E
EIF5A
Guest
“Exclusive” implies that particular relationship has something that no other relationship has. One can have multiple friends, but not all friends will have the same knowledge of the person or level of closeness.
- Status
L
LongingSoul
Guest
No it doesn’t. Exclusive comes from ‘excluding’… an approach of excluding all others in some commited way. Best friends are freely drawn by shared interests of compatibility. There is no commitmentment to exclusivity in the case of loss of feeling or the arrival of a new friend etc.
T
TStokes
Guest
Im fine with then having a same sex signifigant other as long as sex is avoided
The_Reginator
Active member
P
pnewton
Guest
This is the point we most commonly forget here. This is why I am so disgusted by this question. It accomplishes nothing good, but is capable of harm.
O
One_point
Guest
The you’re fine with what the church has taught against. Having a significant other is certainly not disinterested. That’s a romantic relationship which is only proper between two people who are both free to get married should this romantic love grow as it is naturally designed to do. Romantic love is meant to lead to marriage. It does not exist as a goal or an end in itself. Not to mention the permanent near-occasion of sin such a situation would foster, encouraging rather than discouraging sexual closeness. Romance naturally grows and tends towards sex in the long run. It’s not something that exists for its own sake.
Another thing is scandal. Will this exclusive couple be going round telling people that they are exclusive but don’t have sex? If you want to imagine this situation in its proper context, imagine in its place any other forbidden affair. Say an adulterous affair. Between a married man and a single woman or married woman in his office or a married woman and a single male friend. Or perhaps an affair between a celibate priest and a woman in his parish. Would it be fine if they were romantically “involved” just as long as they did not have sex? Where are the boundaries they are to watch out for in their dealings with these people they have romantic feelings for but cannot licitly be with? It is the same with gay couples who believe what the church teaches that their affair is gravely sinful. If you’re told that something is gravely sinful, you don’t as a Christian start to negotiate with sin to see how much you can get away with. You run in the other direction. St. Paul says “flee temptation”. He doesn’t say to foster and encourage temptation as much as you can as long as you don’t commit the physical act.
F
frobert
Guest
Correct but St Thomas went a bit further in believing that natural law in it’s totality can not be discovered by man because only God can know everything therefore where natural law that can not be discovered by man could only be known through revelation.
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
I don’t wish to be disrespectful, but I see questions like this now and again, and I have to wonder. I’m not a sociologist, or a psychologist. Heck, I’m not even an apologist. I am a simple lover of Christ, and a believer in Him and of His Church. It seems evident to me that we are indeed speaking of eros love. Since brotherhood, sisterhood, friendship and what not are also involved, there may be some sense of familial love as well. But here’s the thing. What does it really matter?
What is the origin of adultery? Pornography, Masturbation? Being or visiting prostitutes? Sharing the marital embrace between unmarried persons of heterosexual stock as well as homosexual stock or even other stuff still not approved by the culture and the government, like pedophelia, necrophelia, etc. Many of these things to the persons afflicted with them may seem to contain that little warm glow associated with new young love or whatever, yet their nature as disorder, and sin are not changed by the emotions anyone may feel when in their grip. I must believe God when He and His Church teach that the only correctly ordered sexual acts are between a man and a woman who are married to each other, and whatever the origin of the “feelings” which we follow to vary from this, they are still wrong. The feelings are likely both a case of young sexual confusion mixed with the nurture of a culture which has said “go for it” for at least 50 years now.
We are called to chastity. We all seem to go through periods in our life when it is difficult to toe that mark. It IS still a mark, whether we toe it or not. It is the standard. Some have the vocation of marriage. And for those called to this vocation, and who are open to the result of the marital embrace, which is the production of children, this embrace is reserved. For anyone not fitting that definition, when we live out a sexual act, either with ourselves, or with another human being, we are in sin, until and unless this is repented of, and we make a firm purpose of amendment to try to not continue to commit this sin. If we are unrepentant we remove ourselves from friendship with God is some fashion. And I imaging it really doesn’t help when we approach our governmental entities as if they were God to receive their secular blessings, and then just pretending from then on out, that there is not a problem.
No Christian should be hateful, or cold or mean or anything else like that towards the homosexually inclined, as they are also sons and daughters of God, and Jesus died for them too. But by the same token, the practicing Christian must not continue to be petitioned for more than Christian tolerance, which is most definitely is not supposed to be equated with assent. That’s a whole other bag of worms.
If you’re committing sexual sin, and don’t know it, or know it and don’t care, then you need prayers from the faithful. And that’s what we should be providing. That, and a well reasoned, and gentle dose of the truth, when called upon for an accounting of what we believe. None of us benefits from lies.
If you’re a Christian and the culture has worked you over so badly, along with political lobbies, to where you no longer classify some sexual sin as sin, then please pray upon this more, and speak to your priest about it. Almost all of us are effected in some way. Trying to call it something else though, is just moving us farther and farther away from the problem at hand, and while it may seem to make the world an easier place, it is a false notion, and may be hurting the very salvation that we wish for ourselves, and our same sex afflicted brothers and sisters.
It’s hard. It’s a cross to bear. Chastity is hard right up until the moment that it isn’t. This usually coincides with our proximity to Jesus in prayer, and our acceptance of Him and His Church as the truth.
All spoken if honest love…I assure you.
Peace to all,
Steve
T
TStokes
Guest
Its hard for me to agree with a teaching that goes against members of my own family, I was taught to accept people for who they are…
L
LongingSoul
Guest
But as Matthew reports… standing for the Lord will inevitably involve denying family loyalties that would tend to protect and absolve sinfulness.
Matt 10 32-39 *“Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven.
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it."*
That doesn’t mean judging, condemning and punishing your family. It means standing for the Lord no matter what, even to the point of sacrificing peace and political correctness.
T
TStokes
Guest
-]/-]
Im not saying ill turn on these ideals of the church but it means it is more difficult for me to grow into
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Perfectly understandable, TStokes. I’m a cradle Catholic and strived for the ideals my whole life but have had to deal with family members choosing defacto relationships, marijuana use, atheism etc. etc. It’s a process of choosing Jesus and loving others unconditionally that takes courage and surrender every step of the way. God bless.
E
EIF5A
Guest
How about people stop being nosy about delving into other people’s lives (which, thus far in this hypothetical situation, no actual sin has been committed) and minding their own business, instead of coming up with straw man arguments.
Ride your moral high horse elsewhere.
O
One_point
Guest
Have a nice day. I will bow out now.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
POST ONE OF FOUR
But it seems to me that there are a few assumptions and a few ideas that persistently lurk around the corners of some of the arguments here. And I think that looking into those assumptions and ideas might behoove us.
1
For the most part, the question seems to be, “Is it possible to legitimately assert that two same-sex attracted people can be authentically ‘in love’ (in the same way that that term is generally understood)?” Many responses that I’ve read here make the assumption that this “in-love-ness” must necessarily involve sexual activity, and they’re quick to condemn same-sex sexual activity as de facto loveless when properly understood within the correct catechetical/moral-theological/natural-philosophical framework. Consequently, whatever “in-love” might mean in this context, actual love cannot have anything to do with it. Or so the argument tends to go. But the fundamental principle behind this argument–that the presence or possibility of sin in a relationship renders the relationship incapable of conveying, bearing, or imaging love in any authentic sense–is largely insupportable as it would render all human relationships loveless given the general propensity of human beings to sin. It’s a sad fact of our fallen condition: no human relationship is untouched by sin.
But in many ways, all of that is beside the point, because the basic assumption of the argument is not actually necessary: It is not necessary to assume that two same-sex attracted people who are “in love” are also having sex. Moreover, it’s not necessary to construe all same-sex couples as being in it for the sex, just as it’s not necessary to construe all unmarried heterosexual dating couples as would-be or actual fornicators.
[CONTINUED…]
POST ONE OF FOUR
I’m very happy to see this conversation here.
But it seems to me that there are a few assumptions and a few ideas that persistently lurk around the corners of some of the arguments here. And I think that looking into those assumptions and ideas might behoove us.
1
For the most part, the question seems to be, “Is it possible to legitimately assert that two same-sex attracted people can be authentically ‘in love’ (in the same way that that term is generally understood)?” Many responses that I’ve read here make the assumption that this “in-love-ness” must necessarily involve sexual activity, and they’re quick to condemn same-sex sexual activity as de facto loveless when properly understood within the correct catechetical/moral-theological/natural-philosophical framework. Consequently, whatever “in-love” might mean in this context, actual love cannot have anything to do with it. Or so the argument tends to go. But the fundamental principle behind this argument–that the presence or possibility of sin in a relationship renders the relationship incapable of conveying, bearing, or imaging love in any authentic sense–is largely insupportable as it would render all human relationships loveless given the general propensity of human beings to sin. It’s a sad fact of our fallen condition: no human relationship is untouched by sin.
But in many ways, all of that is beside the point, because the basic assumption of the argument is not actually necessary: It is not necessary to assume that two same-sex attracted people who are “in love” are also having sex. Moreover, it’s not necessary to construe all same-sex couples as being in it for the sex, just as it’s not necessary to construe all unmarried heterosexual dating couples as would-be or actual fornicators.
[CONTINUED…]
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
…CONTINUED…]
POST TWO OF FOUR
2
But, even chaste, wouldn’t such a relationship still be disordered? I don’t see why it would. As Longing Soul pointed out earlier in Post 208, the intrinsic disorder of the homosexual act has to do with it’s non-procreative nature while the objective disorder of the homosexual condition has to do with a desire for homosexual genital expression which is intrinsically disordered due to its non-procreative nature. Cardinal Hume makes these points much more clear in the 1995 version of his letter than in the 1997, but the same principles are at work in both versions: the catechism understands homosexual genital acts to be intrinsically disordered, therefore a desire for such acts will be objectively disordered (since the desire’s object is intrinsically disordered).
However, when we’re attracted to other people, when we actually find ourselves falling in love with other people, I think we’re actually attracted to the people we’re attracted to and not to an act which we can commit with the person to whom we’re attracted. When we fall in love, we fall in love with people, not genital acts. If we do find ourselves falling in love with genital acts or if we do find ourselves desiring a person in order to commit some act with them, then I think we’re not actually talking about love–we’re talking about lust. We’re reducing someone to their use-value, desiring to appropriate something they have (such as beauty or charm or something else perhaps) in and through the sexual act. Which is, of course, degrading regardless of context. To the extent to which we confuse attraction to a person with attraction to a genital act, we lay the foundations for an enduring confusion between attraction and lust which, consequently, makes loving difficult if not impossible.
But when we’re attracted to someone, actually attracted to them and not simply in lust with them, I don’t think their use-value is foremost in our thoughts and feelings. I think what draws us to the people to whom we’re attracted is their personal beauty as well as, possibly or even probably, their physical beauty. There is nothing disordered about being attracted to what is beautiful–such an attraction is part of what it means to live into the goodness of our God-given humanity. This attraction to the beautiful in our beloved leads us to see our beloved as a particular and wonderful and real and good and lovable embodiment of the beautiful good. We want to be in the presence of that beauty–we want to open ourselves to our beloved and we want our beloved to open themselves to us–we want to be present to them and want them to be present to us–we want to see to the depths of their being and be seen in the depths of ours–we want to participate with them in an intimate exchange of giving and receiving of love, of self–we want to find ourselves in them and them in us in an analogue of the Trinitarian perichoresis by which analogy we are drawn, together, to a contemplation of the Trinitarian Life which is Love. So gradually, our initial attraction, our initial eros, leads seamlessly into a continued and sustained agape in which we find ourselves radically being-for our beloved.
Again, genital acts need not be involved. But surely we will find ourselves loving our beloved with our thoughts and our emotions and our actions, with our minds our souls and our bodies. Surely we were given arms to embrace in love, to hold in love, to be held in love, to act for love, to give love, legs to run to love, to kneel to love, to serve love. Surely even our feelings of love (while potentially misleading, particularly in the young) should not be absolutely separated from the reality of loving–we would not wish to divide too absolutely the body from the soul in some dualistic/ Manichaean fervor for a false “spiritual” purity that is inimical to a purity or a sanctification that any human being can actually humanly participate in, let alone desire.
[CONTINUED…]
POST TWO OF FOUR
2
But, even chaste, wouldn’t such a relationship still be disordered? I don’t see why it would. As Longing Soul pointed out earlier in Post 208, the intrinsic disorder of the homosexual act has to do with it’s non-procreative nature while the objective disorder of the homosexual condition has to do with a desire for homosexual genital expression which is intrinsically disordered due to its non-procreative nature. Cardinal Hume makes these points much more clear in the 1995 version of his letter than in the 1997, but the same principles are at work in both versions: the catechism understands homosexual genital acts to be intrinsically disordered, therefore a desire for such acts will be objectively disordered (since the desire’s object is intrinsically disordered).
However, when we’re attracted to other people, when we actually find ourselves falling in love with other people, I think we’re actually attracted to the people we’re attracted to and not to an act which we can commit with the person to whom we’re attracted. When we fall in love, we fall in love with people, not genital acts. If we do find ourselves falling in love with genital acts or if we do find ourselves desiring a person in order to commit some act with them, then I think we’re not actually talking about love–we’re talking about lust. We’re reducing someone to their use-value, desiring to appropriate something they have (such as beauty or charm or something else perhaps) in and through the sexual act. Which is, of course, degrading regardless of context. To the extent to which we confuse attraction to a person with attraction to a genital act, we lay the foundations for an enduring confusion between attraction and lust which, consequently, makes loving difficult if not impossible.
But when we’re attracted to someone, actually attracted to them and not simply in lust with them, I don’t think their use-value is foremost in our thoughts and feelings. I think what draws us to the people to whom we’re attracted is their personal beauty as well as, possibly or even probably, their physical beauty. There is nothing disordered about being attracted to what is beautiful–such an attraction is part of what it means to live into the goodness of our God-given humanity. This attraction to the beautiful in our beloved leads us to see our beloved as a particular and wonderful and real and good and lovable embodiment of the beautiful good. We want to be in the presence of that beauty–we want to open ourselves to our beloved and we want our beloved to open themselves to us–we want to be present to them and want them to be present to us–we want to see to the depths of their being and be seen in the depths of ours–we want to participate with them in an intimate exchange of giving and receiving of love, of self–we want to find ourselves in them and them in us in an analogue of the Trinitarian perichoresis by which analogy we are drawn, together, to a contemplation of the Trinitarian Life which is Love. So gradually, our initial attraction, our initial eros, leads seamlessly into a continued and sustained agape in which we find ourselves radically being-for our beloved.
Again, genital acts need not be involved. But surely we will find ourselves loving our beloved with our thoughts and our emotions and our actions, with our minds our souls and our bodies. Surely we were given arms to embrace in love, to hold in love, to be held in love, to act for love, to give love, legs to run to love, to kneel to love, to serve love. Surely even our feelings of love (while potentially misleading, particularly in the young) should not be absolutely separated from the reality of loving–we would not wish to divide too absolutely the body from the soul in some dualistic/ Manichaean fervor for a false “spiritual” purity that is inimical to a purity or a sanctification that any human being can actually humanly participate in, let alone desire.
[CONTINUED…]
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
…CONTINUED…]
POST THREE OF FOUR
3
But that sort of relationship does not sound like disinterested friendship, and isn’t that the only sort of love relationship same-sex attracted people should participate in? Because if a relationship, though chaste, has pretensions to be something more intimate, say, something we might call a partnership as opposed to a friendship, shouldn’t such a relationship be ended?
I think we misunderstand “disinterested” if we believe it means “absent attraction to another person.” “Disinterested” means, as far as I can tell, “unmercenary”–that is, we love for the sake of the beloved, for the sake of loving, for the sake of Love Himself, gratuitously and completely, not expecting return, but, if it is returned, rejoicing in the exchange of love. Such an understanding of “disinterested” is as applicable to a loving marriage as it is to a loving friendship as it is to a chaste dating couple. We do not love our friends for what they can give us, we do not love our partner for what we can get from them. I think we do best to understand “disinterested” as “lovingly oriented towards the lovable other.”
Someone mentioned earlier in this thread the idea that friendships are about shared interests. While that idea of friendship sounds more like its describing a network of interest-related individuals (such as you might find at a networking conference or an office party) rather than actual human relationships we might describe as (disinterested) friendships, let’s assume that the idea is, in fact, the dominant one in our culture, if only because in this thread the idea went unchallenged. The idea that same-sex attracted people should only engage in these “friend” networks suggests one or more of a number of possibilities: 1) same-sex attracted people are incapable of loving completely without sinning or being tempted to sin; 2) same-sex attracted people are incapable of receiving love without sinning or being tempted to sin; 3) same-sex attracted people are unworthy of the companionship of someone they love and who loves them; 4) same-sex attracted people are alright experiencing storge (natural/familial affection), philia (affection between friends) and agape, but they should never experience or express eros in any way like actual human beings are capable of doing. None of these 4 options, let it be said, allow for an understanding of same-sex attracted people as fully human; nor are they conducive to allowing same-sex attracted people to express the fullness of their humanity or experience the fullness of their humanity (their capacity to give and receive love) with anything like unconditional joy.
Needless to say, I do not think there is an actual moral theological argument against the sort of chaste partnership I’ve been describing so far. So the question of whether or not such relationships should end hinges on issues of socio-cultural propriety. Indeed, the only arguments against such relationships that I’ve seen offered here are cultural, amounting, really, to assertions rather than arguments: such things should not be done because they don’t look right.
As Paul teaches, it behooves us to act with loving discretion for the sake of weaker brethren when it comes to things that may not “look right.” That does not mean, however, that such things are actually in themselves not right. But it is nonetheless important to act with discretion and propriety where these weaker brethren might be involved. Such acts of discretion and propriety are, in fact, acts of love. However, if we have found a companion with whom we can share our life and who can share their life with us in a depth of intimacy which is chaste but nonetheless particularly devoted, I don’t see why the basic fact of the gift of this companionship should not be recognized (if only by the companions) as the good and actually special thing that it is.
There are, of course, situations in which our loving, should it be genuine and unmercenary, will lead us to curb, curtail, or otherwise set limits to our relationship with someone with whom we have fallen in love: by respecting the boundaries that our loved one has established or by which our loved one has consented to be bound. I’m thinking of the vows of marriage here. We love these boundaries our loved one has set because they love them and abide by them–or we love these boundaries on behalf of our loved one when they do not or cannot love them themselves. Love is not indecorous.
But the biological sex of our loved one does not render our attraction to them unworthy or disordered or sinful–this would suggest that morality is relative in some sense to biological sex: i.e. what is moral for women is not moral for men. With such a suggestion, we move away from a consideration of morality and it’s relationship to humanity and towards a conception of morality and it’s relationship to male humanity or female humanity–we begin to posit two separate humanities, which, if we further our considerations beyond moral theology to theology as a whole, does some considerable relativizing violence to a number of theological propositions and doctrines which assume a single human nature for men and woman alike (such as the Incarnation).
[CONTINUED…]
POST THREE OF FOUR
3
But that sort of relationship does not sound like disinterested friendship, and isn’t that the only sort of love relationship same-sex attracted people should participate in? Because if a relationship, though chaste, has pretensions to be something more intimate, say, something we might call a partnership as opposed to a friendship, shouldn’t such a relationship be ended?
I think we misunderstand “disinterested” if we believe it means “absent attraction to another person.” “Disinterested” means, as far as I can tell, “unmercenary”–that is, we love for the sake of the beloved, for the sake of loving, for the sake of Love Himself, gratuitously and completely, not expecting return, but, if it is returned, rejoicing in the exchange of love. Such an understanding of “disinterested” is as applicable to a loving marriage as it is to a loving friendship as it is to a chaste dating couple. We do not love our friends for what they can give us, we do not love our partner for what we can get from them. I think we do best to understand “disinterested” as “lovingly oriented towards the lovable other.”
Someone mentioned earlier in this thread the idea that friendships are about shared interests. While that idea of friendship sounds more like its describing a network of interest-related individuals (such as you might find at a networking conference or an office party) rather than actual human relationships we might describe as (disinterested) friendships, let’s assume that the idea is, in fact, the dominant one in our culture, if only because in this thread the idea went unchallenged. The idea that same-sex attracted people should only engage in these “friend” networks suggests one or more of a number of possibilities: 1) same-sex attracted people are incapable of loving completely without sinning or being tempted to sin; 2) same-sex attracted people are incapable of receiving love without sinning or being tempted to sin; 3) same-sex attracted people are unworthy of the companionship of someone they love and who loves them; 4) same-sex attracted people are alright experiencing storge (natural/familial affection), philia (affection between friends) and agape, but they should never experience or express eros in any way like actual human beings are capable of doing. None of these 4 options, let it be said, allow for an understanding of same-sex attracted people as fully human; nor are they conducive to allowing same-sex attracted people to express the fullness of their humanity or experience the fullness of their humanity (their capacity to give and receive love) with anything like unconditional joy.
Needless to say, I do not think there is an actual moral theological argument against the sort of chaste partnership I’ve been describing so far. So the question of whether or not such relationships should end hinges on issues of socio-cultural propriety. Indeed, the only arguments against such relationships that I’ve seen offered here are cultural, amounting, really, to assertions rather than arguments: such things should not be done because they don’t look right.
As Paul teaches, it behooves us to act with loving discretion for the sake of weaker brethren when it comes to things that may not “look right.” That does not mean, however, that such things are actually in themselves not right. But it is nonetheless important to act with discretion and propriety where these weaker brethren might be involved. Such acts of discretion and propriety are, in fact, acts of love. However, if we have found a companion with whom we can share our life and who can share their life with us in a depth of intimacy which is chaste but nonetheless particularly devoted, I don’t see why the basic fact of the gift of this companionship should not be recognized (if only by the companions) as the good and actually special thing that it is.
There are, of course, situations in which our loving, should it be genuine and unmercenary, will lead us to curb, curtail, or otherwise set limits to our relationship with someone with whom we have fallen in love: by respecting the boundaries that our loved one has established or by which our loved one has consented to be bound. I’m thinking of the vows of marriage here. We love these boundaries our loved one has set because they love them and abide by them–or we love these boundaries on behalf of our loved one when they do not or cannot love them themselves. Love is not indecorous.
But the biological sex of our loved one does not render our attraction to them unworthy or disordered or sinful–this would suggest that morality is relative in some sense to biological sex: i.e. what is moral for women is not moral for men. With such a suggestion, we move away from a consideration of morality and it’s relationship to humanity and towards a conception of morality and it’s relationship to male humanity or female humanity–we begin to posit two separate humanities, which, if we further our considerations beyond moral theology to theology as a whole, does some considerable relativizing violence to a number of theological propositions and doctrines which assume a single human nature for men and woman alike (such as the Incarnation).
[CONTINUED…]
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED]
POST FOUR OF FOUR
4
But isn’t it the case that such pretensions to a greater intimacy, a partnership, can only exist legitimately within an opposite-sex relationship that either is or could potentially become a marriage?
Again, I don’t see why that needs to be the case. If we conceive of marriage as the crown of human relationship, then surely the virtues of marriage can be found to various degrees and in various forms in other human relationships without those relationships needing to find their end in marriage–that’s how hierarchies work, no? Marriage is not in competition with other human relationships.
But perhaps instead of a hierarchy, we could speak of an economy or, better, an ecology of human relationship such that the fact of relationship, the need for relationship, the disposition to relationship is all understood as part of what being human is and means, with marriage taking its place in this ecology as a particular vocation to which some people and relationships are called but which, again, is not in competition with other relationships. Nor would marriage be understood to hold the key to the worthiness or unworthiness of the other relationships to which we are legitimately called. Surely there is room in such an ecology for other sorts of special relationships–even exclusive ones–which do not detract from the virtues of any other relationships to which we might be called. After all, not all relationships are called to be or are capable of being sexual in a legitimately moral way, as marriage is understood to be. But that does not mean that chaste non-genital relationships must necessarily lack the complexity, depth, or intimacy of a marriage simply because they do not share with marriage the capacity for moral genital expression. To say otherwise would be to suggest that sex somehow represents the sum and summit of human relationship to which all are called as opposed to a particular relational and procreative capacity which can only be legitimately expressed in a certain relationship.
There must be a distinction made between sexual acts and sexuality–our sexuality, which is an expression of our capacity for relationships and our understanding of relationships will be legitimately involved, in some way or other, to one extent or another, in all of our relationships. Its end is not the sexual act, but relationship. The sexual act is a capacity that springs from our sexuality that can only be legitimately performed in one relationship and only if we are called to it.
Anyway. That’s my two or three cents.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
POST FOUR OF FOUR
4
But isn’t it the case that such pretensions to a greater intimacy, a partnership, can only exist legitimately within an opposite-sex relationship that either is or could potentially become a marriage?
Again, I don’t see why that needs to be the case. If we conceive of marriage as the crown of human relationship, then surely the virtues of marriage can be found to various degrees and in various forms in other human relationships without those relationships needing to find their end in marriage–that’s how hierarchies work, no? Marriage is not in competition with other human relationships.
But perhaps instead of a hierarchy, we could speak of an economy or, better, an ecology of human relationship such that the fact of relationship, the need for relationship, the disposition to relationship is all understood as part of what being human is and means, with marriage taking its place in this ecology as a particular vocation to which some people and relationships are called but which, again, is not in competition with other relationships. Nor would marriage be understood to hold the key to the worthiness or unworthiness of the other relationships to which we are legitimately called. Surely there is room in such an ecology for other sorts of special relationships–even exclusive ones–which do not detract from the virtues of any other relationships to which we might be called. After all, not all relationships are called to be or are capable of being sexual in a legitimately moral way, as marriage is understood to be. But that does not mean that chaste non-genital relationships must necessarily lack the complexity, depth, or intimacy of a marriage simply because they do not share with marriage the capacity for moral genital expression. To say otherwise would be to suggest that sex somehow represents the sum and summit of human relationship to which all are called as opposed to a particular relational and procreative capacity which can only be legitimately expressed in a certain relationship.
There must be a distinction made between sexual acts and sexuality–our sexuality, which is an expression of our capacity for relationships and our understanding of relationships will be legitimately involved, in some way or other, to one extent or another, in all of our relationships. Its end is not the sexual act, but relationship. The sexual act is a capacity that springs from our sexuality that can only be legitimately performed in one relationship and only if we are called to it.
Anyway. That’s my two or three cents.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
R
ready
Guest
Unlawful love (in God’s Eye) can only be lust.
F
frobert
Guest
Perhaps if it was named love-h then there would be no dispute with CC’s position. Gays could say we have true love-h and the CC should have no problem with someone calling the feelings that homosexuals have for each other love-h. The only downside I see is non-Catholics may be confused by the terminology. Nothing is easy.
- Status