« The Body in Postwar Japanese Fiction | Main | Chan Insights and Oversights »

November 22, 2006


RC Fr. Andy

Well, I disagree with this entire post. I find the document clear, persuasive and, as opposed to much of what filters down from USCCB, useful for parish ministry. I see how you reached your conclusions, though. In your mind it is Catholic doctrine which needs to be converted by the authoritative voice of practicing homosexuals. Certainly, you understand, we "neocaths" believe the reverse is what's needed.

Spirit of Vatican II

Fr Andy: we have two authorities, two opposing claims; what is needed, then, is dialogue.

RC Fr. Andy

Yes, dialogue is absolutely necessary. However, to expect the hierarchy to be silent on the issues while such dialogue continues is unrealistic. The dialogue will continue, hopefully, until Our Lord returns. In the meantime, the Bishops have a duty to be shepherds AND teachers.

Spirit of Vatican II

Yes, the dialogue is continuing, though the bishops do not advert to it explicitly in their document. I agree, however, with the woman who said that the document, within this wide dialogical context, is a regressive step, whereas "Always Our Children" was a progressive step. In dialogical processes I suppose that progressive steps count for more in the long run than regressive ones? When we see bishops pawning their authority to such freakish groups as NARTH we must interpret that as a moment of defensiveness or panic and look forward to seeing wiser counsels prevail.

Spirit of Vatican II

"In your mind it is Catholic doctrine which needs to be converted by the authoritative voice of practicing homosexuals."

This is not quite accurate. The voices calling for a development in Catholic teaching and pastoral practice on this front include also those of moral theologians, psychologists, and the relatives of gays and lesbians. Moreover, some of the upholders of alleged biblical condemnation of "homosexuality" are themselves sexually active gays, e. g. Ted Haggard. (Indeed it might be the case that most of those calling for development are not gay at all and that most of those resisting it are closet gays!)


Thanks for the brilliant post. How long will it take the Catholic Church to find openess and honesty in her approach to this part of Gods creation ? 1000 years or - probably too optimistic - 500 years ? When will the relativistic teaching based on some Bible verses end?


Wonderful post.

I wonder how the bishops reflections on the wantingness of homosexual acts affects their judgments about the intimacies of heterosexual marriage.

This is silly, but I nevertheless think the posing of questions such as these is here relevant:

1. Is there something wrong, say, with a husband intending a clitoral and/or vaginal orgasm for his wife that does not happen concurrently with vaginal penetration by his penis?

2. Is there something wrong with the husband's use of a hand/dido/vibrator to stimulate the his wife's clitoris or anal cavity, while he is simultaneously penetrating her vagina with his penis, intending a full openness to the unitive and procreative goods of marriage?

Is there something wrong with anal, oral and/or manual stimulation as a foreplay or integral activity of a whole prolonged intimate experience that intends to temporally conclude with an unfettered seminal discharge during vaginal penetration?


The silliness continues:

4. If the conjugal couple knows that the husband has a relatively short refactory period, is there something wrong with the wife's manual or oral stimulation of her husband to sexual climax, in a whole intimacy experience that will as one part or as a temporal conclusion include vaginal penetration by penis, with a "full openness" to unity and procreation?

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad