How does the Catholic Church justify discouraging romantic freedoms of homosexuals?

score:10

Accepted answer

I'm fully aware that there are those who will fundamentally disagree with the Church on this point. However, I've attempted to present an objective account of the position the Church holds.

The Church justifies it by saying that giving in to the temptation which the human condition provides, in defiance of the divine order which is present in male and female, is contrary to Divine Law.

This was expressed in Persona Humana of 29 December 1975. It speaks in terms of "curable" tendencies, which is dated language today, but the second group are those to whom the question refers.

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between h*m*sexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and h*m*sexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case h*m*sexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such h*m*sexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these h*m*sexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, h*m*sexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finalityA. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God18. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that h*m*sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

18 Romans 1:24–27 [quoted in full in the footnote]; See also what St. Paul says of "masculorum concubitores" in I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10.

Thus the Church does not necessarily condemn those who have an attraction to their own sex, just as it does not condemn those who are tempted to rob a jeweller's. There is nothing wrong with same-sex companionship, although it may be placing oneself in an overwhelmingly tempting situation; there is nothing intrinsically wrong in entering the jeweller's shop and seeing what's on offer. The sin is to act.

A Finality is used earlier in the document, in a rather technical way:

[In Gaudium et Spes, the Council] took particular care to expound the principles and criteria which concern human sexuality in marriage, and which are based upon the finality of the specific function of sexuality.

In this regard the Council declares that the moral goodness of the acts proper to conjugal life, acts which are ordered according to true human dignity, "does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love."10 (My emphasis)

10 GS 49

Sex is part of the human condition not only to express love: it is there for procreation, and to use sex in a way where procreation is ruled out is against the Divine Law.

The question presumes that heterosexual people have sexual freedoms (to which an answer is Well, yes and no), and that those freedoms should be available to all. This is a fallacy. Gaudium et Spes says that heterosexual sex is sinful if it is not part of a loving marriage, that is, as the Church rather than the State defines marriage. It's also a fallacy that life is fair and everyone can be treated the same: should someone who has not been blessed with being able to cook be given a Michelin star? Should someone who enjoys singing but who has a voice like a tone-deaf corncrake join a cathedral choir? Should someone who enjoys meeting people but whose innate make-up causes them to insult everyone they see become a diplomat?

Upvote:3

Only those married have a right to sexual intercourse, which must be ordered to the procreation of children. This was clearly expressed in the 1917 Code of Canon Law:

1081 §2. Consensus matrimonialis est actus voluntatis quo utraque pars tradit et acceptat ius in corpus, perpetuum et exclusivum, in ordine ad actus per se aptos ad prolis generationem.

or, translated:

1081 §2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which each party gives and accepts perpetual and exclusive rights to the body, for those actions that are of themselves suitable for the generation of children.

Acts of sodomy (the unnatural vice) are intrinsic evils that can never be justified, regardless the circumstances; thus, no one can ever have a right to commit them.

Upvote:5

Short Answer

Strictly speaking, the Church is as against sex among the non-married heterosexuals as it is against sex among non-married h*m*sexuals. By teaching, the Church only accepts as correct sex between a man and a woman who are a married couple. All other sex is considered fornication, adultery, or a variety of other disordered acts. (Offenses Against Chastity per CCC 2350-2356). Marriage between man and woman goes back to Genesis in Scripture, and is further supported by Jesus' teachings in Mark (10) and Matthew (19) where the same language is used:

Mark: 10 6-9
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Marriage in the order of creation
CCC 1603 "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws... God himself is the author of marriage."
The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes.

If you consider marriage to be "a romantic freedom" then you aren't using the same concept of marriage as the Church does in the first place. (I also question whether or not you are married -- I have been for 27+ years).

To repeat your question is to expose its internal error:

How does the Catholic Church justify the belief that h*m*sexuals should not enjoy consensual romantic relationships with the same sexual freedoms that straight people have?

The core points summarized

  • There Isn't Sexual Freedom In the eyes of the Church (see below, Sins against Chastity)

  • "Romantic freedoms" don't enter into it at all

  • Marriage is a sacrament that involves service to the communion as well as the joy of the married couple. It doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists within the context of a community (and the divine order).

    Your question is a non sequitur at best.

Detailed Answer

The Catholic Church teaches the life of the Faithful in terms of one's vocation:

  • Ordained
  • Married
  • Single

Under that framework, the simplest answer to the question comes from a discussion of the Vocation of Chastity. CCC 2337-2359

  1. Those called to priesthood (or the single men and women called to the consecrated life): No sex for you!
    Vows of celibacy are taken seriously as a form of sacrifice made for a greater good.

  2. Those called to the vocation of married life: sex for you! (With a caveat CCC 2360-2379).

    1534 Two other sacraments, Holy Orders and Matrimony, are directed towards the salvation of others; if they contribute as well to personal salvation, it is through service to others that they do so. They confer a particular mission in the Church and serve to build up the People of God.

    How does the sacramental bond of marriage and the gift of sexuality combine? The Church teaches ...

    III. The Love of Husband and Wife

    2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
    2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."
    2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

  3. The call to Single Life: No sex for you!

    The call to Chastity is made to all. Unless one has responded to the call of matrimony, and the vocation of married life, the form of Chastity called for by all of the Faithful is the same as celibacy, be one heterosexual or h*m*sexual.

The Church's position is that God instituted marriage as part of the divine order, not as a mechanism for "romantic freedom." (That term, that concept, isn't within the church's framework). Since the Church only recognizes marriage as being between a man and a woman who enter into the sacrament as an act of free will(CCC 1625-1629), same sex marriage doesn't fit into any category -- by the doctrinal definition of marriage. Any attempt at that will fit into the various disordered acts in the "sins against chastity."
So too is any marriage between a man and woman that the church holds as invalid. (The old term for that is "living in sin" but the concept is alive and well!). People go through the process to convalidate their marriages each year in our diocese due to there being some defect or other (usually "we got married by a Justice of the Peace..."). The current rule is that sex between cohabiting man and woman who have not yet convalidated their marriage is a mortal sin --a sin against Chastity.

The h*m*sexuals are not being specially persecuted: single heterosexual people are under the same guidance to abstain while single (we all know how hard that can be ...) and married couples whose marriage is not valid (per Canon Law) are given the same guidance.

More post

Search Posts

Related post