Sunday, March 28, 2010

Inclusion - Is Sexuality the Final Frontier? (Part 3)

The following material was originally published in 'The Furrow', a theological journal from Ireland, earlier this month. As the full article is reasonably long, I've taken the liberty of separating it into smaller segments. The author is Owen O'Sullivan and the original title was "On Including Gays".

‘It’s not wrong to be gay, but it is wrong to act gay.’
Is a homosexual, by reason of that fact, called by God to lifelong celibacy? The church says yes.

Imagine someone saying to a group of Irish people, ‘There’s nothing in itself wrong with being Irish. I’m not saying there is. But that doesn’t mean you may act on it. So, no more Guinness, going to Croke Park, singing rebel songs into the early hours of the morning, waving tricolours, no more craic. Close the pubs as occasions of sin, and, while you’re at it, would you please do something about your accent: it’s suggestive - of Irishness. I’m not asking you to deny your Irishness, far from it, just not to act on it.’ Would you consider the speaker to be nuanced, respectful and compassionate, or pedantic, patronising and arrogant?

Being homosexual and trying to be faithful to church teaching - is it a cruel joke? Would God tie a starving person in a chair, put a plate of food in front of them, and say, ‘Your self-denial… will constitute for you a source of self-giving which will save you’? (See CDF Letter, n.12.)

The church requires abstinence of the homosexual. To abstain from the physical expression of sexuality means, for the homosexual, abstinence from the truth, from reality, from identity, from recognition, perhaps also from family, and surely from love. Sexuality is not an optional extra to our humanity; it’s an integral part of it. An alcoholic is invited to abstain from alcohol - yes. But alcohol is not an integral part of anyone’s humanity; it’s an optional extra.

Official teaching invites a homosexual to a strange limbo-like existence where being and doing are required to be separated. It says there’s nothing in itself wrong with being a homosexual - as long as you don’t act like one. There’s nothing in itself wrong with being a bird, as long as you don’t fly. How can that be an honest or a healthy way of living?

The distinction between being homosexual and doing homosexual acts is phoney. It’s like saying, ‘Your sexuality is part of you; but you must not be part of your sexuality.’ Have we forgotten that the Incarnation brings matter and spirit, body and soul into one in the human-divine body of Jesus? The Incarnation is God’s answer to dualism.

Being and doing are not as separable in life as they might seem in a lecture hall. But, even in a lecture hall, Saint Thomas Aquinas said, ‘Agere sequitur esse in actu.’ (Summa contra Gentiles, 3.53, 69.) If my Latin is not too rusty that means, ‘Doing follows being in action.’

Homosexuals who try to be faithful to church teaching are in danger of distorting themselves, like left-handed people forcing themselves to use only their right hands; they are in danger of developing a Jekyll-and-Hyde mentality, suppressing what is true about themselves. The statement of the CDF that, ‘Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral’ applies here. (Letter, n.15)

The pastoral rhetoric about respecting homosexuals is meaningless at best when the associated moral rhetoric undercuts a homosexual’s personhood. It means that homosexuals are neither in nor out, neither persons nor non-persons, but tolerated somewhere on the border.


feetxxxl said...

very good. its one more leg up on homosexuality becoming in all ways equal to heterosexuality.

feetxxxl said...

add to that............the anus is an errogenous zone and anal orgasms are possible......did god make a mistake.

it is not about how its appearance offends our sensibilities, but what is affirmed in the expression of the act.............which in the case of homosexual love affection, devotion,trust, respect for a shared committed life together.

feetxxxl said...

in addition............all new covenant law is summed up in the 2nd commandment, how is denying another's sexuality any part of loving ones neighbor as oneself.

it is a misconception that living the first commandment(love god...) means living our interpretions of scripture in regards to the law(for which we receive no rightousness). in truth as spoken in 1john 4:20. our love for god, the degree that we love god, is evidenced by the degree we love our brother.