The Substitute for Reason
Jun 21, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
In last week’s column, I gave myself permission to wonder about one of the great unknowns: whether homosexuality originates through nature or nurture, and — if the answer is “nature” — what that might mean to our understanding of God, creation and calling. In attempting to explore the issue within the context of the Catechism and Catholic orthodoxy, I was hoping to straddle the divide between those who cannot discuss homosexuality without the word “abomination” eventually entering into it, and those who have long-since declared their spiritual autonomy over any sort of authoritative voice—be it divine, scriptural, traditional or founded upon study or prayer—preferring to embrace the absolute moral authority of collective sentimentalism.
A straddle is never comfortable, which is why one tries not to remain so-positioned for long. I had anticipated (and took no umbrage at) some of the dismissive responses to my piece because I knew I would be unpacking it further, at some later date.
A week is not very much later, but the incoherence and vapidity of Maureen Dowd’s June 18th column has rather forced the hand; daunted as I am by the prospect of countering so sterling a wit as this grown woman who refers to the good-natured Archbishop Timothy Dolan as, “the Starchbishop,” I will plod forward, looking first at that troublesome nature/nurture question.
Annoyed that canon lawyer and Vatican advisor Edward Peters had explained the church’s fundamental outlook on marriage in simple terms (“men and women are not supposed to live together without benefit of matrimony”) Dowd grouses,
But then the church denies the benefit of marriage to same-sex couples living together. Dolan insists that marriage between a man and a woman is “hard-wired” by God and nature. But the church refuses to acknowledge that homosexuality may be hard-wired by God and nature as well, and is not a lifestyle choice.”
That’s because no one has yet been able to demonstrate that homosexuality is, in fact, “hard-wired” by God. Aside from the ponderings of greater minds than either Dowd’s or mine, the best we can do is look at humanity, observe that “form follows function” and throw up our hands at arguments suggesting that form and function are relative issues or that human design is as irrelevant to the question as fishes are to bicycles. That Jesus of Nazareth said, “the Creator ‘made them male and female . . . for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” is apparently just one more opinion, since his Word did not address specifics.
Supposing, as I did last week, that we could conclusively demonstrate homosexuality as God-planned, it still would not necessarily follow that gays are therefore called to marriage. Considering the multi-cultural and multi-millennial understanding of the nature of marriage—an eternal understanding until about four decades ago—and recalling Christ’s acknowledgment that “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so…” the challenge of our age may not be about parity (there has been little wisdom or contentment gained in women defining their success in masculine terms, so I am not sure gay fulfillment rests in adopting heterosexual norms, either) but about discovering the purpose of one’s createded-ness, one’s creature-liness, and exploring—permitting ourselves to really explore, without repressive cries of “hate” and “homophobia”—the idea that one’s life and inclination is meant to serve something so much larger and intimately God-centered than the passing exultation of a gay pride parade or even the physical expression of love.
This is not a conversation many wish to have just now—even idle speculation along such lines bares teeth on all sides, but it is interesting to wonder, is it not? Or are we all done with wondering?
Clearly some are. Stipulating that the church’s moral authority has been weakened for many, thanks to the deplorable sins of a distinct minority of her priests and a handful of bishops, it is nevertheless disheartening to observe the intellectual laziness of pundits who substitute repeated invocations of “pedophile priests” for reasoned argument, as Dowd does. To Dolan’s assertion that “Marriage is not simply a mechanism for delivering benefits: It is the union of a man and a woman in a loving, permanent, life-giving union to pro-create children,” all Dowd can come up with is “pedophile priests!”
Dowd is particularly convoluted in her support for gay marriage. She clearly supports it (or at least opposes the church’s opposition) but then writes, “The church refuses to acknowledge the hypocrisy at its heart: that it became a haven for gay priests even though it declares homosexual sex a sin . . .”
Why, she says that as though it’s a bad thing! As though she does not believe what is demonstrably true: that the church does not consider homosexual inclinations in and of themselves to be sinful, and that a man who identifies as homosexual can be a faithful and celibate priest!
She slips further down her oddly-chuted rabbit’s hole when she writes, “[the recently released John Jay Report] concluded, absurdly, that neither the all-male celibate priesthood nor homosexuality were causes [of priestly pedophilia.]”
Putting aside the truth that the most child sexual abuse occurs in the home (or the public schools) at the hands of un-celibate men and women, I wonder if Dowd realizes that in that sentence she sounds remarkably like Bill Donohue of the Catholic league and others who argue that the roots of the sexual abuse issue are grounded in homosexuality. But then, who would expect her to? There are few who expect such basic reasoning in our era of extreme sentimentalism.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
Last Week’s Piece at FT
Dolan’s Piece
Dowd at NY Times
Comments:
6.21.2011 | 4:15am
Joseph Tomaino says:
What God made, he has made, what man has chosen to do it is another thing.Hate the sin, love the sinner!
6.21.2011 | 7:27am
Mel says:
If homosexuality is "hard-wired" by God, then why is it called a sin in the Bible. There are many references in the Holy Bible that calls homosexuality a sin.
6.21.2011 | 7:40am
Brian says:
The First Commandment of the gay movement, and popular culture in America, is Obey Your Desires. If you have a desire (especially a sexual desire), and you can act on it without "hurting anyone else", then our culture doesn't just say You can obey your desire, but You Must Obey Your Desire--it's a moral imperative. There is a generally-unspoken sense that we break/repress ourselves if we don't obey, if we exercise self-control. Much of their folly stems from this one overriding assumption about human life. The gay community, where everyone has defined him/herself by his/her desires, is one of the most profound living examples of what happens when one's Desire is treated as the first deity to be obeyed.
6.21.2011 | 8:01am
The Moz says:
Brilliant - Extreme sentimentalism is the real issue here and many other places. Emotivism, the Oprah effect and the "I defy you to negate the truth of my experience" pop psychology type stuff has inundated our culture and flooded our psyches.
But what's most annoying is the blatant political ideology that now passes for science at many professional bodies. I once heard someone remark that if people are told they are irrational and worse for thinking through a topic and coming to a rational, evidence based conclusion that is unpopular, how are they then to be faulted for their incredulity when it comes to climate change, health care and taxes, for example.
But what's most annoying is the blatant political ideology that now passes for science at many professional bodies. I once heard someone remark that if people are told they are irrational and worse for thinking through a topic and coming to a rational, evidence based conclusion that is unpopular, how are they then to be faulted for their incredulity when it comes to climate change, health care and taxes, for example.
6.21.2011 | 8:24am
Gail Finke says:
The amount of muddy thinking on this matter continues to astound me. Not yours, Elizabeth -- in general.
People refuse to look at history. Throughout all of history, in all cultures, a certain, small amount of people have exhibited sexual preferences for others of the same sex. This has never, in any society, been considered normal. As it occurs in all societies and environments, one can assume without a huge leap of illogic that it is a normal (as in regularly occurring) variation that can't be ascribed to either nature or nurture, because not enough is known about it. Is it a propensity only, something from nature that nurture brings out? Is it "hard-wired" so that no nurture can change it? Is it some combination of the two? We just don't know. What we do know is that it happens.
What we also know is that, just as marriage precedes all governments and more complex social arrangements and is ALWAYS a union between a man and a woman, there have NEVER been any recognized same-sex unions in history, in any culture or society. It is not a natural way of living for human beings and there is no reason to believe that, however many 21st century governments make it legal, it will endure.
In most societies, homosexual acts have either been forbidden or tolerated as personal vices. Sometimes, such as in ancient Greece, they have been accepted for a certain period of time, among people of a certain class or condition, as an unnatural but tolerated behavior, just as it is in prisons today. In most societies, people attracted to members of the same sex continued to marry and reproduce. Some biologists have suggested that homosexual men help their families' genes to pass on because they have a lot of energy to spend on their brothers' families, not having their own. This strikes me as extremely speculative, considering the huge variation in how families have been structured and how many non-homosexual men have, throughout history and cultures, not married.
We are rather unbalanced today in that we expect most people to marry -- previously in the West, besides HUGE numbers of unmarried clergy and religious, there were many "old maids," "bachelors," widows, widowers, invalids, and working people who remained unmarried all their lives. Today we consider it a pathology not to have a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. I suspect this is another reason people are so eager to extend marriage to same-sex partners -- we think anyone who doesn't have a partner has a major problem. We have impoverished the idea of family so much that we are eager to extend it to any unrelated people who are nice to each other.
People refuse to look at history. Throughout all of history, in all cultures, a certain, small amount of people have exhibited sexual preferences for others of the same sex. This has never, in any society, been considered normal. As it occurs in all societies and environments, one can assume without a huge leap of illogic that it is a normal (as in regularly occurring) variation that can't be ascribed to either nature or nurture, because not enough is known about it. Is it a propensity only, something from nature that nurture brings out? Is it "hard-wired" so that no nurture can change it? Is it some combination of the two? We just don't know. What we do know is that it happens.
What we also know is that, just as marriage precedes all governments and more complex social arrangements and is ALWAYS a union between a man and a woman, there have NEVER been any recognized same-sex unions in history, in any culture or society. It is not a natural way of living for human beings and there is no reason to believe that, however many 21st century governments make it legal, it will endure.
In most societies, homosexual acts have either been forbidden or tolerated as personal vices. Sometimes, such as in ancient Greece, they have been accepted for a certain period of time, among people of a certain class or condition, as an unnatural but tolerated behavior, just as it is in prisons today. In most societies, people attracted to members of the same sex continued to marry and reproduce. Some biologists have suggested that homosexual men help their families' genes to pass on because they have a lot of energy to spend on their brothers' families, not having their own. This strikes me as extremely speculative, considering the huge variation in how families have been structured and how many non-homosexual men have, throughout history and cultures, not married.
We are rather unbalanced today in that we expect most people to marry -- previously in the West, besides HUGE numbers of unmarried clergy and religious, there were many "old maids," "bachelors," widows, widowers, invalids, and working people who remained unmarried all their lives. Today we consider it a pathology not to have a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. I suspect this is another reason people are so eager to extend marriage to same-sex partners -- we think anyone who doesn't have a partner has a major problem. We have impoverished the idea of family so much that we are eager to extend it to any unrelated people who are nice to each other.
6.21.2011 | 8:35am
ferd says:
Elizabeth...you define the polar opposites of our Christian interaction with this culture, and its stance on gay marriage, as people who view homosexuality as "an abomination" vs. those "preferring to embrace the absolute moral authority of collective sentimentalism".
I view the polar opposites a bit differently. There are those who approach life (as it really is) as a hierarchical structure: ascending upwards from mineral to plant life to animal and human life to the spirtual with way up God at the top of all. Then, there are those who see nature and life as much flatter and more equal. Animals become brothers and sisters, sexuality more fungible.
Now, obviously Maureen Dowd considers Christianity's poor social fit into our modern flat worldview as simply a matter of too many ill-informed morons, or worse, cruelity. Thus, the polar opposites of the debate do not exist for people like Dowd. There is no debate with the stupid or cruel...only her sharp tongued dismissal which butters her bread at the NY TIMES.
Catholics who try to "straddle" the issue with a tender heart of compassion should be fully aware of these two worldviews, the Flat egalitarian vs. the hierarchical, and realize that there are no compromises that include hierarchical concepts in a Flat worldview.
I view the polar opposites a bit differently. There are those who approach life (as it really is) as a hierarchical structure: ascending upwards from mineral to plant life to animal and human life to the spirtual with way up God at the top of all. Then, there are those who see nature and life as much flatter and more equal. Animals become brothers and sisters, sexuality more fungible.
Now, obviously Maureen Dowd considers Christianity's poor social fit into our modern flat worldview as simply a matter of too many ill-informed morons, or worse, cruelity. Thus, the polar opposites of the debate do not exist for people like Dowd. There is no debate with the stupid or cruel...only her sharp tongued dismissal which butters her bread at the NY TIMES.
Catholics who try to "straddle" the issue with a tender heart of compassion should be fully aware of these two worldviews, the Flat egalitarian vs. the hierarchical, and realize that there are no compromises that include hierarchical concepts in a Flat worldview.
6.21.2011 | 9:35am
Thomas Chiapelas says:
Ms. Scalia tries much to hard and her uni-dimensional analysis of the Church is ultimately predictable. Prior to Cardinal George's elevation to leading the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I saw him give a talk at St. Mary's Church in Lake Forest Ill. He opened with "Let me begin by saying....we get it." Not much later this surfaces. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16235278
Ms. Scalia can't misidentifies the victims, lowers the standards for God's "bridehead", and contorts herself in an unsustainable position trying to defend the institution over Catholicism's plural tradition.
Ms. Scalia can't misidentifies the victims, lowers the standards for God's "bridehead", and contorts herself in an unsustainable position trying to defend the institution over Catholicism's plural tradition.
6.21.2011 | 10:16am
Mark Rutledge says:
I am puzzled at the dichotomy of abomination vs semtimentalism. It seems to me most serious Catholics follow the Church's teaching that homosexuality is objectively disordered. Though only behavior is sinful, the inclination itself should exclude one from the priesthood. I don't believe I am misrepresenting the Church's teaching here. This understanding is not tantamount to wagging the finger of "abomination." Moreover, homosexuality is one of many things antithetical to authentic male behavior. I can no more endorse, or even excuse, gay lifestyles than I can cowardice, marital infidelity, cuckoldry, or any other extreme dearth of male virtue. On the other side of the balance sheet, those Catholics who support change in the Church's understanding of homosexuality are anything but sentimental. There is a uniform conformity to progressive philosophy, which has very little sympathy for the past as with sentimentalism. I suspect that Elizabeth Scalia and I are on the same side of this issue, but perhaps with a different understanding as to why.
6.21.2011 | 11:11am
Roger says:
It's almost amusing to see the NY Times bigotrix-in-residence charge others with bigotry. (Think of her "Are Men Necessary?" misandrist screed.) It is unfortunate that Maureen Dowd's views have come to represent so many. Philip Rieff's distinction between "homosexuality" and "homosexualism" brings some clarity to the discussion. For Rieff, the former just is what it is, but the latter is an ideology that has grown up around it, an ideology that, he argues, is marked by either indifference or hatred, in spite of its claims to be all about love. "Homosexualism" has, unfortunately, hijacked all discussion of "homosexuality."
6.21.2011 | 11:39am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
I have no idea whether some people are born genetically predisposed to be sexually attracted to others of their same sex or whether environmental factors cause this or whether it is a combination of the two or whether there are different causes for different people. What I do know is that the orientation (which is a temptation) is not a sin, but homosexual acts are (among a long list of sexual acts, many of which are practiced by heterosexuals). In any event, if genetics is the cause or a cause or a contributing factor, that should not be a problem for orthodox Christians who should understand that since the Fall we are all born with corrupted natures and overwhelming urges to sin. For many of us, those urges are not toward homosexual sins, but we all have sinful urges. The effect of the Fall should remind us to two things in regards to this subject: (1) We are all sinners, not just those who commit homosexual acts, and we all need to confess our sins, repent and pray for His mercy many times for the sins we repeatedly commit; (2) there is no Biblical reason to deny that a person is born with with a same sex orientation -- Christians should know that God doesn't make any of us with our sinful passions, Adam did.
6.21.2011 | 11:41am
David says:
The reason some of us are stuck on the word "abomination" is that we believe in God, we believe in God the Holy Spirit, we believe that He has spoken through the prophets, and that through these inspired writers, HE has called the act an "abomination," a "shameless act," and the "mutual degradation of bodies." Further, HE has said that the source of strong lust for these matters is a rejection of God. Further HE has written that although the gentiles know God's just decree that those who engage in such acts deserve to die, they not only perform these acts, but APPROVE those who practice them.
We're called Christians. What about you?
We're called Christians. What about you?
6.21.2011 | 12:06pm
Randy says:
There are children, usually boys, that just love watching fires, and the bigger that fire the better. Maybe they were born that way, but that just means that they need to develop more self-control than the average person when it comes to fire. It doesn't mean their fascination with flames is a good thing. It means that they have an extra cross to bear, and we should all help them avoid their temptation to start fires. And if they do avoid the temptation to burn down a warehouse someday, all the more blessings they'll receive. What God burdens you with, He gives you the means to overcome according to His plan.
6.21.2011 | 12:12pm
DVO says:
Roger makes a very important point. Having homosexual desires is one thing, but being "gay" is most certainly a choice, entailing the acceptance of a whole host of socio-sexual-political assumptions, chief among which is that traditional Christian ideas about sexuality must always be portrayed negatively. Let me add this. There is an argument often put forth that somehow, being "born that way" justifies acting that way. My experience tells me that, in one sense or another, we're ALL "born that way", in other words into sin, with a predilection to physical desires or appetites that may well be "natural" but are not not good for us to endulge. (To say nothing of those affected by our endulgence)Promiscuity, adultery, pornography, sexual deviancy, prostitution, sexual slavery, etc., all are "natural" to humanity. Does anyone want to pretend that those would make a good basis for family or cultural structures? As such, the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore should be regarded by the church as a legitimate expression of human sexuality doesn't draw a lot of water with me.
6.21.2011 | 12:37pm
David Terwilliger+ says:
I have had people come to me and say, "Homosexual orientation is now scientifically explainable (put forth as an argument for its expression in society as rationally justified)." What I think is important to ask in reply is, Which science are they thinking of? Somehow Anatomy and Physiology as "hard sciences" have to be taken seriously!
6.21.2011 | 12:44pm
James P says:
This I think is the crux of the issue:
"Supposing, as I did last week, that we could conclusively demonstrate homosexuality as God-planned."
There is much talk in society at large that men and women with homosexual desires are born this way. I touched on this briefly at the end of the comments on your post last week, that as a man living with same sex attraction, I don't accept that this is the case. When we talk about something being "God-planned," why do we stop at homosexuality? Is everything that exists in the world potentially "God-planned?" What about men who argue that they are constitutionally philanderers and therefore incapable of fidelity? Could they also argue that this is "God-planned?" What about birth defects, cancer and malaria? Are these "God-planned," or are they "God-allowed?" There is a distinct difference in my mind. God allows homosexuality to exist in mankind, just as he has allowed everything that exists in mankind. But did God plan what befalls us? In my life as a man with same sex attraction, I view same sex attraction in my life as allowed by God, for the good of my soul. I view it in the same way Christ answered the apostles concerning the man born blind was born blind: the reason anyone is allowed to have homosexual desires is God would be glorified. In my case, this has been used by God to reveal my very need for Him. I don't relish it or celebrate, nor do I view it as created/planned by God, but rather redeemed by God.
The problem I have with this post, and the post last week is that conversations in Catholicism concerning homosexuality are being more and more shaped by the world around us. Naturally, we must engage the culture, but sadly, the contemporary viewpoints concerning homosexuality are sullying the truth of Catholicism.
Our Catholic convictions concerning homosexuality are slowly being eroded away by the continual downpour of pro-gay activists who have taken a page from the play book of Quentin Crisp, interviewed in 1968:
"Enlightenment does not produce tolerance. Tolerance is the result of boredom. The facts have to be repeated over, and over and in the end people say, "alright, so you're queer! Just talk about something else,' and then the work is done. And this of course is the work of time, and not of legislation. Legislation makes almost difference. Legislation is the result of public opinion. You can't really force a law on people, especially in England, that is totally against it."
This conversation that suspects that homosexuality just might be God planned is a result of the erosion resulting from time. Can we imagine what the Church Fathers would have to say to us, or what St. Paul himself would say to us if we actually might believe that homosexuality was "God planned?" It's absurd, in the same way we might think that the Fall of Man was God planned. I view homosexuality in my own life as my personal felix culpa. My life is far more rich because of how God has redeemed my same sex attraction, and I wouldn't trade the lessons I've learned for anything in the world. But even so, I would never argue that homosexuality is "God planned," just as I would not argue that cancer is "God planned." It is a result of a fallen world, and is an opportunity for God to be glorified in the redemption which comes.
May God help us to not become bored into apathy and becoming conciliatory for the sake of "enlightenment."
"Supposing, as I did last week, that we could conclusively demonstrate homosexuality as God-planned."
There is much talk in society at large that men and women with homosexual desires are born this way. I touched on this briefly at the end of the comments on your post last week, that as a man living with same sex attraction, I don't accept that this is the case. When we talk about something being "God-planned," why do we stop at homosexuality? Is everything that exists in the world potentially "God-planned?" What about men who argue that they are constitutionally philanderers and therefore incapable of fidelity? Could they also argue that this is "God-planned?" What about birth defects, cancer and malaria? Are these "God-planned," or are they "God-allowed?" There is a distinct difference in my mind. God allows homosexuality to exist in mankind, just as he has allowed everything that exists in mankind. But did God plan what befalls us? In my life as a man with same sex attraction, I view same sex attraction in my life as allowed by God, for the good of my soul. I view it in the same way Christ answered the apostles concerning the man born blind was born blind: the reason anyone is allowed to have homosexual desires is God would be glorified. In my case, this has been used by God to reveal my very need for Him. I don't relish it or celebrate, nor do I view it as created/planned by God, but rather redeemed by God.
The problem I have with this post, and the post last week is that conversations in Catholicism concerning homosexuality are being more and more shaped by the world around us. Naturally, we must engage the culture, but sadly, the contemporary viewpoints concerning homosexuality are sullying the truth of Catholicism.
Our Catholic convictions concerning homosexuality are slowly being eroded away by the continual downpour of pro-gay activists who have taken a page from the play book of Quentin Crisp, interviewed in 1968:
"Enlightenment does not produce tolerance. Tolerance is the result of boredom. The facts have to be repeated over, and over and in the end people say, "alright, so you're queer! Just talk about something else,' and then the work is done. And this of course is the work of time, and not of legislation. Legislation makes almost difference. Legislation is the result of public opinion. You can't really force a law on people, especially in England, that is totally against it."
This conversation that suspects that homosexuality just might be God planned is a result of the erosion resulting from time. Can we imagine what the Church Fathers would have to say to us, or what St. Paul himself would say to us if we actually might believe that homosexuality was "God planned?" It's absurd, in the same way we might think that the Fall of Man was God planned. I view homosexuality in my own life as my personal felix culpa. My life is far more rich because of how God has redeemed my same sex attraction, and I wouldn't trade the lessons I've learned for anything in the world. But even so, I would never argue that homosexuality is "God planned," just as I would not argue that cancer is "God planned." It is a result of a fallen world, and is an opportunity for God to be glorified in the redemption which comes.
May God help us to not become bored into apathy and becoming conciliatory for the sake of "enlightenment."
6.21.2011 | 12:55pm
David says:
Thank you for writing this. I was appalled by Dowd's column on Sunday. Why does
the NY Times keep up the pretense that this column contributes to informed and
well-reasoned public discourse? It's purely "entertainment" (of what kind I can only imagine). Off-handed, snarky comments--is this what passes for "reason?" Is this
supposed to be amusing? Take it off the editorial page and hide it somewhere in
Arts & Leisure or Sunday Styles.
Better yet, get rid of it all together.
the NY Times keep up the pretense that this column contributes to informed and
well-reasoned public discourse? It's purely "entertainment" (of what kind I can only imagine). Off-handed, snarky comments--is this what passes for "reason?" Is this
supposed to be amusing? Take it off the editorial page and hide it somewhere in
Arts & Leisure or Sunday Styles.
Better yet, get rid of it all together.
6.21.2011 | 1:06pm
Bender says:
**Supposing, as I did last week, that we could conclusively demonstrate homosexuality as God-planned, it still would not necessarily follow that gays are therefore called to marriage.**
_______________
Once again, the premise is fatally flawed. And one can say that it is fatally flawed without saying, much less thinking, "abomination!" One can point out the inherent flaws of the premise without be so wrongly caricaturized as mean and angry. And being so fatally flawed, even if one assumes the premise merely "for the sake of the argument," the entire discussion becomes flawed. One cannot straddle truth and error. Truth and error are not co-equal.
But then again, is it really merely "supposing" when one says, yet again, "a man who identifies as homosexual can be a faithful and celibate priest." One can be a faithful only if he is true, so that one can be a faithful priest in such a case only if that homosexuality is true to his nature. If homosexuality is contrary to the truth of the nature of the human person, then to identify as homosexual is to identify with a lie. And for such a priest to insist that he can so identify as homosexual is to have a erroneous understanding of the truth of the nature of the human person, which puts him in poor stead with conveying truth to other persons.
Again, gayness is not an ontological feature. "Gay" is not a state of being, it is not something that one is, it is something that one does or believes. Homosexuality is a flaw. And thinking that it is a state of being is a flaw. But big deal, we are all flawed in some way or other. We are all disordered in this way or that. We all think and believe and act contrary to the true order of things in some way. "Gays" are no exception, and we are wrong to assert that they are immune from such disorderedness.
"Man" is male and female. The truth of the human person, as revealed in our very bodies, is that man and woman are made for each other, equal and complementary. Among other ways, this complementariness is particularly demonstrated in their respective "body parts," one made for use with the other, including the exchange of biological procreative material. Male and female are not complete "man" without the other or God.
There is a spousal meaning in the human body. There is a spousal meaning in the body of those who proclaim themselves to be "gay."
So-called "gays" ARE CALLED TO MARRIAGE. We are all called to marriage. We are all called to that fullness of love which is both unitive and procreative. That loving communion of persons which is fruitful is possible only through the marriage of one man and one woman, as the language of the human body tells us, or through the "marriage" of the human person with God Himself.
But the partnership of one man with another man, either figuratively or physically, is not and cannot be "marriage." They cannnot be, by their nature, two become one in the transcendent sense. And their physical union of body parts that were not made for each other cannot be a true joinder of persons.
"Gays" are called to marriage. But same-sex partnerships are not marriage. If the person with same-sex attractions does not wish to join with a person of the opposite sex (which as a matter of charity (love) might be appropriate if that person is unable to make a complete gift of self to the other), then he or she can always join with Him who is Love itself.
_______________
Once again, the premise is fatally flawed. And one can say that it is fatally flawed without saying, much less thinking, "abomination!" One can point out the inherent flaws of the premise without be so wrongly caricaturized as mean and angry. And being so fatally flawed, even if one assumes the premise merely "for the sake of the argument," the entire discussion becomes flawed. One cannot straddle truth and error. Truth and error are not co-equal.
But then again, is it really merely "supposing" when one says, yet again, "a man who identifies as homosexual can be a faithful and celibate priest." One can be a faithful only if he is true, so that one can be a faithful priest in such a case only if that homosexuality is true to his nature. If homosexuality is contrary to the truth of the nature of the human person, then to identify as homosexual is to identify with a lie. And for such a priest to insist that he can so identify as homosexual is to have a erroneous understanding of the truth of the nature of the human person, which puts him in poor stead with conveying truth to other persons.
Again, gayness is not an ontological feature. "Gay" is not a state of being, it is not something that one is, it is something that one does or believes. Homosexuality is a flaw. And thinking that it is a state of being is a flaw. But big deal, we are all flawed in some way or other. We are all disordered in this way or that. We all think and believe and act contrary to the true order of things in some way. "Gays" are no exception, and we are wrong to assert that they are immune from such disorderedness.
"Man" is male and female. The truth of the human person, as revealed in our very bodies, is that man and woman are made for each other, equal and complementary. Among other ways, this complementariness is particularly demonstrated in their respective "body parts," one made for use with the other, including the exchange of biological procreative material. Male and female are not complete "man" without the other or God.
There is a spousal meaning in the human body. There is a spousal meaning in the body of those who proclaim themselves to be "gay."
So-called "gays" ARE CALLED TO MARRIAGE. We are all called to marriage. We are all called to that fullness of love which is both unitive and procreative. That loving communion of persons which is fruitful is possible only through the marriage of one man and one woman, as the language of the human body tells us, or through the "marriage" of the human person with God Himself.
But the partnership of one man with another man, either figuratively or physically, is not and cannot be "marriage." They cannnot be, by their nature, two become one in the transcendent sense. And their physical union of body parts that were not made for each other cannot be a true joinder of persons.
"Gays" are called to marriage. But same-sex partnerships are not marriage. If the person with same-sex attractions does not wish to join with a person of the opposite sex (which as a matter of charity (love) might be appropriate if that person is unable to make a complete gift of self to the other), then he or she can always join with Him who is Love itself.
6.21.2011 | 1:08pm
David says:
For those who are concerned about Elizabeth's "straddling" of the issue, I
recommend reading the USCCB's pastoral message, "Always Our Children." The
bishops do a wonderful job, in my opinion, of delivering a compassionate message of deep genuine pastoral concern and advice, while not backing away from authentic church teaching.
recommend reading the USCCB's pastoral message, "Always Our Children." The
bishops do a wonderful job, in my opinion, of delivering a compassionate message of deep genuine pastoral concern and advice, while not backing away from authentic church teaching.
6.21.2011 | 1:18pm
Liamo says:
I once read sentimentality defined as "unearned emotion". That pretty much nails it: unearned emotion in combination with consumer culture equals a culture of adolescence. Which is one reason why you find women in their fifties, like Dowd, referring to themselves as 'girls' or 'chicks'. Grow up, Maureen; you're too clever by half. And there is nothing 'starchy' about the earthy, ample Dolan.
6.21.2011 | 1:41pm
sally r says:
I don't understand why people believe that if we demonstrate that something is "hard-wired", as in rooted in nature rather than nurture, then it is normal and must be accomodated as "God willed". There are many difficulties that are "hard-wired" into people by their genes, such as - built-in hyper-aggression, genetic pre-disposition to addictions or alcoholism, anti-social personality disorders, autism-spectrum disorders and many more.
In each of these cases, we expect those who bear these hardships to make difficult efforts to conform their behavior to the norm - we do not simply say "well, they were born that way, so I guess we have to permit them to disrupt society. In fact, we must celebrate their (addictions, aggression, other problems) and change our basic moral norms so that they won't feel bad about the way God made them."
God gives each of us a cross to bear, and I am sure that same-sex attraction can be a terrible burden. As are many other problems that people face on a daily basis. But that doesn't release anyone from the demands of striving to lead a morally upright life. But this argument will not convince anyone who is convinced that sexual activity has absolutely nothing to do with procreation. They believe that all sexual activity can be morally upright as long as the people involved are consenting. This inabliity to accept the link between sex and procreation is the real reason why people argue that homosexual conduct is both natural and good. Whether it's a result of nature or not is really beside the point.
In each of these cases, we expect those who bear these hardships to make difficult efforts to conform their behavior to the norm - we do not simply say "well, they were born that way, so I guess we have to permit them to disrupt society. In fact, we must celebrate their (addictions, aggression, other problems) and change our basic moral norms so that they won't feel bad about the way God made them."
God gives each of us a cross to bear, and I am sure that same-sex attraction can be a terrible burden. As are many other problems that people face on a daily basis. But that doesn't release anyone from the demands of striving to lead a morally upright life. But this argument will not convince anyone who is convinced that sexual activity has absolutely nothing to do with procreation. They believe that all sexual activity can be morally upright as long as the people involved are consenting. This inabliity to accept the link between sex and procreation is the real reason why people argue that homosexual conduct is both natural and good. Whether it's a result of nature or not is really beside the point.
6.21.2011 | 1:57pm
Susan says:
As a same-sex attracted woman, and as a believing Catholic who tries to live chastely, I would like to give a hearty “Amen!” to James P’s post above. God may have permitted me to experience the cross of same-sex attractions; however, it should be recognized as a cross and nothing else. It is only a “gift” in so far as this particular weakness or affliction prompts me to rely more heavily on God’s grace. I trust that God will be glorified through my particular struggle – either through my being delivered of this particular cross, or, and perhaps more likely so, in His giving me the courage to continually strive to be faithful to Him even in the midst of the affliction.
6.21.2011 | 1:58pm
J says:
I will be frank, and say that I think you are on very dangerous ground. First, sceince has not the competence to make moral decisions, it can only tell us about biology. Second, I'm missing in this the very simple and unavoidable fact: it is a disorder. You can dress it up in all the nice language, but it remains the time honored teaching. I don't think its your intention to not "think with the church" but you are on very thin ice.
6.21.2011 | 2:08pm
Citizen Jerry says:
In the Bible, God's Holy Word, homosexuality is called an "abomination." Those who think that judgment is too harsh need to take their complaint to the author.
Homosexual behavior is sin, just like other sins. We are to loathe the sin, but offer God's healing to the sinner. But that involves "repent and sin no more."
The problem is, the homosexual community defines their behavior as who they are. It's how they identify themselves. If we don't embrace and celebrate them and their behavior, we labeled as haters.
If homosexuality is "hard wired" by God, why does the Bible admonish against it in so many places? No matter how often homosexuals try to make us believe it, there is absolutely zero scientific proof there were "born that way."
Homosexual behavior is sin, just like other sins. We are to loathe the sin, but offer God's healing to the sinner. But that involves "repent and sin no more."
The problem is, the homosexual community defines their behavior as who they are. It's how they identify themselves. If we don't embrace and celebrate them and their behavior, we labeled as haters.
If homosexuality is "hard wired" by God, why does the Bible admonish against it in so many places? No matter how often homosexuals try to make us believe it, there is absolutely zero scientific proof there were "born that way."
6.21.2011 | 2:13pm
Michael PS says:
A remarkable change occurred in the 19th century.
Traditionally, sodomy had been regarded as a sin and, specifically, as a sin against religion. It is no coincidence that the three crimes of blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft were abolished by the same resolution, passed, without a debate, by the National Constituent Assembly on 25 September 1791 – Deorum iniuria diis cura [Injuries to the gods are the gods’ business]
Michel Foucault has, rather drolly described the change that took place in the public perception:: “Sodomy, that of the old civil or canon laws, was a category of forbidden acts. Their perpetrator was nothing more than the juridical subject of them. The nineteenth-century homosexual became a personage: a past, a case history, and a childhood, in addition to being a character, a life-style and a morphology, with an over-inquisitive anatomy and, possibly, a mysterious physiology. Nothing that he was, escaped his sexuality... It was consubstantial with him, less as a habitual sin than as a singular nature…. The sodomite had been a lapse; the homosexual was now a species.” [My translation]
From being a sinful action to be repented, or a vice to be overcome, “homosexuality” became a condition to be treated. Now, of course, it is an identity to be validated. Whether this change amounts to a growth in respect for a person, with a mind that reflects on its own activity and a will that determines the acts it initiates, may be doubted.
Traditionally, sodomy had been regarded as a sin and, specifically, as a sin against religion. It is no coincidence that the three crimes of blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft were abolished by the same resolution, passed, without a debate, by the National Constituent Assembly on 25 September 1791 – Deorum iniuria diis cura [Injuries to the gods are the gods’ business]
Michel Foucault has, rather drolly described the change that took place in the public perception:: “Sodomy, that of the old civil or canon laws, was a category of forbidden acts. Their perpetrator was nothing more than the juridical subject of them. The nineteenth-century homosexual became a personage: a past, a case history, and a childhood, in addition to being a character, a life-style and a morphology, with an over-inquisitive anatomy and, possibly, a mysterious physiology. Nothing that he was, escaped his sexuality... It was consubstantial with him, less as a habitual sin than as a singular nature…. The sodomite had been a lapse; the homosexual was now a species.” [My translation]
From being a sinful action to be repented, or a vice to be overcome, “homosexuality” became a condition to be treated. Now, of course, it is an identity to be validated. Whether this change amounts to a growth in respect for a person, with a mind that reflects on its own activity and a will that determines the acts it initiates, may be doubted.
6.21.2011 | 2:20pm
Aimee says:
James P., I just want to tell you how much I appreciate your comments, on this column and on last week's column as well. You bring a great deal of clarity to the discussion.
And David, I completely agree about Dowd. It's so hard not to call her "Moron Dowd" and thus sink to her level (see? I just failed again.) Her columns often fail to make the very argument she set out to make, and so much of it is just crazy-talk. I doubt that she realizes she just claimed that homosexuality leads to pedophilia--odd shaped rabbit hole indeed. I agree--get rid of it all together, and give the space to someone who can actually write and reason at the same time.
And David, I completely agree about Dowd. It's so hard not to call her "Moron Dowd" and thus sink to her level (see? I just failed again.) Her columns often fail to make the very argument she set out to make, and so much of it is just crazy-talk. I doubt that she realizes she just claimed that homosexuality leads to pedophilia--odd shaped rabbit hole indeed. I agree--get rid of it all together, and give the space to someone who can actually write and reason at the same time.
6.21.2011 | 2:35pm
Joseph Marshall says:
Excellent article Elizabeth. The phrase "the absolute moral authority of collective sentimentalism" is particularly juicy. But, even though I know what you are talking about, I think a more accurate characterization would "relative moral authority" since part of the point of view is the rejection of any authority as absolute.
I also think that "nature and nurture" is a false dichotomy. It seems to me that the preponderance of scientific evidence, particularly in biology and psychology, indicates that it is a gradient, like a rainbow, and, while we can distinguish colors clearly, any attempt to establish where one ends and the other begins is totally arbitrary. There is simply nothing that is not "nature" and it does not come with little tabs marking off this particular and that particular characteristic. There is, as well, little to nothing that is not changed in some way by "nurture". Comparing the pre-adult photographs of identical twins with their photographs at age 50 shows this, even if it does not "prove" this.
I also think that the constantly repeated notion that homosexuality is somehow a separate "disorder" of the "normal" human population is simply false. My direct observations over the years are consistent with the notion that everyone is potentially bisexual. From what I can tell, much [if not a preponderance] of the evidence of biology and psychology supports this. What form of sexual temptations anyone will have is, again, a gradient of nature to nurture with no dividing lines.
You describe the most important thing about the issue is very clearly, "the church does not consider homosexual inclinations in and of themselves to be sinful." The rhetoric of "abomination", "disordered lifestyle", "homosexual agenda", and so on simply and consistently contradicts this doctrine, and using it is a way of masking cognitive and emotional dissonance about even the possibility of a bisexual gradient among humans.
I hear constantly, "Hate the sin, but not the sinner." This is also a false dichotomy because without a particular temptation it is impossible to tell just who or what is being "hated". The most strident anti-homosexual rhetoric among Christians consistently obliterates the distinction between homosexual temptation and homosexual sin, which the Church does not, and in such cases "hating the sin" simply means "hating all the people with the temptation". This is why so much of this is an issue of prejudice alone.
As a Buddhist, I think "hating" anything is as much a part of the problem, as "homosexual impulses"; both are what we call "conflicting emotions" that drive bad actions that lead to suffering.
As to marriage, I understand the Church teaches that only some Christian marriages are Sacramental, and that no non-Christian marriages are Sacramental. If this be so, I'll be darned if I can discern what Canon lawyer Edward Peters is talking about when he speaks of, presumably spiritual, "benefit of matrimony" in all marriages and not just the Sacramental ones. In fact, in many cultures and religions I would be inclined to call what benefits there are those of "patrimony" and I see no reason to regard any of them as spiritual in the least.
Here is a question that I have consistently asked on comment pages of this kind that no one seems to have the nerve to directly address. What is the genuine spiritual difference between non-Sacramental marriage--Hindu marriage, Shinto marriage, Muslim marriage, Tribal marriage--and mere cohabitation?
In the absence of a clear and reasonable answer to this question, the argument against gay marriage boils down to, "It's never been done before so it shouldn't be done now." since gay marriage in any case could never be Sacramental.
This is not a particularly compelling argument.
I also think that "nature and nurture" is a false dichotomy. It seems to me that the preponderance of scientific evidence, particularly in biology and psychology, indicates that it is a gradient, like a rainbow, and, while we can distinguish colors clearly, any attempt to establish where one ends and the other begins is totally arbitrary. There is simply nothing that is not "nature" and it does not come with little tabs marking off this particular and that particular characteristic. There is, as well, little to nothing that is not changed in some way by "nurture". Comparing the pre-adult photographs of identical twins with their photographs at age 50 shows this, even if it does not "prove" this.
I also think that the constantly repeated notion that homosexuality is somehow a separate "disorder" of the "normal" human population is simply false. My direct observations over the years are consistent with the notion that everyone is potentially bisexual. From what I can tell, much [if not a preponderance] of the evidence of biology and psychology supports this. What form of sexual temptations anyone will have is, again, a gradient of nature to nurture with no dividing lines.
You describe the most important thing about the issue is very clearly, "the church does not consider homosexual inclinations in and of themselves to be sinful." The rhetoric of "abomination", "disordered lifestyle", "homosexual agenda", and so on simply and consistently contradicts this doctrine, and using it is a way of masking cognitive and emotional dissonance about even the possibility of a bisexual gradient among humans.
I hear constantly, "Hate the sin, but not the sinner." This is also a false dichotomy because without a particular temptation it is impossible to tell just who or what is being "hated". The most strident anti-homosexual rhetoric among Christians consistently obliterates the distinction between homosexual temptation and homosexual sin, which the Church does not, and in such cases "hating the sin" simply means "hating all the people with the temptation". This is why so much of this is an issue of prejudice alone.
As a Buddhist, I think "hating" anything is as much a part of the problem, as "homosexual impulses"; both are what we call "conflicting emotions" that drive bad actions that lead to suffering.
As to marriage, I understand the Church teaches that only some Christian marriages are Sacramental, and that no non-Christian marriages are Sacramental. If this be so, I'll be darned if I can discern what Canon lawyer Edward Peters is talking about when he speaks of, presumably spiritual, "benefit of matrimony" in all marriages and not just the Sacramental ones. In fact, in many cultures and religions I would be inclined to call what benefits there are those of "patrimony" and I see no reason to regard any of them as spiritual in the least.
Here is a question that I have consistently asked on comment pages of this kind that no one seems to have the nerve to directly address. What is the genuine spiritual difference between non-Sacramental marriage--Hindu marriage, Shinto marriage, Muslim marriage, Tribal marriage--and mere cohabitation?
In the absence of a clear and reasonable answer to this question, the argument against gay marriage boils down to, "It's never been done before so it shouldn't be done now." since gay marriage in any case could never be Sacramental.
This is not a particularly compelling argument.
6.21.2011 | 2:42pm
Gail Finke says:
James P: What a well-reasoned AND heart-felt post. You are right, so much discourse about this subject is only along the parameters set out by a certain, politically motivated group. There is so much more to say. Thanks.
6.21.2011 | 3:34pm
David Nickol says:
Bender claims: "So-called "gays" ARE CALLED TO MARRIAGE. We are all called to marriage. We are all called to that fullness of love which is both unitive and procreative. That loving communion of persons which is fruitful is possible only through the marriage of one man and one woman, as the language of the human body tells us, or through the 'marriage' of the human person with God Himself."
But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."
If a homosexual orientation is something one can "get over" by refusing to identify with it and whatever other methods Bender has in mind, why can't sincere candidates for the priesthood be "cured" first if they have a homosexual orientation?
The Church uses the term "homosexual person" in many official documents, and it is clear the Church considers a homosexual orientation as something a person has--an inherent quality, not something a person does.
But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."
If a homosexual orientation is something one can "get over" by refusing to identify with it and whatever other methods Bender has in mind, why can't sincere candidates for the priesthood be "cured" first if they have a homosexual orientation?
The Church uses the term "homosexual person" in many official documents, and it is clear the Church considers a homosexual orientation as something a person has--an inherent quality, not something a person does.
6.21.2011 | 3:54pm
Joseph Marshall says:
Given that the point is made about a lack of reason because of "intellectual laziness of pundits." I must point out that Archbishop Dolan's view:
“Marriage is not simply a mechanism for delivering benefits: It is the union of a man and a woman in a loving, permanent, life-giving union to pro-create children,”
is actually two major errors of reasoning intertwined. "Marriage" is not a necessary condition for children, mere opposite sex cohabitation will do. And "union of a man and a woman in a loving, permanent, life-giving union" is tantamount to saying "marriage cannot be gay marriage because it is marriage".
This is simply circular reasoning and is no flattering contrast to "intellectual laziness" among the pundits. Particular instances escape me at the moment, but I recall hearing this type of circular reasoning fairly frequently in comments on this particular issue, and mere frequency does not make it any more reasonable. Finally, in the same way as children, cohabitation will also do for "loving, permanent union" and mere marriage is no guarantee of it.
“Marriage is not simply a mechanism for delivering benefits: It is the union of a man and a woman in a loving, permanent, life-giving union to pro-create children,”
is actually two major errors of reasoning intertwined. "Marriage" is not a necessary condition for children, mere opposite sex cohabitation will do. And "union of a man and a woman in a loving, permanent, life-giving union" is tantamount to saying "marriage cannot be gay marriage because it is marriage".
This is simply circular reasoning and is no flattering contrast to "intellectual laziness" among the pundits. Particular instances escape me at the moment, but I recall hearing this type of circular reasoning fairly frequently in comments on this particular issue, and mere frequency does not make it any more reasonable. Finally, in the same way as children, cohabitation will also do for "loving, permanent union" and mere marriage is no guarantee of it.
6.21.2011 | 4:43pm
Brian A Cook says:
Mrs Schalia, let me thank you again for your attempts to reach at nuance, fairness, honesty, and reason in such a heated social debate.
6.21.2011 | 5:13pm
JDD says:
Joseph Marshall,
"Marriage" is not a necessary condition for children, mere opposite sex cohabitation will do."
This is true only if you think of pro-creating children as a one-time biological event. In the Christian understanding of marriage, it is an ongoing, a lifetime event.
Marriage in the Christian understanding is considered a "State of life," something I enter into such that my decision making now is permanently different than it was before.
Yes, a child can be biologically brought in to the world equally well by both a couple married in (and actively living out) the Christian understanding of the word - or by two persons cohabitating. But from there the pro-creating experience of the child diverges.
Because the foundational philosophy of these two families is different. In the first case the husband and wife decide that they will commit to each other for the rest of their life. In the second case, they do not. In the first case there is an assurance of lifetime stability stated explicitly in the nature of the decision. In the second case, there is not that assurance, again, explicitly in the nature of the decision. In the first case, the child understands: my parents have decided to always be together. In the second case, there is always the reality that my parents have *not* decided they will always be together, and always the question: will my family be the same next year, or wrenchingly different?
The children in these two examples are being differently formed, radically differently pro-created.
"Marriage" is not a necessary condition for children, mere opposite sex cohabitation will do."
This is true only if you think of pro-creating children as a one-time biological event. In the Christian understanding of marriage, it is an ongoing, a lifetime event.
Marriage in the Christian understanding is considered a "State of life," something I enter into such that my decision making now is permanently different than it was before.
Yes, a child can be biologically brought in to the world equally well by both a couple married in (and actively living out) the Christian understanding of the word - or by two persons cohabitating. But from there the pro-creating experience of the child diverges.
Because the foundational philosophy of these two families is different. In the first case the husband and wife decide that they will commit to each other for the rest of their life. In the second case, they do not. In the first case there is an assurance of lifetime stability stated explicitly in the nature of the decision. In the second case, there is not that assurance, again, explicitly in the nature of the decision. In the first case, the child understands: my parents have decided to always be together. In the second case, there is always the reality that my parents have *not* decided they will always be together, and always the question: will my family be the same next year, or wrenchingly different?
The children in these two examples are being differently formed, radically differently pro-created.
6.21.2011 | 5:14pm
Soodonim says:
I find it hard to believe that marriage is the basic foundation of society throughout history when one partner was considered chattel until about 15 seconds ago. How can there be a union when one partner thinks so poorly of the other, and the other has internalized such thoughts? I'm not that old, and can remember a time when spousal rape was legal. Too many people paint a rosy, romantic picture of marriage when there's every evidence to the contrary. Heterosexual marriage has been a historically poor institution, bereft of many of the things we would consider praiseworthy in a relationship. To say that throughout history heterosexual intercourse has ALWAYS been considered more normal or more ethical than homosexual sex or relationships does absolutely nothing to support its validity. A great many horrors of conscious have been done between men and women (by men to women) that we have discarded, yet are as "traditional" as marginalizing homosexuals.
6.21.2011 | 5:24pm
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
Joseph, you are the one in error. Yes, children can be conceived outside of a proper marriage, but marriage is God's design and plan for the procreation of children. That is to say, openness to procreation (not to be confused to procreation itself) is a sine non qua marriage. Scripture is quite clear on this. In fact, it couldn't be clearer. For example, Malachi 2:15a: "Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring." Nor is this understanding limited to the Hebrew Scriptures. The word matrimony is derived from the Latin and literally means to make a woman a mother or the state or condition of being or becoming a mother. And, so, we find in the old marriage rite of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer these words:
". . . duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity."
And, so, we find in canon law that a marriage never consummated (that is, one in which the couple never performs the act by which children are procreated) is a nullity, that is, no marriage at all. No child never need be conceived for a marriage to be valid, but completed coitus is required for a marriage to be valid and only a man and a woman can perform coitus.
The effort to call same-sex unions "marriages" is really an attempt to redefine the word "marriage," but in doing so the word will in fact no longer apply to the same sort of union to which it formerly applied. It will lose its old meaning and gain a new one. Yet, the distinction it once was used to describe will still exist. There will still be a distinction between unions in which children can and may be procreated and ones in which they cannot be procreated. We will have lost the word formerly used to label the former, but the distinction will still remain. By usurping the word, you cannot gain what it formerly described. You may gain the word, but you cannot gain its former meaning and without the meaning, gaining the word gains you nothing.
So, whether Archbishop Dolan used circular reasoning or not (and I do not believe he did), the unchanging and unchangable laws of nature will not bend to the malleable laws of men. If you succeed in gaining the label "marriage" for same-sex unions, you will have changed the meaning of the word and lost the very thing you thought you were gaining. Men may shake their heads in agreement at the new definition, but nature stands unmoved and unmovable. God's law are fixed and cannot be amended by mere men playing word games.
". . . duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity."
And, so, we find in canon law that a marriage never consummated (that is, one in which the couple never performs the act by which children are procreated) is a nullity, that is, no marriage at all. No child never need be conceived for a marriage to be valid, but completed coitus is required for a marriage to be valid and only a man and a woman can perform coitus.
The effort to call same-sex unions "marriages" is really an attempt to redefine the word "marriage," but in doing so the word will in fact no longer apply to the same sort of union to which it formerly applied. It will lose its old meaning and gain a new one. Yet, the distinction it once was used to describe will still exist. There will still be a distinction between unions in which children can and may be procreated and ones in which they cannot be procreated. We will have lost the word formerly used to label the former, but the distinction will still remain. By usurping the word, you cannot gain what it formerly described. You may gain the word, but you cannot gain its former meaning and without the meaning, gaining the word gains you nothing.
So, whether Archbishop Dolan used circular reasoning or not (and I do not believe he did), the unchanging and unchangable laws of nature will not bend to the malleable laws of men. If you succeed in gaining the label "marriage" for same-sex unions, you will have changed the meaning of the word and lost the very thing you thought you were gaining. Men may shake their heads in agreement at the new definition, but nature stands unmoved and unmovable. God's law are fixed and cannot be amended by mere men playing word games.
6.21.2011 | 5:24pm
One symptom of schizophrenia is the impulse that the patient has to assure all others that his view of the world is correct. This symptom is carried in another mental illness: that of homosexuality.
The ability to wrote has been around for more than six millennia. Ever since then we have read accounts of the wrongness of homosexual behavior.
The media in our civilization has a large number of mentally ill people who seems to be significant in numbers only because of their positions (no pun intended).
Those currently addicted to homosexual behavior remain vbelow the statistically significant line (less than 2 percent).
The Roman Catholic Church has a 2,000 year history and has writings by some of the greatest thinkers of all time. The consensus of those thinkers regarding homosexuality is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as below:
“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,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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.
“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible [thought to be 1.7% of the population]. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”
The ability to wrote has been around for more than six millennia. Ever since then we have read accounts of the wrongness of homosexual behavior.
The media in our civilization has a large number of mentally ill people who seems to be significant in numbers only because of their positions (no pun intended).
Those currently addicted to homosexual behavior remain vbelow the statistically significant line (less than 2 percent).
The Roman Catholic Church has a 2,000 year history and has writings by some of the greatest thinkers of all time. The consensus of those thinkers regarding homosexuality is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as below:
“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,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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.
“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible [thought to be 1.7% of the population]. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”
6.21.2011 | 5:55pm
kenneth says:
ALL of the arguments raised against gay union as being "against natural law" are the same, letter for letter, as those justifications used for slavery and Jim Crow laws. They are a transparent attempt for men to use God as a sock puppet to lend authority to their own petty little hatreds and agendas. What you might dismiss as "sentimentalism" is in fact a growing number of people discerning truth for themselves, going straight to the source and not blindly following the pronouncements of men and their sock puppet agendas.
6.21.2011 | 7:07pm
Jan says:
"the absolute moral authority of collective sentimentalism"
Great description.
Great description.
6.21.2011 | 7:35pm
John Wickey says:
The question of whether homosexuality is a developmental anomaly that results from certain parental parameters or “hard wired” from birth is a question that is of no interest to Maureen Dowd or to similar opinion or news sources. These folks also have no interest as to whether traditional marriage and the family becomes stabilized as the foundation of our society and western culture. These people are of the vanguard of the cultural movement that seeks to legitimize a statist replacement of the authority of the patriarchy. They want to replace the Father in the souls of our children with something else. Hence, they want to destroy Christianity, particularly the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to influence the souls of our children. The “gay marriage” issue is both a struggle over dominance, the question of who is in charge, as well as whether questions of whether what is morally right can be subverted.
6.21.2011 | 7:46pm
Bob says:
We make a huge mistake equating natural with normal. Nature produces two human genders: male and female. Supposing homosexuality was a natural occurrence, in other words, homosexuals are born that way, or God-planned if you will, does it make it normal? Nature also produces limbless babies, hemophiliacs, blind babies...are these considered normal?
Down's syndrome babies...are they normal also? They were all born naturally, as all humans are, but are they what nature intended as normal?
It is obvious that nature intends a man and woman to be born healthy, limbs intact, with all interior and exterior organs functioning, yet it also produces anomalies as described in the above paragraph. There is a reason why babies born in a condition that is less than what nature intended are considered to have a birth defect. They are not what nature intended as a normal healthy human being.
A homosexual is still a man or a woman, but with the inclination of having a desire for their own gender. That is a defect, an anomaly and not what nature intended. Males and females, by virtue of their attraction to each other AND their physical attributes (reproductive organs that perfectly match one another) were intended to perpetuate the human race thus building a stable community. Not so homosexual acts. They do absolutely nothing for those engaged in those acts except to provide sexual pleasure.
Yet there is absolutely no proof that homosexuals are born that way, which would then indicate some sort of psychological disorder since it is not the intention of nature for a man or woman to be sexually attracted to their own gender, or it is a clear and willful choice to engage in homosexual acts and nothing else.
Homosexuals can marry all they want and call it a 'marriage' but it will not be a marriage. The definition of marriage has always been throughout human history, in all major civilizations unknown to each other through time or spaced by continents, as a union between a man and woman, and nothing else.
Water is H2O. No other elements, no other quantities of these elements except H2O. Change one element, or the quantity of one of these elements, you no longer have water. We can still call it water but it will never be water. So it is with marriage. A union of one man and one woman. Change either one of these genders and it is no longer a marriage. Same gender unions will never be a marriage. We can pretend it is, but it still doesn't make it the truth. If we can redefine marriage to include same gender unions, then I can redefine ANY word I want to make it whatever I want, just because that is what I want.
Those of us that support same gender 'marriages' are helping homosexuals live a lie. That is what we will be doing. People know what a marriage is and it does not include same sex unions. Homosexuals themselves know, what a marriage is and isn't. They can pretend they are married, but they know it is just that, pretending. Someday we may be forced by law to accept homosexual "marriages" under penalty of that law, but then again, Roman emperors considered themselves divine and forced their subjects to worship them also, all the while the people knew that the emperor was living a lie.
Down's syndrome babies...are they normal also? They were all born naturally, as all humans are, but are they what nature intended as normal?
It is obvious that nature intends a man and woman to be born healthy, limbs intact, with all interior and exterior organs functioning, yet it also produces anomalies as described in the above paragraph. There is a reason why babies born in a condition that is less than what nature intended are considered to have a birth defect. They are not what nature intended as a normal healthy human being.
A homosexual is still a man or a woman, but with the inclination of having a desire for their own gender. That is a defect, an anomaly and not what nature intended. Males and females, by virtue of their attraction to each other AND their physical attributes (reproductive organs that perfectly match one another) were intended to perpetuate the human race thus building a stable community. Not so homosexual acts. They do absolutely nothing for those engaged in those acts except to provide sexual pleasure.
Yet there is absolutely no proof that homosexuals are born that way, which would then indicate some sort of psychological disorder since it is not the intention of nature for a man or woman to be sexually attracted to their own gender, or it is a clear and willful choice to engage in homosexual acts and nothing else.
Homosexuals can marry all they want and call it a 'marriage' but it will not be a marriage. The definition of marriage has always been throughout human history, in all major civilizations unknown to each other through time or spaced by continents, as a union between a man and woman, and nothing else.
Water is H2O. No other elements, no other quantities of these elements except H2O. Change one element, or the quantity of one of these elements, you no longer have water. We can still call it water but it will never be water. So it is with marriage. A union of one man and one woman. Change either one of these genders and it is no longer a marriage. Same gender unions will never be a marriage. We can pretend it is, but it still doesn't make it the truth. If we can redefine marriage to include same gender unions, then I can redefine ANY word I want to make it whatever I want, just because that is what I want.
Those of us that support same gender 'marriages' are helping homosexuals live a lie. That is what we will be doing. People know what a marriage is and it does not include same sex unions. Homosexuals themselves know, what a marriage is and isn't. They can pretend they are married, but they know it is just that, pretending. Someday we may be forced by law to accept homosexual "marriages" under penalty of that law, but then again, Roman emperors considered themselves divine and forced their subjects to worship them also, all the while the people knew that the emperor was living a lie.
6.21.2011 | 9:02pm
SteveP says:
Elizabeth Scalia: Dowd can be ignored.
James P’s and Susan’s comments above are all that need to be said: they witness to God’s Grace and, in that knowledge, praise the Wisdom that wrought them.
James P’s and Susan’s comments above are all that need to be said: they witness to God’s Grace and, in that knowledge, praise the Wisdom that wrought them.
6.21.2011 | 9:26pm
mouse says:
I have a son with a genetic defect. It's sad to call it a defect, he appears totally healthy, but he's not. His DNA carries this abnormality, and, will pass down the susceptibility to my grandchildren. God did not make him that way, my imperfect gene did.
I don't love him any less, God doesn't love him any less.
I say that to ask-what if it's not that God hardwired them or made then that way, what if WE'VE made them that way? What if, along the road, through mutated genes, they are gay? Estrogen in plastics, pharmaceuticals in water, can it all chip away at our DNA?
Two gay men cannot naturally reproduce. They can't. So to say that they can have a natural marriage is impossible. But do they deserve to be treated as second class humans? No. No one does. And for us to keep saying that God made them that way is misstating the problem. God did not make my son to have what he does. We live in a fallen world where bad stuff happens. Tsunami's, dictators, messed up genes. God DOES give us the grace to deal with these sufferings, but to say that God is the author of them? No. THAT is the sentimentalism.
I don't love him any less, God doesn't love him any less.
I say that to ask-what if it's not that God hardwired them or made then that way, what if WE'VE made them that way? What if, along the road, through mutated genes, they are gay? Estrogen in plastics, pharmaceuticals in water, can it all chip away at our DNA?
Two gay men cannot naturally reproduce. They can't. So to say that they can have a natural marriage is impossible. But do they deserve to be treated as second class humans? No. No one does. And for us to keep saying that God made them that way is misstating the problem. God did not make my son to have what he does. We live in a fallen world where bad stuff happens. Tsunami's, dictators, messed up genes. God DOES give us the grace to deal with these sufferings, but to say that God is the author of them? No. THAT is the sentimentalism.
6.21.2011 | 9:32pm
CV says:
This discussion reminds me of a 2005 blog post by Eve Tushnet (described by the New York Times as a "celibate, gay, conservative, Catholic writer). Here's an excerpt:
"...More crucially, one of the most beautiful and hopeful doctrines of the Catholic Church is the distinction between behavior and worth. You aren't valuable because you have never screwed up, or because everything you do and believe is right. You're valuable because you were created by a God Who loves you, Who cherishes you and longs for you. If you take every chastisement based on behavior as an attack on your personal worth, you are a) a Pelagian (believing people get saved because they're so cool and special) and/or b) rejecting the possibility that God sees past your behavior, sees down to the core of you, wants you, loves you, but doesn't ever agree that everything you do is right. God is not an idolater. God's constant lament to His beloved is, "Baby, don't be that way!"
"A political and (more importantly) cultural movement has sprung up to convince those of us with strong (I guess the word this season is "deep-seated"; it's the new black!) homosexual attractions that God couldn't possibly want us not to act on those attractions. Because it hurts too much to give it up? Because it seems so necessary or central to our identities? If those are the reasons people resist, I guess I just want to remind them that people every single day embrace varying kinds of sacrifice--slow or fast, honored or humiliating--and if you want anything resembling a functioning culture (let alone a Catholic one) you need people who can say that "It hurts" isn't an argument. Every functioning culture relies on a core of people who can accept that life, or God, or whatever they believe in, will ask them to do things they would never have believed possible; and they do them. Every day. Policemen and policemen's wives; soldiers and soldiers' husbands; saints and martyrs; pregnant women in desperate circumstances; everyone who suffers and whose suffering would be eased by just a little wrong action, just a small palliative sin.
"You can be as big as your culture by only making the sacrifices your culture honors. You can be as big as your own self by only making the sacrifices you honor and completely understand; if you're a cosmopolitan, that will mostly mean making the sacrifices your personality and chosen subculture honor. You can be as big as the Church by making all the sacrifices God requires. I'm pretty sure most of us are in between--but we can move from one pole to the other.
Be bigger..."
You can read the whole post here (scroll down toward the bottom):
http://eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_eve-tushnet_archive.html
"...More crucially, one of the most beautiful and hopeful doctrines of the Catholic Church is the distinction between behavior and worth. You aren't valuable because you have never screwed up, or because everything you do and believe is right. You're valuable because you were created by a God Who loves you, Who cherishes you and longs for you. If you take every chastisement based on behavior as an attack on your personal worth, you are a) a Pelagian (believing people get saved because they're so cool and special) and/or b) rejecting the possibility that God sees past your behavior, sees down to the core of you, wants you, loves you, but doesn't ever agree that everything you do is right. God is not an idolater. God's constant lament to His beloved is, "Baby, don't be that way!"
"A political and (more importantly) cultural movement has sprung up to convince those of us with strong (I guess the word this season is "deep-seated"; it's the new black!) homosexual attractions that God couldn't possibly want us not to act on those attractions. Because it hurts too much to give it up? Because it seems so necessary or central to our identities? If those are the reasons people resist, I guess I just want to remind them that people every single day embrace varying kinds of sacrifice--slow or fast, honored or humiliating--and if you want anything resembling a functioning culture (let alone a Catholic one) you need people who can say that "It hurts" isn't an argument. Every functioning culture relies on a core of people who can accept that life, or God, or whatever they believe in, will ask them to do things they would never have believed possible; and they do them. Every day. Policemen and policemen's wives; soldiers and soldiers' husbands; saints and martyrs; pregnant women in desperate circumstances; everyone who suffers and whose suffering would be eased by just a little wrong action, just a small palliative sin.
"You can be as big as your culture by only making the sacrifices your culture honors. You can be as big as your own self by only making the sacrifices you honor and completely understand; if you're a cosmopolitan, that will mostly mean making the sacrifices your personality and chosen subculture honor. You can be as big as the Church by making all the sacrifices God requires. I'm pretty sure most of us are in between--but we can move from one pole to the other.
Be bigger..."
You can read the whole post here (scroll down toward the bottom):
http://eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_eve-tushnet_archive.html
6.21.2011 | 10:00pm
Patrick says:
I have been struck that all of the arguments favoring homosexual marriage are drawn about because of the conclusions of reason, in spite of a lack of experience in this. This is quite unprecedented. For example, slavery was abolished in Europe itself for centuries (whatever may have happened in the colonies) and so European civilizations eventual suppression of the institution could be said to arise from the experience of the originating continent. Homosexual marriage has been tried nowhere for more than a few years or so. We really do not, at this point, have even the slightest inkling of what the consequences may or may not be.
Reason itself seems a poor reed. It was said that man's reason put Christ on a cross. It depends upon the desires of the heart in its operation. A zeitgeist for, say, sexual revolution, draws reason to aid it in its operation. The fight is therefore, as religion well knows, over these desires of the heart to aid in right reason. The zeitgeist of the modern era has been around for some four decades and has, I submit, been a failure in delivering human happiness since it misunderstands the cause of happiness. Echoing throughout the current debate is the ghost of every argument over sexuality over the course of the past 4 decades, and there are many who have axes to grind. Therefore, I only trust reason so far. Let us see what happens to marriage and fidelity in those countries that have accepted it over the next few decades before pronouncing any of our opinions infallible.
Reason itself seems a poor reed. It was said that man's reason put Christ on a cross. It depends upon the desires of the heart in its operation. A zeitgeist for, say, sexual revolution, draws reason to aid it in its operation. The fight is therefore, as religion well knows, over these desires of the heart to aid in right reason. The zeitgeist of the modern era has been around for some four decades and has, I submit, been a failure in delivering human happiness since it misunderstands the cause of happiness. Echoing throughout the current debate is the ghost of every argument over sexuality over the course of the past 4 decades, and there are many who have axes to grind. Therefore, I only trust reason so far. Let us see what happens to marriage and fidelity in those countries that have accepted it over the next few decades before pronouncing any of our opinions infallible.
6.21.2011 | 11:05pm
Ken says:
There is much in this piece that I agree with, and bravo to Ms. Scalia for taking on the rhetorically formidable Ms. Dowd. And yes, kneejerk cries of “hatred” and “homophobia” only obscure the issues.
—permitting ourselves to really explore [ . . . ] the idea that one’s life and inclination is meant to serve something so much larger and intimately God-centered than the passing exultation of a gay pride parade or even the physical expression of love. --
But the idea that homosexuality finds its highest expression in tribal pride or merely physical release – that’s the sort of claim that provokes cries of hated and homophobia.
—permitting ourselves to really explore [ . . . ] the idea that one’s life and inclination is meant to serve something so much larger and intimately God-centered than the passing exultation of a gay pride parade or even the physical expression of love. --
But the idea that homosexuality finds its highest expression in tribal pride or merely physical release – that’s the sort of claim that provokes cries of hated and homophobia.
6.21.2011 | 11:14pm
Ken says:
Mel writes:
If homosexuality is "hard-wired" by God, then why is it called a sin in the Bible.
The progressive answer is that the homosexuality known in Biblical times was inherently exploitative, and thus is nothing like what is practiced by many homosexuals today. That argument is hardly airtight, but it deserves careful consideration and rebuttal, and the Religious Right seems largely unaware of it.
If homosexuality is "hard-wired" by God, then why is it called a sin in the Bible.
The progressive answer is that the homosexuality known in Biblical times was inherently exploitative, and thus is nothing like what is practiced by many homosexuals today. That argument is hardly airtight, but it deserves careful consideration and rebuttal, and the Religious Right seems largely unaware of it.
6.22.2011 | 12:02am
Ralph Green says:
Wearing glasses is also considered an abomination, but anything goes at the liberal NY Times!
6.22.2011 | 12:47am
Ben says:
Those with the courage to look honestly at the nature of gay loved ones throughout their childhood would be hard-pressed to not admit that homosexuality can be hard-wired. Their families love them, Jesus loves them, and he demands that we love them.
My immediate reaction is to deny the legalization of gay marriage. However, I have come to see this as the denial of a desire to legitimize a loving relationship in the direction of love's highest ethical form. Moreover, that demand is coming from a group whose greatest criticism is often that their love for each other is of the lowest ethical form. If I'm honest, my original reaction is untenable.
My immediate reaction is to deny the legalization of gay marriage. However, I have come to see this as the denial of a desire to legitimize a loving relationship in the direction of love's highest ethical form. Moreover, that demand is coming from a group whose greatest criticism is often that their love for each other is of the lowest ethical form. If I'm honest, my original reaction is untenable.
6.22.2011 | 2:00am
Greta says:
If one assumes that everyone is born in the likeness and image of God and that through original sin, we are also born with a thorn of some type in our heal, then one might say we are born with that weakness or aflicition. God or course wants us all to continue in his image and likeness since God is perfect love. The only perfect human being free of sin was Christ and we also believe His Mother Mary so as to have a pure womb within a woman free of sin.
So each of us is called to overcome their weakness. When we give into the weakness, it is called sin. A person born with a weakness for not being able to stop drinking alcohol after the first drink or stop eating donuts after the first bite through their behavior choice creates the problem by their choice and action. The person born with a hair trigger temper is prone to give into anger that could lead to a lot of problems including murder or other violence. The greedy person who gives into greed might rob a bank or cheat their neighbor. The homosexual might give into the desire to have same sex relations or the lustful person might give in to incest or rape or adultery or pornography. What other behavior in society do we see a move to make it not only normal, but equal to one that is blessed by sacrament? We have laws about many behavior choices and also religious beliefs and accepted societal agreements that something is good or bad. When suddenly, after centuries and without any scientific changes or other factors, a long held illness and grave disorder is suddenly to be declared not only normal, but as blessed as the relationship between one man and one woman, you have to ask why this is and what caused the change.
Some use the 14th amendment which was estalbished for reconstruction related problems to say that it includes all right for "all persons." and the separation of church and state not actually anywhere in the constititution to legislate special rights for this behavior not by vote, but by judicial fiat. They cannot answer the question on what a mom could not marry her son or a brother marry their sister or a man could not marry 16 women by this same logic. We do not allow it because it is against religious beliefs and because we have found that incest produced children can have genetic disorders, but we do not block a man and woman who have genetic conditions that might create problems for offspring. the logic falls apart when facts are introduced. The bottom line is that no judge is constitutionally able to legislate from the bench and it is time to end this with impeachment.
So each of us is called to overcome their weakness. When we give into the weakness, it is called sin. A person born with a weakness for not being able to stop drinking alcohol after the first drink or stop eating donuts after the first bite through their behavior choice creates the problem by their choice and action. The person born with a hair trigger temper is prone to give into anger that could lead to a lot of problems including murder or other violence. The greedy person who gives into greed might rob a bank or cheat their neighbor. The homosexual might give into the desire to have same sex relations or the lustful person might give in to incest or rape or adultery or pornography. What other behavior in society do we see a move to make it not only normal, but equal to one that is blessed by sacrament? We have laws about many behavior choices and also religious beliefs and accepted societal agreements that something is good or bad. When suddenly, after centuries and without any scientific changes or other factors, a long held illness and grave disorder is suddenly to be declared not only normal, but as blessed as the relationship between one man and one woman, you have to ask why this is and what caused the change.
Some use the 14th amendment which was estalbished for reconstruction related problems to say that it includes all right for "all persons." and the separation of church and state not actually anywhere in the constititution to legislate special rights for this behavior not by vote, but by judicial fiat. They cannot answer the question on what a mom could not marry her son or a brother marry their sister or a man could not marry 16 women by this same logic. We do not allow it because it is against religious beliefs and because we have found that incest produced children can have genetic disorders, but we do not block a man and woman who have genetic conditions that might create problems for offspring. the logic falls apart when facts are introduced. The bottom line is that no judge is constitutionally able to legislate from the bench and it is time to end this with impeachment.
6.22.2011 | 3:18am
James P says:
To quote Ben:
"Those with the courage to look honestly at the nature of gay loved ones throughout their childhood would be hard-pressed to not admit that homosexuality can be hard-wired. Their families love them, Jesus loves them, and he demands that we love them.
My immediate reaction is to deny the legalization of gay marriage. However, I have come to see this as the denial of a desire to legitimize a loving relationship in the direction of love's highest ethical form. Moreover, that demand is coming from a group whose greatest criticism is often that their love for each other is of the lowest ethical form. If I'm honest, my original reaction is untenable. "
Of course God demands that we love all men and women. But as Thomas Merton wrote, the first thing we need to understand about love is our concept of love can be deluded.
What has helped me remain chaste in living with same sex attraction, and indeed in maintaining a continued conviction that to support gay marriage is ultimately not a loving act, but rather and act of hatred are these three paragraphs from Merton's "No Man Is An Island."
"To love another is to will what is really good for him. Such love must be based on truth. A love that sees no distinction between good and evil, but loves blindly merely for the sake of loving, is hatred, rather than love. To love blindly is to love selfishly, because the goal of such love is not the real advantage of the beloved but only the exercise of love in our own souls. Such love cannot seem to be love unless it pretends to seek the good of the one loved. But since it actually cares nothing for the truth, and never considers that it may go astray, it proves itself to be selfish. It does not seek the true advantage of the beloved or even our own. It is not interested in the truth, but only in itself. It proclaims itself content with an apparent good: which is the exercise of love for its own sake, without any consideration for the good or bad effects of loving.
When such love exists on the level of bodily passion it is easily recognized for what it is. It is selfish, and, therefore, it is not love. Those whose love does not transcend the desires of their bodies, generally do not even bother to deceive themselves with good motives. They follow their passions. Since they do not deceive themselves, they are more honest, as well as more miserable, than those who pretend to love on a spiritual plane without realizing that their "unselfishness" is only a deception.
Charity is neither weak nor blind. It is essentially prudent, just, temperate, and strong. Unless all the other virtues blend together in charity, our love is not genuine. No one who really wants to love another will consent to love him falsely. If we are going to love others at all, we must make up our minds to love them well. Otherwise our love is a delusion."
I think supporting gay marriage in the name of love and fairness is a sign that our love has become deluded by the contemporary culture of our times and that those who do so are content to love their fellow man, falsely. We must love what is truly good for mankind, and I for one believe that gay marriage is detrimental to mankind, for the many reasons elucidated by the Catholic Church.
"Those with the courage to look honestly at the nature of gay loved ones throughout their childhood would be hard-pressed to not admit that homosexuality can be hard-wired. Their families love them, Jesus loves them, and he demands that we love them.
My immediate reaction is to deny the legalization of gay marriage. However, I have come to see this as the denial of a desire to legitimize a loving relationship in the direction of love's highest ethical form. Moreover, that demand is coming from a group whose greatest criticism is often that their love for each other is of the lowest ethical form. If I'm honest, my original reaction is untenable. "
Of course God demands that we love all men and women. But as Thomas Merton wrote, the first thing we need to understand about love is our concept of love can be deluded.
What has helped me remain chaste in living with same sex attraction, and indeed in maintaining a continued conviction that to support gay marriage is ultimately not a loving act, but rather and act of hatred are these three paragraphs from Merton's "No Man Is An Island."
"To love another is to will what is really good for him. Such love must be based on truth. A love that sees no distinction between good and evil, but loves blindly merely for the sake of loving, is hatred, rather than love. To love blindly is to love selfishly, because the goal of such love is not the real advantage of the beloved but only the exercise of love in our own souls. Such love cannot seem to be love unless it pretends to seek the good of the one loved. But since it actually cares nothing for the truth, and never considers that it may go astray, it proves itself to be selfish. It does not seek the true advantage of the beloved or even our own. It is not interested in the truth, but only in itself. It proclaims itself content with an apparent good: which is the exercise of love for its own sake, without any consideration for the good or bad effects of loving.
When such love exists on the level of bodily passion it is easily recognized for what it is. It is selfish, and, therefore, it is not love. Those whose love does not transcend the desires of their bodies, generally do not even bother to deceive themselves with good motives. They follow their passions. Since they do not deceive themselves, they are more honest, as well as more miserable, than those who pretend to love on a spiritual plane without realizing that their "unselfishness" is only a deception.
Charity is neither weak nor blind. It is essentially prudent, just, temperate, and strong. Unless all the other virtues blend together in charity, our love is not genuine. No one who really wants to love another will consent to love him falsely. If we are going to love others at all, we must make up our minds to love them well. Otherwise our love is a delusion."
I think supporting gay marriage in the name of love and fairness is a sign that our love has become deluded by the contemporary culture of our times and that those who do so are content to love their fellow man, falsely. We must love what is truly good for mankind, and I for one believe that gay marriage is detrimental to mankind, for the many reasons elucidated by the Catholic Church.
6.22.2011 | 6:30am
Michael PS says:
David Nichol
“The Church uses the term "homosexual person" in many official documents, and it is clear the Church considers a homosexual orientation as something a person has--an inherent quality, not something a person does.”
Not many, all comparatively modern and tending to be disciplinary or pastoral, rather than doctrinal.
I know of no dogmatic document that does so – a quick search through Dentzinger revealed none.
Note that the old definition of sodomy – emission seminis in vaso praepostero – was neither gender- nor species-specific
Soodonim
Of course marriage has been the basic foundation of society throughout recorded history: maternity is a matter of observation, but, until the last few decades, paternity has been a matter of inference. Men have always had a strong preference for raising their own children.
Kenneth
Living systems are by definition chemical data-processing systems that self-perpetuate (those that do not self-perpetuate, cease to exist).
Processes that are "adaptive" are those whose output does not inhibit self-perpetuation; e.g. territoriality; reproduction; competition; self-amelioration; inter-education; and affiliation into groups. The urge to procreate is no different; and the urge to indulge in the complex, ritualised onanism that is homosexuality is simply a malfunction.
“The Church uses the term "homosexual person" in many official documents, and it is clear the Church considers a homosexual orientation as something a person has--an inherent quality, not something a person does.”
Not many, all comparatively modern and tending to be disciplinary or pastoral, rather than doctrinal.
I know of no dogmatic document that does so – a quick search through Dentzinger revealed none.
Note that the old definition of sodomy – emission seminis in vaso praepostero – was neither gender- nor species-specific
Soodonim
Of course marriage has been the basic foundation of society throughout recorded history: maternity is a matter of observation, but, until the last few decades, paternity has been a matter of inference. Men have always had a strong preference for raising their own children.
Kenneth
Living systems are by definition chemical data-processing systems that self-perpetuate (those that do not self-perpetuate, cease to exist).
Processes that are "adaptive" are those whose output does not inhibit self-perpetuation; e.g. territoriality; reproduction; competition; self-amelioration; inter-education; and affiliation into groups. The urge to procreate is no different; and the urge to indulge in the complex, ritualised onanism that is homosexuality is simply a malfunction.
6.22.2011 | 8:42am
Gail Finke says:
Kenneth proves Elizabeth's point and Joseph Marshall proves mine. Thanks, guys.
James P has an excellent point about understanding what love really is. Equating love solely with sexual acts and/or marriage is an impoverishment of the idea of love. And it is also beside the point. Just as marriages can be valid without the couple loving or even knowing each other -- arranged marriages are still common in many cultures, and are no less marriages -- two people can love each other without ever getting married. The fact that they don't marry doesn't mean they don't love each other. People who are already married fall in love with other people. Having an affair or divorcing an innocent spouse (especially if children are involved) is the wrong response to the emotion of love in that case. Likewise, how many of us have loved someone who did not love us back? Love, per se, does not give anyone a right to being married to him or her. So to say that "all people who love each other should be able to get married" is simply not tenable.
It is also a conclusion that leads one quickly into even murkier territory. An Episcopal church near me used to have this posted on its sign: "God approves all loving relationships." Oh really? How about incest? How about the pedophile who "loves" children? How about bigamy? How about couples with a live-in third "partner" (yes, we've had several in the news around here)? All these people claim to love each other, or at least one of them claims to love.
James P has an excellent point about understanding what love really is. Equating love solely with sexual acts and/or marriage is an impoverishment of the idea of love. And it is also beside the point. Just as marriages can be valid without the couple loving or even knowing each other -- arranged marriages are still common in many cultures, and are no less marriages -- two people can love each other without ever getting married. The fact that they don't marry doesn't mean they don't love each other. People who are already married fall in love with other people. Having an affair or divorcing an innocent spouse (especially if children are involved) is the wrong response to the emotion of love in that case. Likewise, how many of us have loved someone who did not love us back? Love, per se, does not give anyone a right to being married to him or her. So to say that "all people who love each other should be able to get married" is simply not tenable.
It is also a conclusion that leads one quickly into even murkier territory. An Episcopal church near me used to have this posted on its sign: "God approves all loving relationships." Oh really? How about incest? How about the pedophile who "loves" children? How about bigamy? How about couples with a live-in third "partner" (yes, we've had several in the news around here)? All these people claim to love each other, or at least one of them claims to love.
6.22.2011 | 11:10am
Ken says:
It is also a conclusion that leads one quickly into even murkier territory. An Episcopal church near me used to have this posted on its sign: "God approves all loving relationships." Oh really? How about incest? How about the pedophile who "loves" children? How about bigamy? How about couples with a live-in third "partner" (yes, we've had several in the news around here)? All these people claim to love each other, or at least one of them claims to love.
Common sense applies. All or most of these examples are exploitative. I think it's helpful to ask _why_ God would forbid loving gay relationships that mirror loving straight ones. Looking at the moral law He's given us, I can see no reason. Yes gay relationships lack procreative capacity, and no they are not biologically complementary. But why would they for that reason not be good? If God is love and we are called to love each other, then loving human relationships (not exploitation or the mere satisfaction of desires masquerading as love) are always good. This conclusion leads one to examine the evidence that the Biblical proscriptions actually proscribe today's loving gay relationships.
Common sense applies. All or most of these examples are exploitative. I think it's helpful to ask _why_ God would forbid loving gay relationships that mirror loving straight ones. Looking at the moral law He's given us, I can see no reason. Yes gay relationships lack procreative capacity, and no they are not biologically complementary. But why would they for that reason not be good? If God is love and we are called to love each other, then loving human relationships (not exploitation or the mere satisfaction of desires masquerading as love) are always good. This conclusion leads one to examine the evidence that the Biblical proscriptions actually proscribe today's loving gay relationships.
6.22.2011 | 12:08pm
George L. says:
What did the Bible really say on this subject? Those who actually read it, will find some surprising things.
Conservatives assure is that the Bible, God, are firmly against homosexuality, and firmly in favor of hetero marriages. But what did the Bible itself say? It suggests that God was a homosexual. Or androgynous.
1) God made "Man and Woman in his own image." So? Men are in the image of God ... and so are women. So though God is a "Father," God is bi-sexual or androgynous in some way? Containing both male and female characteristics.
2) Curiously in fact, this idea seems confirmed in the statement by Jesus, that no one is married in heaven.
3) Because there is neither "male nor female" in the "kingdom of" heaven.
And if "Heaven" is the model for what we are to be on earth?
Conservatives assure is that the Bible, God, are firmly against homosexuality, and firmly in favor of hetero marriages. But what did the Bible itself say? It suggests that God was a homosexual. Or androgynous.
1) God made "Man and Woman in his own image." So? Men are in the image of God ... and so are women. So though God is a "Father," God is bi-sexual or androgynous in some way? Containing both male and female characteristics.
2) Curiously in fact, this idea seems confirmed in the statement by Jesus, that no one is married in heaven.
3) Because there is neither "male nor female" in the "kingdom of" heaven.
And if "Heaven" is the model for what we are to be on earth?
6.22.2011 | 2:16pm
Michael PS says:
George L
The first command given by God to man is "increase and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."
How is that to be accomplished?
The first command given by God to man is "increase and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."
How is that to be accomplished?
6.22.2011 | 3:13pm
Ray Smith says:
Although a few have come close to saying something about the mechanics of sex, most of the talk is centered around words such as "abomination" and "shameful act. Some have tried to include God, others have not. It's time to lay all these theories aside and approach the subject a bit clinically. where do the sexual attractions lie in terms of how each of the species was designed? For humans the attraction word we have is orgasm. The dictionary word is "coitus." "The natural conveying of semen to the female reproductive tract." For the animal world, because of our inability to discuss emotions with them, we have coined the term "in heat."
We are all aware that Homo Sapiens, even while acting as designed...male and female... have taken liberties with the concept of orgasm. Whether that is a sin or nor by Biblical standards is not part of a discussion on Homosexuality. What should be the center of discussion is something akin to why we humans have been designed as we have been. If that is not obvious, then all the rest of the talk is mere blather.
We are all aware that Homo Sapiens, even while acting as designed...male and female... have taken liberties with the concept of orgasm. Whether that is a sin or nor by Biblical standards is not part of a discussion on Homosexuality. What should be the center of discussion is something akin to why we humans have been designed as we have been. If that is not obvious, then all the rest of the talk is mere blather.
6.22.2011 | 4:33pm
Bender says:
**Equating love solely with sexual acts and/or marriage is an impoverishment of the idea of love. And it is also beside the point.**
____________
This is an important point, but I suggest needs to be nuanced a bit.
Sex is -- or at least rightly should be -- an outward visible sign of the invisible reality of the fullness of love (see TOB). When it is not a sign or manifestation of the fullness of love, including being inconsistent with the unitive and fruitful aspects of such totality of love (e.g. contraceptive), then such sexual act is something less than good. But the sex act can, and properly should be, an act of love, a complete gift of self to the other, both agape and purified eros (see Deus Caritas Est).
___________________
As for life in the kingdom of heaven -- remember the resurrection of the body. The human person is not merely spirit and not merely body, but is both unified spirit and body. In the heavenly kingdom, we will have bodies, and those bodies will retain their sexual differentiation, male and female, because that is part of our being, it is part of who we are as human persons. True the respective body parts of the male and female will no longer have a reproductive purpose, but neither will such parts be lopped off like some Ken doll.
____________
This is an important point, but I suggest needs to be nuanced a bit.
Sex is -- or at least rightly should be -- an outward visible sign of the invisible reality of the fullness of love (see TOB). When it is not a sign or manifestation of the fullness of love, including being inconsistent with the unitive and fruitful aspects of such totality of love (e.g. contraceptive), then such sexual act is something less than good. But the sex act can, and properly should be, an act of love, a complete gift of self to the other, both agape and purified eros (see Deus Caritas Est).
___________________
As for life in the kingdom of heaven -- remember the resurrection of the body. The human person is not merely spirit and not merely body, but is both unified spirit and body. In the heavenly kingdom, we will have bodies, and those bodies will retain their sexual differentiation, male and female, because that is part of our being, it is part of who we are as human persons. True the respective body parts of the male and female will no longer have a reproductive purpose, but neither will such parts be lopped off like some Ken doll.
6.22.2011 | 5:29pm
Ken says:
Bender,
where in the scripture does it say that love which is not capable of producing children is not good? The philosophy you refer to is lovely on the page, but not so lovely when it prevents people from expressing love as fully as God made them able to do.
where in the scripture does it say that love which is not capable of producing children is not good? The philosophy you refer to is lovely on the page, but not so lovely when it prevents people from expressing love as fully as God made them able to do.
6.22.2011 | 10:10pm
Bender says:
Ken -- I didn't say "children." I said that the fullness of love is unitive and fruitful. Sometimes that means biological children, sometimes it means that such love is procreative in other ways.
And where in scripture is this found? "In the beginning . . ." As well as the Gospel words of Jesus in speaking of the nature of the human person "as it was in the beginning."
Basic theology of the body stuff.
And where in scripture is this found? "In the beginning . . ." As well as the Gospel words of Jesus in speaking of the nature of the human person "as it was in the beginning."
Basic theology of the body stuff.
6.23.2011 | 7:13am
Ariel says:
We are living in such great time when the influence of the church exists but it moral authorities have been weakened, and it does not control the world any more. Communication and exposure to different cultures helped creating the separation between the religious lows and the citizen lows. Both with the help of handful bishops who were involved in sexual crimes.
The discussion about homosexuality makes us forget the main problem with conventional marriage.
The discussion about homosexuality makes us forget the main problem with conventional marriage.
6.23.2011 | 8:14am
Ken says:
Bender,
basic theology - by which I assume you mean basic Catholic theology - is only as good as its grounding in scripture. Reasoning about God is only as good as its grounding in revelation. Nowhere does scripture say "the beginning he created human beings heterosexual."
And where do you get the idea that heterosexual love is "procreative" in ways that homosexual love is not?
basic theology - by which I assume you mean basic Catholic theology - is only as good as its grounding in scripture. Reasoning about God is only as good as its grounding in revelation. Nowhere does scripture say "the beginning he created human beings heterosexual."
And where do you get the idea that heterosexual love is "procreative" in ways that homosexual love is not?
6.23.2011 | 12:39pm
Joseph Marshall says:
Having scanned the comments above, I see even more examples of "marriage is not gay marriage, because it is marriage". The form of the argument is still bad reasoning no matter how much it is dressed up with details. Now the details are almost all presented in the form of, "God [the Bible, the Church, theology, ect.] says that marriage is thus-and-so, therefore, it can only be thus-and-so." This is the flaw of reasoning called Argument From Authority, and while it is sufficient to prove why Christians should oppose gay marriage, it is in not the least a convincing argument for everybody else.
Why is this important? Two reasons. Because all of us "everybody else" have a stake in the issue as well. "Marriage" is not only a religious relationship, it is not only a matter of Canon Law, it is a matter of Civil Law and, therefore, of the rights of American citizenship. If the arguments above were presented to defend Baptism, they would be convincing for the simple reason that all of us "everybody else" have no standing whatever to pass a judgment on Baptism. Therefore, reason and argument with us wouldn't even be required. A categorical imperative to the rest of us would do: "Mind your own business and not ours!"
Marriage is our business, too. And our standing is that of members of the voting public. If you actually want to stop gay marriage, you had better start making arguments that are well-formed enough to convince everybody else and not just Christians. Moreover, the presentation of arguments only convincing to Christians contains the implication that only Christians have any standing in the matter.
That simply will not do.
Now I would say that the criticisms of Maureen Dowd and others may easily be incoherent and "intellectually lazy". But that doesn't mean that the substance of their criticism cannot be stated coherently and in a correct form. This is how I would state it: It is up to you to convince us that we should exercise our standing in the matter against gay marriage; if you cannot do so, our only possible response is also a categorical imperative: Mind your own business and not ours!
Phrased that way, this position is perfectly coherent and not intellectually lazy in the least.
It is also the same position on quite a number of different issues where Christians oppose the dominant trends in our culture.
Now the general response, of conservative Christians at least, has not been to find arguments to convince non-Christians, but to regard them as "enemies of the Church", and maintain a constant and overt guerrilla war against our standing as members of the voting public and shut us out from the issue.
That also will not do.
Under those circumstances, there is no reason whatever for Dowd or anyone else to apply intellect, lazy or not, to an argument.
The categorical imperative is sufficient.
Why is this important? Two reasons. Because all of us "everybody else" have a stake in the issue as well. "Marriage" is not only a religious relationship, it is not only a matter of Canon Law, it is a matter of Civil Law and, therefore, of the rights of American citizenship. If the arguments above were presented to defend Baptism, they would be convincing for the simple reason that all of us "everybody else" have no standing whatever to pass a judgment on Baptism. Therefore, reason and argument with us wouldn't even be required. A categorical imperative to the rest of us would do: "Mind your own business and not ours!"
Marriage is our business, too. And our standing is that of members of the voting public. If you actually want to stop gay marriage, you had better start making arguments that are well-formed enough to convince everybody else and not just Christians. Moreover, the presentation of arguments only convincing to Christians contains the implication that only Christians have any standing in the matter.
That simply will not do.
Now I would say that the criticisms of Maureen Dowd and others may easily be incoherent and "intellectually lazy". But that doesn't mean that the substance of their criticism cannot be stated coherently and in a correct form. This is how I would state it: It is up to you to convince us that we should exercise our standing in the matter against gay marriage; if you cannot do so, our only possible response is also a categorical imperative: Mind your own business and not ours!
Phrased that way, this position is perfectly coherent and not intellectually lazy in the least.
It is also the same position on quite a number of different issues where Christians oppose the dominant trends in our culture.
Now the general response, of conservative Christians at least, has not been to find arguments to convince non-Christians, but to regard them as "enemies of the Church", and maintain a constant and overt guerrilla war against our standing as members of the voting public and shut us out from the issue.
That also will not do.
Under those circumstances, there is no reason whatever for Dowd or anyone else to apply intellect, lazy or not, to an argument.
The categorical imperative is sufficient.
6.23.2011 | 2:02pm
Ken says:
Joseph writes:
" If you actually want to stop gay marriage, you had better start making arguments that are well-formed enough to convince everybody else and not just Christians."
How true, and how ironic that it needs to be said on a site hosted by a magazine founded by Richard John Neuhaus, who argued that Christians should do just that.
" If you actually want to stop gay marriage, you had better start making arguments that are well-formed enough to convince everybody else and not just Christians."
How true, and how ironic that it needs to be said on a site hosted by a magazine founded by Richard John Neuhaus, who argued that Christians should do just that.
6.23.2011 | 3:07pm
Mary says:
My children are licensed mental health professionals. We have shared frequent discussion re: the fight over gay marriage and Catholic Church teaching on gay marriage, sexual re-assignment surgery, and other "pelvic" issues. I probably could be described as a "moderate Sentimentalist" who is seeking some sort of clarity. One problem is, that I have yet to see a reasoned Catholic Church response to a book my daughter introduced me to called "Brain Sex". In it, there are many citations of medical research done that would point to a conclusion that sexual/gender differences are brain based (hard-wired) and determined by the "hormonal bath" that the unborn infant floats in...I would like to know if you have read the book, and what your reaction is, to it.
6.24.2011 | 6:55am
Michael PS says:
Joseph Marshal makes a very good point regarding civil marriage, which, in turn, raises the question of what the state’s interest in marriage is; why does marriage exist, as a legal institution? What is the unique legal rôle of marriage?”
Since the introduction of civil marriage in 1792, most commentators on the Civil Code have argued that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing.
Given that that nature had limited potential fertility to couples of different sexes, is civil marriage a suitable institution for regulating the affairs of same-sex couples and is there any compelling state interest in extending its definition to include them, or should there be different legal treatment, because their situation is not analogous?
In France, with its tradition of laïcité, the two highest courts, the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Council have approved the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples. The European Court of Human Rights came to the same conclusion in Shalk & Kopf v Austria, noting that The national authorities were best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society in this field, given that marriage had deep-rooted social and cultural connotations differing greatly from one society to another.
Since the introduction of civil marriage in 1792, most commentators on the Civil Code have argued that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing.
Given that that nature had limited potential fertility to couples of different sexes, is civil marriage a suitable institution for regulating the affairs of same-sex couples and is there any compelling state interest in extending its definition to include them, or should there be different legal treatment, because their situation is not analogous?
In France, with its tradition of laïcité, the two highest courts, the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Council have approved the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples. The European Court of Human Rights came to the same conclusion in Shalk & Kopf v Austria, noting that The national authorities were best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society in this field, given that marriage had deep-rooted social and cultural connotations differing greatly from one society to another.
6.25.2011 | 12:08pm
George L. says:
When we quote parts of the Bible that suggests that God is androgynous, we get lots of speculations about how impossible that is, or exactly what that means. But has the Church formally validated any of these speculations?
For instance, if 1) God made man and woman, in the image of God ... that msut mean that God must has both male and female characteristics. What does this mean?
Or if 2) there is no gender in heaven - there is no marriage in heaven, there being "neither male nor female"? We are assured that "we" ourselves a) will go to heaven (though no one can be really sure they are good enough); and b) we will still be male or female there. Just our spirit is changed. But who says we have a conventional body in heaven, male or female only? Paul refers to a "new body."
3) We are told to "be fruitful and multiply"; but at some point, doesn't multiplication on this earth, become excessive ... and as per Malthus, we overpopulate to the point that we cannot feed all of us? So that there is an optimal point at which reproduction should stop; particularly so that we can be "fruitful" in ways other than reproducing ourselves. Say, be spiritually fruitful. Like priests. WHo do not marry, and do not have children. But who are "fruitful" in other ways. Must we sexually multiply without end? To be fruitful?
4) While, as for "abomination"s? We were told that priests who molest children are an "abomination," for that matter.
Looks like lots of people - even priests - are an "abomination." Let's hope God saves them anyway.
In sum, there are surprisingly many parts of the Bible, that indicate a kind of bi-sexuality or androgyny, is part of God. And part of our future. In the "kingdom" of God, in Heaven. And the "kingdom" on earth too. Therefore, perhaps no one should be so upset, by gender "Benders," after all.
For instance, if 1) God made man and woman, in the image of God ... that msut mean that God must has both male and female characteristics. What does this mean?
Or if 2) there is no gender in heaven - there is no marriage in heaven, there being "neither male nor female"? We are assured that "we" ourselves a) will go to heaven (though no one can be really sure they are good enough); and b) we will still be male or female there. Just our spirit is changed. But who says we have a conventional body in heaven, male or female only? Paul refers to a "new body."
3) We are told to "be fruitful and multiply"; but at some point, doesn't multiplication on this earth, become excessive ... and as per Malthus, we overpopulate to the point that we cannot feed all of us? So that there is an optimal point at which reproduction should stop; particularly so that we can be "fruitful" in ways other than reproducing ourselves. Say, be spiritually fruitful. Like priests. WHo do not marry, and do not have children. But who are "fruitful" in other ways. Must we sexually multiply without end? To be fruitful?
4) While, as for "abomination"s? We were told that priests who molest children are an "abomination," for that matter.
Looks like lots of people - even priests - are an "abomination." Let's hope God saves them anyway.
In sum, there are surprisingly many parts of the Bible, that indicate a kind of bi-sexuality or androgyny, is part of God. And part of our future. In the "kingdom" of God, in Heaven. And the "kingdom" on earth too. Therefore, perhaps no one should be so upset, by gender "Benders," after all.
6.25.2011 | 2:39pm
Gil Costello says:
"In sum, there are surprisingly many parts of the Bible, that indicate a kind of bi-sexuality or androgyny, is part of God."
No. God is neither male or female or any variation thereof- he is spirit. The eternally begotten (not birthed) Son of God became human, specifically a man, and those paying attention know that Jesus was not bi or homo sexual. In the final transfiguration of our bodies we will no longer relate through the fractured lens of gender politics - we will have arrived at the final glorification of our bodies where we will most fully be the image and likeness of God. To get a sense of that in how we live our lives toward this Omega Point, we must either a) live the nuptial mystery in marriage, where man and woman become one (no longer torn apart by the curse of the Fall) and are THEN in the image of God (the sexual union of man/man or woman/woman is a tragic distortion of the image of God, for God made man and woman to be one in union, and only in that union are they image of Him), and b) to live the nuptial mystery as the body of Christ as a religious or a ministerial priest with a commitment to the three evangelical counsels in what has been called the Marian way, where nuptiality is confirmed, not negated as it is in same sex unions. In sexual coupling, every way other than the nuptial way is not The Way, the title given to Jesus based on his pronouncement of who he is, and therefore is not an image of God. And keep in mind that Jesus lived the nuptial mystery as man in his relationship with his mother, revealed in depth at his first miracle, turning water into wine. And when he kneels before the woman accused of adultery what he wrote in the dirt is irrelevant – the kneeling before the woman itself is a signification of a nuptial relationship. Anything that would distort (disorder) the nuptial mystery where we gain entrance to being who we really are in the image and likeness of God would be a tragic failing in becoming who we really are.
No. God is neither male or female or any variation thereof- he is spirit. The eternally begotten (not birthed) Son of God became human, specifically a man, and those paying attention know that Jesus was not bi or homo sexual. In the final transfiguration of our bodies we will no longer relate through the fractured lens of gender politics - we will have arrived at the final glorification of our bodies where we will most fully be the image and likeness of God. To get a sense of that in how we live our lives toward this Omega Point, we must either a) live the nuptial mystery in marriage, where man and woman become one (no longer torn apart by the curse of the Fall) and are THEN in the image of God (the sexual union of man/man or woman/woman is a tragic distortion of the image of God, for God made man and woman to be one in union, and only in that union are they image of Him), and b) to live the nuptial mystery as the body of Christ as a religious or a ministerial priest with a commitment to the three evangelical counsels in what has been called the Marian way, where nuptiality is confirmed, not negated as it is in same sex unions. In sexual coupling, every way other than the nuptial way is not The Way, the title given to Jesus based on his pronouncement of who he is, and therefore is not an image of God. And keep in mind that Jesus lived the nuptial mystery as man in his relationship with his mother, revealed in depth at his first miracle, turning water into wine. And when he kneels before the woman accused of adultery what he wrote in the dirt is irrelevant – the kneeling before the woman itself is a signification of a nuptial relationship. Anything that would distort (disorder) the nuptial mystery where we gain entrance to being who we really are in the image and likeness of God would be a tragic failing in becoming who we really are.
6.25.2011 | 2:54pm
Gil Costello says:
So what is one to think after a lifetime of being close friends with gays and having certainty that they will enter the gates of heaven before we will? Well, Jesus himself declared that those that are first will be last, and those that are last will be first. Yes, gays sin, but with every gay I have known he was not aware of this sin, and therefore it is not mortal. But we Christians do a disservice to any person living in sin by affirming the sin as holy and cheering him/her onto a path of destruction. As I've written elsewhere, to accommodate a charitable and tolerant view of gays, we are lying to children in sex education classes, convincing them that certain dangerous sex practices which are always harmful are now somehow intimate, loving, harmless acts (anal sex as one example, now being widely practiced by heterosexual teens based on what they have learned, and who are being infected with all kinds of diseases). Children obviously believe these lies, and why they are more and more experimenting with these dangerous practices.
The predicament has been with us since Adam and Eve: we desire to construct a moral system that is superior to God’s. We are proving to ourselves that we know better than God. But as my mom never tired of telling us, the proof is in the pudding. All we have to do is glimpse once at what is being baked in sex education classes to accommodate our righteous sense of ourselves having surpassed God in his goodness.
The predicament has been with us since Adam and Eve: we desire to construct a moral system that is superior to God’s. We are proving to ourselves that we know better than God. But as my mom never tired of telling us, the proof is in the pudding. All we have to do is glimpse once at what is being baked in sex education classes to accommodate our righteous sense of ourselves having surpassed God in his goodness.
6.26.2011 | 2:29am
R.C. says:
Maureen Dowd harpy-screeches about the Catholic Church. Well, what is new?
Ducks quack, dogs bark, and frogs go ribbet. They don't mean anything much by it. It's nothing personal. It's just the noise those animals make.
We should only expect constructive civil discourse from intelligent personal beings, whether they are angels or extraterrestrials or humans or persons of the Trinity. We don't expect that kind of discourse from fruitbats.
But Maureen Dowd is a fruitbat, more or less, and not just in the sense of being batty and a fruitcake. I mean that, while we are morally bound to continue treating her as a child of God made in His image, she seems to have done everything she can do to attenuate that image in herself, to make herself less of a fruity batty person, and more of a fruitbat.
I mean that human beings are assigned by God the task of being and becoming who they are meant to be; their humanity is contingent. Dogs are always doggy and cats are always catty and horses are always horsey; but only free-willed beings can fail to be what they are made to be. Dogs can't not be doggy, but humans can be inhuman. Being what we are is not a necessary thing; it is a task God assigns us, to do or to fail. Thus a man becomes, through willful embrace of his own evil, ape-like or pig-like.
This is increasingly true of persons who, through repeated and unrepented choices, attach themselves to rebellion against God either through vice or rejection of God's truth. It is God's constant grace that elevates man upward from the level of biologically-programmed flesh robot inhabited by the decaying ghost of a soul -- the partial truth hidden in the error of the gnostics -- upward, to the level free willed supernatural being whose body and soul are one entity. It is connection to God which sustains freedom and health and the ability to overcome the determinism which would otherwise rule us because of biological predisposition and spiritual decay. Sever that connection, and keep it severed long enough, and there comes a point where the free-willed soul is too weak to be more than a bit player in the drama of the ingrained habits and attitudes and addictions of the body.
Maureen Dowd is in that category, I suspect. I suspect she long has been.
It is not impossible that God should choose to impart to her some special grace by which she might suddenly see the truth and repent. I am not ruling her damned. It seems likely, if one had to make a bet. But God could intervene.
Still and all, it doesn't seem likely He would override the whole sum of her free willed rejections of Him in that fashion. He is a Father, not a tyrant; a Lover, not a rapist. It isn't His style.
So barring some spectacular miracle, Maureen Dowd will remain what she has made herself, and what she has made herself is something less than a "her," something less than a "self." She used to show glimmers of intelligence and good humor...but when's the last time such phenomena were detectable?
I fear she is no longer so much a grumbler against the Church, as an animated walking grumble. Not as much a soul in rebellion against the Church, as a habit of rebellion mindlessly exercising the administrative role in a body which a soul formerly exercised. It is not to be wondered that she spits at the Church; the question is whether there is much "she" left in there, capable of someday choosing to do something other than spit. One suspects that if Maureen is still in there, there isn't much of her left: What remains, from all external evidence, is no more than a sort of wind-up toy that spits, gradually winding down.
Ducks quack, dogs bark, frogs go ribbet, and Dowds screech and spit. They don't mean anything much by it; it's nothing personal. Its just the sound they make.
Ducks quack, dogs bark, and frogs go ribbet. They don't mean anything much by it. It's nothing personal. It's just the noise those animals make.
We should only expect constructive civil discourse from intelligent personal beings, whether they are angels or extraterrestrials or humans or persons of the Trinity. We don't expect that kind of discourse from fruitbats.
But Maureen Dowd is a fruitbat, more or less, and not just in the sense of being batty and a fruitcake. I mean that, while we are morally bound to continue treating her as a child of God made in His image, she seems to have done everything she can do to attenuate that image in herself, to make herself less of a fruity batty person, and more of a fruitbat.
I mean that human beings are assigned by God the task of being and becoming who they are meant to be; their humanity is contingent. Dogs are always doggy and cats are always catty and horses are always horsey; but only free-willed beings can fail to be what they are made to be. Dogs can't not be doggy, but humans can be inhuman. Being what we are is not a necessary thing; it is a task God assigns us, to do or to fail. Thus a man becomes, through willful embrace of his own evil, ape-like or pig-like.
This is increasingly true of persons who, through repeated and unrepented choices, attach themselves to rebellion against God either through vice or rejection of God's truth. It is God's constant grace that elevates man upward from the level of biologically-programmed flesh robot inhabited by the decaying ghost of a soul -- the partial truth hidden in the error of the gnostics -- upward, to the level free willed supernatural being whose body and soul are one entity. It is connection to God which sustains freedom and health and the ability to overcome the determinism which would otherwise rule us because of biological predisposition and spiritual decay. Sever that connection, and keep it severed long enough, and there comes a point where the free-willed soul is too weak to be more than a bit player in the drama of the ingrained habits and attitudes and addictions of the body.
Maureen Dowd is in that category, I suspect. I suspect she long has been.
It is not impossible that God should choose to impart to her some special grace by which she might suddenly see the truth and repent. I am not ruling her damned. It seems likely, if one had to make a bet. But God could intervene.
Still and all, it doesn't seem likely He would override the whole sum of her free willed rejections of Him in that fashion. He is a Father, not a tyrant; a Lover, not a rapist. It isn't His style.
So barring some spectacular miracle, Maureen Dowd will remain what she has made herself, and what she has made herself is something less than a "her," something less than a "self." She used to show glimmers of intelligence and good humor...but when's the last time such phenomena were detectable?
I fear she is no longer so much a grumbler against the Church, as an animated walking grumble. Not as much a soul in rebellion against the Church, as a habit of rebellion mindlessly exercising the administrative role in a body which a soul formerly exercised. It is not to be wondered that she spits at the Church; the question is whether there is much "she" left in there, capable of someday choosing to do something other than spit. One suspects that if Maureen is still in there, there isn't much of her left: What remains, from all external evidence, is no more than a sort of wind-up toy that spits, gradually winding down.
Ducks quack, dogs bark, frogs go ribbet, and Dowds screech and spit. They don't mean anything much by it; it's nothing personal. Its just the sound they make.
6.28.2011 | 2:30pm
DaveO says:
A thoughts in all of this:
I've noticed in reading the Bible that whatever G-d does, the Deceiver does or tries to do also, but with a warped outcome. If G-d did truly make man and woman and created them to be marital partners, then doesn't it follow that the Deceiver would want to make man and man or woman and woman marital partners as well?
I've yet to see a Biblical argument for gay marriage; or how one defending non-heterosexual marriage that takes evil into account. Perhaps good and evil are too antiquaited for consideration, but that'd be Sentimentalism.
I've noticed in reading the Bible that whatever G-d does, the Deceiver does or tries to do also, but with a warped outcome. If G-d did truly make man and woman and created them to be marital partners, then doesn't it follow that the Deceiver would want to make man and man or woman and woman marital partners as well?
I've yet to see a Biblical argument for gay marriage; or how one defending non-heterosexual marriage that takes evil into account. Perhaps good and evil are too antiquaited for consideration, but that'd be Sentimentalism.
6.29.2011 | 1:05pm
Wender says:
One biblical argument for gay marriage?
One is that the Bible referred to a "marriage of the lamb." It referred to God or the ideal Church or city, coming down to heaven, as a "bride" to a bachelor. But in that case? CHurch traditionally, has considered that a nun is "married" to the Church; a woman married to a "bride."
This marriage moreover, is considered preferable to a conventional human marriage.
By the way? If God coming down from heaven is a "bride," if God made both man "and woman" in his own image? If "image" has any meaning at all, then it seems that God has both female and male characteristics.
This is what the Bible says. But since when do conservatives ever follow the Bible? Instead, they follow their traditional middle-class mores, as if they were God himself.
One is that the Bible referred to a "marriage of the lamb." It referred to God or the ideal Church or city, coming down to heaven, as a "bride" to a bachelor. But in that case? CHurch traditionally, has considered that a nun is "married" to the Church; a woman married to a "bride."
This marriage moreover, is considered preferable to a conventional human marriage.
By the way? If God coming down from heaven is a "bride," if God made both man "and woman" in his own image? If "image" has any meaning at all, then it seems that God has both female and male characteristics.
This is what the Bible says. But since when do conservatives ever follow the Bible? Instead, they follow their traditional middle-class mores, as if they were God himself.
6.29.2011 | 5:56pm
DaveO says:
Wender,
Your argument would have had some weight of integrity until your last two sentences. Your frequent use of "if" lends your argument to be more of a question, than a declaration. Would you please provide references to God being the bride? And androgynous? G-d as Lady Gaga may be in fashion, but doesn't really work.
One argument that is usually dismissed comes from Genesis 2: 7-25. One notices that G-d does not make any of the animals into Adam's helper. He forms Eve from Adam - direct physical oneness - as the helper, and yet in form distinct. Almost as if G-d had a purpose in making Eve not a man, nor reforming Adam into a woman.
With G-d making marriage between man and woman, would it not follow that the Deceiver, who wants to be like the Most High, also want to create marriage? But it can't be a union of one man and one woman, symbolic of humans relationship with G-d - the Deceiver's form of marriage must differ, warping that relationship so that G-d is not glorified, and the humans leave communion with G-d. Man with man succeeds in this goal. So does woman with woman. And animals, and so on - so long as marriage is not a union between one man and one woman.
Your argument would have had some weight of integrity until your last two sentences. Your frequent use of "if" lends your argument to be more of a question, than a declaration. Would you please provide references to God being the bride? And androgynous? G-d as Lady Gaga may be in fashion, but doesn't really work.
One argument that is usually dismissed comes from Genesis 2: 7-25. One notices that G-d does not make any of the animals into Adam's helper. He forms Eve from Adam - direct physical oneness - as the helper, and yet in form distinct. Almost as if G-d had a purpose in making Eve not a man, nor reforming Adam into a woman.
With G-d making marriage between man and woman, would it not follow that the Deceiver, who wants to be like the Most High, also want to create marriage? But it can't be a union of one man and one woman, symbolic of humans relationship with G-d - the Deceiver's form of marriage must differ, warping that relationship so that G-d is not glorified, and the humans leave communion with G-d. Man with man succeeds in this goal. So does woman with woman. And animals, and so on - so long as marriage is not a union between one man and one woman.
7.8.2011 | 1:35pm
Dimaria Money says:
I have been struck that all of the arguments favoring homosexual marriage are drawn about because of the conclusions of reason, in spite of a lack of experience in this. This is quite unprecedented. For example, slavery was abolished in Europe itself for centuries (whatever may have happened in the colonies) and so European civilizations eventual suppression of the institution could be said to arise from the experience of the originating continent. Homosexual marriage has been tried nowhere for more than a few years or so. We really do not, at this point, have even the slightest inkling of what the consequences may or may not be. The problem is, the homosexual community defines their behavior as who they are. It's how they identify themselves. If we don't embrace and celebrate them and their behavior, we labeled as haters.
7.17.2011 | 12:35am
Rosenda Bridjmohan says:
And where in scripture is this found? "In the beginning . . ." As well as the Gospel words of Jesus in speaking of the nature of the human person "as it was in the beginning." When such love exists on the level of bodily passion it is easily recognized for what it is. It is selfish, and, therefore, it is not love. Those whose love does not transcend the desires of their bodies, generally do not even bother to deceive themselves with good motives. They follow their passions. Since they do not deceive themselves, they are more honest, as well as more miserable, than those who pretend to love on a spiritual plane without realizing that their "unselfishness" is only a deception.
