste (and therefore celibate) life doesn’t make me straight. I’m still stuck with that objectively disordered sexuality.

No. With an objectively disordered attraction. There’s no imperative to Get Physical with an attraction. Attraction serves many purposes, as does beauty. We don’t always need to ravage the beautiful and the desirable, assuming that unless we appropriate the desire to our genital impulses, the attraction is useless and has no benefit. In the normal course of human events, heterosexuals experience unconsummated attractions for each other all the time, even outside of directly social interactions, but sometimes including those. I assume that those with homosexual attractions do so as well.

It has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with Jesus. That’s why I embrace it.

Your homosexual desires have “everything to do with Jesus”? Maybe in your fantasies.

 

[Kolbe300]

No. One’s desire for God surpasses sex (the act and the comprehensive phenomenon of sexuality). God is way more than a physical & emotional love-object. He is beyond that.

Of course one’s desire for God surpasses sex. I suppose I made the mistake of assuming that was obvious. Again, at the very core of our beings (including our sexuality), is the desire for love. And God is love. God is at the center of it all, even our sexualities. As the Catechism says (2332), “Sexuality affects ALL aspects of the human person in unity of his body and soul.” ALL aspects, including our desire for God. Because our desire for God surpasses sex doesn’t mean God is or should be absent from our sexuality.

Whether the catechism is “worded correctly” or not, you (a full self) cannot be reduced to your sexuality, any more than can someone who does not have SSA. You may believe that you can, but your belief, in that case, is in error.

Why does it always seem to come to this? Because one is honest about their sexual orientation they have somehow reduced their entire identity to a sexuality? That leap is so giant it’s mind boggling. My sexuality is a vital part of who I am. If it is broken, especially objectively so, and if it affects all aspects of my person, then I am, in essence, broken. Of course I am still a “full self”. My sexuality isn’t missing, it’s broken. If my leg is broken, does my entire body not feel the effect?

Secondly, sexuality (or more specifically, attraction) has no ‘mandate’ to be acted upon, no moral mandate, no spiritual mandate, no psychological mandate.

I couldn’t agree with you more. Now what about the aspects of my sexuality that can’t be reduced to simple attraction? Certainly you would agree that your sexuality encompasses much, much more than physical attraction. So does mine.

Not acting on an attraction (whether that attraction is ordered or disordered) does not render one less whole, less loving and loveable, less desired by God…

True. It also doesn’t make ones sexuality, something that affects every aspect of their being, less disordered. Your post made it seem as if you think I believe not acting on attraction makes a person less whole or lessens their personhood. I don’t believe that.

No. With an objectively disordered attraction. There’s no imperative to Get Physical with an attraction. Attraction serves many purposes, as does beauty.

Hmm…we’ve been reduced to attractions again. Elizabeth502, are physical attractions not an integral part of one’s sexuality as a whole?

In the normal course of human events, heterosexuals experience unconsummated attractions for each other all the time, even outside of directly social interactions, but sometimes including those. I assume that those with homosexual attractions do so as well.

Do you see what you just did there? You compared “heterosexuals” with “those with homosexual attractions.” See the difference? Why the reduction to attraction when speaking of the homosexual?

Your homosexual desires have “everything to do with Jesus”? Maybe in your fantasies.

I’ll try my best not to be completely insulted by that. Maybe you should re-read what I posted. I said that I believe my sexuality is ordered toward a different kind of love, one that has nothing do with sex. I’m capable of that because I can see sexuality as far more than physical attraction. And yes, that has everything to do with Jesus.

 

[larkin31]

…I’ll try my best not to be completely insulted by that. Maybe you should re-read what I posted. I said that I believe my sexuality is ordered toward a different kind of love, one that has nothing do with sex. I’m capable of that because I can see sexuality as far more than physical attraction. And yes, that has everything to do with Jesus.

You have made several excellent posts here. Thanks.

 

[larkin31]

Over and over I’ve seen Christians advocate that homosexuals are to take a neutral stance, and that they are called to celibacy. I agree with them to a certain extent. Homosexuality is a sin, no doubt in my mind there, and celibacy is better than indulgence. But why do people want them celibate and not all the way heterosexual?

Why don’t more people advocate that homosexuals just stop being what they claim to be? Why not advocate that they give heterosexuality a chance? Why does hardly anybody care about ‘converting’ homosexuals and only desire to neutralize them? I hardly ever see this stance anywhere.

Yeah, some will say it’s not a choice, and that their only choices are celibacy or sin. I find this kinda hard to swallow after seeing pride parades and talking to people openly gay, they don’t even seem to want to consider heterosexuality.

I see no reason that a gay should consider being straight that a straight should not also use to consider being gay.