Musings of a twentysomething millennial about faith and spirituality.
I watched the whole of that programme and I have to say that that was the only point in the whole discussion where those who were speaking up for the Church looked at all vulnerable. But even here there is fury but no real argument. It was an excellent debate and I was very impressed by the Church's defenders.
I didn't see the whole program- I couldn't, naturally. haha. I'm not even sure about the context of the debate. What I did like about this (admittedly short) clip is the way in which the two men answered the "other side" over 1) why they should care, and 2) the Church's seeming infatuation with "sex" over "love," and why love always takes a back seat in this discussion.
I disagree with the title of the video. I don't think the defenders were humiliated and I was surprised by the charity with which the one fellow appeared to express himself. Surely, he acknowledged a great deal of good in gay relationships far beyond what we typically hear, and seemed to suggest that these relationships are in fact of intrinsic worth, bracketing the question of what happens in the bedroom. This makes for saner discussion.The reponse to "why do you care", of course, was well made and deserves consideration. The Holy See has not proven afraid to lobby for its political preferences which are based on its dogmas. It's therefore fair game. At the very least, this clip from the debate brought the issue to the question of the meaning or grammar of sex acts, if such a thing can be said to exist, though such a meaning does seem to be acknowledged when people respond sex ought to be "about love" (something I'm not certain the Church agrees with *truly* nor will post-modern society uphold for much longer) and refrained from the insults against gay romantic love as such.
I don't like the title of the video, either. But alas, I didn't get to name it. :)Unfortunately, what the "defender" said-- very charitably, you're right-- is not much talked about when we hear from bishops or priests.
Indeed, the answer to "why do you care?" was well made and deserves consideration.Of course, even agreeing that it's a very valid point, one might also ask why opposition to the politicization of Church teaching takes the form of calling for the Church to change the teaching, rather than simply calling for an end to the politicization OF it. (Though, I suppose, we can't expect the Left to be that nuanced either...)If the Church were to present its teachings proposed as an invitation, rather than something to be IMposed politically (not just in the sense of the formally coercive power of the State and its laws, but also in the informal coercive power of social pressure in the attitudes of families, friends, parishes, and communities)...then we might not have this sort of animosity, even among people who disagree.(After all, the Orthodox Jews don't seem to be worrying about outsiders eating pork or demanding special exemptions to make sure their tax dollars don't pay for ham sandwiches in the cafeterias of federal facilities. And the Jains don't seem to have a "pro-life" movement pushing to require everyone to be vegetarian and strain our water and sweep with a broom in front of us to protect tiny life forms. And, in turn, there seems to be no big movement, either internal nor external to these communities, pushing for them to change their own internal traditions/moral codes.)
And this heavily edited clip from an anti-Christian blog should be a proof of what? We're on different sides of the conflict and the war is on. You expect the impossible, yet you whine all the time you didn't get it.
Well, in the UK a "gay marriage" bill is working its way through Parliament, but already it has been altered to contrast with real marriages, as experts couldn't figure out how exactly two men and two women consummate their so-called marriages. So for these "gay marriages", there won't be any legal consummation and they won't be able to divorce for adultery unless one partner has intercourse with someone else of the opposite sex. So how is this different from the already existing civil partnerships law, except as additional legal firepower to blast people and institutions that want no part of this farce?And the young man is right, "gay love" is fine but when it gets perverted into sex acts involving mouths and rectums, then it goes wrong.
It was people like the young man who consistently turn any discussion about love into "mouths and rectums."
James, I think that this is fascinating actually. If (as you say, and as articles seem to indicate) gay marriage in the UK has (unlike straight marriage) no "consummation test" and no adultery condition...then one has to wonder how exactly it is controversial from a Catholic standpoint??Then it would basically just seem to be like the civil partnerships the Scottish Christian Party proposed under this rationale: "We will seek to widen the scope of Civil Partnership to include all people who have committed to live together as a single household. This could include friends, sisters, brothers, and a parent with his or her adult child who chose to make this commitment. The Scottish Christian Party will take the criteria for Civil Partnership out of the bedroom and into the living room - sexuality should play no role because it discriminates against these other partnerships."It sounds like gay marriage in the UK, while conceding the WORD "marriage"...indeed has absolutely NO "bedroom criteria." As such, I'm not sure how it is controversial from a Catholic moral standpoint.The argument has been that this is the State recognizing sex acts that Church considers illicit, "licensing sodomy" and all this. Even if one is against such things, it's still not clear that State licensing is bad; the Church support State licensing of brothels in the middle ages because "containing" lust and regulating it was seen as better than driving it underground as chaotic.But apparently it's not even like that! Apparently the State in the UK is utterly neutral to the sex question when it comes to marital relationships, outside acts of the procreative sort, except perhaps as they might be contained more broadly under "alienation of affection" grounds. As such, it doesn't seem like gay marriage in the UK is legally licensing gay sex at all, but rather the partnerships (and is legally neutral to the sex question). So you've really made an argument FOR the UK's model of gay marriage, I think, all debate about the semantics/labeling question aside. Shouldn't the Church be satisfied with this? It legally recognizes that straight couples are significantly different in the "[potential] breeding pair" aspect of their relationship, and yet recognizes that as partnerships qua partnerships abstracted from that aspect, gay couples may be equivalent to straight. The only controversial point would seem the semantics. The labeling question IS tricky, because how much of the historical and symbolic "weight" of the mantle of Marriage belongs to the aspect of partnership qua partnership, and how much belongs to the aspect of procreation...is hard to "split" in anyway given how the two things were simply constructed as part of one organic whole for so long, it's a bit like preforming brain surgery. But one would tend to think that, even if the same word is used, few people are going to, merely on account of a label being extended by analogy, give the proportion of the symbolic weight that belongs properly to procreative complementarity to a same-sex couple, so I don't think using the same word is really any sort of threat or cause of confusion. People are able to use common sense in these things! People already know a same-sex couple can't actually mate; using the same label is not going to cause any confusion on this point, I assume.
Great video, many thanks. One feels for the young man, evidently sincere and trying to find his way towards a compassionate solution, yet trapped in absurdity (in my opinion) by his need to defend an untenable solution. One's own admirable love for the church needs to be purified of the need to see it as always "right" in its moral teaching.
Comments will be moderated at my discretion.