Gay marriage

Right, well having talked about the importance of having correct theology, I’m now going to completely ignore it.

Gay marriage would be a distortion of the proper meaning of marriage, but I think that gay people should be given a way to live a fulfilled sexuality within the bounds of Church teaching and, shock horror, I don’t necessarily mean celibacy.

Celibacy is an amazing thing, celibate members bring a spiritual wealth to the Church that needs to be valued as much as marriage, especially lay celibacy, the constant calls at bidding prayers during mass to either be a priest or marry can often seem like being told you are a failure unless you are lucky enough to have those vocations.

Celibacy has to be the choice of the celibate though, it shouldn’t be imposed.   Imposing celibacy on anyone would be tragic and wrong. If a priest finds two people who are eligible to marry by the Church’s standards, yet is told by the world he should not bless their marriage then I’d say he’d be morally obliged by the Church’s inherent bias towards the cause of love to marry the lovebirds in the eyes of God.

Now the problem with the gay marriage lobby is they want to impose the world’s rather lacking vision of marriage on the Church. The Church is not beholden to the world! it is, among other things, the bride of Christ!

So I guess that is the disclaimer to what I’m about to say.  I do think homosexuals need something other than “BE CELIBATE!” essentially being yelled at them. It shouldn’t be marriage, but it could be something else. What you call it I don’t know (As with most things of an awkward sexual nature there is an episode of South Park that springs to mind), but there should be some alternative to lapsing as a Catholic and celibacy.

The Church doesn’t deny that people can’t control their sexual orientation, it says so in the Catechism. Saying homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ seems bizare because it seems to be a rather humdrum naturally occurring phenomenon, its not exactly flying unicorns.  To be bloody minded in the pursuit of this line of argument steps right into biologicalism.  Thankfully we are not beholden to biological determinism, if anything celibacy is proof of that.

The question should be, can two men or two women love each other? To which I think and hope the answer is yes, and I think the aforementioned bias towards love held by the Church should again be mentioned. So what does this mean, especially since the Church being the Church won’t change its teaching. Well the Church can be inventive, the personal ordinariate for high Anglicans to convert to Rome is an example of this.

The gay friendly masses in soho are openly heretical, that isn’t the way forward. But there is a possiblity for a more nuanced approach to being gay and Catholic, it is not the Church’s aim to condemn people and you can’t separate someone from their sexual orientation. Sadly the misguided demands for gay marriage may have set back the cause of acceptance of homosexuals by decades.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s