Ice-skating and Christmas party tonight!! Meet at the Newman Center at 4:45 pm and bundle up!
--------------------------
The following is the substance of a letter from a student here who has given me permission to post the letter. It is written to a former high school teacher who has strongly challenged the student’s views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Based on what the student told me, the teacher has personally attacked him or her as being a “bigot” and anyone who is not open to same-sex marriage as being “stupid”. This courageous and thoughtful response from the student is an example of a student teaching a teacher. The student teaches the teacher not only the truth of the issue, but how to teach the truth in love.
I acknowledge your point about homosexuality not being a choice. I don't think it is really possible to make that choice, and there really isn't any incentive to do so.
However, I do not agree that this means that the definition of marriage should be changed to allow for homosexual unions. This belief is not a form of discrimination against homosexual people. Instead, it is a stance against redefining one of the core institutions of human society. Men and women are made for each other, it is a biological fact of nature. The union between a husband and wife is meant to create families, which are the most basic unit of a healthy society. There are many, many things about our culture that have caused severe damage to the family unit in history. Disordered sexuality in all its forms, from unhealthy spousal relationships to incest to pedophilia, is one of many such realities that have damaged the institution of the family. "Disordered" does not mean that people committing sexually disordered acts have any less dignity than any other person. The act is what is wrong. And we can very easily add divorce and the pervasive nature of pornography to the list of things that have damaged healthy views on love and family in our culture.
I have a lot of gay friends here, and I love them. If they are acting on their homosexuality, I cannot love what they do. And because I want them to be truly happy, I stand by that. Just as if I have a straight friend who is having premarital sex, I love them but not what they do because I believe what they do is wrong and antithetical to true, long term happiness.
Not all people are called to be married, and I understand that is an incredible burden for homosexual people to bear. But many people are given incredible difficulties they have to face in life. I have horrible food allergies that only get worse. Doctors can't figure it out, and my immune system is deteriorating. It is not easy for me at all, I am sick very often and have an extremely limited list of foods I can still eat. I am a college student and I cannot drink alcohol. This is a burden I bear. I don't know why I have this condition, but I believe there is a reason and that somehow good will come from me carrying this burden in my life. If I laid this burden down and ate whatever I wanted, I would die. So as hard as it can be for a gay person to accept this, their orientation is in many ways gift in disguise.
True happiness for a gay person will not come from following whatever sexual whim that they feel, just as my true happiness will not come from acting that way. That sort of deep happiness comes from following the laws of nature and only participating in sexual acts that form a true union with the other person while being open to the creation of life. Biologically, no such union or the creation of children is possible for homosexuals.
So, because it is the duty of a society to promote the best possible life for its citizens, homosexual marriage should not be institutionalized. The best possible life for a child is to grow up in a home with a loving mother and father. Though this is a difficult reality to strive for, shooting for anything less would be a failure on the part of that society.
I think the dichotomy you pointed out, between educated and uneducated people, is not the most important one present in this discussion. Instead, it is one between those who love and those who hate homosexual people. Hating a person for any reason is wrong. Hating a homosexual person because of something they cannot control is wrong. But loving a homosexual person and wanting their true happiness is not wrong. And truly loving them means wanting for them what will lead to their truest long-term happiness. So, because I believe that homosexual marriage is counter to that true happiness, I do not support it. Some of the most intelligent and well-educated people in the world hold this view, and it is not because they are bigots in any way. It is because they want what is best for the homosexual person and society as a whole, based on the laws of nature.
16 comments:
While I understand and respect the author's point of view and that of the Catholic Church, I must disagree with his or her switching back and forth with the use of the word "union." (I realize you are arguing for marriage, but use marriage, not union) If making this argument solely from a religious point of view - fine, but it might be a stronger argument if it makes sense in secular civil society as well.
The definition of marriage should not necessarily be changed, but a civil union which isn't about changing a religious definition, its about basic rights and equality due to individuals, even if you personally don't agree with their personal decisions of morality within their relationships.
Moreover, while I sympathize with the writer's food allergy, I'm not sure that's the most helpful comparison with a gay person. What if they want to be Catholic, but can't help they are they way they are. The writer must abstain from certain foods, and is sick a lot, but she can still live life normally, and have much happiness in life including a family, children, etc.
I just have a hard time accepting that as an equal parallel.
I appreciate this individual's opinion and do not consider them a bigot, but I firmly disagree with his/her argument. Society is a constantly evolving institution that seeks to improve upon itself. While there have been many factors contributing to the decline of the "family" I do not believe that homosexuality is one of them. There are no scientific studies that indicate that children with homosexual parents are mentally, physically, or emotionally effected any more than children with heterosexual parents are. Children in any familial situation are presented with struggles. I also don't believe that marriage is created anymore on the basis to have children. In 2003 the U.S. Census revealed that 28% of married couples do not have children. I think that these couples would consider their marriages valid and purposeful even if they never intend on having children. Therefore, I find the statement that the basis of marriage is to procreate children a bit archaic for an evolving society. How can we has human beings want for homosexuals the opposite of what is a natural emotion for all human beings. There have been many scientific studies that have shown that there are many species other than humans ranging from bears to dolphins that exhibit homosexual behaviors. Homosexuality is in nature. Therefore, why are we denying them basic rights of happiness? In the days of slavery, marriages between slaves weren't recognized but that doesn't mean that they weren't married or that their lives and love weren't purposeful. Just because marriage has been defined a certain way for some time does not mean it has to remain that way. Society evolves, and so should we.
What an articulate defense of the Church's teaching without even mentioning the religious aspect. Thanks for posting it Fr. Greg!
“Society is a constantly evolving institution that seeks to improve upon itself.”
That is the way it should be, but we know that changing the norms has not always improved society. Good for this student for speaking up. We see what has resulted from superficial individualism that is silent in the face of emerging social trends that begin with a minority bucking convention. Negative social trends begin with only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions against them weaken and individual aberrations became a new norm of behavior. Think back several generations, when it was a rare thing to see people cohabitate, and who thought to question the potential damage society would bear from children being born out of wedlock? Viewing it all in hindsight, however, the damage done to society is obvious.
Also, regarding marriages where couples elect to refrain from having children, you used the world purposeful. Whose purpose are those couples serving, and how does society benefit?
Fr Greg,
You are such a wise and kind man. I had hope you were more evolved when it come to sexuality.
This young man's letter sounds logical and compassionate but it is really just reflects his lack of knowledge and understanding re: homosexuality.
I hope his health improves and he opens his mind and heart up.
Thank you to the student who had the courage to speak in the public square, so beautifully, on this topic.
Personally, I do not know if homosexuality is a choice or not. I do know that I read an article in a publication, not long ago, written by a man who had lived a homosexual lifestyle for a number of years. He is now married, to a woman, and has two children. It is apparent that choices were in fact, made.
Also, to the person who wrote: "Society evolves, so should we." The author of the post was speaking to the truths on this topic. Truths do not evolve, they remain constant.
SWEET post Father! God love the person who wrote this and stuck to Truth even when it is hard to do so.
I have discussed issues of orientation with a gay man, a good friend of mine. His experiences may be isolated but worth sharing. He is the youngest of six children. His father abandoned the family when he was a baby and he sought male attention when he was a pre-teen. His desire for attention is what he believed resulted in his being molested. As a teen, he was confused about his sexual identity but began a relationship with a young man who was "militant" in his beliefs. He became swept up in a culture. He contracted AIDS. Now, many years later, he is alone and is not even sure he was "meant" to be gay.
I'm sorry, but there is such a tremendous PC attachment to support for a disposition most of us do not understand. Support should be given to the individual person, not to a lifestyle.
One more thought to the anon who posted, "Society is a constantly evolving institution that seeks to improve upon itself."
Society isn't intentionally changing on this issue. Gay marriage is a product of judicial activism, like abortion. When society has been given a voice, it chooses to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. Society, apparently, does not view changing in this as an improvement.
An earlier commenter expressed disappointment that Father Greg was not more "evolved" in his attitudes toward human sexuality.
When we speak of evolving in the physical realm, we speak of life forms changing to adapt to the environment around us - the creature adapting to the Creation. But when we as Christians speak of the direction of our spiritual and moral lives, we speak of adapting ourselves not to the Creation, but to the Creator, who is God. Jesus said, "Become perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect." Now perfection points to a goal, an end, which for Christians, is holiness in virtue. Holiness in virtue is not to be found in adapting ourselves to the environment, but in adapting ourselves, conforming ourselves, to Christ the Lord.
Catholics believe that the surest way of conforming ourselves to Christ is by means of the way He Himself left for us when He left this world and ascended to His Father - that is, through His Church. To the extent that a Catholic has "evolved" away from what the Church believes and teaches, that Catholic has "evolved" away from Christ Jesus - which would be a very great tragedy for that Catholic, as well as for all Catholics everywhere.
As a Catholic, I cherish and rejoice in Fr. Greg's example of fidelity to Christ and to His Church.
Marion-
I thought that very comment illustrated the student author's original point that we are typified as bigots, uneducated, unevolved, etc. when we confront ceratin issues with heartfelt and faithfilled beliefs. I guess, as long as we tow the line, we are enlightened, loving and contributing members of society. If we don't, we're stupid, unenlightened cows.
When the Catholic Church insists that sexuality belongs within marriage between one man and one man, the Church is accused of trying to make sex disappear.
When the Catholic Church proclaims that children are a gift from God, and should be welcomed with generosity, she is accused of being obsessed with sex and baby-making.
When the Church condemns usury (lending at exorbitant rates of interest), she is accused of being anti-business.
When the Church defends the right to private property and private ownership, she is accused of being in the pocket of big business.
When the Church defends the right of workers to organize labor unions, she is accused of being a tool of Big Labor.
When the Church teaches that workers owe their employers a fair day's work for a fair day's wage, she is accused of being an enemy of the workers.
When the Church reminds migrant workers that they should respect the laws of their host country, she is accused of being anti-immigrant.
When the Church reminds host countries that migrant workers deserve the same wages and benefits that native workers receive, she is accused of attempting to exert foreign control over a sovereign state.
Read your history. Catholics have always been at various times and places accused of being both too reactionary and too liberal; crafty and dull-witted; sex-crazed and sexually repressed; clueless and conniving; mean-spiried and prodigal; narrow-minded and hopelessly pie-in-the sky; cold, clinical, sensuous, touch-feely; brain-washed, backward, ignorant, with heads stuffed too full of abstruse ivory-tower book learning and Jesuitical sophistry.
Throughout history, the extremists on both sides of every question seem to have a problem with the Catholic view.
And as long as that is the case, we're probably doing something right.
"History has demonstrated the absurdities to which man descends when he excludes God from the horizon of his choices and actions."
~ Pope Benedict XVI
Anon of 12:46 pm,
Excellent quote that sums it all up succinctly. Here Here.
Wow. 13 responses. You're on a roll FG! You seem to have hit a hot, controversial topic - Sex. The mention of it never fails to turn a few heads or, in this case, get a few fingers typing. Wouldn't it be great if you had this kind of response to a discussion on the Eucharist, or Confession?
The topic of the post is not solely on sex.
In my opinion, it addresses living a virtuous life(style) if one does not choose marriage - marriage, of course being in the traditional, Catholic Church sanctioned sense, between a man and woman.
Post a Comment