This article, in January's Furrow, is rather ironically titled, for it is a reply to Fr Owen O'Sullivan's piece in the same review in March, 2010. O'Sullivan's ability to reply is hampered since he has to show all his writings to the CDF before publication. So when Kiely says, "Freedom must include freedom to think", one is left wondering what his view would be of the freedom to express and publish what one thinks. Recently it was revealed that an article in Theological Studies, by Germain Grisez, had not gone through the normal channels of peer review etc. but had been imposed on the editors by the Vatican. Fr Kiely is an ardent defender of Humanae Vitae, very much in the Grisez camp.
Kiely refers to "anyone who thinks that the Judeo-Christian tradition on homosexuality has been mistaken for about 3000 years". But the tenets he himself focuses on are of quite recent vintage. They are ideas on the psychology of homosexuality that date principally from the 1950s. Fr Kiely would not, I presume, want to defend long-standing aspects of the Judeo-Christian understanding of homosexuality such as the burning of Sodomites at the stake (one of the first importations of missionaries to Asia in the 16th century, when gays were burnt in Goa and Manila). When Fr Kiely says that "it is possible to think one's way into a tradition as well as out of it" he misses the fact that gay theologians are indeed doing both -- thinking into the authentic spirit of biblical and Christian tradition on love, conscience, community and thinking against the violent and dehumanizing elements that have also attached to that tradition.
Examining critically the chapter on homosexuality in the nine editions of Kaplan and Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry (CTP), Kiely notes that the first edition, 1967, sees homosexuality as "a form of immaturity". This sounds like a mild version of the standard American Freudianism of the 1950s that would see gays as failing to mature to the full, normative heterosexual position. In 1973 the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality per se from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which Fr Kiely sees as a dereliction of professional duty due in part to "pressure by gay activists, including disruption of the annual meetings of the APA in 1970 and 1971". Strange that in the 40 years since the APA has never considered reversing its decision: how powerful those gay activists must be! To be sure, a poll of 10,000 psychiatrists brought the result that of the 2,500 who responded 69% saw homosexuality as "a pathological adaptation". But if that result were representative, would not this be reflected in APA thinking? Is the APA some kind of dictatorship that reaches conclusions independently of the opinion of the majority of its members?
Apparently CTP came into line with the APA only in its seventh edition, 2000. Here, according to Kiely, "research in the psychoanalytical tradition, which had concentrated on the familial antecedents of adult homosexuality, is dismissed without adequate reasons being given". The research to which Kiely himself refers is that of Bieber and Socarides, figures that are not regarded with much esteem by psychoanalysts today. The great guns of psychoanalysis, from Freud and Lacan down, do not, as far as I know, regard homosexuality per se as pathological and do not seek blanket etiologies of sexual orientation. CTP's references to Kinsey and to the finding, reported as long ago as 1951, that "homosexuality was common across cultures and occurred in almost all nonhuman primate species" are viewed with skepticism by Kiely, who quotes the 6th edition of CTP: "no instances of adult preferential or obligatory homosexuality in any social context have been reported for any nonhuman mammalian species in the wild". Kiely gives no information on recet studies on homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom. He complains that CTP-VII tells us "very little about the psychodynamics or psychogenesis of homosexuality". Could this not be because there is very little that can be said about a question posed in such sweeping terms? Again, Kiely urges that "the psychoanalytical approach... was at least a very promising beginning that could have been carried forward. In the recent past it enjoyed a widespread consensus".
A more telling criticism of CTP-VII is its use of social constructionist jargon: it argues with reference to Foucault "that there is no inner sexual drive, but rather that the human potential for thinking and acting is shaped by social forces of regulation and categorization into various types of sexual desire at different times in history and in different societies". Certainly, as applied to the exclusive heterosexual or the exclusive homosexual this remark has little relevance; the orientation itself is a given, though its evaluation and enactment are of course subject to cultural variation. Bisexuals may have more latitude in sexual self-identification.
In this social constructionist view "a person's identity as gay, lesbian or bisexual is not then subject to evaluation by any external criterion (psychological, moral or religious), and in that sense seems to be considered as self-authenticating". From a so-called "essentialist" viewpoint, this would be even more the case. Unless there are solid reasons to think otherwise, natural tendencies such as left-handedness should not be regarded as pathological. In fact, I think that an essentialism about sexual orientation is far more influential than postmodernist ideology in bringing about the normalization of homsexuality that Fr Kiely deplores. Fr Kiely misses a hugely important factor: the new openness of gays and lesbians in all countries where democratic values prevail. Because gay individuals and couples have been so frank about the texture of their lives, the ideas of people like Socarides have been shown up in all their tawdriness. This is not ideology, but nature, in the sense of Horace: "You may expel nature with a pitchfork, but it will alway come back", and Shakespeare: "One touch of nature makes the whole world kin".
Kiely then asks, "are homosexual persons fulfilled by homosexual acts?" This is again a very sweeping question. And the answers are equally sweeping: "homosexuals are more preoccupied with sex than are heterosexuals". The source for this claim: CTP-I, 1967. The promiscuity of gay circles in the pre-AIDS era shows that "such men were searching for something that they were not finding". While I would not dispute that male-male sex will have psychological factors conducive to promiscuity, I would urge that social factors play a large role too. With the advent of gay civil partnerships and gay marriage, we may expect to see a diminution in promiscuous behaviors among gay males. "Lesbianism involves different processes; limits of space preclude discussing these", adds Fr Kiely -- rather disappointingly.
On "the difficulty which homosexual men have with sexually exclusive relationships" Fr Kiely quotes a study of 156 stable couples which found that "none of the over 100 couples that had been together for more than five years had been sexually monogamous or exclusive". I know several such couples myself, and I think their stable and deep relationships should be admired and valued even if they are not waterproof against lateral episodes.
Then Kiely quotes CTP-VI for another sweeping diagnosis: "virtually all preferential homosexuals... did not identify with the sexual orientation of their same-sex parent" (this sounds like a pleonasm, unless the meaning is that in some cases their parents were themselves gay). Thus "except in possible instances of biological predisposition" the gay person suffers from "hostility towards that parent, which tends to extend to others of the same sex". Thus homosexuality means not a tendency to love people of the same sex but a tendency to hostility of the same sex. Of gay males, CTP-VI reports, "hostility towards other men is characteristic" and "contaminates male-male relationships", thus making monogamous commitment difficult. I must confess that I have never noticed this alleged "problem of aggression" nor indeed ever heard of it before. It rather sounds as if any old stick will do to beat a dog. It conflicts with a more common stereotype of gay men as wimps, who would only love to find aggressive partners.
Then, "jealousy and exhibitionism are described as frequent among male homosexuals" -- what a vague statement! The source is one A. Karlen, 1971. I am amazed that Fr Kiely would rescue such a nonsense from its deserved obscurity. Jealousy is frequent among all people, and is probably less frequent among gay males, given the relaxed attitude to sexuality in much of the gay world. Why exhibitionism should be mentioned side by side with jealousy is unclear, unless it is a question of piling up negatives indiscriminately.
Next Kiely tells us: "male homosexuals can also be seductive when they relate to women in non-sexual contexts" (source, Bieber, 1979). What that has to do with the question of fulfillment is unclear. Is he saying that gay men find more satisfaction in a "tea and sympathy" friendship with women than in their brooding, jealous, conflictual relationship with men. This really is a throwback to a vanished culture and its stereotypes, in which effeminate men are imagined pouting about their faithless lovers and being consoled by understanding motherly soulmates.
Next Kiely returns to jealousy: "homosexual relations seem to have a typical component of tension or jealousy". I think the stereotyping word he is looking for is "brittle". He contrasts this with romances between priests and nuns which contain at the start "an echo of The Song of Songs that I have never observed in a homosexual relationship". Me oh my! Do not Shakepeare's Sonnets to Mr W. H. and Michelangelo's to Tommaso dei Cavalieri come close to the Song of Songs? -- and that's only for starters!
Gays can't find no satisfaction, Fr Kiely continues, because homosexual acts "provide a temporary relief from tension or loneliness. But it is only temporary, and the promiscuity of gay men is a clear sign of insatiability." I would say that sexual acts are not the answer to loneliness for anyone; love and companionship are the answer; and in that context sexual acts can be a bonus or a cement -- the Church now says so in the case of heterosexual married couples; Fr Kiely gives no reason to suppose that sexual exchanges cannot also have a positive significance for gay couples.
"The situation of an elderly homosexual man, who has lost his youth, good looks and perhaps social status, can be very sad indeed." A beautiful sentence, but how does it bolster the argument? Supposing such an elderly man were suddenly blessed with the sexual companionship of a young lover -- such things are known to happen -- then he would be a churlish old man indeed were he to say "I find no satisfaction in sexual acts". It is said that the aged and lonely Henry James was thrilled by the hugs and kisses of young men -- satisfaction enough, and not to be scorned.
The last paragraphs of Fr Kiely's essay argue that gay people have "freedom to choose" -- to become heterosexuals! A moment ago they were condemned to uncontrollable promiscuity and terminal loneliness, and now, lo!, a path to happiness opens up before them: find a nice young girl, forget your silly gay feelings, and enjoy the heterosexual lifestyle. Constructionism wins. Sometimes homosexual desire "is superficial and transitory and can be overcome fairly easily" -- no doubt, but note that this does not mean the basic sexual orientation of the bisexual person experiencing such desire has been altered. "CTP-VI states that many homosexual persons, with therapy, can change if they really want to.. 'About one-third in most published surveys achieve a true shift to heterosexuality, and another third become heterosexually arousable and functional without losing their homosexual responsivity'". Study upon study, since Masters and Johnson's declaration of defeat on this front, have shown that such therapies are ineffective and damaging. I would estimate the chances of changing an exclusive homosexual (or heterosexual) into an exclusive heterosexual (or homosexual), even with the aid of the most ingenious Clockwork Orange therapies, at precisely 0%.
"Some are glad to escape the 'gay scene' even without a change of orientation". There is unconscious comedy in this. Sexual orientation is written in one's veins, neurones, genes, mind, heart. The gay scene is merely a congeries of pubs and clubs and lots of gays get tired of it. "Sorry, Billy, I can't change your sexual orientation after all, but at least I got you to stop patronizing the gay scene: that will be $5,000 dollars, thank you". A lucrative racket, indeed. Of course, "One of the ways you can tell you are probably gay is if you really 'hate the gay scene'" (http://outfrontcolorado.com/ofcblog/opinion/stuff-gay-people-like/stuff-gay-people-like-hating-the-gay-scene).
"Indeed, the more one learns about the 'gay scene' from listening or reading (Nicolosi, 1993), the more 'gay' appears as a misnomer". Perhaps Rome is short of gay bars etc., but Fr Kiely should really do some fieldwork. He appears to know nothing of the people about whom he pontificates. There are plenty of nice gay places where he would be welcome and where he might learn to humanize his discourse a little. (Indeed, it is said that gay venues are less threatening and aggressive than heterosexual ones, contrary to Kiely's odd "gays are aggressive" thesis; see http://www.bgiok.org.uk/being_gay/scene.html.)
"All sexual tendencies must be evaluated... Is the homosexual tendency a special exception?" Fr Kiely would like it to be evaluated negatively, as pedophilia is. But he has failed to give any substantial reason for such negative evaluation. "A young person with some experience of homosexual desire might be tempted to cut the Gordian knot, resolve his difficulties in dealing with the opposite sex, and claim an identity, a distinction, and perhaps a cause, all at once". What kind of young person is referred to here? A homosexual person would hardly be worried about "difficulties in dealing with the opposite sex", so the reference must be to a bisexual who takes a walk on the gay side because he finds women too much to handle -- but I don't think Fr Kiely has envisaged this scenario very convincingly.
The best-selling novelist in Rome this Christmas was Fabio Volo, whose first novel, Esco a far due passi, was a tell-all story of a young heterosexual man's life. In all his technicolor sexual adventures the young man never for an instant thinks of homosexual advenure (though excited by the idea of watching two women make love). Fr Kiely seems to underestimate the sturdiness of people's sexual make-up.
On the basis of his jejune portrait of the young bisexual tempted to go all gay, Fr Kiely concludes: "I do not think that this should be held up as a good object of choice, or as a reasonable alternative to marriage". I agree. The young man should live out his god-given sexuality and not pretend to be gay. But far, far more importantly, gay young men should live out their god-given sexuality and not pretend to be heterosexual, deceiving their prospective spouses. "What is in question is the value of a possible choice" -- but unless Fr Kiely really thinks that the average gay young man can choose to be heterosexual, his statement is vacuous. He concludes: "In the long run, especially, it is kinder to accept the tradition of the Church than to reject it". He seems to mean that gay men should marry women, to avoid loneliness in old age. It need hardly be pointed out that this is a formula for much unhappiness.
Fr Kiely should get out more -- the world is actually quite a nice place.
A few thoughts.
I will say at the outset that I believe the conflict between Catholicism’s moral code and homosexuality is insoluble.
Two very salient points, I believe:
Catholic morality has not accepted the admittedly very novel phenomenon of homosexual desire as shaping personal identity. It has not admitted the idea of “the homosexual person.” Without admitting that, it cannot include same-sex eros inside its traditional ethical field and justify overturning its consistent condemnation of homosexual acts. But if it ever accepts that, viz, that there are “homosexual persons”, defined by orientation, then it will have a very hard time continuing to condemn their acts without condemning them entirely. (And that, indeed, is how many homosexual people experience the Church's judgement on their eros.)
And at bottom, I believe that the predicament lies in the Catholic sexual axiom that holds together all of Catholic sexual morality: intimate sexual activity is only moral when it takes place between a man and woman who are married to each other and when it is open to procreation. If you ok homosexuality, this axiom falls apart and so does the entirety of Catholic sexual morality with it.
A scattering of other thoughts:
Arguments and theories about the etiology of homosexual desires remain just that: arguments and theories. Not a solid basis for moral assessment.
Descriptions of gay culture –gay male culture, primarily—tend more to exhibit the values of the describer than anything else. I say this both for appreciative and for critical voices.
The tendency of homosexual males to have many sexual contacts is obvious. But I would maintain that it is not something unique to homosexuality. It is because the "playing field" is composed only of males, who, as a sex, look for variety and frequency in sex. What keeps straight men from being as promiscuous is largely the resistance of women!
Aware of the above, and quite apart from evaluating homosexual eros “itself”, I find the very recent and contemporary social identity package of “gay” –despite minor exceptions—to be inseparable from the group-victim movements of the last fifty years, from the androphobic elements in feminism and from liberal/progressive/left politics.
Due to the foregoing, a Catholic blessing on homosexuality would include a tacit welcome to these other items. Just as, I may add, the Church’s sacramentalization of marriage necessarily required it to accept, at least in practice, many of the legal and social aspects of that institution throughout history.
The future of Catholicism appears to lie in the South, not in postmodern Europe and North America. In the South, patriarchy is strong and the Church confronts both Islam (the ultimate homophobic religion) and fundamentalist Protestantism. To shred its traditional morality to please a tiny minority of increasingly insignificant Westerners seems suicidal, especially given the decline seen in Xian denominations who have accepted gays.
The real energy behind Catholic sexual morality is the protection of marriage and the protection of sacerdotal and monastic celibacy. Anything that threatens these two fundamental institutions will be rejected.
Here endeth the lessons.
Posted by: EssEm | January 14, 2012 at 05:53 AM
One of Fr Kiely's victims (but we all have his blood on our hands): http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/my-name-was-not-eric-it-was-faggot.html
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | January 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM
EssEm -- how can you say gay issues are only the concern of a Western minority? Gays are being executed in Iran, gay marriage is being legislated in Latin America, gay Africans and Asians are highly visible in Paris and London not to mention their own countries. Your account of Catholic moral theology misses three key factors that came to prominence in the 1960s: the principle of the Primacy of Love; the co-equality of the Unitive with the Procreative aspect of marriage; the practical acceptance of Contraception among the vast majority of Catholic couples. All of these pose a solid basis for blessing stable homosexual unions.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | January 14, 2012 at 02:02 PM
Note the change in paragraph 2358 from the first to the second edition of the Catechism:
First Edition: They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.
Second Edition: This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.
Was Fr Kiely ordered to write his piece by the Vatican? Was the Furrow pressured to publish it?
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | January 14, 2012 at 04:30 PM
EssEm forgets that with the existence of the "global village" through the Internet etc; his argument falls a litle flat.
Not to argue that it doesn't have some merit.
It's just that its merit is being increasingly questioned.
Posted by: evagrius | January 16, 2012 at 01:34 PM
Reverend O'Leary;
Sadly, the Church's defenders frequently quote Nicolosi and others whose data and conclusions are rejected by the mainstream psychiatric, medical and psychological professional associations. The rejection is not the result of political correctness, but because scientific, replicatable and verifiable data do not support the conclusions. Nicolosi, Cameron and others of their ilk do the Church no service and the use of their testimony or conclusions as has been done by Church authorities in the recent past does the reputation of the Church tangible harm that some Bishops seem to be or choose to be unaware of.
Posted by: C Maureen McMahon | January 22, 2012 at 08:53 AM
If homosexuality is God given, is AIDS God given?
Posted by: Sam Johnson | January 23, 2012 at 04:43 AM
If sexuality is Godgiven, is Syphilis Godgiven?
For centuries, syphilis led people to see sexuality as evil, succumbing to manicheanism. STDs were a badge of moral shame up to very recently. Now we treat them in a secular way, assessing risks and healthy lifestyles. This is unexciting for those who like to link sex and the devil, but it is probably more enlightened.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | January 24, 2012 at 04:19 PM
In most cases syphilis is punishment for evil. It is generally acquired by having engaged in non-marital sex (fornication, adultery, etc.). If one man and woman get married without having any other sexual partners syphilis is rare. It should be a mark of shame.
In most cases
AIDS is also contracted through illicit sexual intercourse. there are of course other means of transmission but it can be reasonably be argued that without the sexual means these other means would not occur.
Notice that I have not said anything about the devil or hatred sex. I have only spoken about human acts. So I do no see the force of your analogy.
So neither syphilis nor AIDS is God given for the use of sexuality but for the immoral use of sexuality.
Posted by: Sam Johnson | January 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Gee Sam,
It's too bad that greed isn't punished by a visible disease, nor envy,wrath,sloth, and pride.
Only gluttony seems to be also visibly punished by disease.
Yet the "physical" sins of lust and gluttony are the least important sins in the chain of sins.
I wonder why.
Posted by: evagrius | January 26, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Sam is getting more reasonable -- not sex, but the abuse of sex gives rise to disease -- likewise, not homosexual sex as such but abusive or careless sex gives rise to disease. And now that he has left the devil and manicheanism out of it, he might reconsider his image of a punishing God as well; we a talking about natural health issues, not supernatural sanctions.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | January 27, 2012 at 06:18 PM
I am not "getting more reasonable", as you put it. You unjustly imputed to me notions of the devil and manicheanism. Notice I have never once said anythin about either. Although you keep bringing it up. I think, frankly, you owe me an apology. Or do you prefer to dispute with straw men?
Whether one thinks that God is punishing this behavior or not, it is at the very least a natural punishment and not just a health issue. For this natural punishments are not attached to monogamous heterosexual relations.
-Sam Johnson
Posted by: Sam Johnson | February 02, 2012 at 02:40 AM
Evagrius,
I would prefer it if you would at least attempt to make an argument.
Whether other sins are associated with visible diseases (although I am not sure what you mean by visible), there are clearly "visible" health effects with almost all sins. Sloth, for example, can lead to all sorts of health problems as can pride or wrath. I know of no medical professional who would deny this. The visible effects are often increased when sins are found in certain combinations. Thus sloth and gluttony can lead to diabetes etc. Wrath can contribute to high blood presure which in turn can lead to more serious medical conditions etc. Even the medievals (Aquinas etc.) had knowledge of this, although imperfectly understood. I am not sure why you do not.
- Sam Johnson
Posted by: Sam Johnson | February 02, 2012 at 02:47 AM
Well, I notice you didn't bring up greed. :)
I just want to argue that what you argue is only advocating the control of, say, one 7th or one 8th, depending on tradition, of the "sins" or mental fixations, "logismoi", that afflict human beings.
Still, you must agree that greed doesn't seem to have any "physical" manifestations, ( such as boils, facial deformation, etc;etc;).
Given that, it would seem that greed is the most dangerous "sin" or "logismoi", at least in this society.
Posted by: evagrius | February 02, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Sorry, it was a bit of a stretch to impute to Sam the demonization of sex that the Syphilis scare caused in the 16th century and that the Aids scare has caused more recently. Sam's position is clear: Aids and Syphilis are divine, or least divinely ordered, punishment for sexual sins. Moreover, all sins by their very nature produce such punishment.
My own view is that the category of punishment has no place at all in humane discussion of sexually transmitted disease.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | February 02, 2012 at 04:36 PM
Evagrius, the problem is not whether sin produces punishment, but whether Aids is to be interpreted as a divine punishment for homosexual acts and therefore as proof that homosexual orientation is not godgiven.
To say that homosexuality is not godgiven, to my mind, implies manicheanism, as it relegates a part of God's creation to something defective and evil. "They are not well in their wits to whom anything that Thou hast created is displeasing." Sam cannot think of same-sex attraction and love as a positive good.
That a positive evaluation of the homosexual orientation lays grounds for a moral acceptance of its physical expression is a consequence that Sam would be very loth to draw. The Vatican thinks in the same way, as its constant altering of its texts on homosexual orientation in a negative direction since it first adressed the issue in 1975 shows.
In any case, I think we have shown that Sam's use of Aids to condemn homosexuality in general is a product of prejudiced reasoning, for it could equally be used to condemn sexuality in general. He now admits that only disordered sexuality (mostly) gives rise to Aids or Syphilis; though of course there are many "innocent" victims of these diseases. Why not simply say that contagious diseases are a hazard of human contact, and leave it at that?
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | February 02, 2012 at 04:47 PM
I notice that my last post was not posted.
At any rate, I do not think that I suffer from "prejudiced reasoning". It is simply a biological fact that certain diseases are associated with certain behaviors (not merely restricted to sexual behavior) and to deny this is to deny nature. At the very least, I think that one has to say that nature "punishes" certain types of behavior.
You seem to want to argue that homosexuality is God given but these terrible diseases are not God given (I prefer "divinely ordered"). This seems to be utterly gratuitous. There are really only three solution here. God created the disease and is therefore good (not just in itself but also in its effects), disease is the result of sin (either original or personal), or affirm some Manichaen structure to the cosmos. It seems as if you have rejected the first two solutions and therefore are left with the third. Thus it seems as if you have fallen into what you are clearly very eager to avoid.
Posted by: Sam Johnson | February 03, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Your last post was the victim of a technical glitch; the same has happened to postings of my own.
"It is simply a biological fact that certain diseases are associated with certain behaviors." True, though rather vague. "One has to say that nature "punishes" certain types of behavior." No, that is the pathetic fallacy. Someone suffering from coeliac disease is not being punished for eating bread; someone with lung cancer is not being punished for smoking; it is just a matter of knowing the channels of danger in nature and avoiding them. Homosexuality as such is not a dangerous channel healthwise, any more than heterosexuality as such is.
"You seem to want to argue that homosexuality is God given but these terrible diseases are not God given (I prefer "divinely ordered").
Sexual orientation is "part of a person's basic personality; so like other such traits should be regarded as godgiven. Diseases are not godgiven (for they represent not being but a deficiency of being) and not used by God to punish, but they can be providential, like the blindness of the man in John IX.
"There are really only three solution here. God created the disease and is therefore good (not just in itself but also in its effects), disease is the result of sin (either original or personal), or affirm some Manichaean structure to the cosmos."
All three suppositions are heretical. God does not create evil, disease is not the result of sin (either this man's sin or his parents -- John IX), evil and good are not symmetrical or coequal.
You might defend the second view in a vague way by saying that disease is the result of original sin. But it is better to say that diseases are part of the presence of evil (of a defect in being) in the cosmos; evil has no ontological subsistence and cannot be set against good in a manichean way.
While various forms of evil (defectiveness in being) have attached to sexuality, it is still manichean to regard sexuality itself as inherently diseased (and Augustine's morose broodings about postlapsarian Adam's shameful inability to control his erections are seen by many as a relapse into the Manicheanism he so valiantly refuted on the ontological level).
Since 1985 the Vatican has attempted to portray homosexuality as a disorder due to original sin, but in the process it has not been able to defend itself against the unwanted consequence of viewing sexuality itself as such a disorder. The Vatican would like to count homosexuality as something like concupiscence, which Augustine saw as a result of original sin, but this does not work. Concupiscence, for gays and straights alike, is one thing; sexual orientation another.
True, some sexual orientations are problematic, the most obvious case being exclusive attraction to pre-pubescent children. Even such orientations are not however intrinsically evil -- they can be affectively sublimated even if they involve a proclivity to sexual acts that cannot be countenanced (this was widely recognized until recently). Some churchmen, more enlightened than the Vatican, warmly urge chaste friendship as a fulfilment of the homosexual vocation. (Augustine talks about same-sex caresses that are expressive of mutual fondness rather than of concupiscent desire.) If the Vatican built more generously on this basis the moral controversy about the licitness of sexual acts would be put in its proper, relatively minor place. The issue would be whether such acts have a unitive value in cementing stable relationships and whether their non-procreative character should be regarded as totally discrediting them, in view of the non-procreative character of most sexual acts and the practical acceptance of deliberate contraception, natural or artificial, by Catholics.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | February 04, 2012 at 12:46 PM
You write, "Homosexuality as such is not a dangerous channel healthwise, any more than heterosexuality as such is."
This is not true. Homosexual behavior is contrary to man's nature and as with most actions that are contrary, there are side effects. These effects are not associated with monogamous heterosexual activity. Notice that I have not said that these effects are not associated with all heterosexual activity but that they are not associated with monogamous hetersexual activity. (You keep arguing against this latter claim, as if I have made it.)
Whether you wish to call this "punishment" or a "dangerous channel" is immaterial. The result is the same. the activity is to be avoided.
"Diseases are not godgiven (for they represent not being but a deficiency of being) and not used by God to punish, but they can be providential, like the blindness of the man in John IX."
First, disease is godgiven. Disease are not an abstraction nor are they merely a deficiency of being. A bacteria or virus has being. It is a thing and as such is good. So this is not like blindness which is merely a deficiency. So your analysis is already flawed.
Posted by: Sam Johnson | February 06, 2012 at 12:25 AM
But the effects you mention are not associated with monogamous homosexual activity either. In fact lesbian couples probably have the lowest incidence of STDs of any group.
Happily married gay and lesbian couples find joy in their sexual lives much as heterosexual couples do, and most doctors and psychiatrists agree that this is a wholly positive health indicator. Wrong teaching on homosexuality has condemned millions of people to loneliness and/or promiscuity, which are not recommended for good health.
I really think you should mix more with gays and lesbians as friends instead of pontificating about them as specimens of some alien species. Your pontification that their sexual lives and even their sexual orientation are "contrary to man's (sic) nature" would melt away in face of the phenomena.
Augustine would deny that evil as such has being. A virus or a bacterium or the Devil himself are entirely good insofar as they are. It is necessary to claim this is order to avoid the Manichean heresy. I never said that the Manichean heresy has not strong arguments on its side, but I believe those of Augustine are stronger, and of course more in accord with the biblical vision of the goodness of creation.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | February 06, 2012 at 02:20 PM
So now we are correcting usage?
You are again imputing to me something that you would have no way of knowing, i.e. the amount of time that I have or have not spent with homosexuals. Perhaps, I have spent a great deal of time with them and seen the damage that their behavior has caused.
You seem to prefer to impute things to your opponent rather than dealing with the issue. Alien species?
Posted by: Sam Johnson | February 07, 2012 at 12:18 AM
Dealing with the issue of your claim that gay behavior is against human nature, I recommend that you mix on terms of equality with gay men and women who can vouch the opposite, particularly with those who have found true happiness in a loving relationship. Perhaps you have spent a great deal of time with gays, but you still cling to the usage of "homosexual" as a noun -- a verbal technique for putting gays at a distance as alien, as "they" not "us". "Seen the damage that their behavior has caused" -- again, distinguo, this "they" does not include many gays, especially stable and happy gay couples. Your view does not match the phenomena, and I am answering by saying that you need to study the phenomena more empathetically.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | February 07, 2012 at 01:04 PM