Op-ed (by a seminarian turned away from the priesthood for psychological issues) on the recent document by the Church banning homosexuals from the Priesthood
( Read more... )
Heh, rambling is okay! This is a touchy subject for most people.
I understand what you're saying about the act itself being the sin, not the orientation or the love. And your point about some heterosexual marriages also being sexless is well made. What troubles me, though, is that for a heterosexual marriage to be sexless requires a disfunction, either in one partner's physical or mental abilities or in the marriage itself. An ideal marriage, the one created by God for the benefit of His people, is not sexless.
And even in an disfunctional marriage, there is the hope of sex. One partner might be healed. A reconciliation may take place. And certainly, one assumes that at some point in the marriage, there WAS sex taking place. In addition, refusal to procreate is grounds for annulment in the Church, so if one partner decides God is calling them to have children, and their spouse will not have sex with them, that person has the choice of abandoning what is in God's eyes not a true marriage and finding fulfillment elsewhere.
None of these options exist for a gay person. There is no chance their marriage will be whole and healthy, and they have no ability to alter their circumstances so that they are capable of finding fulfillment eventually. In all the miracles I've read, I've never once heard of a man's homosexuality being "cured" by God. Never.
True, they can be in love with someone and refrain from sex. But that's unrealistic. By the second or third confession any good priest would be counselling that person to remove themselves from the situation, just as a married man having an affair would be counseled to cut off all ties with their lover and concentrate exclusively on their spouse.
I think I like best your point about homosexuality not defining a person. I, too, define myself by other labels (mother, writer, Australian, female, liberal, Catholic, etc.) There is certainly much much more to life than sex. Of course, I say that because I can have sex whenever I choose. I didn't quite feel the same way in high school, when boys and finding love were pretty much foremost on my mind, just ahead of getting good grades and figuring out what I wanted to do with my life. Also, I'm not really persecuted for who I am. For many homosexuals, the public declaration of their orientation is a matter of acceptance. They don't want to be judged by it, so they have to make themselves known in order to make people look past it.
It's also very true that those called to the single life are in the same position as homosexuals. Some of my mother's friends never married and are good and faithful Catholics. That means they have spent their lives in chastity, perhaps by their choice, perhaps not, but either way, they are not having sex, nor are they having children. This is God's will for some people. But there's a key difference, I think, between a single person who falls in love with a married person or who never finds anyone who wishes to marry them, and a homosexual person who also spends their life unmarried. The gay person might indeed find love and yet be denied it, not by lack of willingness by the other party, and not (as in the case of a single person in love with a married person or someone otherwise unmarriable) because their chosen partner has made choices that do not include them, but because by their very nature, by the essence of their being, they are forbidden from marriage.
This is, to me, the crux of my difficulties with accepting the Church's teaching on this. All the choice is completely taken away. As a single person, I can choose, if sex and children are more important to me than ultimate happiness, to marry someone I find in some way unsuitable. I can compromise my standards, I can order a foreign bride/groom. Or, conversely, I can embrace the chances offered by being single and go to Africa, join the Peace Corps or whatever, yet always, always, with the possibility that sometime in the future, even if I am 58 years old, I will find love and marriage. There is NO chance for the homosexual person, no choices, no options no possibilities. They must simply accept their suffering, a suffering which, IMHO, serves no purpose and has no benefit.
I don't mean to argue with you. I do a great deal of cicular discussion on these points within my heart. I love the Church and believe in our faith. I know there must be an acceptable reason for our teaching in this matter. But so far I haven't been convinced.
I understand what you're saying about the act itself being the sin, not the orientation or the love. And your point about some heterosexual marriages also being sexless is well made. What troubles me, though, is that for a heterosexual marriage to be sexless requires a disfunction, either in one partner's physical or mental abilities or in the marriage itself. An ideal marriage, the one created by God for the benefit of His people, is not sexless.
And even in an disfunctional marriage, there is the hope of sex. One partner might be healed. A reconciliation may take place. And certainly, one assumes that at some point in the marriage, there WAS sex taking place. In addition, refusal to procreate is grounds for annulment in the Church, so if one partner decides God is calling them to have children, and their spouse will not have sex with them, that person has the choice of abandoning what is in God's eyes not a true marriage and finding fulfillment elsewhere.
None of these options exist for a gay person. There is no chance their marriage will be whole and healthy, and they have no ability to alter their circumstances so that they are capable of finding fulfillment eventually. In all the miracles I've read, I've never once heard of a man's homosexuality being "cured" by God. Never.
True, they can be in love with someone and refrain from sex. But that's unrealistic. By the second or third confession any good priest would be counselling that person to remove themselves from the situation, just as a married man having an affair would be counseled to cut off all ties with their lover and concentrate exclusively on their spouse.
I think I like best your point about homosexuality not defining a person. I, too, define myself by other labels (mother, writer, Australian, female, liberal, Catholic, etc.) There is certainly much much more to life than sex. Of course, I say that because I can have sex whenever I choose. I didn't quite feel the same way in high school, when boys and finding love were pretty much foremost on my mind, just ahead of getting good grades and figuring out what I wanted to do with my life. Also, I'm not really persecuted for who I am. For many homosexuals, the public declaration of their orientation is a matter of acceptance. They don't want to be judged by it, so they have to make themselves known in order to make people look past it.
It's also very true that those called to the single life are in the same position as homosexuals. Some of my mother's friends never married and are good and faithful Catholics. That means they have spent their lives in chastity, perhaps by their choice, perhaps not, but either way, they are not having sex, nor are they having children. This is God's will for some people. But there's a key difference, I think, between a single person who falls in love with a married person or who never finds anyone who wishes to marry them, and a homosexual person who also spends their life unmarried. The gay person might indeed find love and yet be denied it, not by lack of willingness by the other party, and not (as in the case of a single person in love with a married person or someone otherwise unmarriable) because their chosen partner has made choices that do not include them, but because by their very nature, by the essence of their being, they are forbidden from marriage.
cont...
Reply
...cont.
This is, to me, the crux of my difficulties with accepting the Church's teaching on this. All the choice is completely taken away. As a single person, I can choose, if sex and children are more important to me than ultimate happiness, to marry someone I find in some way unsuitable. I can compromise my standards, I can order a foreign bride/groom. Or, conversely, I can embrace the chances offered by being single and go to Africa, join the Peace Corps or whatever, yet always, always, with the possibility that sometime in the future, even if I am 58 years old, I will find love and marriage. There is NO chance for the homosexual person, no choices, no options no possibilities. They must simply accept their suffering, a suffering which, IMHO, serves no purpose and has no benefit.
I don't mean to argue with you. I do a great deal of cicular discussion on these points within my heart. I love the Church and believe in our faith. I know there must be an acceptable reason for our teaching in this matter. But so far I haven't been convinced.
Reply
Leave a comment