Christianity has long suffered from a bad case of fright in dealing with human sexuality. It has not always been thus and although the problem surely predates the advent of Jansenism, (The Catholic version of Puritanism), that scourge undoubtedly worsened the situation, forcing the Church into an ever more rigid attitude regarding all things sexual.
The language of Vatican Council II regarding sexuality within the confines of marriage is positively glowing, poetic. This follows decades of pastoral approaches which can only be described as disdainful, giving sex a grudging tolerance. Now it is to be seen as a gift from God and, although it must always be open to the possibility of procreation, couples can engage in it quite freely and as an end in itself, thus expressing marital unity.
But the bishops in council were not yet ready to open its arms to its homosexual members; not yet able to countenance a loving unity between two persons of the same sex. I stress the word "yet," because this is one of the most obvious examples of developmental theology...it standing in need of a good bit of "development!" The Church suffers from insufficient understanding of human nature.
I quote from the official Catholic Catechism: "#2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (italics, mine)Note from this teaching the words "...It's psychological genesis remains largely unexplained." The Church is here acknowledges that it has an incomplete understanding of the psychology of homosexuality, implying that when it does have such an understanding, it will amend its teachings to reflect it. Once again, it is not so much a case of the Church teaching in error, as it is the Church teaching incompletely. Even in the secular world, the world of science, homosexuality is not completely understood, but gradually, in time we will learn more and more.
How much of the current teaching would have to be changed? Actually, not a great deal. Some critics would strike the word "disordered" for example, but I think a case could be made for keeping it. The word "Disordered," could be justified if only by virtue of the fact that homosexuals constitute a minority, a departure from the norm, heterosexuality. How much distance is there between "departure from the norm," and "disordered?" The "norm," is "ordered" and that which departs from it would be dis-ordered." As a homosexual myself, I would not find this objectionable, but I readily admit that many of my more radical gay friends would. To them, I would say what I say to the Church with its present teaching, "time will tell. Sooner or later the truth of the matter will prevail." In the meantime, Contrarian as I am, I see no sin in my orientation. (See my blog on freedom of conscience...this is the best and most personal example from my own life of using that freedom.)
Over the years, I have given it a lot of thought, giving a great deal of attention to the Church's teaching on the matter. Only then, did I conclude that the Church is incomplete in its teaching on the subject, not having factored in a deeper understanding of natural law.
It might strike some that this is wishful thinking on my part. To them I would mention how close the Church once came to changing its position vis-a-vis birth control. Paul VI convened a special commission of clerical and lay experts on the subject to recommend to him what the Church's position ought to be on the matter. The members of that commission were very much aware of the leeway they had been given. Unfortunately, the word "recommend" meant just that, and Paul did not embrace their more liberal position, instead maintaining the Church's long-time position without any change. But the point shows how issues can be opened up and made liable to change. At some distant time in the future, I rather think a similar commission might be set up by some future Pope and, this time a recommendation for greater understanding will be embraced.
This might be a good time for a reminder: There is a big difference between dogma, "infallibly" defined, and mere teachings. The former are set in stone, so to speak, and the latter are subject to development.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Sexuality is a confusing issue for religions, and the Catholic Church in particular. Sexual desires are normal in most all people. I say most all because some people, due to medical conditions, do not have such desires or at the very least have very low sexual desires. As such then the need to "have sex" is normal within all people. Now the question is what gender is a person attracted to?
I've often considered the concept of labeling people homo-sexual as not very accurate. Isn't more that they are really attracted, or love the same gender? From a "mechanical" aspect, the sex organs will generally respond regardless of how they are "stimulated". However, from an emotional basis, the passion one feels for your partner has a tremendous impact on the level of pleasure derived from the act. This passion can be because of the mutual love each other has, or can be the result of "lust" or the forbidden nature of the relation (aka, the old devil of an "affair"). Either way these feelings amplify the sexual act.
So really what we term homosexual or heterosexual is more about what fuels a individuals passion. This isn't even covering how the other person makes you feel in terms of compatibility, affection, self estemm, comfort, or any other relationship attribute you can name.
I guess what I'm trying to say is we focus too much energy on the sex act itself, and not enough on the emotional bonding between people involved. Granted there may be no "lasting" bond but at the time, two mutually consenting adults have sex are bond by the event itself, in what is hopefully mutual pleasure.
It becomes even more confusing if you consider people who are bi-sexual. Does this mean they enjoy sex with either sex, or that they can have romance with either sex, or that they just enjoy having sex and it doesn't matter who they do it with? What about heterosexuals who during adolescence had homosexual relations? Does that make them quasi-homosexual, or recovery homosexuals? It really becomes very confusing trying to label people based on their sexual perference or experiences.
If humans truly followed their natural drives that are inherit in their "genes", in other words, live according to "nature", then heterosexual monogomy would probably not exist at all, since it is against the natural sex drive. Consider that other mammals generally(exceptions are dolphins) procreate by the male engage in intercourse with a multiple females, and vice versa, in an effort to widen their chances of passing on their genes to the species (aka genetic diversity). Also we know that biologically women are physically capable of having intercourse with one partner after another, while men are not. So it is biologically clear that human are equipped to have sex like other mammals. Society has changed our norm to one where this type of "natural" behavior is frowned upon. So in essence society is already engaged in "non-natual" sexual relations by embracing monoagmy. I'm not advocating polyagmy, being totally monogamous myself, as it is better from a social order perspective, even though it is biologically unnatural.
Sexuality is one issue I pray will be resolved soon, as too many people are made to feel that they are "bad" for no other reason than their perference of partners. It is unfortunate that a heterosexual person having an affair, which could be breaking their marriage vow to their spouse (say could, because that is between them), is considered "normal", yet a person who engages in same sex relation with someone they deeply care about, or are just highly attracted to is considered a deviant and ostracized. As you stated this attitude is slowly changing, and I believe, like you, will eventually (not in my lifetime)become an acceptable practice.
Oh well, all any of us can do is follow our conscience and pray that the Holy Spirit will guide the Churches decision, as well as guide the hearts of the people of the world.
Post a Comment