As a gay Catholic I suppose I should be in the perfect position to comment on the recent flurry of news stories in the media about the Church?s opposition to gay marriage. Actually being in the middle of the debate enables me perhaps to see both sides and thus to have less of a fixed opinion that might be expected.
I am embarrassed by Cardinal O?Brien?s outbursts last weekend, in print and on air. He seems to me to have closed ears and hearts, to have advanced the cause he was opposing, and to have allowed his determination to be seen as someone defending Christian values to trump the values themselves. He makes it much harder for saner and wiser Christian voices to be heard.
Fr. Timothy Radcliffe O.P.
I am heartened by Father Timothy Radcliffe?s article in The Tablet which tries to place marriage and partnerships from a Catholic viewpoint in a clearer perspective. As the former head of the Dominican Order worldwide, he is the most senior churchman to offer a revisionist view on this issue.
But what about the man in the middle, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, and the upcoming campaign to halt the change in the law? One problem is that the argument about the meaning and ends of marriage has changed. The Church altered its teaching from the mid-20th century onwards away from the traditional ?procreation first, relationship second? to an equal billing for the two. Pope John Paul II was a key thinker in this shift of official opinion when he was still a mere priest teaching in Poland ? a hundred years ago he would have been considered a heretic for his views. But people now, at least in the West, primarily choose their partners based on love, companionship and compatibility. That is not going to change.
Then there?s social science (a.k.a. the understanding of how God?s creation works) which has changed the way we think of same-sex attraction. A hundred years ago the very word ?homosexuality? was newly minted and any act of intimacy between two men a criminal offense. Research has been published with regularity over the past years which gives force to our understanding that being gay is something out of our control. Even if you don?t accept the mounting genetic evidence, no one chooses to be attracted to one gender or the other. The awareness of our own preference is presented to us at around the same time as the awakening of love itself ? significantly, before we connect it with procreation. In fact, affective attraction arrives before its genital counterpart ? a further pointer that homosexuality is simply something in nature, thus ?natural?.
Then there?s the fact that more straight people divorce than remain married these days ? an ?unfortunate? statistic for those who would suggest that traditional marriage is an unassailable force for social cohesion. I know of straight couples whose relationships have been strengthened by their same-sex friends or neighbours: ?If they can make it work, why can?t we?? The argument that gay marriage will damage straight marriage is patently untrue. It may actually be the opposite. But, I?m sad to say, those who want to demonize gay relationships hate to see them working well.
AIDS changed many things, not least the awareness that, long after sexual attraction had disappeared into hacking coughs and festering sores, heroic love and deep commitment were gracing hospital wards across the globe. This was not a question of one-night stands, but of nightly sitting at the bedsides of loved-ones.
If Fr. Radcliffe?s lone voice were a united choir from the bishops worldwide the Church might be in a better position to discuss this issue and make a valuable contribution. But I?m afraid the secular world knows that, left to itself, the Church will tell the gay 13 year-old (whether Christian or not) that the only option for him or her for the rest of life is celibacy ? ?till death do us part. Offering no alternative to that position brings the discussion screeching to a halt; and until just one gay bishop (they exist) is willing to stand up and say, ?I?m gay and celibate? there is no role model to support the official teaching, thus no honesty, and thus no way forward.
The closets are collapsing and the theologians don?t know what to do about it. There are actually only two honest possibilities: if homosexuality is as immoral as Cardinal O?Brien suggested then the Church should be trying to make it illegal again; if it isn?t then the Church should be trying to help gay relationships be holy, stable and celebrated.
Until this week I was loosely on the side of the ?civil partnerships, yes; marriage, no? side of the fence. But do I hear music? It seems to be in C major, to be bright and rousing. Yes, and the composer is Felix Mendelssohn.
Article source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100061217/gay-marriage-and-catholics/
Tags: gay, glbt, lesbian, lgbt
Source: http://gayfriendlybiz.com/new/uncategorized/gay-marriage-and-catholics
9 9 9 plan hoppin john dan wheldon weldon weldon david garrard indy car
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.