Bravo to the nineteen Catholic priests in Quebec who are daring to criticize the Church's stand against same-sex marriage and the ordination of homosexuals.
We all know what the Catholic Church believes about gays and lesbians. That Pope Benedict's first policy announcement would bar men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" from the priesthood only confirms it, although that phrase "deep-seated" is open to some question. How deep in the seat do you need to go before you're confirmed gay, I wonder? Of course, the encyclical notes that it "profoundly respects" such people, which is a real hoot.
One of the things that turned me against Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular was this, you'll pardon the expression, deep-seated attitude that it's somehow possible to "love the sinner while hating the sin", to use their oft-repeated words. When the "sin" is not some trifling peccadillo but instead is a matter of self-identity, it's truly impossible to separate the two.
Of course, the Catholic Church continues to believe, in the face of so much contrary evidence, that every homosexual act is (a) against "natural law" and (b) a choice freely made.
As to (a), homosexual behaviour is common throughout nature: only those who would seek to elevate humanity above nature would hold us to a higher standard than our fellow animals.
"Natural law", as the Church sees it, echoes God's command to "be fruitful and multiply". That command has been taken literally, unlike so many of God's Old Testament dictums (when's the last time you attended a stoning?) ...probably because of what comes immediately after it:
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth"(Genesis 1:27-28).
That sounds fantastic, doesn't it? "Subdue" the Earth. "Have dominion over" pretty much the whole shebang. Crawl over the globe in ever-increasing multitudes like so many lice, albeit lice made in the image and likeness of God. We don't actually say "God told us to" in so many words any more, but it's implicit in every cloud of smog and every clearcut tree: why else would we deliberately foul our only nest, unless we'd been given the Heavenly All-Clear to do so?
In any event, since homosexuals can not multiply--yet--they've been deemed "unnatural". Which makes me wonder to what purpose infertility exists, but anyway...
As to (b), of course the homosexual act is a choice, just as is the heterosexual act; the alternative to both is celibacy, which goes against the Catholic Church's command to everyone except, paradoxically, its priests. I've heard many Christians, not just Catholics, concede that point, while still stating unequivocally that one form of sex is perfectly fine while the other is a sin. Therefore, they say, homosexuals are free to be homosexuals, so long as they don't have sex.
This little piece of sophistry disgusts me. Deny yourself, the attitude says, and you'll be fine in the eyes of God. But it makes no such statement to people who are not gay (unless, again, they aspire to the priesthood).
The letter from nineteen Quebecois priests is an attempt to open dialogue on this issue. Although it is apparently written in a polite tone, it rather pointedly asks "does the Church have the last word on the mysteries of political, social, family and sexual life?"
Don't be surprised if the answer from Rome is equally pointed. I'd also expect to see disciplinary action taken, not so much because of the question asked but because a question was asked. You learn pretty early in the Catholic educational system not to ask questions on matters of faith.
It's heartening to see priests discovering their balls.
4 comments:
Those priests may have discovered their balls, but if they want to continue to have jobs as leaders of their flocks, they're going to also quickly discover that they are going to lose them.
THIS is why I think religion is total bunk. What God would give us urges and instincts and then forbid us from using them? WE made it up, and the church uses dogma like this to spank us like bad children if we disagree.
Some people think homosexuality is wrong, and not just for religious reasons. There's an "ew, ick" factor that no one wants to talk about. Omnisexuality or homosexuality is not for everyone. However, to say that it's not a question of religion, but a question of personal taste can get you into trouble with the vociferous of the homosexuality advocates. This is mostly because of the argument that homosexuality is not about sexual choice, but biological instincts. I'm not disagreeing with that, but I'm saying that for the 80% of the rest of the world that could go either way and choose not to, it IS a choice.
Well, I've never heard a homosexual advocate who had qualms at somebody's personal taste...which isn't to say they don't exist. Except I've never heard of a homosexuality advocate, either. What is that? One of those "recruiters" trying to get people to "go gay"? Sorry, I don't believe in them.
I don't agree with your assertion that "80%...could go either way and choose not to." To me, it sounds as if you are saying that 80% of people are bisexuals who choose one orientation or the other. I don't believe that to be the case.
Okay, well, here's my thinking on the 80%. Kinsey postulated (and rightly, I think) that all people have some homosexual tendencies (whether they acknowledge them or not), and range somewhere between a 0 (completely hetero) to a 6 (completly homo), with most people being somewhere between 1 and four. In our lifetimes, this fluctuates. So, sometimes we're a 2, and sometimes we're a 4. This is what I meant by "choose not to."
By homosexual advocates, I meant that a lot of the homosexuals I've met refuse to consider this scale. They figure if you're homo, you're homo, and if you're not, you're not. While I agree that it's almost entirely biological, there is some free will attached. I'll give you an example which may shock you.
I like looking at women's bodies almost as much as men do, but I don't choose to have sex with women. I made a covenant with my husband, and I tend to prefer looking at men over looking at women anyway. See? A choice. You yourself made a similar choice some time ago, as well. I think we're arguing about semantics here. I honestly think we're on the same page, just having a different perspective.
You're right. Although Kinsey's scale has been refuted in a few places, I think the basic principle behind it holds.
(I think a lot of heteros freak out at the slightest inkling of homosexual thought, which is really kind of silly.)
Funny, too, how by "homosexual" most people still assume male-on-male. Lesbians are often thrown in as an afterthought...
Post a Comment