Saturday, October 18, 2014
Two summaries have been given of the discussions at various stages by the members of the Synod of Bishops on homosexuality.
1. “In relazione agli omosessuali, inoltre, è stata evidenziata la necessità di accoglienza, ma con la giusta prudenza, affinché non si crei l’impressione di una valutazione positiva di tale orientamento da parte della Chiesa. La stessa attenzione è stata auspicata nei riguardi delle convivenze.” (I translate that: “With regard to homosexuals, besides, the need for a welcoming attitude was put forward, but with due prudence, so that no impression was given of a positive evaluation on the Church’s part of this type of orientation. The same approach was taken towards couples living together.” )
2. “Inoltre, è stato ribadito che, ferma restando l’impossibilità di equiparare al matrimonio tra uomo e donna le unioni omosessuali, le persone con tale orientamento vanno accompagnate pastoralmente e tutelate nella loro dignità, senza tuttavia che ciò appaia come un’approvazione, da parte della Chiesa, del loro orientamento e della loro condotta di vita.” (Again, I would translate that: “Further, it was repeated that, whilst continuing to insist that homosexual unions can in no way be put on the same level as marriage between a man and a woman, persons with such an orientation should be accompanied pastorally and their dignity safeguarded, without, nonetheless, this appearing as approval by the Church of their orientation or their life-style.”)
Now, what interests me in both those statements is the attitude towards homosexual orientation. If anything, the approach to the orientation here is more negative that it was in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. These two statements say, effectively, that the orientation is not to be approved. The Catechism said that the orientation could not be helped, but putting it into act was not to be approved. I would expect that those who expess themselves in these terms, putting forward homosexual orientation as somehow suspect or not quite right, are not going to get very far. Indeed putting forward such an attitude towards homosexual orientation could cause the Church’s teaching on the subject to crack wide open. The Church has got to take notice of scientific progress and it is now decades since the medical sciences determined that homosexuality was neither an illness nor a deformity. Further, the Church has never been able to say, where the so-called disorder of homosexuality came from. She needs, therefore, to turn round and face the fact that, as a datum of human make up, homosexuality can only come from God.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Queer Heaven commenting on my post “Synod” expressed the opinion that the Church will never get round to saying that gay sex is acceptable. The way I think, they have simply got to, but it may take a long time.
Once again let us examine the current thinking of the Catholic Church, but which is, in fact, the thinking of most of society worldwide. The thinking is that the governing value is the procreation of children.
Sex is a sideline to that. You can like it, but not too much, you should pretend that you do not like it, or, better, you should recognize that sex in itself is pretty close to an evil. If, however, we stop at that point and ask why is sex evil, suspect or to be condemned as an entity in itself, independent of procreation, we will be at pains to find a rational and satisfactory answer.
Sex is, after all, a given fact. We all feel its pleasures and attractions, but we have all learned from society to try and pretend it is not there. It is this unrealism that the Church and society have to shrug off. As a society and as Church we have to turn round and accept sex, lovely sex, as a good in itself with its own tremendous dignity and spiritual potential. The ultimate step in revising our thinking is, I suppose, to recognize that in the pursuit of sex as a good in itself, homosexuality fits right in there.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
The Bishop’s Synod now taking place in Rome seems to have almost opened up by openly bringing homosexuality to the discussion table. A committed Catholic couple who said they accepted the Church’s teaching on homosexuality recounted nonetheless how they welcomed their gay son home for Christmas with his partner. “He’s our son.” The bishops gave them a round of applause.
Outside in the media more fundamentalist voices were making themselves heard, saying that such attitudes are damaging to the Church. ‘"The unqualified welcome of homosexual couples into family and parish environments in fact damages everybody, by serving to normalize the disorder of homosexuality," said Maria Madise, coordinator of Voice of the Family in a statement.
John Smeaton, of the London-based Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said the welcome that the statement received from the synod was disturbing."The homosexual agenda is forcing its way into schools, universities, workplaces and sports clubs," he said in a statement. "The last thing families and parishes need is for church leaders to tell them to welcome homosexual couples."’
This is evidence, in my opinion, that closed attitudes are not necessarily the preserve of those in positions of authority. Indeed, experience seems to show that bigotry tends to go with lack of education.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
I have a great veneration for everything, the vast gamut of things, that men do to enhance and stimulate the sexual enjoyment of their maleness. No matter how weird and wonderful it may seem or not be in the least to my taste, I try to respect the person’s fetishes and appetites – as long as no genuine harm is being done to the subject himself or to others.
There seems to be a very broad and varied list of things that men find turn them on. Each of us has his own list, with each one having his own particular top favourite. We touch on the richness of the enhanced masculinity gift, and as Christians let us thank God for it.
In this context I just saw on Sam’s blog “The Adventures of a Redneck Cock-Sucking Dildo Fist Pig” his definition of what he calls being a sex pig. To me it just looks like the way I would describe any male driven by the mansex urge. He says: “Being a Sex Pig, as a Sex Pig I make myself available to any and every Man needing sex with another Man...Giving/Doing whatever it takes to satisfy that Man sexually. … To encourage that Man to release his inner sexual urges. To let his mind go and experience his inner sexual desires. No matter how dark they may be. Stretch my limits. Stretch his limits. Until that ultimate climax is achieved.”
Personally, I like the emphasis that this puts on satisfying the other man. Other-centredness is right at the heart of the gospel. This is how our mansex becomes a sound expression of our Christianity.