Until Further Titling – Week 2; Covenantal Love
I know I’ve said I would stop reading Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish over at The Atlantic, but I still check on the site every now and then to claim a little current-ness on the guy’s crazy state. Today I looked and ran across this video, from a recent presentation at Princeton:
I will be posting briefly on torture soon, but I did appreciate the asker’s preface about the subject. But coming to the meat of the asker’s question, I think he was afraid to ask what he really wanted to: “What about those who are attracted to people whom we don’t think it is acceptable to be attracted to, like children?” Now I know the horribly slanderous accusation has been thrown around that gay men are pedophiles, even by those in the higher levels of hierarchy in the Church. That is not what I mean when I pose this question, nor would I insult any gays by insinuating such a thing. I do not believe pedophilia is associated with homosexuality in everyday circumstances of the latter. What I mean is there are certain things people can be attracted to that are disordered from the get-go and need to be restrained by the will, because they are inherently wrong. This is an effect of our fall from grace and subsequent reveling in original sin, assured by the free will we all possess. For example I may have a passion for burning buildings to the ground. But I mustn’t go around burning down buildings; simply because a passion exists does not mean that it should be pursued. I am passionate about women. That does not mean there are no restraints on that passion that must be put in place to protect myself and others. I can’t just go around having sex with every attractive girl I see without consequence, despite what the MSM and pop culture mindset try and pound into our consciousness. Concerning those passions which must be restrained in totality, it is not as if they are rare. Everyone has desires which they must totally deny to remain a good and whole person. Original sin has had disastrous consequences on the human race in this way, because it is very difficult for many people to control their passions. With the introduction of dangerous concepts in western philosophy like will-to-power that Neitzsche, Adler, and Schopenhauer introduced to the collective consciousness, control of passions is no longer appreciated, much less sought by most people. But in truth, we must seek to reign in our desires and master self control to be the most moral beings that we can…
Now, the question is, “is homosexuality one of those passions we are subject to because of original sin, that is to be restrained like any other sinful passion that can lead to the damnation of our souls?” Most lefty thinkers would ask of the labeling of homosexuality as one of these dangerous passions, “is it fair?” But I don’t think that question is relevant to any discussion on the topic, nor any discussion of right and wrong (perhaps it is only appropriate to me in circumstances of equity or personal justice). It is often framed as a fairness issue, which is irrelevant to if it is wrong or right. Is it fair that I can’t kill people who anger me? The question almost doesn’t make any sense. Of course not. But this isn’t the question to ask. I don’t necessarily know what is, but that is not it even though that is what is most commonly asked. Is the standard the natural law? Well if so, there are gay animals, as are there married couples who cannot create life because of health complications. And if it is differences in brain structure that lead to homosexuality (which I would contend it is), does that supersede the biology of body parts below the belt? I don’t think so, but many would. Even if that is true, we are all programmed to be subject to sin, so the biological ties don’t exempt a person from self control. But honestly I don’t know the answer, nor am I comfortable asserting that the wholesome expression of love between two adult partners is reason to pass out pitchforks and begin the condemning…
Therefore, generally and in principle, I stand by Sullivan’s comments here. But his description is not how things have panned out in reality. Sex and human relationships in homosexual realms are subject to the same corrupting forces as in heterosexual realms. In fact, I would argue that due to the branding of homosexuality as “intrinsically evil” by the Church and other Christian denominations, homosexuality has had to seek refuge in places where morality is all but ignored and has developed accordingly, with no thought to the moral place of love and sex between two human beings. This paired with the fact that there is no line to be drawn when sexual expression is acceptable (such as marriage traditionally was for heterosexual couples) has led to the reality that homosexuality is practiced most often not as an expression of love, but as one of lust (heterosexuality is presently no different in this respect, thanks to many of the worldly forces of the sexual revolution). One of my main problems with homosexuality isn’t the nature of the attraction itself, but the immoral way in which sex and human persons are treated under such circumstances. Again, I am not saying the same problems do not exist in heterosexuality, but it is not to the same degree, as evidenced clearly by a recent piece in the NYT that assured the world that the gay married pay no heed to the virtue of fidelity, because it “makes things more exciting that way.”
Could civil marriage resolve any of the problems with sexual morality within the homosexual community? I honestly doubt it. But if two men who love each other in a way that values the entire human person, as moral love does, I also am of the belief that the relationship is not disordered in the eyes of God. I stand by that statement, despite what the Church teaches in principle. But the reality is, I think that completely moral love is very difficult to find these days, homosexual or not, and therefore a majority of all relationships do not act as fulfilling and moral love that is pleasing before God, and I would therefore align almost completely with the Church on terms of practice…
Thoughts?
-kj-
Thoughts on things, speaking w/r/t Catholic Tradition:
Is the standard the natural law? Well if so, there are gay animals, as are there married couples who cannot create life because of health complications.
(1) Natural law != biological law. John Paul II (pre-JPII, as Wojtyla) was pretty clear on this point in Love and Responsibility. It raises the question of how we distinguish, but it's an important distinction to make nonetheless.
(2) The case of the couple varies according to natural law based on various things. If I recall correctly you're actually supposed to not get married: not if you're sterile, but if you can't have actual sex. The rationale being that if you're sterile, God could choose to open the womb as it were (I don't deny this possibility but I'll fully admit its rarity.) However, if you're not having vaginal intercourse…well, nothing outside of a good old-fashioned Virgin Birth can do that job, and as far as we know the only one of those was reserved for a very special case…
But if two men who love each other in a way that values the entire human person, as moral love does, I also am of the belief that the relationship is not disordered in the eyes of God.
You might be surprised to hear me agreeing–and I'm pretty sure the Church agrees too. Where we disagree? What does that Love imply?
The problem is that everything that one might call gay sex has been considered intrinsically disordered since…since, well, practically if not actually the dawn of Christianity. And the forms of it have been considered such for the same reason that condom and other contraceptive use has been considered such: Because they were considered sins against fertility. A husband and wife who have sex normally–even if something's going wrong on one end or the other–isn't doing anything wrong because they have no intent (or effect, even) of frustrating an otherwise fertile process. So while it might seem unfair that it extends
At any rate the question is what Love requires. If their bodies are not meant to be used in a way that is (a) sexual and (b) without fertility, then their bodies are not meant to be used in that way, and thus the loving option is to avoid having sex. Whether this means avoidance of any romantic relationship at all is a complicated question, a matter on which I lean towards "no," but sort of hope that I'm wrong. But ultimately it is this highest Love–Love in the best interest of the other–that must moderate Love-attraction and Love-desire, even a desire which appears well-ordered towards the whole (not just the body!) of another person.
I'm not going to pretend that I think it all sounds fair. One of the things I like about Catholicism is, what with its ethics going further than just "X passage of Scripture says Y, therefore Y" to "Why, if we believe God intends X to teach Y, did God say so?" is that in so doing the playing field is leveled some. Everyone's more in the same boat. From a natural law angle things might appear (to certain groups) more sexually puritanical. On the contrary, they're more reasonable and less bigoted (if they can be said to be bigoted at all.) That's not to say the situation between myself and any gays or lesbians I might know is entirely the same. It's not. God might call me to marriage someday. But if it be the case that they would only ever really desire to marry someone of the same sex, I couldn't as a responsible moral theologian (and I'm barely a moral theologian, if at all, much less a responsible one) say that I thought God was going to call them to marriage.
I guess I'm fully in agreement with the sentiment about "If two people Love each other, how can that Love be wrong?" I think people who use that question often forget that Love doesn't always mean a relationship, or sex, and that Love also means an action. And in some cases, that action is the not-fun action, of not starting something, even if it feels right…
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I recommend Love and Responsibility if you ever find the time, it would probably help you understand the whole of the argument a little better. Be warned, stuff's still clicking for me months after the reading.
Thanks for the comments Dan. I will check the book out before I make any more assumptions. Woe be he who teaches little ones to go astray. I Don't want to be that guy, even though in my heart I am not certain the only purpose of sex is procreation…