Grace & Peace!
Well, it’s an objective fact - Gay relationships are morally wrong. Unfortunately, in a world that doesn’t believe in objectivity, we are going to come across as hateful bigots. We’re gonna look like the people who still adamantly support racism now.
We have to come up with more compelling arguments to counter this. Anybody?
I find that the biggest problem in all of this is the Roman Church’s understanding of homosexuality as intrinsically or objectively disordered. Here’s why I think this is problematic–because desire is not a separate organ of the will, but a form of it. To say that one’s sexual orientation is intrinsically disordered is to say that they simply cannot will correctly. Someone on these boards has made the point before that a heterosexual’s desire for a new lawn-mower may be quite alright, but a homosexual’s desire for a new lawn-mower is intrinsically corrupt because their wills are intrinsically broken. There is
no circumstance under which a homosexual can will correctly because the mechanism of their desire is intrinsically
wrong. This is the logical conclusion of Rome’s teaching on homosexuality–the homosexual is
necessarily criminal or sinful because
intrinsically disordered. Our general understanding of original sin is that it is a corruption of our will and nature and foreign to both. Rome’s teaching suggests that the homosexual is
naturally corrupt.
Moreover, the Judeo-Christian tradition for the most part locates personhood in the will. Unlike the Greeks, we do not believe that we are what we know or what we remember–we are what we will and what we desire. If we cannot help but desire a moral disease because of an objective disorder, we cannot help but
be that disease. As such, homosexuality admits no moral cure. Insofar as homosexuality is an expression of a desire for an intimacy which is intrinsically disordered, the homosexual’s will cannot be reformed by grace until they cease being a homosexual. It is inconsistent of Rome to say that an individual can be a homosexual (that is, remain conscious of a desire for same-sex intimacy) and yet not be in a state of sin. It is also inconsistent of Rome not to
demand conversion therapy of her homosexual sons and daughters.
In this way, love the sinner, hate the sin is problematic. Homosexuals don’t have to
do anything in order to be in a state of sin–they are, in Rome’s understanding, naturally sinful in a way that the heterosexual is not. Rome’s rules regarding homosexual seminarians illustrates this point perfectly: the consciousness of homosexual desire renders one incapable of exercising the offices of a priest. Heterosexual desire, however, does not so cripple a person. A vow of celibacy is worth more, and/or is
actually meaningful coming from a heterosexual as opposed to from a homosexual. Why? Presumably because Rome’s teaching leads one naturally to the conclusion that homosexuality is a disease of the will which renders one incapable of properly making the vow.
There is no way to express the Roman understanding of homosexuality as either consistent or particularly charitable without running very quickly into a ditch. The problem is in the very nature of Rome’s understanding, not with how that understanding is phrased or expressed.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!
